Support NeoGAF

[norinrad21]

http://channels.aimtoday.com/men/package.jsp?name=fte/prettyfaces/prettyfaces

Why Men Prefer Pretty Faces

So you think beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Think again. According to new research from the University of Exeter in Great Britain, the preference for pretty faces over ugly ones is embedded in our brains from the moment of birth and possibly prior to birth.

Newborn babies come fully equipped with built-in preferences, including a preference for an attractive face, that help them make sense of their new environment, report the BBC News Online and Newsweek magazine. The Exeter researchers showed more than 100 infants two images that were placed side by side. One was of an attractive face, while the other was a less attractive face. The babies, ranging in age from five hours old to two days old, spent about 80 percent of the time looking at the attractive face, while barely glancing at the unattractive face.

"You can show them pair after pair of faces that are matched for everything other than attractiveness. This leads to the conclusion that babies are born with a very detailed representation of the human face," Dr. Alan Slater, a psychologist at Exeter, explained to the BBC News. Why would infants have this capability? "It helps them to recognize familiar faces--particularly that of the mother--and it helps them in learning about the social world. Attractiveness is not simply in the eye of the beholder, it is in the brain of the newborn infant right from the moment of birth and possibly prior to birth," he added.

When those babies grow up, the preference for pretty faces doesn't change. And it crosses all cultures and geography as well. When an insular European is shown the faces of two Africans, the one he chooses as most attractive is also the same one an African chooses. And it works the other way around when an African is shown the faces of two Europeans.

"Although we think that standards of facial beauty vary over time and culture, they don't actually change that much," Slater explained to Newsweek. The evidence indicates that there is a biological and universal standard."

So don't blame a man when he can't help but look at a pretty face! He's biologically programmed that way.

 

[demon]

Please tell me this study wasn't actually funded.


This just in: Guys Hate Fat Chicks! More on this as details develop...

 

[norinrad21]

I suppose if Beyonce was a guy and JayZ was a girl.........errr nevemind.

wasted money for stupid research that could have gone to some charity for good use

 

[DECK'ARD]

"Why would infants have this capability? "It helps them to recognize familiar faces--particularly that of the mother"

In theory then, babies should ignore butt-ugly mothers!

 

[OmniGamer]

This isn't anything new....saw this on the Discovery channel several years ago

 

[Loki]

http://channels.aimtoday.com/men/package.jsp?name=fte/prettyfaces/prettyfaces

Why Men Prefer Pretty Faces

So you think beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Think again. According to new research from the University of Exeter in Great Britain, the preference for pretty faces over ugly ones is embedded in our brains from the moment of birth and possibly prior to birth.

Newborn babies come fully equipped with built-in preferences, including a preference for an attractive face, that help them make sense of their new environment, report the BBC News Online and Newsweek magazine. The Exeter researchers showed more than 100 infants two images that were placed side by side. One was of an attractive face, while the other was a less attractive face. The babies, ranging in age from five hours old to two days old, spent about 80 percent of the time looking at the attractive face, while barely glancing at the unattractive face.

"You can show them pair after pair of faces that are matched for everything other than attractiveness. This leads to the conclusion that babies are born with a very detailed representation of the human face," Dr. Alan Slater, a psychologist at Exeter, explained to the BBC News. Why would infants have this capability? "It helps them to recognize familiar faces--particularly that of the mother--and it helps them in learning about the social world. Attractiveness is not simply in the eye of the beholder, it is in the brain of the newborn infant right from the moment of birth and possibly prior to birth," he added.

When those babies grow up, the preference for pretty faces doesn't change. And it crosses all cultures and geography as well. When an insular European is shown the faces of two Africans, the one he chooses as most attractive is also the same one an African chooses. And it works the other way around when an African is shown the faces of two Europeans.

"Although we think that standards of facial beauty vary over time and culture, they don't actually change that much," Slater explained to Newsweek. The evidence indicates that there is a biological and universal standard."

So don't blame a man when he can't help but look at a pretty face! He's biologically programmed that way.

Innate knowledge? Shades of Plato's "Meno"; too bad it was pretty thoroughly refuted (imo) by Locke-- among others-- centuries ago.


I'd be more inclined to believe that this has to do with an innate preference for symmetry than anything else (though even THAT is a dubious proposition; I think it'd be at least slightly more defensible on a neuronal level than a preference for "beauty", however, which is sociocultural in nature); "attractive" faces have been consistently shown to possess more symmetry than unattractive ones. So maybe this is just a manifestation of that?

 

[karasu]

This is absurd. The less attractive women that the babies didn't spend much time on are probably some kids mother. I seriously doubt that kid has any trouble looking at his ugly mother. I dont see how an attractive face has ANYTHING to do with "recognizing familiar faces". Why would familiar equate to beautiful? :/

 

[Makura]

This thread is useless without........................

 

[Mike Works]

Please tell me this study wasn't actually funded.

This just in: Guys Hate Fat Chicks! More on this as details develop...

:lol

 

[Hitokage]

Please tell me this study wasn't actually funded.

Considering the billions dumped into marketing every year, the psychology of beauty is an incredibly worthwhile venture even if you aren't interested in it for the science.

Innate knowledge? Shades of Plato's "Meno"; too bad it was pretty thoroughly refuted (imo) by Locke-- among others-- centuries ago.

Sorry, Locke and his tabula rasa is full of shit. Sometimes you need to test your arguments instead of staying in rhetoric, and genetics have shown to be a powerful part in not only the makeup of the brain, but how one thinks. Human nature, sadly, is not as malleable as some would hope.

This is absurd. The less attractive women that the babies didn't spend much time on are probably some kids mother. I seriously doubt that kid has any trouble looking at his ugly mother. I dont see how an attractive face has ANYTHING to do with "recognizing familiar faces". Why would familiar equate to beautiful? :/

</misread article> It was addressing WHY babies would have developed facial recognition in the first place.

