Personality Cafe banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,117 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What if I told you that "attractiveness" does not exist as a quality in you, but only as a set of neurological responses that arise and fade in the body and mind of the person you are engaging?

Would you agree?
 

·
Charge'n Thru The Night
Joined
·
14,239 Posts
What if I told you that "attractiveness" does not exist as a quality in you, but only as a set of neurological responses that arise and fade in the body and mind of the person you are engaging?

Would you agree?
which what still mean attractiveness is still a thing. ..a thing called "a set of neurological responses".
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
14,125 Posts
I'm not sure I'd agree that it's only 'a set of neurological responses,' (I think that it might be more complex than to be reduced solely to biology)-- but generally yeah I would agree for the most part.

I've always felt attraction is subjective and it belongs to the person who is attracted. It's not an objective quality unless you just want to project your response onto someone else.

It's still fine to say 'you're attractive,' just as it's fine to say 'you're beautiful.' But it's an expression of your feeling--not an objective fact that describes them as an object (like 'you have x color hair').

But uh...everytime I start using 'subjective' and 'objective' this much I begin not to make sense to myself and I've never understood those concepts well enough to use them with confidence...so I may not be super clear.

I mean...I guess that technically you could be 'attractive' if you've every attracted anyone, but then it loses a lot of meaning because no one really knows everyone who's ever been attracted to them as that is not visibly observable most times...people don't like glom on to people when they are attracted to them (like magnets)--it's still describing feelings which are not always expressed and probably difficult to measure from the outside.
 

·
Registered
ENTJ; 8w7; Persian C
Joined
·
9,448 Posts
Would you agree?
In a sense, when it comes to certain attractions, they are merely (re: reflexive-biological filteration (re: "reactions," to aesthetics). Like emotions; it triggers a repertoir of glandular responses.

However, it is not only just "neurological responsitivity," and what "sets" human attraction from two dogs humping away; is that were are self-referential agents, and such deters, or distracts us from high-functioning species determinism/reductionism, thus, we are supplying value to your lovers and/or "attractions".

(We screw Gods/goddesses in the dark; and fuck like monkey's in the light).
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,361 Posts
I agree since each and every person is responsible for their perception and reaction to another’s perception due to their neurological and psychological composition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,048 Posts
Yeah a lot of people use the phrase "objectively attractive" even though it doesn't make sense. They usually say it to imply a look that would appear to be generally accepted as good. But there's really no one showing us that there is a generally accepted standard there so that also seems pretty meaningless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
I used to think attractiveness was at least partly socially constructed, I don't believe that now. If you look at studies, men for instance are attracted to a 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio, which also happens to the ratio of women that are the most fertile, they're also attracted to youth (fertility), health (good offspring) and symmetry (good genes). All this evolutionary logic just expresses itself through a feeling: attraction, which could feel random and abritary but isn't, it's just that your ding dong doesn't receive detailed reports on the reasons for your brain's decisions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,261 Posts
I used to think attractiveness was at least partly socially constructed, I don't believe that now. If you look at studies, men for instance are attracted to a 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio, which also happens to the ratio of women that are the most fertile, they're also attracted to youth (fertility), health (good offspring) and symmetry (good genes). All this evolutionary logic just expresses itself through a feeling: attraction, which could feel random and abritary but isn't, it's just that your ding dong doesn't receive detailed reports on the reasons for your brain's decisions.
Well yeah, men are more focused on physical traits, because historically humans have been patriarchal, even going back to ape-ancestry. Maybe give it 20000 years and I'd bet money men will change- I'm talking nature not even nurture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
Well yeah, men are more focused on physical traits, because historically humans have been patriarchal, even going back to ape-ancestry. Maybe give it 20000 years and I'd bet money men will change- I'm talking nature not even nurture.
I don't see the link between patriarchal societies and being attracted to physical traits. Presumably all the men who were attracted to poor female specimens (non-fertile, unhealthy, poor genes, etc) were weeded out by evolution. All the humans alive today come from countless generations of successful parents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,765 Posts
What if I told you that "attractiveness" does not exist as a quality in you, but only as a set of neurological responses that arise and fade in the body and mind of the person you are engaging?

Would you agree?
I would tell you... you are on something, and I would agree to some extent, but yes, you are on track IMHO.

There are plenty of studies and research on how attractiveness (just by looking at someone) depends on culture and region mostly. there are things we like because there are things programmed on us but mostly... it's influenced. You can choose (you as in general not "you") attractive people around the world (top of every country) and every single person in the world will react differently, not to each one as the "top", specially tribes or people who still live in the country, forest, etc. It's interesting how many react positively to the influence of beauty from TV, but things aside... the closest you live in nature the less those things seem useful, I mean the closet people live in nature the more they can focus on really useful things.

My brain always felt in some cases "beauty is not yours" I mean many beautiful women got that from someone else looks in the family, they did nothing, it's almost worthless if you think about it, and I'm not sure if that's a quality or just a characteristic. Besides the response fades away, and the "looks" too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,118 Posts
What if I told you that "attractiveness" does not exist as a quality in you, but only as a set of neurological responses that arise and fade in the body and mind of the person you are engaging?

Would you agree?
There are various types of attractiveness. I believe that ultimately beauty is objective like all truth. That is to say that in the moral sense all of the metaverse is beautiful almost by definition. But, also, that physical beauty is indeed beauty that adheres to laws of the universe like pi and the golden ration, the seed of life.

Further, that a person's wholeness, their wisdom, their moral expression is the only true happiness that resonates around them in waves. Of course, this truth cannot be perceived well by the less aware (like so many). It takes enrichment to fathom enrichment.

Thus it is that even amid the grandeur of great beauty, many people just walk right on by unaffected, pretty much the reverse of what you are saying. In another sense though, this reveals how a response to beauty is actually something of a choice based on awareness and mood and preconditioning. That strongly supports your position. I would say though that the most important takeaway is the first part of what I said. That awareness allows for and encourages moral growth, whereas the latter conviction, although more true for most people, is rather damning and puts all the pressure on each person to respond to all beauty well.

Lastly, I think people become intentionally defensive towards being affected by beauty, especially where the opposite sex is concerned. This is a cause of porn. People need the relative safety of their own homes and maybe alone time to expose their genuine reactions to true beauty where the world will not stab them or ridicule them for that.

You refer as well, obliquely, to the Law of Diminishing Returns. This is also referred to as 'jaded.' Again, this diminished response is just a learned behavior, a large part of it being laziness that runs deeply internal. You have to care to be moral. You have to be aware. You have to perfect-aim and yet forgive imperfection. You have to ignite your own lustiness, your own sense of entertainment, and joy. You have to prepare and remain true to certain subsets of beauty. And then, often, perhaps the hardest for some people, you must express your own part of the metaverse's beauty.

Of course we all know that accomplishment, achievement is crucial in establishing beauty. Worthiness is rarely assumed to be intrinsic, although it is. This is the ROOT delusion of worthiness by achievement. Most people succumb to this lie. It poisons everything they experience. We all need to work past this lie.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top