Symmetrical Beauty

[Lestat]

Studies have shown that humans find beauty in symmetry. Men or women who's facial features are very symmetrical are more likely to be considered attractive, while those with asymmetreical features will be considered unattractive or ugly.

I notice that most 4 legged animals have very symmetrical facial features. You'd be hard pressed to find what most people would call an ugly cat, for example. And let's not nitpick. While there may be examples of ugly cats and dogs, most people would not describe a typical tiger as being ugly. In fact, if I didn't know they'd rip my head off, I think tigers and lions are "cute" and cuddly enough to where I'd like to approach one, or keep one as a pet.

So why is this? Why would evolution cause us to consider a harmless spider who is of little threat to us as being incredibly ugly, but not an animal such as a tiger or bear that is truly a killer who would view us as prey? In other words, if you didn't know a Bengal tiger was lethal, you might just walk up to one and want to pet it. Whereas, few people would be endeared enough towards a cockroach to want to touch it. Why hasn't evolution instilled instinctive warning systems within us that cause us to be more repulsed by the features of a lion than a spider?

This is just some of the dumb stuff I think about. I have other questions about facial recognition, etc. But I'd like to start with this. Why has nature made most four legged creatures with such symmetrical facial features, which humans find attractive (or at least not repugnant)?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
So why is this? Why would evolution cause us to consider a harmless spider who is of little threat to us as being incredibly ugly, but not an animal such as a tiger or bear that is truly a killer who would view us as prey? In other words, if you didn't know a Bengal tiger was lethal, you might just walk up to one and want to pet it. Whereas, few people would be endeared enough towards a cockroach to want to touch it. Why hasn't evolution instilled instinctive warning systems within us that cause us to be more repulsed by the features of a lion than a spider?

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe actual threats rather than how dangerous the animal is. As humans evolved they were probably never significant prey of animals like tigers but probably were in danger from spider like things.

Maybe its to do with size, it would be very easy not to notice a spider in our pheriperal vision field if there wasn't some major alert process.

Symmetry and beauty is commonly explained by it being a demonstration of gene fitness. These things are somewhat arbitrary (like peacock tails and large breasts) but once selected for become self-fulfilling.

chez

[Woolygimp]

I've done a lot of research on this and the conclusion formed in the OP is wrong. The most attractive people have faces that are slightly asymmetrical, and this is according to the major study done on this which if you really, really need me to i can dig up.

The most attractive people were also people with 'average' features.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I've done a lot of research on this and the conclusion formed in the OP is wrong. The most attractive people have faces that are slightly asymmetrical, and this is according to the major study done on this which if you really, really need me to i can dig up.

The most attractive people were also people with 'average' features.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, my understanding is it isn't symmetry but average-ness that determines beauty. So, take all human noses and find the mean, same for eyes and lips and so on, and if you have a bunch of these, you are bound to be beautiful.

[Lestat]

Woolygimp-

If it's too much work, never mind. But I would like to see the study you're referring to. It's different from something I read a while back, which clearly stated that facial symmetry is a significant factor when people rate other people's attractiveness.

I do very much agree that exaggerated (or prominent) facial features do not add to beauty and may in fact, detract from it. I've always been surpised by how a lot of famous models are considered so beautiful, when I don't see it. Usually, these models will have very prominent cheek bones, etc., that give them an exotic type of beauty. While I wouldn't call them ugly, they're not my type. I like plainer faces, like Brittany Spears over Angelina Jolie. Even though I recognize that Jolie is beautiful.

[Woolygimp]

I said slightly asymmetrical, but overdoing it definitely detracts from attractiveness. The poster above me has it correct, the 'mean' features are the prime factor in how desirable a person is. I'll link the study tonight when I get back, but it's a fairly in-depth read.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Studies have shown that humans find beauty in symmetry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Visual symmetry is the topic here.

You should start another thread that deals with the beauty of mathematics, and its relationship to symmetry, and not just geometrical symmetry, but symmetry of reasoning, of proofs, of the very fiber of some mathematical theory.

Just for a start:
Symmetry in Mathematics from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_in_mathematics)

-Zeno

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Studies have shown that humans find beauty in symmetry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Visual symmetry is the topic here.

You should start another thread that deals with the beauty of mathematics, and its relationship to symmetry, and not just geometrical symmetry, but symmetry of reasoning, of proofs, of the very fiber of some mathematical theory.

Just for a start:
Symmetry in Mathematics from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_in_mathematics)

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, great find on that link. I wish I understood math enough to make sense of it all. So it's not only visual symmetry that humans find pleasing.

If I think of a tree... One with a full and equal number of branches on either side of its trunk will be more visually pleasing than one that has the majority of its branches to one side. Even though I might not call the lopsided tree ugly, the one with equal branches is more visually pleasing to me.

So now that I think about it, nature seems to prefer symmetry as well. I wonder why though?

