[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, believing genetics alone is responsible for beauty bias is insane. Believing culture alone is responsible is also insane.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone has claimed that culture doesn't play some small difference. Obviously different cultures find slightly different things more or less beautiful. OP asked which was "more" responsible. To me it's pretty clear that culture's role is pretty insignificant and anyone thinking it is critical is just taking biology's role for granted.

I just see cultural differences as variance, based on whatever preferences humans have the hardwired predisposition to embrace.

Thinking "culture" is critical strikes me as some sort of perception bias. When you're in 4th grade, you know who the cool kids are, the bullies, the nerds, etc. All the kids are so different to you and it's obvious. Cause that's the spectrum you're exposed to. That's your world. But when you look at them as an adult, they're just kids, and remarkably similar. It's not as natural to notice what makes each kid tick or who is likely to be friends with whom. But it doesn't change the fact that these small differences were ones we once interpreted as huge deals.

It seems we will always interpret differences between whatever we're exposed to as important deals. Like I said in another post, that seems like a prerequisite in order to have a will to live. But it doesn't change the fact that billions of years of trial and error have molded the way we're wired. I know I couldn't be turned on by a rock no matter where I lived.

Incidentally, I think beauty and attraction (and in general, interpreting various smells and sights as pleasant) is an obvious sign that we still have room to improve as a species. That sort of primitive sense seems like an inefficient substitute for merely having the capacity to consciously assess the situation for what it is.