Great discussion to everyone who was there are the live! NOTE: Language will be confusing for a bit before we clarify later in stream. I think Beauty is Subjective. I think what you find hot is Subjective. I think there IS a universal TRUE Objective of ATTRACTIVENESS BUT that is A VERY SPECIFIC, discussion happens later in stream. I DO NOT think TRUE Objective has to do with what most people think. I think "societal objective" relates to others. Capitol "T" Truth Objective exists outside of our perception. I realized in editing that I confused everyone by using societal objective to start off with and I switched into true objective without any warning! My bad!
It's a fun thought experiment, for sure, but also... does objective beauty even matter then, if it's not perceived by anyone, due to cultural biases? We may be trying to take information so far out of their context that it loses meaning here. To get to some pretty solid perception of attractiveness, we can look at statistics over time and see which features prevail, and we can look at possible pathways for certain traits to be evolutionarily beneficial and therefore probably more attractive, but then you have to come from the data side of things instead, and it still might not help you predict what to do to attract someone that would personally make you happy. A wider net still won't catch what you need if the mesh is the wrong size. AND STILL! Humans are animals. Animals are constantly evolving. We change. Our bodies change. Three thousand years ago, a 6'5 man would not be attractive but freakishly large, objectively. Not because the culture was different, but because he would have absolutely decimated most women alive. Humans change, thus the most objectively attractive human changes. Outside of space and time, there is no concept of beauty.
i disagree, attractiveness can’t exist beyond human opinion bc that’s the meaning of attractiveness. there could be an objective strongest man or tallest man bc those can be measured outside if human opinion but there can’t be an objectively nicest or most attractive person bc those are human concepts that can’t exist outside of us by definition and by logical thinking.
but also i wanna clarify i don’t think ur objective rating is useless i think it’s the best collective answer you can assume based on ur knowledge which if everyone rated this way it’s closer to the collective opinion of all humans which is more reality based but is still limited to the opinions of ppl they personally have been exposed to
idk if objective truth exists for attractiveness bc we are the ones making someone attractive so it’s all based on opinion which makes it subjective. attractiveness can’t exist beyond our collective opinion
I’m of the opinion there’s no objective answer to this. It seems you would have to poll every single person on Earth, show them Every Other person on Earth, because if one stone (a person), is left unturned, that’s a variable in the test, and then you’d have to do that every year from the beginning of time, so you could account for the changes in Subjective Beauty. And, also, rate every person that will ever exist, against every single person from the past, to know all the data. Then, if there was one person who got the most votes, you could sort of call them Objectively “the most beautiful”, but, knowing humans, there’s gonna be that one person, or likely millions by the scale I’m talking about, who will say, “I don’t like blondes.”……
@@auroraborealis13579 yes i agree and i’m of the opinion it would still just be based on opinion therefore not a “truth” where as something like being the tallest person or strongest person could be measured outside of opinion so that could have an objective truth
@@Cheyscrochetshop yes i feel u can’t be objective about it bc it’s attraction is like rating how nice or mean someone is, it can’t be separated from humans and can’t have an objective answer bc it’s existence is just the opinion of humans. there can however be a tallest or strongest human bc those things can be measured outside of human opinion. therefore the universe “knows” who the tallest man is but wouldn’t have an answer on attractiveness bc it doesn’t exist in true reality. but the universe could know who is the healthiest and maybe who is the most eligible for mating but the best human for mating wouldn’t necessarily be the most attractive bc the answer would be based on things humans can’t quickly and physically perceive. attractiveness is just an how our brains try to figure out who is more suitable for mating based on perceptions we’ve had during evolution not anything “real” with a true measurable answer that exists outside of humans brains. the true objective-ish answer is just the average of all humans ratings.
“She’s had work done it doesn’t count” is such an interesting bias. Makeup? Styling hair? Wearing nicer clothes? Oh both his parents were tall, strong and knowledgeable on beauty. Where do we draw the line? Very interesting. I don’t think there is an objective beauty either just because we know babies prefer being around people who are the same race. Even if we raised a baby in isolation, they may be biased to pick someone who looks like them because that’s the only experience of a human they’ve had. But it’s worth researching.
