Why are humans attracted to good looking mates?

[William Jackson]

I remember that article and similar ones. It does make sense that the perception of beauty is based on normalness. That small deviations from normal appearance, even if they're not consciously noticeable, detract from attractiveness. This (supposedly) works to reduce the likelihood of genetic abnormalities being added to the gene pool.
Of course, this is a science site. If "makes sense" were as valid as evidence, then philosophy and science would have progressed equally in the past 500 years ;-)
Barring contrary evidence, I'm happy to believe the theory. There are no evil consequences to my being wrong.

 

[256bits]

Where do freckles, beauty moles, curly hair and all the other whatnots fit in this "beauty" thing? Skinny, chubby, tall, husky, blonde, brunet, full lips, skin tone, muscle tone, - the list of features is endless where one will find deviations from the "norm". Everybody, or almost everybody seems to find someone else to hook up with, but that shouldn't follow from that once all the "good" ones are selected, the rest are only second, third, ..., rate. Something seems wrong with that.

I heard recently on the radio recently that a survey of women, revealed that they would rather date a guy with love handles than abs. ( sorry no citation ). (Absolute) beauty would be taking a back seat in selection of a mate.

 

[NTW]

There is a market for beauty; and the supply and demand law works there too. Unconsciously, the buying public believes that a healthy offspring seems more likely if good-looking partner is purchased. That belief is reinforced by the facts. Were it not the case, the belief itself would have disappeared long ago...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Whilst this discussion has been interesting I'd like to remind members that personal anecdotes are best avoided or at least posted along side references to peer-reviewed literature.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Generally, if we are attracted to someone, we automatically define them as good looking, or, at least, as attractive. The psychological/neurological mechanisms whereby we find ourselves in the position of experiencing attraction are what matters. These will and have evolved to keep pace with what's available. If they hadn't, we'd have died out.

 

[.Scott]

Generally, if we are attracted to someone, we automatically define them as good looking, or, at least, as attractive. The psychological/neurological mechanisms whereby we find ourselves in the position of experiencing attraction are what matters. These will and have evolved to keep pace with what's available. If they hadn't, we'd have died out.

That simply changes the question to "Why do we consider some mates more good looking than others?". Not a big difference.

Wouldn't evolution work both ways? Not only are you more fit if you are attracted to the appearance of those best fit to survive, but you are also more fit it you have the appearance that others find attractive?

 

[zoobyshoe]

That simply changes the question to "Why do we consider some mates more good looking than others?". Not a big difference.

We could switch to that somewhat different question, but what I'm saying is that the original question suffers from the assumption there's something objective about what constitutes "good looking" in humans. A lot of people seem to think there is. Rather than observe that we seem to be attracted to "good looking" people, I think it's more on point to suppose that we define those we're attracted to as "good looking," and that the attraction is actually disconnected from any other consideration than sexual arousal (which, in the strange case of humans at least, might get attached to anything). As Simon Bridge said earlier about the OP question, we might just as well ask why gorillas are attracted to such ugly mates. Looked at this way it becomes clearer that what is operative is the capacity to be attracted, not the 'attractiveness'.

Wouldn't evolution work both ways? Not only are you more fit if you are attracted to the appearance of those best fit to survive, but you are also more fit it you have the appearance that others find attractive?

Sexual selection doen't work by fitness for survival:

Sexual selection is often powerful enough to produce features that are harmful to the individual’s survival. For example, extravagant and colorful tail feathers or fins are likely to attract predators as well as interested members of the opposite sex.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE3Sexualselection.shtml

You will be highly likely to breed if you're attracted to whatever's around and available (in the opposite sex). As I said earlier in the thread, I used to suppose people must be inadvertently breeding themselves to be more and more attractive over the millennia. But then it occurred to me that the more likely route would be for people to be breeding themselves to become more easily aroused by less stimulation and to breed more prolifically because of it. Those who find a larger percentage of the opposite sex attractive would naturally have more options to pass their attraction-prone genes on. This would be disconnected from anyone's fitness for survival.

 

[Razorvox]

Also, if you look at silhouettes on the internet you can see how important that profile is on someone. After all, the brain can't read if someone is healthy, it needs a guesstimate, which is appearance.

 

[Yashbhatt]

You will be highly likely to breed if you're attracted to whatever's around and available (in the opposite sex). As I said earlier in the thread, I used to suppose people must be inadvertently breeding themselves to be more and more attractive over the millennia. But then it occurred to me that the more likely route would be for people to be breeding themselves to become more easily aroused by less stimulation and to breed more prolifically because of it. Those who find a larger percentage of the opposite sex attractive would naturally have more options to pass their attraction-prone genes on. This would be disconnected from anyone's fitness for survival.

