The Debate is Over: Beauty is Objective - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#15041624
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 002-1021-6

This article reports that chickens agree almost 100% with humans on which human faces are the most attractive.

Abstract:

We trained chickens to react to an average human female face but not to an average male face (or vice versa). In a subsequent test, the animals showed preferences for faces consistent with human sexual preferences (obtained from university students). This suggests that human preferences arise from general properties of nervous systems, rather than from face-specific adaptations. We discuss this result in the light of current debate on the meaning of sexual signals and suggest further tests of existing hypotheses about the origin of sexual preferences.


Holy shit. :eek: I expected that attractiveness had a large objective component. What I did not expect was for it to be so objective as to not even be species-specific.
#15041629
Red_Army wrote:What about tits vs. ass? Come back chickens.


The study suggests that chickens prefer faces with exaggerated sexually dimorphic traits, with male chickens preferring feminine human faces and female chickens preferring masculine human faces.

So extrapoating that to the opinions of male chickens, my guess is tits.
#15041630
I'm not so sure. I'm a tit man myself, but I'm not sure that the chickens agree. I've seen plenty of super feminine faces attached to flat chests and big-titted women with masculine faces. I think (t)it and ass are two additional axes that I'd like to see the chickens weigh in on.
#15041751
The Swedish authors are psychologists without a background on genetics or biology, who are trying to test a mate-quality hypothesis by making non-scientific arguments. It is doubtful if chickens actually recognize human faces and evaluate their attractiveness as Ghirlanda et al. (2002) presumed simple-mindedly. A frequent criticism of evolutionary psychology is that its hypotheses are difficult or impossible to test, challenging its status as an empirical science. Thornhill and Palmer (2000) argued that a predisposition to rape in certain circumstances might be an evolved sexually dimorphic psychological adaptation, thus legitimizing the criminal behavior.
#15042172
ThirdTerm wrote:Thornhill and Palmer (2000) argued that a predisposition to rape in certain circumstances might be an evolved sexually dimorphic psychological adaptation, thus legitimizing the criminal behavior.

Why on earth would that legitimize the behavior?

I think I have evolved a sexually dimorphic psychological adaption that causes me to kill rapists, so it appears we still have a problem.
#15043093
Red_Army wrote:I'm not so sure. I'm a tit man myself, but I'm not sure that the chickens agree. I've seen plenty of super feminine faces attached to flat chests and big-titted women with masculine faces. I think (t)it and ass are two additional axes that I'd like to see the chickens weigh in on.


I used to think I was a tit man, but there's no denying the attraction to a sexy ass. My girlfriend will be 50 in January and she's got a body most 25 year olds would envy. Not real big up top, but damn if that girl can't rock a pair of cutoffs...
#15043175
"Beauty" is a social construct.

"Sexual attraction" is what mammals find is attractive - to physically and psychologically motivate them to reproduce. A "Sexualized" culture is composed of manipulative social constructs that alienate the masses by teaching them that the people who physically look like the portrayed "ideal people" are "winners" while those who do not confine to the portrayed "ideal people" are losers. A sexualized culture also makes both women and men look like sex slaves, rather than human beings.

Women who have to look submissive, "doll like," and (nowadays) tattooed are socially enslaved and manipulated by the wealthy elites. Men who have to look hyper masculine, dominant, and controlling are manipulated by various social constructs, which hides their real selves, which is a characteristic of social alienation, since they can't really be themselves.
#15043176
Saeko wrote:The study suggests that chickens prefer faces with exaggerated sexually dimorphic traits, with male chickens preferring feminine human faces and female chickens preferring masculine human faces.


Would this make it ok to have sex with Chikens?


Asking for a friend.
#15043178
The experiment was set up as follows. Hens were rewarded for pecking at the male face, cocks for pecking at the female face on a touch-sensitive computer screen. The Swedish authors conceded that they cannot be so sure that chickens and humans processed the face images in exactly the same way, which leaves open the possibility that humans possess instead a specially evolved mechanism for processing faces, while chickens use some general mechanism. Probably chickens can barely detect sexual differences of human faces without discerning minor details.

Image

Training. During training the animals saw only the average male and female
faces. The faces alternated in random order on a touch-sensitive computer screen
(with the provision that a face could not appear more than three times in a row).
Apart from the face image, the screen was black. Hens were rewarded for pecking
at the male face, cocks for pecking at the female face. Pecks at the rewarded face
caused the screen to become white while access to food was allowed for 5 s. If
no pecks occurred within 10 s, a new randomly chosen face was shown (after a
2 s interval during which the screen was black). When the unrewarded face was
shown, it stayed on the screen until 10 s with no pecks had occurred. Animals were
trained daily excluding weekends. Each training session lasted until the subject
stopped responding (criterion: about 5 minutes without any pecks) or after about
40 minutes. Animals were motivated by withdrawal of food from their cages 10 to
12 hours before training. Training continued until at least 75% of the total number
of pecks was directed to the rewarded face (average of three consecutive sessions).
This criterion was reached in an average of 11.5 sessions (range 7–18).

We cannot of course be sure that chickens and humans processed the face images in exactly the same way. This leaves open the possibility that, while chickens
use some general mechanism, humans possess instead a specially evolved mechanism for processing faces. We cannot reject this hypothesis based on our data.
However, there are at least two reasons why we do not endorse this argument.
First, it is not needed to account for the data. We believe that the existence of
a task-specific adaptation can be supported only with proofs for it, rather than
with absence of proofs against. Second, the evolutionary logic of the argument
is weak. From observed chicken behaviour and knowledge of general behaviour
mechanisms we must in fact conclude that humans would behave the same way
with or without the hypothesised adaptation. There would thus be no selection
pressure for developing one.

Our experiment can be developed in several ways. For instance, we have trained chickens to distinguish between two faces only, while humans have experience of many more faces. To partially compensate for this difference in experiences we have used average faces, which encode the characteristics of many individuals. Nevertheless, it is certainly desirable to extend our results by training animals to discriminate between the sexes based on individual faces. This would also allow to test preferences with a wider set of faces.
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 19 Oct 2019 01:54, edited 1 time in total.
#15043182
SSDR wrote:"Beauty" is a social construct.

"Sexual attraction" is what mammals find is attractive - to physically and psychologically motivate them to reproduce. A "Sexualized" culture is composed of manipulative social constructs that alienate the masses by teaching them that the people who physically look like the portrayed "ideal people" are "winners" while those who do not confine to the portrayed "ideal people" are losers. A sexualized culture also makes both women and men look like sex slaves, rather than human beings.

Women who have to look submissive, "doll like," and (nowadays) tattooed are socially enslaved and manipulated by the wealthy elites. Men who have to look hyper masculine, dominant, and controlling are manipulated by various social constructs, which hides their real selves, which is a characteristic of social alienation, since they can't really be themselves.


Maybe.

But we fuck a lot...

So what? 500 scholars or 500 books saying Trunp sh[…]

Here is the report. https://judiciary.house.gov/s[…]

This study went back to see how 17 of the earliest[…]

Untroubled, scornful, outrageous

Words I ignore: Don’t go there. Words I embrace:[…]