I agree that I think people who are so strict on “natural beauty” is a little bit extreme to me, because everyone puts effort in grooming ourselves, even attractive people. Most people wouldn’t just walk out the house how they woke up in the morning. People do their hair, shower, brush their teeth and etc. That’s not natural either. I believe natural looking should count. I do believe there is objective beauty and I’m not so strict on how people achieve that beauty. Rather that’s naturally genetics or man made
It seems unfair to rate people who don't have the genetics to pass on the traits they're presenting with on the same scale as people who do... but also probably have a few natural "off" features. We're talking about superficial "hottness" as in do you have the drive to reproduce with this person. Not whether or not you find them beautiful, whimsical, or stylish.
I think Brittany can handle this so I'll use her as an example. It is so true about finding someone more attractive the more exposure you have to their face. When I first started watching this channel I thought Brittany was for sure a 3/4, I found her facial features really jarring and not nice to look at but now I think she's glowing at like a 5/6! Cute!
What I’ve realized in this discussion is that I personally don’t find any value in finding an objectively true beauty. I just doesn’t do anything for me to know lol I’m not curious enough about it to try to keep seeking that answer.
I would say I’m a 6 too, but there’s definitely a side of me that wants to be rated by Group of people to find out what I actually am generally seen as, just because I’m nosey lol. I think I’m somewhat generally attractive but have some off features. I love that my husband thinks I’m drop dead gorgeous though. He makes my self confidence sky rocket on my bad days.
I'm in the 3-4 range I'm defenetly not half as attractive as the 10s I'm thinking of, but I'm not repulsive to people. I wonder what people think of when they rate themselves. Are they thinking about exams so they want to be 'passing' as attractive hence the 7 from most people? Or are they thinking about personality and beauty too?? Maybe rate themselves based on their immidiate group? I don't get it at all..
Brittany, what you're calling Objectivity sounds to me more like a Subjectivity that you worship, or at least put on a pedestal. Objectivity means there is no judgment, because judgement requires a subject to judge. In your case, the subject is some kind of Universal consciousness. I don't think attractiveness can be Objective because the idea of attraction without reference to a subject seems incoherent. When we say things like "taste" for food or "attraction" for people, we are referring to a psychological process. For anything in the universe to be attractive, there has to be some mind that perceives it, and judges it so. Whether that's me or you or the universe. Imagine a scenario like Planet of The Apes. The human astronaut could return to earth and likely have endless disagreements with the ape people about how to rank people in terms of attractiveness. with the exception of a fetish, I don't think humans are ever sexually attracted to apes, and the same probably goes the other way around. So in comparing humans and apes, they'll give wildly different rankings. But are one of these groups simply further from the objective truth than the other? Does our human hardwiring to be attracted to humans mean we just perceive this aspect of the objective world falsely, so that we are unable to see the ape people might be objectively sexier than us? Not only does this seem unintuitive, but there also just aren't any physical processes in the world that require an objective attractiveness ranking. If it comes to things like, the hotness of the sun (and by hot I mean the vibration of the atoms or whatever), then there are observable physical outcomes that depend on the objectivity of that hotness. It seems more likely that there is no objective attractiveness, and that instead evolution just hardwires us to be attracted to certain things, and not to certain other things. Otherwise, what role does "attractiveness" play in the universe? Otherwise it could just be this entirely inert property that doesn't effect anything, because at the end of the day, there's no reason evolution would orient us towards it, because evolution just needs us to reproduce well. These are not simply traits of the object, but they are traits of the object in relation to the subject. I agree that somebody can be objectively mistaken about an attractiveness scale, in the sense that their sample (bubble) may simply be unrepresentative. So if 10 means Most attractive. 0 means least attractive. and 5 means average. Then even if we accept that attractiveness is necessarily based on subjectivity, someone can just have an inflated understanding of what is average because they haven't seen all the other potentially far more subjectively attractive people out there. But even if you have seen every possible person that could ever exist, while you could make ratings true to your subjective attraction tendencies, there is nothing written in stone in the universe to tell you which of those people is more attractive than another one. You can't appeal to consensus because other people will disagree. Compare two attractive people and say "who is more attractive" you might get a 50-50 response or a 70-30 or whatever. I follow an account on twitter who tweets and blogs about beauty and attractiveness. When they do this kind of comparison, they almost never get anything higher than ~80% consensus. There is no theoretical mathematics you can do like an astrophysicist would to determine whether or not "gravitational waves" exist. All you can really do is feel that someone is attractive. You can have that reference 10 at the top of your scale, but you have to feel to put them there.