That makes sense. But then shouldn't we be attracted to everyone. That will give you the most chances of breeding. Instead, we feel we need to breed with certain kinds of people which we usually label as "good looking".

 

[Evo]

For ages it was strength and power that women looked for to ensure a safe life for herself and her offspring. Men might have gone for beauty, so the criteria differed for the sexes. Pretty women marrying ugly men.

And we still see that today, pretty women marrying powerful/rich men. Of course most of the women that marry the powerful/rich men today are actually not very attractive, but have had a load of plastic surgery. Just IMO.

it's amazing, nose jobs, lip implants, chin implants, botox, ear reduction, waist reduction, breast implants, calf implants, cheek bone alteration, fat removal from face cheeks, liposuction from all over, eye inprovements like eyelid and eyebrow lifts. Capped teeth, braces. That's just the young ones, much more for older women.

Hey, you get what you pay for.

 

[zoobyshoe]

That makes sense. But then shouldn't we be attracted to everyone. That will give you the most chances of breeding. Instead, we feel we need to breed with certain kinds of people which we usually label as "good looking".

I think there are two essentially irrational dynamics going on that control this. One is personal, idiosyncratic, preference, and the other is group status. If I show you 10 examples of anything, let's say 10 different editions of the same book, you are likely to experience a preference for some over others, and could probably rank them from 1 to 10, by aesthetic appeal to you. Also, in your peer group, there will be irrational, idiosyncratic standards about aesthetics, and your status among your peers will be affected by the extent to which you adopt or defy those standards. People often adjust what they aim for in deference to group standards.

In either case, if we remove the "most attractive," people's attraction will reform for the next in line. If we remove everyone more attractive than #3, then #3 becomes the "most attractive" and receives general adulation. Biologically, you are probably "attracted to everyone," in the sense that you could mate with them given no "better" choice. Conversely, you may get the 10, and then regret it when someone yet better comes along to redefine 10.

 

[Anitha]

it gives some pleasure to his mind .it is nature to all

 

[Yashbhatt]

I think there are two essentially irrational dynamics going on that control this. One is personal, idiosyncratic, preference, and the other is group status. If I show you 10 examples of anything, let's say 10 different editions of the same book, you are likely to experience a preference for some over others, and could probably rank them from 1 to 10, by aesthetic appeal to you. Also, in your peer group, there will be irrational, idiosyncratic standards about aesthetics, and your status among your peers will be affected by the extent to which you adopt or defy those standards. People often adjust what they aim for in deference to group standards.

In either case, if we remove the "most attractive," people's attraction will reform for the next in line. If we remove everyone more attractive than #3, then #3 becomes the "most attractive" and receives general adulation. Biologically, you are probably "attracted to everyone," in the sense that you could mate with them given no "better" choice. Conversely, you may get the 10, and then regret it when someone yet better comes along to redefine 10.

Better in what way? They are aesthetically pleasing but why would evolution shape us in such a way?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Better in what way? They are aesthetically pleasing but why would evolution shape us in such a way?

"Better" in the sense the observer finds them to be yet more sexually arousing. Sexual selection favors the promiscuous as opposed to the monogamous. Promiscuous people are more likely to have sex and produce offspring, passing their promiscuity on.

Is that what you were asking?

 

[Yashbhatt]

"Better" in the sense the observer finds them to be yet more sexually arousing. Sexual selection favors the promiscuous as opposed to the monogamous. Promiscuous people are more likely to have sex and produce offspring, passing their promiscuity on.

Is that what you were asking?

But why does one think of them as a priority in mating? What does it indicate?

 

[zoobyshoe]

But why does one think of them as a priority in mating? What does it indicate?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

 

[Yashbhatt]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

I mean to say why would we preger someone who is aesthetically pleasing? I doesn't seem to have any evolutionary advantage.

One thing that comes to my mind is this. If we consider that different people have different standards of attraction (though there are a lot of common interests), then it may make sense. Like if I am attracted to everyone, then I will end up passing on just *my* genes but if everyone mates with different kind of people, then there will be variation. It maybe advantageous to the species.

But the problem is that maybe evolution doesn't work on a group basis.

 

[marcus]

I mean to say why would we prefer someone who is aesthetically pleasing? I doesn't seem to have any evolutionary advantage...

Try thinking about birds, instead of humans. Male peacocks have big ornate tails. What is the evolutionary advantage? The females (called "peahens") are somehow predisposed to notice the males displaying big ornate tails and be interested by it. Probably it is hard-wired in their brains.

