Sunday, 19 August 2012

Pretty Beautiful

I want to explain my interpretation of the difference between the terms pretty and beautiful in relation to humans. I should start out by saying that both are pleasing but simply put beauty is strong and pretty is gentle.

Beauty is a demonstration of better or stronger bilateral symmetry which is why it often does not mater what the features are as much as how symmetrical they are.

Prettiness is our inbuilt "ahhh so-cute" function that causes us to protect and rear our young, (though why that extends to finding young sheep cute is a little confusing... Oh dear that it going to lead to all sorts of jokes that are needless and distracting. Stop it. Stop it now!)

When applied to looks, (phenotype) pretty is child-like and beauty is clearly adult.

Nina Dobrev in season one of The Vampire Diaries, (just an example that google images threw up when I searched for "pretty" - stay focused!) is pretty;
As is Zooey Deschanel, Audrey Hepburn, Bella Tokaeva, (2009), Winona Ryder and even Aishwarya Rai.

Uma ThurmanRie Rasmussen  Angelina Jolie, Katherine Hepburn, Milla Jovovich, (and as she gets older, Megan Fox ) are beautiful.

[As you can see these people but can't smell them, the MHC gene and pheromones isn't a factor here.] Ratios, proportions define the proportions of the face, (I've selected images at differnt zoom levels to demonstraight that, (though now that I review this post, I've picked closer zooms for the pretty image than the beautiful.)]

So if we draw a line with pretty at one end and beauty at the other it should be possible, with a little face-recognition software, to sort the whole of IMDB into some sort of order. Now this is where it gets complicated. Notice that I made a mention about Megan Fox and included Audrey Hepburn, who is dead - we have to decide, at which age we select in individual. (The scary thing is that we could, given accurate time-stamps inside of the images graph attractiveness of each individual over time and then find out the average peak - I conjecture that this would not be beneficial to anyone's self-esteem. )

Beauty should not fade, (accidental or elective damage aside) but prettiness will drain away as the elastin in the skin deteriorates, (another good reason not to smoke.)

If we pick some other random third item, (e.g. averageness - how close they are to the average of all the other faces) we can move from a line to a triangle.

Once we break out of one dimension we can group them by eye colour, hair colour, height, BMI, wealth, I.Q. column inches (or any of the other dehumanising pigeon-holing that people use to understand each other and themselves, "Not my type" and "I'm a [leg,breast,bum] man myself." as examples.)

Can we find a correlation between one of these extremes and, for example, eye colour?

So other than setting a goal what is my point(s)?

1. Grace and Kindness are both far more important, (in my truth) and are much harder to measure.

2. Once this is automated it can be sold to Amazon as a feature for IMDB and all of those, "Top 100 attractive people" lists there and in magazines can stop once we have a mathematically set list.

I have not found any definitive research that explains homosexual attraction, though I hypothesis that

a. XY-XY and XX-XX attraction are probably not related other than both being two minorities, (good work hetro-biast majority.)
b. The composition of the human body and brain is really complicated, (have you tried to build one on your own?) It seems that in a deconstructive method of understanding, each part of the brain exists at some point in a continuum rather than one fixed polarity. This would make sense as it would offer greater adaptability to the individual, and adaptability is, in my opinion, more important than evolution as an explanation for why humanity has destroyed conquered the planet again.

(Yes, my hypothesis writing needs some work, but I'm sure someone can create some solid tests from my wishy-washy hypothesis.)

About this blog

Sort of a test blog... until it isn't