Objective beauty is beauty that can be sold to the masses for example models or lead roles in movies. Subjective beauty is what we look for in a partner/spouse. In your day to day life you will care more about subjective beauty unless you want to enter a field where objective beauty matters.
i found the golden ratio body while listening to this. just imagine yourself at your absolute peak(your healthiest, fittest and well groomed self) and then improve all of your features to the point where you can't even find an honest judgement for them anymore. when i say improve i mean like changing everything while keeping your template otherwise it wouldn't be you😎just beautifying it and adjusting it like making things bigger or smaller or less weird. you can't do shit like getting taller or shorter, or changing any kind of color tho. ladies you can improve your boobs but you can't make them bigger tho because small boobs matter too😢. (for the people with conditions just imagine you don't.)
Mmmm…. Nah. There’s no “objective “ attractiveness. There’s “average” attractiveness- what most people consider attractive and it’s related to a lot of things, including personal experiences and genetic preferences. There are principles within aesthetics and beauty including facial harmony, symmetry, proportion and visible health markers. Those traits are more objective but still- Attractiveness cannot be objective, beauty can be. You’re confusing a lot of different ideas.
I think I'd be considered a 4. And I also wish I could see myself from other people's perspectives bc pictures people think are good of me are ones where I think I look awful.
If the scale of attractiveness is socially constructed can it be objective? Attraction is a chemical reaction that happens in your brain and attraction as we know it beyond this biological function is socially construction . Therefore by creating this scale, we are creating something that doesn't exist naturally in the universe beyond being a tool for us as people to navigate what we understand as attraction. (realistic) my attempt at creating an objective attraction scale: attraction is an observational phenomenon and we have used science to evaluate what and why people tend to find attractive but these are still studies dependent on people pulled from society so these tests are really biased. However I think its the best tool we have in achieving as close to an objective scale. Creating a scale based on this data would probably look like - collecting the what and why peopple find attractive. putting this information into a database and then labelling people based on how well they fit the criteria. (for funzies) Objective Objective: If we had all the people who ever have or will exist in the world and then we collected data to see who everyone found the hottest then we could comprise a list of attraction attributes based on what people found attractive and then we would have an objective list of attractiveness attributes we could compare people to based on the preferences of everyone who ever lived. we could also go an extra step and research why people found certain attributes attractive and that could be fine.
Beauty standards and fashions etc are socially constructed, but on the level of the individual you can’t socially construct beauty. Semantics are ofc important too. Some people will say they’re mostly attracted to confidence. In that case yes, it’s a relativistic socially constructed mess, and there’s no such thing as beauty in that scenario. We have to start from a position of accepting certain ideas and their definitions before we can discuss this meaningfully.
In the time of chubby fertility goddesses, the most desirable brides were still youthful pubescent girls (I know, problematic, but that's what it was). So while the fertility goddesses were worshipped, I think viewing them as the epitome of beauty for that time isn't necessarily true. Goddesses of love/beauty were still depicted as more thin than their counterparts who stood for fertility and bringing life.
I keep clashing personality when checking someone out. I can see a cute dude, till I see their flaws and how they treat others etc. Our weight fluctuates so that's whatever. Until it becomes a health issue. I see myself as an 8. However others wouldn't look my direction because I don't fit their likes.
right now im probably like below a 5 but i can probably get to like a really solid 6 if i got everything in order and might even be a seven if im at my absolute peak. i have a big nose and my face is kinda weird so i dont think i can go over seven unless i evolved or some shi tho😂 im like 60 pounds underweight rn from my ideal weight and im tall so im built like a stickman too😂.
