Ugly people are genetically inferior?

slipss

So anyway I was talking to a few people tonight and for some reason the conversation got round to who slept with the ugliest person out of all of us. I didn't win thankfully, but then one of the girls came out with the statement that ugly people are beneath the rest of us, genetically speaking.(before people jump down my throat there her words not mine). Once we thought about it it seemed to make a lot of sense. I mean physical attractivness is always being linked to fertility and fitness and resistance to GID's iin anthropology studies. So I was just wondering what you all thought. Are ugly people genetically inferior. Is their uglyness a warning to potential mates that they would produce offspring that would lose in the survival of the fitest scenario? Have there been any credible studies done to either discredit or confirm this opinion? We came to the conclusion that we don't think it's just physical either even though attractive people are always being desribed as stupid, is this not just something ugly people say to make them selves feel better, after all ugly people do tend to spend more time studying and reading than good looking people so wouldn't that explain why the top scoring people in school and college always seemed to be the ugliest.

simu

Well, if their ugly parents manages to breed and produce these ugly folks... SUCCESS!

Zomg!

Tar.Aldarion

Like, that is so true like.
Scientific fact!

Then there are those pesky people that some people that some people find attratctive and some don't..but nah, they are rare like.

simu

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Then there are those pesky people that some people that some people find attratctive and some don't..but nah, they are rare like.

Sozzies but those guys who say they dig atypical looks are like totally lying. Sekkritly everyone dreams of David Hasslehoff/Áine Chambers-type beauts.

Factzor!

Tar.Aldarion

I wish the Hoff was an emo like, then we could be inferior together 4ever.
I think that some people that some people would judge us though but I would like shout apartheid at them like.

simu

The Hoff is emo. You can hear it in his dulcet tones...

DOLEMAN

I've seen a lot of programmes on discovery channel about pretty people v ugly people.

The general (scientific) thinking seems to be that for thousands of years the pretty people were (generally) the healthy ones. You know, not deformed or anything like that. So people wanted to have children with them. We've evolved since then to still have this way of thinking (similar to the women liking bastards thing.)

Obviously these days your financial and life success has little to do with how good looking or strong you are. Brains rule these days... (in general.)

danger mouse

slipss wrote:

So anyway I was talking to a few people tonight and for some reason the conversation got round to who slept with the ugliest person out of all of us. I didn't win thankfully, but then one of the girls came out with the statement that ugly people are beneath the rest of us, genetically speaking.(before people jump down my throat there her words not mine). Once we thought about it it seemed to make a lot of sense. I mean physical attractivness is always being linked to fertility and fitness and resistance to GID's iin anthropology studies. So I was just wondering what you all thought. Are ugly people genetically inferior. Is their uglyness a warning to potential mates that they would produce offspring that would lose in the survival of the fitest scenario? Have there been any credible studies done to either discredit or confirm this opinion? We came to the conclusion that we don't think it's just physical either even though attractive people are always being desribed as stupid, is this not just something ugly people say to make them selves feel better, after all ugly people do tend to spend more time studying and reading than good looking people so wouldn't that explain why the top scoring people in school and college always seemed to be the ugliest.

It is true that good looking people get on better in social settings, Probably cause they feel more comfortable about themselves. This in turn may help them to get on better in life. Dont think so called ugly people are in anyway inferior to good looking people. sure one mans ugly is another mans Babe.

DOLEMAN

Indeed. That "one mans ugly is another mans babe" comment is so true.

Example. I now have a bit of a beard. I know some girls hate it. Others drool...

Tar.Aldarion

Then there are those pesky people that some people that some people find attratctive and some don't..but nah, they are rare like.

Cough.

Nightwish

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Cough.

i ditto that cough

danger mouse

slipss wrote:

genetically speaking.(before people jump down my throat there her words not mine). Once we thought about it it seemed to make a lot of sense. I mean physical attractivness is always being linked to fertility and fitness and resistance to GID's iin anthropology studies. So I was just wondering what you all thought. Are ugly people genetically inferior. Is their uglyness a warning to potential mates that they would produce offspring that would lose in the survival of the fitest scenario?

Also I can't see how this theory would work. haha did yis ever see some of the oul wan's on moore's street or any other inner city or poor area? 60-70 years old, ten kids and hundreds of grand children and no chance any of them where ever beauty queens.lol But still able to have huge familys.I really dont think genes have anything to do with how attractive someone is.

Haha random or what?

DOLEMAN

Yeah but uglies love to have lots of kids. You'll notice rich, good looking people never have large familes!

/Crazy generalisation, I know

Tar.Aldarion

No wait, I did notice that!
They must wear like seven condoms a go, the rich bastards.

Nightwish

DOLEMAN wrote:

Yeah but uglies love to have lots of kids. You'll notice rich, good looking people never have large familes!

/Crazy generalisation, I know

Miriam O Callaghan?

danger mouse

Nightwish wrote:

Miriam O Callaghan?

And look where it got her.

DOLEMAN

It's kind of true though. I'm from Blackrock (rich part of Dublin for all you non-Dublin folk) and you never see families with more than 2 or 3 kids. I would think this is because their jobs are too demanding to have lots of children (just making a guess, not trying to say badly paid jobs aren't hard!)

My brother, who lives in Ballyfermot (poorish part of Dublin for all you non-Dublin folk) is surrounded by millions of kids.

Now... here comes the controversial bit...

Blackrock people are much better looking than Ballyfermot people.

