I ask this not as the obvious physical traits that are genetically appealing, but the qualities of ones perspective that can be admired by most decent sentient biengs. Please give examples maybe something an individual had said or had done.
What make someone beautiful?
- Thread starter theoneiuse
- Start date
How do you define "decent sentient being"?
How does this hypothetical decent being discern the perspective (and the qualities thereof) of another?
So all you're asking for is a list of people that are deemed to be admirable in speech or action?
As opposed to "beautiful". :shrug:
I am not asking for anything extreme there is good in all the good in you that you can honestly accept within your own self and the good you can recognize in others if you cannot do that there is no point in your existence and you will be shown no mercy
Describe this being however you like just be honestly sincere about your opinion, as for proof you ask for is not necessary it is a matter of opinion, the only question you should be asking yourself is who's opinion is it.
Why should I ask myself that?
http://digg-china.blogspot.com/2010/11/6-year-old-aids-orphan-long-lives-alone.html
this is an example of someone i think is beautiful.
beauty is a personal opinion. my personal opinion of beauty is the qualities of that person in their heart as well as their character. i think that is where true beauty comes from. even if someone looks attractive on the outside but their inner qualities are not, i don't find that person to be beautiful. i also don't think that macho strength or aggression is strong or beautiful though so often we use that or look up to it in such a harsh world. i am guilty of it and so are others. i think true beauty is love and compassion.
i have run into some very beautiful people but they tend to be rare in general. they usually are taken advantage of easily because of their kindness or honesty too. they tend to suffer more in life as a rule or be ridiculed often because they represent what people don't want to be but know they should. in short, they represent their guilt so they take it out on them. but there are good to okay people as well just like there are bad people. of course, this is just my perspective.
but don't misunderstand, sometimes in order to defend good, you do have to take up your sword so to speak. some people are so innocent or so good, they can't defend themselves or don't know how. it's good people who should do that as their survival will make for a better world if they flourish. as they say, when good men do nothing, evil prospers or something to that effect. that is also true. it's your intent and if your goal is for fighting for good, then that is justice. just selfishness, power-mongering or power accumulation is not, at least not in my opinion.
this is an example of someone i think is beautiful.
beauty is a personal opinion. my personal opinion of beauty is the qualities of that person in their heart as well as their character. i think that is where true beauty comes from. even if someone looks attractive on the outside but their inner qualities are not, i don't find that person to be beautiful. i also don't think that macho strength or aggression is strong or beautiful though so often we use that or look up to it in such a harsh world. i am guilty of it and so are others. i think true beauty is love and compassion.
i have run into some very beautiful people but they tend to be rare in general. they usually are taken advantage of easily because of their kindness or honesty too. they tend to suffer more in life as a rule or be ridiculed often because they represent what people don't want to be but know they should. in short, they represent their guilt so they take it out on them. but there are good to okay people as well just like there are bad people. of course, this is just my perspective.
but don't misunderstand, sometimes in order to defend good, you do have to take up your sword so to speak. some people are so innocent or so good, they can't defend themselves or don't know how. it's good people who should do that as their survival will make for a better world if they flourish. as they say, when good men do nothing, evil prospers or something to that effect. that is also true. it's your intent and if your goal is for fighting for good, then that is justice. just selfishness, power-mongering or power accumulation is not, at least not in my opinion.
Last edited:
I know what makes em ugly.....
Going to toss in a quick hypothesis:
I'd deconstruct beauty (as far as what human's consider to be ideal) to be a an overall preference for observable "health traits" and genetic qualities. This could include things like physiological cues, physiological symmetries, etc.
The most obvious health traits that would be considered "universally" poor would be things like abnormalities or defects. Would also include old age or signs of illness. The actual physical symmetries (waist to hip ratios and whatnot) are probably a learned preference as opposed to a true standard since it's based on things like local cultures and traditions.
The way to "make" someone beautiful would be to form a checklist of all the various cues (both the basic ones and the current status quo) and make them compliant to as many as possible. A combination of conditioning and false advertising LOL. Examples - targeted physical conditioning to obfuscate the genetic predisposition to weight gain; dental work to fix crooked teeth; boob job to make different sized boobs the same size, expensive clothes to obfuscate lack of strength/dominance cues, etc.
I'd deconstruct beauty (as far as what human's consider to be ideal) to be a an overall preference for observable "health traits" and genetic qualities. This could include things like physiological cues, physiological symmetries, etc.
The most obvious health traits that would be considered "universally" poor would be things like abnormalities or defects. Would also include old age or signs of illness. The actual physical symmetries (waist to hip ratios and whatnot) are probably a learned preference as opposed to a true standard since it's based on things like local cultures and traditions.
The way to "make" someone beautiful would be to form a checklist of all the various cues (both the basic ones and the current status quo) and make them compliant to as many as possible. A combination of conditioning and false advertising LOL. Examples - targeted physical conditioning to obfuscate the genetic predisposition to weight gain; dental work to fix crooked teeth; boob job to make different sized boobs the same size, expensive clothes to obfuscate lack of strength/dominance cues, etc.