Idk where I am on the scale but whatever number correlates to women hating me for it and men thinking I’m just a seggs object. Thats my number lol I grew up wishing I was less attractive so people would take me seriously and respect my intelligence.
Attractiveness is subjective with objective methods of determining it, and the personal relationship between the judge and the judged is definitely also relevant. Sure, there are visually striking people, even to a room full of strangers, but they are rare, and still rely somewhat on a cultural cues and grooming to truly be noticed, past the initial surprise at things like bone structure. If anything, there are only three levels that can truly be determined in the most objective way, universally head-turning beautiful, kind of ugly, and somewhere in the middle. I don't think you can accurately rank people who are in the middle. And especially if they are out of shape. Maybe you can't compare people who haven't reached their full potential with those who have, just like you can't compare those who have altered their appearance with plastic surgery with those who haven't.
I’m curious what would the age of 10 be. And where in the world will they be? And if they die does the next in line be introduced as 10 or are they still a 9? Can there be multiple 10s? And if the 10 ages out of 10 then does it even matter if they were a 10 at all. All 10s would age out of their own rating as we all do. Interesting thoughts.
Whatev confidence anyone any# can make it out alive with in today’s world…..can just keep it🥳 lolz like I rly envy how boldly & blissfully unaware some ppl have the ability to be! No one tellem~i say let them enjoy it.=]]] !!!!!!
So funny… I would rate myself a 6 but I don’t know how people perceive me. I’ve thought about this lately because I separated from my husband and now feel unknown in the world. I knew he found me attractive and didn’t care beyond that but now I don’t know. I think clothes and attitude/ posture play huge rolls in how we are perceived. I have good bone structure.. a so so smile, thick long hair, an decently okay body, but I also in my mid 30s so are we rating within out age range too? Or scored across the board? Wow. I was surprised how high some of those people rated themselves considering their looks.
The thing with getting work done is you have to have a lovely canvas to start with. Plastic surgery cant take a 5 to a 9 because of the structure of the face. Even monica bellucci if you look at her in her very early years had smaller lips.
I would say In my 30-40s I wld rate myself a 6. In my 50s and now at 59 I wld rate myself an 8 . This is in my own comparison to other women my age but objectively without age factor I wld say 7
And you’re right about body size / shape Britt because I became more physically fit in my late 40s and I feel that made a difference in how I wld rate myself
When you talk about big T objective truth, i think of the things i can only imagine getting answers to when you die and meet god and he tells you the answers to things. That kind of big T truth. I'm an atheist 😂 it's just how I conceptualise that idea of truths we don't currently have access to
Great discussion to everyone who was there are the live!
NOTE: Language will be confusing for a bit before we clarify later in stream.
I think Beauty is Subjective.
I think what you find hot is Subjective.
I think there IS a universal TRUE Objective of ATTRACTIVENESS BUT that is A VERY SPECIFIC, discussion happens later in stream.
I DO NOT think TRUE Objective has to do with what most people think.
I think "societal objective" relates to others.
Capitol "T" Truth Objective exists outside of our perception.
I realized in editing that I confused everyone by using societal objective to start off with and I switched into true objective without any warning!
My bad!
It's a fun thought experiment, for sure, but also... does objective beauty even matter then, if it's not perceived by anyone, due to cultural biases? We may be trying to take information so far out of their context that it loses meaning here. To get to some pretty solid perception of attractiveness, we can look at statistics over time and see which features prevail, and we can look at possible pathways for certain traits to be evolutionarily beneficial and therefore probably more attractive, but then you have to come from the data side of things instead, and it still might not help you predict what to do to attract someone that would personally make you happy. A wider net still won't catch what you need if the mesh is the wrong size.
