Are looks subjective or objective?

[Jot]

From an evolutionary perspective, good looks are considered those features that tell others that you are healthy and have good genes and that your off spring will have a higher chance of reproducing himself since he will inherit half of those genes. As such, even features, prominent gender specific physical characteristics that give away proper hormone levels, etc are objectively preferable (because the genes are objectively better) to uneven features, lack of symmetry and so forth. 

 

According to this logic we can objectively say that James Dean, for example, is objectively better looking than the Elephant man. 

 

However, for people who are normal looking and do not have any genetic defects or uneven features the debate over if that person is good looking or not seems endless. For example, a lot of people find Emma Watson very good looking, while a lot do not find her good looking. We could basically take every celebrity and for each and every one of them there will be people in both camps (good-looking/not good looking). 

 

Even if we were to compare someone who from an evolutionary perspective has superior physical characteristics to someone who has worse features there will still be people who will find the one with worse features better looking than the other one, but if looks are objective...how is this possible? 

 

If you take Brad Pitt and Jared Leto, for example, is there any way in which you could objectively say that one is better looking than the other? And if not, does not this mean that looks are subjective since there is no objective standard for measuring beauty? 

 

So...are looks objective or subjective? Or are they both?! But how could something be both subjective and objective?! Would not this be logically impossible?

 

 

What do you guys think?

 

[Luisa]

Differences in attraction preferences could also originate from differences in the observer's own genetic make-up, in terms of how a unique combination of genetics would translate for the resulting offspring. This would still be objective, but account for individual differences.

[Jot]

Differences in attraction preferences could also originate from differences in the observer's own genetic make-up, in terms of how a unique combination of genetics would translate for the resulting offspring. This would still be objective, but account for individual differences.

 

I do not see how this would be objective though...

 

If looks are objective and you compare 2 (or any number of people) then one of them must either be less attractive, equally as attractive, or more attractive than the other one, if however, it would be observer dependent then this would mean that it would be subjective since there would be no universal standard. 

 

Am I wrong?

[Luisa]

I do not see how this would be objective though...

 

If looks are objective and you compare 2 (or any number of people) then one of them must either be less attractive, equally as attractive, or more attractive than the other one, if however, it would be observer dependent then this would mean that it would be subjective since there would be no universal standard. 

 

Am I wrong?

Well I would argue that there could be a universal standard that a person is most attracted to the person who displays the best genetics that when combined with their own produces the most genetically strong offspring. The objectivity comes in the way that it can be universalised. There would be no universal rankings, but you could conceive that if all factors are known in the minutest detail, you could reliably predict people's preferences. This would apply only to pure looks though, not how behavior affects attraction.

[aviet]

Differences in attraction preferences could also originate from differences in the observer's own genetic make-up, in terms of how a unique combination of genetics would translate for the resulting offspring. This would still be objective, but account for individual differences.

I think that preferences could also stem from emotional or cognitive makeup. For example, metalheads seeks other metalheads. You can insert your own reasoning, but I would argue, as I believe Stefan has, that metalhead-types are looking to connect with people from high-status/fertility partners from their own tribe, not Wall Street lawyers.

 

I would argue that there are both practically inherent objective and specific individual trends that guide people's relationship choices. For example, as a strict, ultra-personal conservative if I have the choice between a wholesome Southern belle who is physically a 7/10, or a tattooed disaster of a bombshell 10, would my primordial drives be able to over-ride my philosophical drives?

 

I was listening to Gad Saad on the Joe Rogan podcast last night and he presented a lot of studies that show there is a cross-cultural, cross-time-period preference for men to be hyper-attracted to women with hourglass figures. That's your practically objective model on to which you could pour your personal preferences.

[Jot]

 The objectivity comes in the way that it can be universalised. 

 

So the argument is that what can be universalized is objective? 

 

What does it mean "to universalize" here?

[Kikker]

So...are looks objective or subjective? Or are they both?! But how could something be both subjective and objective?! Would not this be logically impossible?

So the argument is that what can be universalized is objective? 

 

What does it mean "to universalize" here?

 

You haven't explained why subjectivity and objectivity are logically mutually exclusive. One would assume because objective observations are universal while subjective ones are not. If you don't know what universalize means how did you come to the logical conclusion that objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive?

[deadflagblues]

If we accept that the function of being able to distinguish between attractive and unattractive people is to find the best mate which would result in the strongest generation of offspring, then there should be an objective standard that the faculty of discerning looks should aim towards and be measured by. The objective best mate for this purpose varies per person, so there doesn't appear to be an individual that is objectively the most attractive human, though for each individual there is an objectively most attractive mate and the quality of each person's faculty of discerning attractiveness should be measured relative to this potential mate.

[Jot]

You haven't explained why subjectivity and objectivity are logically mutually exclusive. One would assume because objective observations are universal while subjective ones are not. If you don't know what universalize means how did you come to the logical conclusion that objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive?

 

Objective = non-observer dependent, has an objective standard of measurement

Subjective = observer dependent, there is no universal standard of measurement 

Universal = something that applies to every object of a certain set with no exceptions

Universalize = extrapolate a proposition that applies to one (or more) objects of a set to one that applies to all the objects of that set

 

Objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive because their attributes are negating each other (i.e. non-observer dependent /= observer dependent). You cannot have a thing that both is observer dependent and non-observer dependent at the same time, that would violate the law of non-contradiction.

