Symmetrical Beauty

Lestat · #1 05-31-2007, 05:08 PM

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 · #2 05-31-2007, 05:30 PM

[ 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 · #3 05-31-2007, 09:53 PM

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 · #4 05-31-2007, 09:57 PM

[ 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 · #5 05-31-2007, 10:21 PM

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 · #6 05-31-2007, 10:37 PM

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 · #7 05-31-2007, 11:00 PM

[ 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

-Zeno

Lestat · #8 05-31-2007, 11:22 PM

[ 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

-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 · #9 06-01-2007, 12:25 AM

" 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 · #10 06-01-2007, 12:56 AM

[ 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.