AND STILL! Humans are animals. Animals are constantly evolving. We change. Our bodies change. Three thousand years ago, a 6'5 man would not be attractive but freakishly large, objectively. Not because the culture was different, but because he would have absolutely decimated most women alive. Humans change, thus the most objectively attractive human changes. Outside of space and time, there is no concept of beauty.
i disagree, attractiveness can’t exist beyond human opinion bc that’s the meaning of attractiveness. there could be an objective strongest man or tallest man bc those can be measured outside if human opinion but there can’t be an objectively nicest or most attractive person bc those are human concepts that can’t exist outside of us by definition and by logical thinking.
but also i wanna clarify i don’t think ur objective rating is useless i think it’s the best collective answer you can assume based on ur knowledge which if everyone rated this way it’s closer to the collective opinion of all humans which is more reality based but is still limited to the opinions of ppl they personally have been exposed to
idk if objective truth exists for attractiveness bc we are the ones making someone attractive so it’s all based on opinion which makes it subjective. attractiveness can’t exist beyond our collective opinion
Yes! So glad someone else knows the proper use of subjective and objective. The internet is about to drive me wild with their misuse of these words.
I’m of the opinion there’s no objective answer to this. It seems you would have to poll every single person on Earth, show them Every Other person on Earth, because if one stone (a person), is left unturned, that’s a variable in the test, and then you’d have to do that every year from the beginning of time, so you could account for the changes in Subjective Beauty. And, also, rate every person that will ever exist, against every single person from the past, to know all the data. Then, if there was one person who got the most votes, you could sort of call them Objectively “the most beautiful”, but, knowing humans, there’s gonna be that one person, or likely millions by the scale I’m talking about, who will say, “I don’t like blondes.”……
@@auroraborealis13579 yes i agree and i’m of the opinion it would still just be based on opinion therefore not a “truth” where as something like being the tallest person or strongest person could be measured outside of opinion so that could have an objective truth
@@Cheyscrochetshop yes i feel u can’t be objective about it bc it’s attraction is like rating how nice or mean someone is, it can’t be separated from humans and can’t have an objective answer bc it’s existence is just the opinion of humans. there can however be a tallest or strongest human bc those things can be measured outside of human opinion. therefore the universe “knows” who the tallest man is but wouldn’t have an answer on attractiveness bc it doesn’t exist in true reality. but the universe could know who is the healthiest and maybe who is the most eligible for mating but the best human for mating wouldn’t necessarily be the most attractive bc the answer would be based on things humans can’t quickly and physically perceive. attractiveness is just an how our brains try to figure out who is more suitable for mating based on perceptions we’ve had during evolution not anything “real” with a true measurable answer that exists outside of humans brains. the true objective-ish answer is just the average of all humans ratings.
Yes, there are objective factors, but there's no way to "rate" someone objectively as Brittany found out in the video with Hailey Baylee.
“She’s had work done it doesn’t count” is such an interesting bias. Makeup? Styling hair? Wearing nicer clothes? Oh both his parents were tall, strong and knowledgeable on beauty. Where do we draw the line? Very interesting. I don’t think there is an objective beauty either just because we know babies prefer being around people who are the same race. Even if we raised a baby in isolation, they may be biased to pick someone who looks like them because that’s the only experience of a human they’ve had. But it’s worth researching.
I agree that I think people who are so strict on “natural beauty” is a little bit extreme to me, because everyone puts effort in grooming ourselves, even attractive people. Most people wouldn’t just walk out the house how they woke up in the morning. People do their hair, shower, brush their teeth and etc. That’s not natural either. I believe natural looking should count. I do believe there is objective beauty and I’m not so strict on how people achieve that beauty. Rather that’s naturally genetics or man made
I think grooming and personal upkeep is different the surgical enhancements.
It seems unfair to rate people who don't have the genetics to pass on the traits they're presenting with on the same scale as people who do... but also probably have a few natural "off" features. We're talking about superficial "hottness" as in do you have the drive to reproduce with this person. Not whether or not you find them beautiful, whimsical, or stylish.
To be a 10, you have to be a genetic mutant. You have to be the next step in human evolution.
Sounds awesome, do 10s get superpowers?
Objective lives outside of culture and time but humans don't so I don't think objectivity in this area can ever be a thing.
I think Brittany can handle this so I'll use her as an example. It is so true about finding someone more attractive the more exposure you have to their face. When I first started watching this channel I thought Brittany was for sure a 3/4, I found her facial features really jarring and not nice to look at but now I think she's glowing at like a 5/6! Cute!