[David Sklansky]

" Why has nature made most four legged creatures with such symmetrical facial features, which humans find attractive (or at least not repugnant)? "

Surely you didn't mean what you said. The question should be why haven't humans evolved a repugnance to those features.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, if I didn't know they'd rip my head off, I think tigers and lions are "cute" and cuddly enough to where I'd like to approach one, or keep one as a pet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, I think this is pretty context-sensitive. Sure in a zoo a fat-laden black bear looks downright huggable. But if you're on a little hiking trip and suddenly mistake a big stump for that bear, the adrenaline rush you'll get is out of this world.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
" Why has nature made most four legged creatures with such symmetrical facial features, which humans find attractive (or at least not repugnant)? "

Surely you didn't mean what you said. The question should be why haven't humans evolved a repugnance to those features.

Post Extras


[/ QUOTE ]

We have developed a repugnance for the sound a big cat makes. There is probably no more frightening sound imaginable than the roar of a lion coming right behind you. Also, some spiders and snakes are poisonous, our instincts just play it safe and avoid all. Contrasting colors are frightening to us - black on red, white on black, yellow on black, etc. . People in the marketing world understand this concept. This is an evolved feature that poisonous animals have so that they will be noticed by predators. Evolutionary pressure has created a situation where these animals “want” to be noticed so that they are not mistaken for puppy chow.

The above, I can reference if needed. Here I will speculate. Those of us that found the offspring of dangerous animals cute and cuddly were able to domesticate these animals. Animal domestication gave us all sorts of advantages including the fact that these animals, in close proximity to us, helped in the development of lethal germs that allowed us to wipe out huge populations of people that didn’t live in closed in cities and didn’t domesticate animals.

Edit - the bottom line is: evolution works in mysterious ways.

[carlo]

In art,referring to painting especially symmetry is verboten. A great(or even average-mediocre) painter knows that the center of gravity of a painting is always off center. Pure symmetry is "out of balance". Very beginner painters quite often will paint something like a road straight up the center of the canvas with foilage on each side. This gives a horrible effect.

Human beings are not symmetrical. Even the sides of the face has different qualities to the observer. Pure absolute symmetry is unstable.

The inside of the body and placement of the organs(heart,lungs,liver,kidneys,spleen) are definitely not symmetrical. Two arms and two legs definitely not the same.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
" Why has nature made most four legged creatures with such symmetrical facial features, which humans find attractive (or at least not repugnant)? "

Surely you didn't mean what you said. The question should be why haven't humans evolved a repugnance to those features.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow when you ask the right question the answer seems easy.

I think it must be because the same pattern mapper in our brains that makes us see beautiful people also makes us see beautiful tigers, and we couldn't evolve a repugnance to tigers without messing up our human to human beauty detector.

there are many instances of parts of the brain that do "double duty" so to speak so this is not at all unheard of.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
In art,referring to painting especially symmetry is verboten. A great(or even average-mediocre) painter knows that the center of gravity of a painting is always off center. Pure symmetry is "out of balance". Very beginner painters quite often will paint something like a road straight up the center of the canvas with foilage on each side. This gives a horrible effect.

Human beings are not symmetrical. Even the sides of the face has different qualities to the observer. Pure absolute symmetry is unstable.

The inside of the body and placement of the organs(heart,lungs,liver,kidneys,spleen) are definitely not symmetrical. Two arms and two legs definitely not the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

How cool is situs inversus?

[m_the0ry]

More generally, order is beautiful. Symmetry is one form of order.

Symmetry is definitely one of the most fascinating concepts to me as I continue to learn. It is all around us in macroscopic and microscopic forms. It is beautiful to us, and it keeps us grounded in reality. To me Noether's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem) is as beautiful as Mona Lisa.

As far as symmetry in life, I think you have the causality backwards (OP) - an inherently ambiguous trait. I would argue that the beauty rises from complexity - an emergent property of evolutionary life - and that symmetry is most specifically described as an element of order instead of an element of beauty. Of course since these sets overlap, symmetry is beautiful. A semantic argument, possibly, but I think there's some importance in the difference.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, if I didn't know they'd rip my head off, I think tigers and lions are "cute" and cuddly enough to where I'd like to approach one, or keep one as a pet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, I think this is pretty context-sensitive. Sure in a zoo a fat-laden black bear looks downright huggable. But if you're on a little hiking trip and suddenly mistake a big stump for that bear, the adrenaline rush you'll get is out of this world.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but only (or mostly), because you know this due to handed down knowledge to be afraid of bears. Perhaps you've seen the power they possess, and what they are capable of doing to a man. But I don't think we instinctively realize how ferocious they are and even to this day, many grossly underestimate the power of a bear.

Erase all knowledge of bears, and there's nothing inherent to make one panick if they saw one lazily walking in the woods. But even if one erased all knowledge they had about tarantulas, the sight of one crawling on the ground would likely creep them out. Most people would definitely shriek and step back from it. You wouldn't do this with a bear (with no knowledge of bears), perhaps until he showed you an aggresssive posture.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Erase all knowledge of bears, and there's nothing inherent to make one panick if they saw one lazily walking in the woods. But even if one erased all knowledge they had about tarantulas, the sight of one crawling on the ground would likely creep them out. Most people would definitely shriek and step back from it. You wouldn't do this with a bear (with no knowledge of bears), perhaps until he showed you an aggresssive posture.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't know if this is true. i've heard it claimed that the reason we freak out at spiders is because we learn this from our parents and others freaking out at spiders - obviously this doesn't happen much with bears.