 

 

I asked for further clarification on her use of "universalized" because I was under the impression that she used the word with a different definition than mine and I wanted to make sure I knew for certain what she meant, otherwise I am not able to understand, argue for or against her point.

If we accept that the function of being able to distinguish between attractive and unattractive people is to find the best mate which would result in the strongest generation of offspring, then there should be an objective standard that the faculty of discerning looks should aim towards and be measured by. The objective best mate for this purpose varies per person, so there doesn't appear to be an individual that is objectively the most attractive human, though for each individual there is an objectively most attractive mate and the quality of each person's faculty of discerning attractiveness should be measured relative to this potential mate.

 

This is an interesting argument and it seems to me that this is exactly Luisa's point as well, however I find the way you put it more clear.

 

I still fail to see how this is an argument for the objectivity camp.

 

In order for something to be objective it would require having a singular and absoulute standard of measurement. Your argument is that there is an infinity of standards and that it is observer-relative, which is essentially the definition of subjectivism.

 

Let us take the example of "time". Before relativity it was believed that there is an absolute measure of time. Einstein proved that time is subjective, for each and every one of us time passes diferently...this is exactly what your argument is but in regards to looks, am I wrong?

[Luisa]

My point is not "observer dependant", but more accurately "dependant on the observer's genetic material". Genetic material is objective because you can take someone's saliva to two different labs and get the same results twice.

 

Say you input the genetic information of two individuals in a super computer. You could imagine that if all functions of how genetic information is combined in offspring is known, that it could compute the strength of attraction for these individuals. Does this not then produce a universal measurement, that could be applied to all people? Granted it is more complex than a linear ranking system because there are confounding factors.

 

You can imagine it playing out when a man may prefer a woman with a slightly more rounder nose because his is quite sharp, or perhaps a woman preferring a man with thicker lips because hers are fine. Evolutionary it makes sense that humans would look to correct any slight "imbalances" in features in order to maintain a standard of beauty (golden ratio) throughout generations.

[st434u]

Differences in attraction preferences could also originate from differences in the observer's own genetic make-up, in terms of how a unique combination of genetics would translate for the resulting offspring. This would still be objective, but account for individual differences.

 

 That's a great point.

 

I personally do believe that culture plays a large part here, but so does what you're saying.

[Jot]

My point is not "observer dependant", but more accurately "dependant on the observer's genetic material". Genetic material is objective because you can take someone's saliva to two different labs and get the same results twice.

 

Say you input the genetic information of two individuals in a super computer. You could imagine that if all functions of how genetic information is combined in offspring is known, that it could compute the strength of attraction for these individuals. Does this not then produce a universal measurement, that could be applied to all people? Granted it is more complex than a linear ranking system because there are confounding factors.

 

You can imagine it playing out when a man may prefer a woman with a slightly more rounder nose because his is quite sharp, or perhaps a woman preferring a man with thicker lips because hers are fine. Evolutionary it makes sense that humans would look to correct any slight "imbalances" in features in order to maintain a standard of beauty (golden ratio) throughout generations.

 

That is an interesting theory indeed, I actually wonder how much credibility it would have in the scientific consensus. 

 

Assuming that is true, it gives rise to a curious situation because it seems that now we need a 3, middle category that is neither objective nor subjective...but what is it then? How should we call this...?

[Luisa]

I think that preferences could also stem from emotional or cognitive makeup.

Yes, I totally agree. I personally think subjective overlay is more powerful in influencing attraction. However, my statement was to refute the point that just because there are individual differences in attraction preferences (say when supermodels are rated amongst friends) that a purely objective standard of beauty is automatically negated.

 

With your analogy, I wonder how genetics and epi-genetics would come into play in determing, say, a woman's preferred dress?

[Kikker]

Objective = non-observer dependent, has an objective standard of measurement

Subjective = observer dependent, there is no universal standard of measurement 

Universal = something that applies to every object of a certain set with no exceptions

Universalize = extrapolate a proposition that applies to one (or more) objects of a set to one that applies to all the objects of that set

 

Objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive because their attributes are negating each other (i.e. non-observer dependent /= observer dependent). You cannot have a thing that both is observer dependent and non-observer dependent at the same time, that would violate the law of non-contradiction.

 

 

I asked for further clarification on her use of "universalized" because I was under the impression that she used the word with a different definition than mine and I wanted to make sure I knew for certain what she meant, otherwise I am not able to understand, argue for or against her point.

You already have me confused because observer dependent means that the thing observed is dependent on the thing observing it. Better yet things that actually are observer dependent have universal standards of measurement for example: time.  For James Dean to be subjective his existence must change dependent on the observer, which is obviously not the case. James Dean's looks however are a  arbitrary collection of attributes which does change per person because that particular person is making both the list of attributes what makes someone attractive and the list of attributes that the person perceives James to poses. The things about James Dean which can be observed doesn't change.

 

To summarize:

I said that objective and subjective things are mutually exclusive but that doesn't mean objective things always have a universal standard of measurement nor that subjective things can't have a universal standard of measurement.