What I’ve realized in this discussion is that I personally don’t find any value in finding an objectively true beauty. I just doesn’t do anything for me to know lol I’m not curious enough about it to try to keep seeking that answer.
If you were scouted to be a model then you're an 8-10 conventionally
I would say I’m a 6 too, but there’s definitely a side of me that wants to be rated by Group of people to find out what I actually am generally seen as, just because I’m nosey lol. I think I’m somewhat generally attractive but have some off features. I love that my husband thinks I’m drop dead gorgeous though. He makes my self confidence sky rocket on my bad days.
I can’t see your body, but your face is really pretty!
You’re a 6.9 🎉
your rating is pretty accurate imo, you're definitely a solid 6!!
I won’t rate you cuz I think it’s lowkey barbaric lol but I just wanna say I think you’re above what the comments say!
I'm in the 3-4 range
I'm defenetly not half as attractive as the 10s I'm thinking of, but I'm not repulsive to people.
I wonder what people think of when they rate themselves. Are they thinking about exams so they want to be 'passing' as attractive hence the 7 from most people? Or are they thinking about personality and beauty too?? Maybe rate themselves based on their immidiate group?
I don't get it at all..
Imo I'm 5 on a bad day(bad hair, breaking out, etc..) and 8 on my best days... The state of my hair impacts my attractiveness soo much
Brittany, what you're calling Objectivity sounds to me more like a Subjectivity that you worship, or at least put on a pedestal. Objectivity means there is no judgment, because judgement requires a subject to judge. In your case, the subject is some kind of Universal consciousness. I don't think attractiveness can be Objective because the idea of attraction without reference to a subject seems incoherent. When we say things like "taste" for food or "attraction" for people, we are referring to a psychological process. For anything in the universe to be attractive, there has to be some mind that perceives it, and judges it so. Whether that's me or you or the universe. Imagine a scenario like Planet of The Apes. The human astronaut could return to earth and likely have endless disagreements with the ape people about how to rank people in terms of attractiveness. with the exception of a fetish, I don't think humans are ever sexually attracted to apes, and the same probably goes the other way around. So in comparing humans and apes, they'll give wildly different rankings. But are one of these groups simply further from the objective truth than the other? Does our human hardwiring to be attracted to humans mean we just perceive this aspect of the objective world falsely, so that we are unable to see the ape people might be objectively sexier than us? Not only does this seem unintuitive, but there also just aren't any physical processes in the world that require an objective attractiveness ranking. If it comes to things like, the hotness of the sun (and by hot I mean the vibration of the atoms or whatever), then there are observable physical outcomes that depend on the objectivity of that hotness. It seems more likely that there is no objective attractiveness, and that instead evolution just hardwires us to be attracted to certain things, and not to certain other things. Otherwise, what role does "attractiveness" play in the universe? Otherwise it could just be this entirely inert property that doesn't effect anything, because at the end of the day, there's no reason evolution would orient us towards it, because evolution just needs us to reproduce well. These are not simply traits of the object, but they are traits of the object in relation to the subject. I agree that somebody can be objectively mistaken about an attractiveness scale, in the sense that their sample (bubble) may simply be unrepresentative. So if 10 means Most attractive. 0 means least attractive. and 5 means average. Then even if we accept that attractiveness is necessarily based on subjectivity, someone can just have an inflated understanding of what is average because they haven't seen all the other potentially far more subjectively attractive people out there. But even if you have seen every possible person that could ever exist, while you could make ratings true to your subjective attraction tendencies, there is nothing written in stone in the universe to tell you which of those people is more attractive than another one. You can't appeal to consensus because other people will disagree. Compare two attractive people and say "who is more attractive" you might get a 50-50 response or a 70-30 or whatever. I follow an account on twitter who tweets and blogs about beauty and attractiveness. When they do this kind of comparison, they almost never get anything higher than ~80% consensus. There is no theoretical mathematics you can do like an astrophysicist would to determine whether or not "gravitational waves" exist. All you can really do is feel that someone is attractive. You can have that reference 10 at the top of your scale, but you have to feel to put them there.