Female robins are probably not predisposed to be attracted by big ornate peacock tails. What gets their attention is something with a BRIGHT RED CHEST that SINGS A LOT. What is the evolutionary advantage for the female robin that she is attracted by bright red coloration and certain shrill noises? Why should she be hardwired to appreciate these traits/behaviors?

Try this exercise: for a full two days don't think about humans, think about sexual selection effects in BIRD species evolution.

Evolution is not entirely logical at the level of details. There is an element of ACCIDENT. Somehow a positive feedback loop gets started. Reproductive success accidentally gets correlated with a bright red color.
Now it is to a female's advantage to choose a red male because other females are especially attracted to red males, and if she gets a red husband she will have RED SONS and they will attract other females. It starts out having a random slight advantage, but it gets more and more advantageous with each generation.
Red chested males have more offspring, so it is to a female's reproductive advantage to pick a red male because her SONS will have more offspring. So she will pass on her genes through her sons.
The advantage increases by positive feedback. the more a trait dominates the more it WILL dominate.

So because of sexual selection by females some traits can arise which are actually DISADVANTAGES from a survival point of view, or which make no practical sense. A male peacock's tail is probably a liability in some situations. Getting in the way or making it more difficult to evade predators.

So various species of animal can evolve to prefer certain APPEARANCES in the opposite sex which appearances do not necessarily have any rational sense to them. But it nevertheless is advantageous to get mate which is "attractive" by the prevailing standard hardwired into the brains of the species because then you are more likely to have offspring which are "attractive" by whatever is the prevailing standard of beauty.

there are also some aspects that ARE logical. Like part of looking good might have to do with strength, health, freedom from parasites. A scruffy looking male might have fleas or intestinal parasites. Females birds or animals might be making a reasonable assessment in some respects, as well as going for pure aesthetics like a big ornate tail or a gorgeous song.

 

[Yashbhatt]

Evolution is not entirely logical at the level of details. There is an element of ACCIDENT. Somehow a positive feedback loop gets started. Reproductive success accidentally gets correlated with a bright red color.

I don't understand this part.

 

[Torbjorn_L]

I mean to say why would we preger someone who is aesthetically pleasing? I doesn't seem to have any evolutionary advantage.

The title of this thread is self defining. If there is a mate selection based on looks, the ones most preferable are "good looking". Mate selection is a way to guarantee healthy genes by competition, where the outcome can be (and often seem to be) more or less random. Who ordered the peacock tail?

When humans started to build more complex technological cultures around 50 kyrs ago with increasing cooperation, selection forced down testosterone expression and the sexes became more alike. [ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140801171114.htm ]

If we instead say "aesthetically pleasing", we start to confound sexual selection "good looks" with things like symmetry. Interestingly there doesn't seem to be any correlation between symmetry and health, which likely means that if it participates in mate selection it is swept along by the competition drivers. [ http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1792/20141639.full ] Say, maybe it is easier to observe good hair (which seems to be a health indicator in animals) if the skull is as symmetric as possible.

Like if I am attracted to everyone, then I will end up passing on just *my* genes but if everyone mates with different kind of people, then there will be variation. It maybe advantageous to the species.

Variation is a store of alleles for selection to use to advantage, so an increase is good. But a decrease is also a result of selection. You want a balance, where a modicum of selection can keep up with the environment by having a modicum of variation to chose from.

I don't understand this part.

I assume that "element of accident" refers to contingency, random constraint and/or outcome, since it fits the subject.

While selection is a basically deterministic response to the environment, it works on a stochastic supply of variation and it is affected by noise of random deaths and reproductive successes. A more fit allele can go extinct, especially early on, and conversely a less fit allele can survive, especially if it has become a major one.

And to complement selection on positive fitness and negative fitness there is also near neutral drift, where the fitness difference is too small to be seen by selection with the current population size. (You need an infinite population size to resolve arbitrary small fitness differences.) Then it is a true random outcome if the allele goes extinct or its competitors does.

There is also the aspect that variation is indifferent to selection. The stochastic supply of variation (point mutations, chromosomal crossover, et cetera) is truly contingent, if you replay evolution the possibilities that variation comes up with could be entirely different.

 

[OmCheeto]

This seems to be a good starting point:

http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/Rottenecards_19462244_39mx7k5h3w.png

 

[enorbet]

There are anomalies, however. One example would be the wide sexual appeal of Humphrey Bogart, not only then when he was a top draw at the box office, but even now.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's been over a page and a half since any papers have been offered for discussion, as only anecdotes remain it seems everything that has needed to be said has been said by this point.