I know what makes em ugly.....
tons of fun. fat girls need loving too
Bells
Staff member
There are dangers to that though. For example, you could end up with this fruit loop for a parent who may be overly obsessed with such a checklist.
this doesn't sound beautiful imo. it sounds like a bunch of contrived artificiality.
anyways, trends of physical beauty change over time and depending on cultures. in the past, in some places you were considered to be most attractive if you were fat because it was a sign you ate well or had some wealth. today, that's not true in most cultures.
and anyways, the op wasn't asking about physical looks.
i've noticed that people find different personality traits and values attractive across the board. a quality that one finds attractive or endearing to another may be unimportant or even repulsive to them. it just depends on their values and tastes.
Pamela Anderson had a breast enlargement. Or several of them actually.
we tend to think that beauty is just happy pictures or physical looks or superficial traits such as charisma but some of that is just fluff or it may not be real beauty or it's not the only place beauty is found. think outside the box and see outside the box. when you do, then you truly see.
i think real beauty is getting in touch with our humanity and recognizing it.
all those children in those pics are beautiful. they have a story to tell besides they have a life to live or should be lived with dignity and safety.
notice the haunting beauty of the face of the nine year old in the last picture, even though the picture is a sad situation we can somehow relate to him and hope with him. it is one of the most beautiful pictures i have ever seen.
Symmetry, smooth blending, well defined features, and color variety.
they did not ask for physical traits. is it that difficult to think of a trait that's not physical such as a sense of humour? or the type of humour?
Last edited:
There is no such thing as a non-physical trait. There are body traits, personality traits, cognitive traits, etc.; however, they are all quite physical. If you hadn't noticed, the OP is asking an objective question but constraining it with subjective criteria which has not been objectified yet. So, I provided the most accurate answer given all the known objective components.
On the other hand, humor, creativity, etc. are all potentially aspects of high genetic quality. That is why some people are attracted to variants of those traits (good reproduction possibilities); however, the type of sense of humor and the type of creativity can be turn-offs for people as well. Symmetry, blending, and definition are usually what make or break these traits.
this is possibly the most stupid thing i have ever read. you might as well be a machine. besides, from what i could tell your original explanation seemed to be just analyzing the physical components of the pictures. then when you were called out on it, you came up with this to cover your ass.
and don't play semantics with me. anyone with a brain cell knows what the op means by a non-physical trait.
what is the real question is why you never even mentioned one or even bothered to besides your form, color, blending etc is not even correct. we can use something as simple as a sense of humour, one can like a goofy sense of humour while another finds that distasteful and prefers a dry which has nothing to do with their blending or symmetry (because it could be perfectly executed though it's different) just as the perfect color red is not going to appeal to everyone just as a crude sense of humour may appeal to certain people as being genetically attractive or a good trait (because they are attracted to it) while to another it is seen as low genetic quality. besides, when people are asked what traits they are looking for in a partner, for example, what they are looking for or attracted to can be qualitatively different person from person even with general attributes listed as honesty, intelligence, sense of humour, kindness etc. this has nothing to do with symmetry or blending in this case. it's just a different taste altogether or a different matter of context. symmetry and blending play a part in context but it's important to not dismiss the difference between personal taste vs the impersonal.
Last edited:
Almost an ad-hom and definitely a non-seq.
I was addressing the OP exclusively. The pictures seemed irrelevant and they were discarded as useless information long before I posted. If I was "covering my ass" then it would be very unlikely I could provide supportive evidence; however, I can and will... not so much to stick it to you, but in the hopes that you might actually learn a little.
The OP never even used the phrase "non-physical" traits. That's your own bias. Additionally, it was very clear that the OP was using nebulous subjective criteria to try and constrain an objective question. Whether you acknowledge that or not, it makes the question invalid until it is defined.
Evidence to the contrary says it is very correct:
SYMMETRY (and asymmetry):
http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/symmetry.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...b36dcc59291f003c0a74faf7fdb0106e&searchtype=a
BLENDING:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_blending
http://epistemic-forms.com/Role-Social-Script-Theory.html
DEFINITION:
http://en.nienteansia.it/anxiety-and-stress/stress-personality-and-work.html
COLOR:
http://www.indobase.com/fashion/men-fashion/apparels/western/informal-wear/philosophy-of-colors.html
What you are doing is contrasting subjective preference and interpretation. That's a start but to arrive at something objective you have to step back and ask different questions. Why do we have a sense of humor? Why do we have altruistic behavior? Why do we have intelligence? etc. What you will notice about the answers is that subjective interpretation of behaviors corresponding to those traits will yield queues that people weigh against symmetry, blending, etc. Remember the OP is asking "what makes someone beautiful?". Not what makes someone beautiful to bob or jane... but what makes someone beautiful to someone. That answer has to be abstracted to fit all humans.