This.
Tldr, but your first few sentences are on point.
Objective beauty is beauty that can be sold to the masses for example models or lead roles in movies. Subjective beauty is what we look for in a partner/spouse. In your day to day life you will care more about subjective beauty unless you want to enter a field where objective beauty matters.
i found the golden ratio body while listening to this. just imagine yourself at your absolute peak(your healthiest, fittest and well groomed self) and then improve all of your features to the point where you can't even find an honest judgement for them anymore. when i say improve i mean like changing everything while keeping your template otherwise it wouldn't be you😎just beautifying it and adjusting it like making things bigger or smaller or less weird. you can't do shit like getting taller or shorter, or changing any kind of color tho. ladies you can improve your boobs but you can't make them bigger tho because small boobs matter too😢. (for the people with conditions just imagine you don't.)
extra final step😈 imagine current you but with those features.
anybody would be a ten if they did this, of course you or someone else can think otherwise tho😂
Mmmm…. Nah. There’s no “objective “ attractiveness. There’s “average” attractiveness- what most people consider attractive and it’s related to a lot of things, including personal experiences and genetic preferences. There are principles within aesthetics and beauty including facial harmony, symmetry, proportion and visible health markers. Those traits are more objective but still- Attractiveness cannot be objective, beauty can be.
You’re confusing a lot of different ideas.
Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt were closest to being objectively 10s that my sister and I could think of.
The video immediately delving into studys about self-deception right after the lady at 37:09 is so mean lol. 😭
I think I'd be considered a 4. And I also wish I could see myself from other people's perspectives bc pictures people think are good of me are ones where I think I look awful.
If the scale of attractiveness is socially constructed can it be objective? Attraction is a chemical reaction that happens in your brain and attraction as we know it beyond this biological function is socially construction . Therefore by creating this scale, we are creating something that doesn't exist naturally in the universe beyond being a tool for us as people to navigate what we understand as attraction.
(realistic) my attempt at creating an objective attraction scale:
attraction is an observational phenomenon and we have used science to evaluate what and why people tend to find attractive but these are still studies dependent on people pulled from society so these tests are really biased. However I think its the best tool we have in achieving as close to an objective scale. Creating a scale based on this data would probably look like - collecting the what and why peopple find attractive. putting this information into a database and then labelling people based on how well they fit the criteria.
(for funzies) Objective Objective:
If we had all the people who ever have or will exist in the world and then we collected data to see who everyone found the hottest then we could comprise a list of attraction attributes based on what people found attractive and then we would have an objective list of attractiveness attributes we could compare people to based on the preferences of everyone who ever lived. we could also go an extra step and research why people found certain attributes attractive and that could be fine.
Best answer imo
thank you. Can you tell i think about this a lot 😂
Beauty standards and fashions etc are socially constructed, but on the level of the individual you can’t socially construct beauty. Semantics are ofc important too. Some people will say they’re mostly attracted to confidence.
In that case yes, it’s a relativistic socially constructed mess, and there’s no such thing as beauty in that scenario. We have to start from a position of accepting certain ideas and their definitions before we can discuss this meaningfully.
In the time of chubby fertility goddesses, the most desirable brides were still youthful pubescent girls (I know, problematic, but that's what it was). So while the fertility goddesses were worshipped, I think viewing them as the epitome of beauty for that time isn't necessarily true. Goddesses of love/beauty were still depicted as more thin than their counterparts who stood for fertility and bringing life.
On my scale timothee chalamet is a 10 u know I’m down bad
I keep clashing personality when checking someone out.
I can see a cute dude, till I see their flaws and how they treat others etc. Our weight fluctuates so that's whatever. Until it becomes a health issue. I see myself as an 8. However others wouldn't look my direction because I don't fit their likes.
Super curious what you think about the I + P conflict and if you think the levels play into people’s perspectives about. 🦋
right now im probably like below a 5 but i can probably get to like a really solid 6 if i got everything in order and might even be a seven if im at my absolute peak. i have a big nose and my face is kinda weird so i dont think i can go over seven unless i evolved or some shi tho😂 im like 60 pounds underweight rn from my ideal weight and im tall so im built like a stickman too😂.
