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...

Yook

DOLEMAN wrote:

*Nonsense*
Blackrock people are much better looking than Ballyfermot people.

Someone has some class issues then I think. :rolleyes:

Thirdfox

Well in general more affluent classes can afford better nutrition, better healthcare, better clothing/beauty products. So I would agree with the general statement that affluent areas has more "beautiful" people.

Having said that I find that beauty can be found everywhere, when I was in China I saw a 50 year old lady working on a farm, skin was ravaged by the sun and hands had calluses but I thought she was "beautiful" too.

Hobbes

Looks aint everything... Look at Nikki on bigbrother find me someone who would breed with her that wouldn't mean the person would impale themselves onto a rusty Iron railing rather then put up with her.

For those who don't know her..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLYsO_r3wiE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPU4cl3Vag

Son Goku

Genetically inferior is a non-statement, nothing is genetically inferior.
Do they reproduce better or not? That is the only question you can really ask.

Aside from that beauty and ugliness are society dependant factors.
Even though a single given society probably has a fairly consistent definition of ugly, it's the variance of ugliness across societies which makes this much harder to assert.
Look at the women who were considered attractive in Egypt. Women who had birth deformities giving them elongated skulls, they'd without a doubt be ugly to most now.

Yook

I'm from a upper class area, my parents are pretty well off and I don't consider myself better looking/uglier/better than some random person from a lower class area.

I'm suprised at a lot of people on this one, what you people are saying is the definition of vain. I would like to know how you assume you are better looking than somone else?

edit:

slipss wrote:

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.

By that logic, you are saying that you are dumb, maybe you're onto something there

Civilian_Target

lol

"I think I'm just special"

You sure are love.

I'd impale her though. And all you need to put up with her would be a good set of earplugs.

"What, are you talking again?"

Pigman II

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...

I think you may be refering to the "Golden Ratio?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio#Aesthetic_uses

slipss wrote:

Is their uglyness a warning to potential mates that they would produce offspring that would lose in the survival of the fitest scenario?

If it is then it doesn't seem to be working as from personal observation it seems to be uglier (and stupider for that matter) people who breed soonest and most often.

seamus

Speking in pure animalistic terms, it's not always been the best-looking people or the ones with the best bodies that have been successful in love.

Women at a base level are drawn to "alpha" males. These are typically men who show themselves to be successful in the hunt, with a strong physique and strong immune system. When it comes to the initial attraction, money will always win out over looks, for 99% of women. The attractiveness of the face is largely irrelevant, though it's fair to say that deformities, or extreme distortion are a sign of a genetic problem anyway.

It holds true even more for men. The attractiveness of women changes continually. A few hundred yeasr ago, women with small breasts, a fair wad of flab and big asses were seen as attractive. Now they're a border case. BY far the most "desirable" (i.e. shown in all the media) women are those with small waists and large tits. Yet genetically men really only look for two things - large hips (better for childbearing) and a healthy amount of fat (produces healthier offspring).

So what's attractive? Whatever the media decides is attractive.

RedPlanet

As a whole, and in very general terms; do people think humans are getting prettier or uglier?

Through the course of time.

weemcd

whos to say what beauty is, sure in medieval times was it not considered a symbol of status and beauty for the women to be very fat, to show they could afford food, and have black teeth to show they could afford sugar. i am not making this up, i definatly read this somwhere before (yeah i know, dont believe everything you read )

New_Departure06

I think beards are ugly.

Terry

slipss, does your friend ever talk about her great aunt eva?

hobbes, i agree with you on that big brother chick. definitely someone you would have to gag while having sex with, and not in a kinky way.

6 billion and rising? WWM nailed it. it's all down to beer.

DOLEMAN

Yook wrote:

Someone has some class issues then I think. :rolleyes:

Noooo, you have class issues if you can't admit there are differences in our society...

Everyone knows wealth attracts babes. Combine this with comfortable surroundings, good food, and expensive dental work when you're growing up, and you're guaranteed to have more good looking children.

Go to "Bondi Beach" in Stillorgan and then some local in a rough area. ON AVERAGE Bondi Beach will have a much higher babe ratio.

SpAcEd OuT

I hate ugly people

Kernel

Son Goku wrote:

Genetically inferior is a non-statement, nothing is genetically inferior.
Do they reproduce better or not? That is the only question you can really ask.

Aside from that beauty and ugliness are society dependant factors.
Even though a single given society probably has a fairly consistent definition of ugly, it's the variance of ugliness across societies which makes this much harder to assert.
Look at the women who were considered attractive in Egypt. Women who had birth deformities giving them elongated skulls, they'd without a doubt be ugly to most now.

Totally agree. Ugliness is determined by social trends, and have varied wildly over the years. The stick thin waif is not genetically superior to the fuller figured person, since they show malnutrition, usually a weaker immune system, and are less efficient at storing energy from food (fat). In that case, they would not be as likely to survive natural (in historical human terms) conditions in the wild. In Africa, heavier women are seen as more desirable, since it shows they can survive with less food.

More women are actually having trouble giving birth naturally, because their hips are narrowing - and yet this is seen as a desirable trait. I remember watching a documentary where Kate Moss or some other supermodel spent time with a South American primitive tribe, and they thought she was really ugly and undesirable, and couldn't believe that people thought she was beautiful - in fact they were laughing at her when told this!

Also, bone structure can be weaker on the modern good-looker. Appearance can be a guideline (healthy skin, hair etc) as to health, but there is no easy way to spot genetic defects until they occur in offspring, or weak hearts etc.

The whole class system of selective breeding, by definition leads to inbreeding within a shallow gene pool, producing many genetic abnormalities - look at the history of the British royal family!

Dudess

Take a look at 1940s/50s films. Women who were deemed sexy at the time look totally different to their counterparts today. Not just their fuller figures, but they were (or looked) older and their make-up and dress also made huge differences. I wouldn't consider many of them that beautiful to be honest, but at the time, they were sex goddesses!
Then the waifs came along in the 1960s and what was once deemed really desirable - the hourglass figure - became unattractive.

New_Departure06

Ugly is as ugly does!

Pepe LeFrits

I hope for your own sake that you're at least pretty!

Bottle_of_Smoke

Probably at one stage it was advantageous to reproduction. Probably not too much in this country

No need for it anymore - ugly people have just as many kids

biko

Beauty wins http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=ugly&word2=beautiful