Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Miss Universe Ireland 2010 Rozanna Purcell

Options
12346

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    Poor Craythur wrote: »
    That's still not very illuminating.

    You have Google, use it and you'll find the research.

    Edit: To give you a hint, look up the above article or "Waist-to-hip ratio and preferences for body shape: A replication and extension". This refers to numerous other studies into the area, so is a decent place to start. This is obviously about body shape, not face but the theories and research is similar. The abstract states:
    Evidence from Singh (1993a, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–307; 1993b, Human Nature, 4, 297–321; 1994, Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 123–132; 1995, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1089–1101) clearly demonstrates the relation of waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and apparent overall body weight to attractiveness judgements of male and female figures. The present study is a cross-cultural replication of Singh's studies. In addition, sex difference meta-perceptions of attractiveness were considered. Overall results support Singh's work, which finds the WHR the most parsimonious measure of body physical attractiveness. With regard to the latter, a large consensus on preferences of ideal figures was found. Participants' perceptions of body shape and size showed both similarities and differences to those in Singh's research, and are discussed in terms of WHR as an evolutionary adaptation.


  • Options
    #153
    kerash
    Registered Users Posts: 6,688 ✭✭✭kerash


    parker kent wrote: »
    Anybody reading this thread should have no problems understanding what I mean. If you want yet another rehash of what I think....

    -Everybody is entitled to find what they find attractive
    -Beauty can be found in anything or any place
    -But there are conventional norms for what is attractive

    I've said this over and over throughout this thread. Unless you want to get into a philosophical or semantic argument over beauty v attractiveness, it is extremely easy to understand what I mean.
    I totally agree with you on the first two points, I dont agree that there are norms that therefore = beauty, I have no problems understanding you and your points, I just dont agree with that one aspect.

    Beauty and attraction are quite different, as I can find something beautiful without being attracted.


  • Options
    #154
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    kerash wrote: »
    Beauty and attraction are quite different, as I can find something beautiful without being attracted.

    I think that's been established by all throughout the thread, no?


  • Options
    #155
    kerash
    Registered Users Posts: 6,688 ✭✭✭kerash


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I think that's been established by all throughout the thread, no?
    So far I've established that the terms beauty and attractiveness are interchangeable in this thread.


  • Options
    #156
    caseyann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭caseyann


    What is the Mona Lisa then?

    mona-lisa.jpg As a matter of interest.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    kerash wrote: »
    Beauty and attraction are quite different, as I can find something beautiful without being attracted.

    That is the point we are making. I have been saying that over and over.

    For more research into attraction, check out this: Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes, J.E. Scheib, S.W. Gangestad, and R. Thornhill

    There are literally thousands of other articles that could be read in this area. It is not exactly an area lacking research. But generally, female attractiveness is rated under the following topics (obviously there will be exceptions to these attractions, which is why I say generally!):

    Youth
    Waist-to-hip ratio
    Breast size/symmetry
    Body size and proportion

    And Male attractiveness is rated under the following:

    Narrow waist
    V-shaped torso
    Broad shoulders/general build
    Facial symmetry
    Height

    All of the above have research supporting these as indicators of physical beauty. And most of these produce similar results throughout the research. We could be here forever going through the research. But it is much simpler to say (as I and others did earlier) that there are norms in physical attraction.


  • Options
    #158
    kerash
    Registered Users Posts: 6,688 ✭✭✭kerash


    caseyann wrote: »
    What is the Mona Lisa then?

    mona-lisa.jpg As a matter of interest.

    It's a painting. :D

    but seriously, like beauty it's subjective


  • Options
    #159
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    kerash wrote: »
    So far I've established that the terms beauty and attractiveness are interchangeable in this thread.

    I'm not sure who by - the majority of posts I've read make a clear distinction between being attracted to someone and acknowledging their attractiveness, unless you mean those arguing personal subjectiveness?

    In terms of semantics, "beauty", "a beauty", "the beauty", "my beauty" can be interchanged and used in many contexts as it's a remarkably versatile noun.


  • Options
    #160
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    kerash wrote: »
    So far I've established that the terms beauty and attractiveness are interchangeable in this thread.

    No you haven't. All you may have seen is a momentary misuse of the word or else there are semantic differences in the usage of the words. People have though been pretty explicit in stating there are differences between beauty and attractiveness.

    You have witnessed a lot of misconceptions and people misconstruing what others are actually saying.


  • Options
    #161
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    I find Sean Penn more attractive than George Clooney, but George Clooney is conventionally more handsome than Sean Penn.

    I don't find Georgia Salpa attractive - I can totally acknowledge she's very pretty and has an amazing figure, but I personally find Roisin Murphy more attractive. But Roisin Murphy is less conventionally pretty than Salpa.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    kerash
    Registered Users Posts: 6,688 ✭✭✭kerash


    parker kent wrote: »
    No you haven't. All you may have seen is a momentary misuse of the word or else there are semantic differences in the usage of the words. People have though been pretty explicit in stating there are differences between beauty and attractiveness.

    You have witnessed a lot of misconceptions and people misconstruing what others are actually saying.

    but your previous post equates attractiveness with beauty and therein lies the confusion


  • Options
    #163
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    kerash wrote: »
    but your previous post equates attractiveness with beauty and therein lies the confusion

    Hmm....
    People have though been pretty explicit in stating there are differences between beauty and attractiveness.

    I can see where the confusion is alright. Anyway, as I said we could a philosophical or semantic discussion about beauty v attractiveness. But that is entirely irrelevant to the argument. People often equate beauty with attractiveness at an individual level and sometimes it is separate. What is attractive is often beautiful and sometimes what is beautiful is not always attractive.