Idk where I am on the scale but whatever number correlates to women hating me for it and men thinking I’m just a seggs object. Thats my number lol I grew up wishing I was less attractive so people would take me seriously and respect my intelligence.
Attractiveness is subjective with objective methods of determining it, and the personal relationship between the judge and the judged is definitely also relevant. Sure, there are visually striking people, even to a room full of strangers, but they are rare, and still rely somewhat on a cultural cues and grooming to truly be noticed, past the initial surprise at things like bone structure. If anything, there are only three levels that can truly be determined in the most objective way, universally head-turning beautiful, kind of ugly, and somewhere in the middle. I don't think you can accurately rank people who are in the middle. And especially if they are out of shape. Maybe you can't compare people who haven't reached their full potential with those who have, just like you can't compare those who have altered their appearance with plastic surgery with those who haven't.
I wonder if you could get in with independent studies just to get access to academic journal
The redhead hailey has a small amount of lip filler but most models get work done. Cindy crawford got a brow lift pre fame for example.
I’m curious what would the age of 10 be. And where in the world will they be? And if they die does the next in line be introduced as 10 or are they still a 9? Can there be multiple 10s? And if the 10 ages out of 10 then does it even matter if they were a 10 at all. All 10s would age out of their own rating as we all do. Interesting thoughts.
Whatev confidence anyone any# can make it out alive with in today’s world…..can just keep it🥳 lolz like I rly envy how boldly & blissfully unaware some ppl have the ability to be! No one tellem~i say let them enjoy it.=]]] !!!!!!
Who’s gonna tell all the 8.5s they’re not allowed to pool points tho..
8 is so high!
i just dont know if i agree with saying being attracted to bigger people isnt natural ..it just feels like such a biased and mean thing to say,
So funny… I would rate myself a 6 but I don’t know how people perceive me. I’ve thought about this lately because I separated from my husband and now feel unknown in the world. I knew he found me attractive and didn’t care beyond that but now I don’t know. I think clothes and attitude/ posture play huge rolls in how we are perceived. I have good bone structure.. a so so smile, thick long hair, an decently okay body, but I also in my mid 30s so are we rating within out age range too? Or scored across the board?
Wow. I was surprised how high some of those people rated themselves considering their looks.
the british black guy that rated himself an 8.5 - 9 is actually pretty perfect i def think he was right about his rating
and the girl from tiktok isnt that pretty in my opinion, someone like wolfie cindy is rlly pretty
Yes that red hoodie guy could totally be hot, he has a lot of potential.
5 minutes into the video and already feeling like a -6 😅 I'm fat, short, have short curly hair and wear glasses 😂😂😂
STOPPP! You're user icon is so adorable! Your hair is such a vibe!!!!
@@BrittanySimon 💜 thanks 💜 I got the point of the video as I continued watching, and I adore your tough love
The thing with getting work done is you have to have a lovely canvas to start with. Plastic surgery cant take a 5 to a 9 because of the structure of the face. Even monica bellucci if you look at her in her very early years had smaller lips.
I have to disagree. Plastic surgery can make a SIGNIFICANT difference no matter where the starting point is
You are a true 7…. Not the self professed 7 that you speak of (where people choose 7 for themselves….)
I’m a 6….
Oh this will be fun 🤩 I’d say I’m a basic looking bitch, 4-5 maybe. could maybe achieve a 7 if I tried harder 💃
I would say In my 30-40s I wld rate myself a 6.
In my 50s and now at 59 I wld rate myself an 8 . This is in my own comparison to other women my age but objectively without age factor I wld say 7
And you’re right about body size / shape Britt because I became more physically fit in my late 40s and I feel that made a difference in how I wld rate myself
When you talk about big T objective truth, i think of the things i can only imagine getting answers to when you die and meet god and he tells you the answers to things. That kind of big T truth. I'm an atheist 😂 it's just how I conceptualise that idea of truths we don't currently have access to
1:03:27 --- I had to stop here with you.
Im a strong 4 baby
I think imma 6 too