Tis true. Really.

singingstranger

@OT: prettiness/ugliness is all to do with personal asthetics anyway (beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all that), so there can't be any in-built superiority. The only thing with personal asthetics is that they're largely built by society and subconscious nudging now. A century or two ago it wasn't thinner women that were seen as the more attractive but the ones with curvy, essentially meatier figures that were seen to be 'attractive'. So I'd personally doubt there's any chance of 'ugly' people being genetically inferior.

DOLEMAN

There is actually a scientific/mathamatical way of calculating beauty. So beauty is not entirely in the eye of the beholder. There is a "who is most fertile" algorithm. Again, discovery channel...

slipss

slipss wrote:

So anyway I was talking to a few people tonight and for some reason the conversation got round to who slept with the ugliest person out of all of us. I didn't win thankfully, but then one of the girls came out with the statement that ugly people are beneath the rest of us, genetically speaking.(before people jump down my throat there her words not mine). Once we thought about it it seemed to make a lot of sense. I mean physical attractivness is always being linked to fertility and fitness and resistance to GID's iin anthropology studies. So I was just wondering what you all thought. Are ugly people genetically inferior. Is their uglyness a warning to potential mates that they would produce offspring that would lose in the survival of the fitest scenario? Have there been any credible studies done to either discredit or confirm this opinion? We came to the conclusion that we don't think it's just physical either even though attractive people are always being desribed as stupid, is this not just something ugly people say to make them selves feel better, after all ugly people do tend to spend more time studying and reading than good looking people so wouldn't that explain why the top scoring people in school and college always seemed to be the ugliest.

Judging by your previous threads!Were you high on drugs whwn you had this conversation?

danger mouse

DOLEMAN wrote:

There is actually a scientific/mathamatical way of calculating beauty. So beauty is not entirely in the eye of the beholder. There is a "who is most fertile" algorithm. Again, discovery channel...

Something to do with how symmetrical a persons face is I think, could be wrong tho.

nobodythere

Not necessarily, it depends what you mean by inferior. It just comes down to survival genes, but hey, evolution is temporarily irrelevant in our society because you don't have to think to survive.

Just because you're more likely to survive doesn't mean that you're superior to someone else, it doesn't mean you're smarter than them or more loving/generous or anything, it just means you're more likely to survive. It's a very black and white way to see things. Personalities are complex things, everyone has positive and negative points. A lot of these points have both positive and negative qualities in themselves too, which is why there's no perfect guy/girl that everyone will fall in love with.

So while looks do reflect on personality, it's hard to say that someone is inferior because of the way they look.

dermot_sheehan

Theory doesn't hold as what is attractive/unattractive varies with social norms.

For example previously tanned skin was seen as a very bad thing, it meant you were out working in the fields all day, not an attractive thing when looking for a mate by which to climb the social ladder. The whiter the skin the better, so ladies used to put white powder on their faces (which incidentally had lead as an ingredient and caused lead poisoning).

Since factory work and air travel came about however, views changed. Now a person who spent all their days working worked indoors, whilst only the person who could afford to have time off to spend outdoors was tanned. Similary air travel in the 20th century meant that if someone was tanned it meant they could afford a holiday in the sun and was therefore a safer financial bet.

DOLEMAN

I think it's fair to say there is an "overall" definition of beauty that the majority of people would agree is beautiful... but at the end of the day, everyone has different tastes and quirks, so the hot girl is not guaranteed to get the hot guy (although, on average, it's more likely.)

I love the fact that humans are so different to each other. I'm enjoying my time here.

nesf

DOLEMAN wrote:

I think it's fair to say there is an "overall" definition of beauty that the majority of people would agree is beautiful... but at the end of the day, everyone has different tastes and quirks, so the hot girl is not guaranteed to get the hot guy (although, on average, it's more likely.)

I would argue that there is more of a Universal Standard of Ugliness which almost everyone would agree to. The USU is a much better measure of humanity imho.

DOLEMAN

nesf wrote:

I would argue that there is more of a Universal Standard of Ugliness which almost everyone would agree to.

I would agree with this, but only within your own race.

Example: My ex-girlfriend and her SERIOUSLY MUTANT friends (really, I have never met such a group of mutants in my life) went to India to teach English (or something.) The Indian men thought the mutants were absolutely beautiful (red hair, white skin, freckles, overweight)... Seriously.

singingstranger

danger mouse wrote:

Something to do with how symmetrical a persons face is I think, could be wrong tho.

I think I've seen something based on this before too (and how in "perfect" couples the female is 93% of the male's height, and how people are at their most attractive when their BMI are 20.85, etc etc...) but even if it's based on symmetry, that's not necessarily a reflection of whether it's a "pretty" symmetrical face or an "ugly" one.

PrettyInPunk

danger mouse wrote:

Something to do with how symmetrical a persons face is I think, could be wrong tho.

i heard that also..THe more symmetrical,the more beautiful.

KTRIC

Yiz R all ugly

GrumPy

DOLEMAN wrote:

It's kind of true though. I'm from Blackrock (rich part of Dublin for all you non-Dublin folk) and you never see families with more than 2 or 3 kids. I would think this is because their jobs are too demanding to have lots of children (just making a guess, not trying to say badly paid jobs aren't hard!)

My brother, who lives in Ballyfermot (poorish part of Dublin for all you non-Dublin folk) is surrounded by millions of kids.

Now... here comes the controversial bit...

Blackrock people are much better looking than Ballyfermot people.

Tis true. Really.

LOL, I loved the way you were putting across an argument, then finished it abruptly with that

WhiteWashMan

if you want to breed ugliness out of the system, then the first good step would be to ban beer...