So it could be learned rather than instinctual. Anyone know if there has been any studies on this?

chez

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't know if this is true. i've heard it claimed that the reason we freak out at spiders is because we learn this from our parents and others freaking out at spiders - obviously this doesn't happen much with bears.

So it could be learned rather than instinctual. Anyone know if there has been any studies on this?

chez



[/ QUOTE ]

Here is what Wiki says, and I've read before ( see my post below )

[ QUOTE ]
One view, especially held in evolutionary psychology, is that the presence of venomous spiders led to the evolution of an innate fear of spiders or made acquisition of a fear of spiders especially easy



[/ QUOTE ]

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachnophobia)

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
How cool is situs inversus?

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. I had no clue such a thing could happen. That's really cool.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
How cool is situs inversus?

[/ QUOTE ]

Had to look it up.Unreal. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't know if this is true. i've heard it claimed that the reason we freak out at spiders is because we learn this from our parents and others freaking out at spiders - obviously this doesn't happen much with bears.

So it could be learned rather than instinctual. Anyone know if there has been any studies on this?

chez



[/ QUOTE ]

Here is what Wiki says, and I've read before ( see my post below )

[ QUOTE ]
One view, especially held in evolutionary psychology, is that the presence of venomous spiders led to the evolution of an innate fear of spiders or made acquisition of a fear of spiders especially easy



[/ QUOTE ]

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachnophobia)

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, see my post above. Just wondered if anyone had any serious evidence.

I like the pheripheral vision theory. An instinctive reaction proportional to how difficult the danger is to anticipate seems kind neat. Avoiding big cats and bears is easy with a little brain power, but spiders/snakes etc. require jumpiness.

chez

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, see my post above. Just wondered if anyone had any serious evidence.

I like the pheripheral vision theory. An instinctive reaction proportional to how difficult the danger is to anticipate seems kind neat. Avoiding big cats and bears is easy with a little brain power, but spiders/snakes etc. require jumpiness.

chez


[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like this quote must come from a study, all though they don't referencet the specific study, but it does support your view Chez.


[ QUOTE ]
The alternative view is that the dangers, such as from spiders, are overrated and not sufficient to influence evolution. Instead, inheriting phobias would have restrictive and debilitating effects upon survival, rather than being an aid. For example, there are no deadly spiders native to central and northern Europe that could exert an evolutionary pressure, yet that is where the strongest fear for spiders began, suggesting cultural learning. In contrast, many non-European cultures generally do not fear spiders, and for some communities such as in Papua New Guinea and South America, spiders are included in traditional foods.



[/ QUOTE ]

link (http://www.answers.com/topic/arachnophobia)

edit - oh woops, I missed this. Here are the referenced studies

Stiemerling D. Analysis of a spider and monster phobia, Z. Psychosom Med Psychoanal. 1973 Oct-Dec;19(4):327-45. (in German)
National Geographic: Fear of Spiders rooted in Evolution

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How cool is situs inversus?

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. I had no clue such a thing could happen. That's really cool.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, our anatomy prof thought it was hilarious to tell us that not only do we have to know all the anatomy, but we need to be able to flip it and know all the mirrored relationships! Then we find out its only in like 1 out of 10,000 people or something like that.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
So now that I think about it, nature seems to prefer symmetry as well. I wonder why though?

[/ QUOTE ]

because asymmetrical animals walk in circles, and asymmetrical trees fall over. there are obvious benefits to symmetry, and it's expensive to maintain. so it shouldn't be surprising that it would be prized in a mate.

i don't understand the reasoning in the OP. people are attracted to symmetrical faces. therefore, they are supposed to be attracted to symmetrical spiders?

that same reasoning predicts that we should be attracted to a person with a third eye in the center of his forehead.

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
More generally, order is beautiful. Symmetry is one form of order.

Symmetry is definitely one of the most fascinating concepts to me as I continue to learn. It is all around us in macroscopic and microscopic forms. It is beautiful to us, and it keeps us grounded in reality. To me Noether's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem) is as beautiful as Mona Lisa.

As far as symmetry in life, I think you have the causality backwards (OP) - an inherently ambiguous trait. I would argue that the beauty rises from complexity - an emergent property of evolutionary life - and that symmetry is most specifically described as an element of order instead of an element of beauty. Of course since these sets overlap, symmetry is beautiful. A semantic argument, possibly, but I think there's some importance in the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

We must be on the same wavelength here. First thing I thought when looking at the title of this post was Noether's theorem (could be a result of 10 hour study days for my particle physics final two days from now tho, lol)

[Phil153]

Stresses on the body, skin etc, (both internal and external) are not symmetrical. As another poster said, symmetry is expensive. Those who can do it offer biological proof that they can maintain homeostasis and functional systems in the face of adversity. It would make sense that we are attuned to this in mate selection.

That said, that may have nothing to do with beauty. Symmetry may be something like harmonic notes in music - it somehow resonates in our brain and causes feelings of pleasure. This may just be a side effect of the way our brains are structured or the way our visual system processes information.