  • Options
    #164
    kerash
    Registered Users Posts: 6,688 ✭✭✭kerash


    I don't believe in a conventional formulaic beauty or attractiveness.


  • Options
    #165
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Okay - and we're back to a singe claim meaning nothing in terms of the majority.


  • Options
    #166
    kerash
    Registered Users Posts: 6,688 ✭✭✭kerash


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Okay - and we're back to a singe claim meaning nothing in terms of the majority.

    It means everything in terms of beauty, just because the majority disagree doesn't make it less true


  • Options
    #167
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,915 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    kerash wrote: »
    I don't believe in a conventional formulaic beauty or attractiveness.

    And some people don't believe in evolution.


  • Options
    #168
    kerash
    Registered Users Posts: 6,688 ✭✭✭kerash


    iguana wrote: »
    And some people don't believe in evolution.
    what has that got to do with beauty?


  • Options
    #169
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    I don't believe in reality - we're heads in a jar...no such thing as consensus...nope.


  • Options
    #170
    Poor Craythur
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,382 ✭✭✭Poor Craythur


    iguana wrote: »
    And some people don't believe in evolution.

    iguana, that's not comparable, in fairness.


  • Options
    #171
    caseyann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭caseyann


    kerash wrote: »
    I don't believe in a conventional formulaic beauty or attractiveness.
    I agree i dont buy it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    Poor Craythur wrote: »
    iguana, that's not comparable, in fairness.

    Well both are supported by numerous studies. So the comparison is the non-belief in something that has been proven to be likely.


  • Options
    #173
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    caseyann wrote: »
    I agree i dont buy it.

    Why respond which such a dogmatic belief? Why exactly do you not believe the research? What reasons have you to disagree with it?


  • Options
    #174
    kerash
    Registered Users Posts: 6,688 ✭✭✭kerash


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I don't believe in reality - we're heads in a jar...no such thing as consensus...nope.

    coolies :) *wonders if ickles head is of mathematically quantifiable beauty*


  • Options
    #175
    caseyann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭caseyann


    parker kent wrote: »
    Why respond which such a dogmatic belief? Why exactly do you not believe the research? What reasons have you to disagree with it?

    Because lets say if i did this research with like minded views of mine groups in a survey and we claimed our taste was the conventional beauty it would be so.


  • Options
    #176
    kerash
    Registered Users Posts: 6,688 ✭✭✭kerash


    parker kent wrote: »
    Well both are supported by numerous studies. So the comparison is the non-belief in something that has been proven to be likely.

    proven to be likely, it is likely that we will find some beautiful but not all of them, so it's not fact!

    Simply that beauty can be in a form that will not comply with that formula stated in the studies


  • Options
    #177
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    caseyann wrote: »
    Because lets say if i did this research with like minded views of mine groups in a survey and we claimed our taste was the conventional beauty it would be so.

    I could post the methodology of the research to show that the samples were representative of the general population. Seriously, do you not think that the most pre-eminent academics from the most reputable universities in the world would consider choosing representative samples for their studies? These are not research papers done by 14 year olds.


  • Options
    #178
    caseyann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭caseyann


    kerash wrote: »
    proven to be likely, it is likely that we will find some beautiful but not all of them, so it's not fact!

    Simply that beauty can be in a form that will not comply with that formula stated in the studies
    I agree it has changed down through the years ,for someone to claim they know what is the most attractive or the most beautiful is ludicrous.


  • Options
    #179
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    kerash wrote: »
    proven to be likely, it is likely that we will find some beautiful but not all of them, so it's not fact!

    Simply that beauty can be in a form that will not comply with that formula stated in the studies

    Holy God (yes I must channel Miley Byrne for this!), we have stated that NOT EVERYBODY has to share a personal attraction to any person. But just because you do not find a person to be match your personal criteria of attraction, does not mean that the person is not conventionally attractive.

    Honestly, am I typing this in Cantonese? Why is that extremely important (and relatively simple in my view) element of the argument being wholly misunderstood by so many?!

    I was clearly stating that the fact is that there are conventional norms in what people consider attractive.

    Edit: People can also read the thread and see where we have spoken about how the norms of conventional beauty can change depending on what society you are in and over periods of time.


  • Options
    #180
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    kerash wrote: »
    coolies :) *wonders if ickles head is of mathematically quantifiable beauty*

    Definitely not - I'm....quirky, is that the polite way of saying it? :D

    Look, my view is Miss World is better looking that 99.9% of her contemporaries, likewise the girls that grace the covers of sports illustrated are going to be more attractive than 99.9% of their contemporaries - that's why they are in the position of even being considered. Now, to argue that those picked from all the millions of really attractive people in the world are just average or plain rather than an acknowledgement that they are attractive Vs say, shane mcgowan or post heroin amy winehouse is ridiculous.

    Ironically the recent arguments have centred mostly around whether classically attractive people are more attractive than other classically attractive people based on personal subjectiveness - which is missing the point somewhat.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Ironically the recent arguments have centred mostly around whether classically attractive people are more attractive than other classically attractive people based on personal subjectiveness - which is missing the point somewhat.

    Agree with you there. The examples being given (like Georgia Salpa v Grace Kelly) come down to personal preference between 2 conventionally attractive people. To say that one or the other is not attractive, is just plain silly. Perfectly fine to say you don't personally find they match your own criteria, but to say otherwise is ludicrous.

    But anyway, as you said pretty well, Miss World and others of her ilk are going to be classically attractive people.


Advertisement