 

[karasu]

It was addressing WHY babies would have developed facial recognition in the first place.

To recognize pretty faces over non attractive ones? Where is the "why"? This?

It helps them to recognize familiar faces--particularly that of the mother--and it helps them in learning about the social world.

I don't buy it. Neither "familiar" or "mother" are uniquely related to beauty.

 

[demon]

Sorry, Locke and his tabula rasa is full of shit. Sometimes you need to test your arguments instead of staying in rhetoric, and genetics have shown to be a powerful part in not only the makeup of the brain, but how one thinks. Human nature, sadly, is not as malleable as some would hope.

True. It's interesting how genetically innate some of our mental processes really are.

 

[fart]

i think this study is a misnomer

 

[nitewulf]

next up, why guys would preffer a BMW over a KIA.

 

[demon]

next up, why guys would preffer a BMW over a KIA.

Dude, don't diss the Kia. They're nice accordable little pretend cars.

 

[aoi tsuki]

In a response to a recent study funded by the University of Exeter in Great Britain, men around the world replied simply saying "We just do, okay?"

i agree with them.

 

[nitewulf]

assuming you have a choice of either one. lets say you win a contest or something. the orignal article doesnt mention anything about which is harder to get, just "preference".

 

[Raven.]

To recognize pretty faces over non attractive ones? Where is the "why"? This?

This reminds me of that other study where females were shown to change their facial preferences slightly throughout the menstrual cycle.... from male faces with more masculine features to men with more feminine facial features... if a far stronger version of such innate preference for either masculine or feminine features existed... such a thing would come in handy in influencing sexual preferences...

 

[djtiesto]

FAT CHICKS RULE!!!

 

[Hitokage]

To recognize pretty faces over non attractive ones? Where is the "why"? This?



I don't buy it. Neither "familiar" or "mother" are uniquely related to beauty.

Ok, let me spell out the logical chain for you:

- Babies seem to recognize pretty faces.
- Recognizing a pretty face means knowing how to recognize a face in the first place.
- Why do they recognize faces?
- Because it helps them ID people such as their mother.

 

[karasu]

Ok, let me spell out the logical chain for you

- Babies seem to recognize pretty faces.
- Recognizing a pretty face means knowing how to recognize a face in the first place.
- Why do they recognize faces?
- Because it helps them ID people such as their mother.

Ok captain logic chain mighty master of spelling. You do do realize the article is about preferring pretty faces and not simply recognizing them don't you? I doubt anyone would be surprised that a baby recognizes the face of it's mother. That's been illustrated time and time again by many a study by many cogntive therapists and neurologists. A preference for a pretty face doesn't suggest that you recognize your mother. It suggests that you recognize the shiny gold coin in the middle of the lake, not who or what it is and how it relates to you. Preference infers that you'll take the stunningly symetrical supermodel over your ugly old mom. The article ends with:

So don't blame a man when he can't help but look at a pretty face! He's biologically programmed that way.

 

[Hitokage]

"You can show them pair after pair of faces that are matched for everything other than attractiveness. This leads to the conclusion that babies are born with a very detailed representation of the human face," Dr. Alan Slater, a psychologist at Exeter, explained to the BBC News. Why would infants have this capability? "It helps them to recognize familiar faces--particularly that of the mother--and it helps them in learning about the social world. Attractiveness is not simply in the eye of the beholder, it is in the brain of the newborn infant right from the moment of birth and possibly prior to birth," he added.

Ah, the marvels of reading comprehension.

 

[karasu]

"You can show them pair after pair of faces that are matched for everything other than attractiveness. This leads to the conclusion that babies are born with a very detailed representation of the human face," Dr. Alan Slater, a psychologist at Exeter, explained to the BBC News. Why would infants have this capability? "It helps them to recognize familiar faces--particularly that of the mother--and it helps them in learning about the social world. Attractiveness is not simply in the eye of the beholder, it is in the brain of the newborn infant right from the moment of birth and possibly prior to birth," he added.

Ah, the marvels of reading comprehension.

Oh, and you're right, the word is "prefer". Sorry.

Then you have to ask yourself what "it" is. He goes on to say "Attractiveness". Not simple facial recognition, but a preference for attractiveness. The article points out that:

Newborn babies come fully equipped with built-in preferences, including a preference for an attractive face, that help them make sense of their new environment, report the BBC News Online and Newsweek magazine.

 

[Hitokage]

Actually, I take back the concession on it being "prefer". Being able to tell attractive from unattractive is an act of recognition, if the standard is in any way objective(using symmetry, it is).

 

[karasu]

Yeah, he's saying they recognize a quality. Maybe babies are just more likely to look to the right than they are to the left :lol

 

[Hitokage]

And he's right. A baby can make more sense of whats around it if it already knows if some things are desirable or not.

Yeah, he's saying they recognize a quality. Maybe babies are just more likely to look to the right than they are to the left

If it was a properly conducted experiment then the matchups would be randomized to remove the possibility that the preference is directional.

 

[karasu]

A baby can make more sense of whats around it if it already knows if some things are desirable or not.

Well sure. That's a little tautological don't ya think.

 

[Zaptruder]

I don't think babies are born with innate representations of the human face...

what does seem to happen is that our brain is pre-wired to be predisposed to the complex lines of a human face; and it also exhibits a bias for good flow. But disentangling that from the idea of an innate face is difficult as babies tend to aquire facial recognition almost too quickly for a study.

I guess a pretty face is easier to make sense of faster than an ugly one.

 

[rc213]

FAT CHICKS RULE!!!

More cushion for the pushin!!!

 

[Ned Flanders]

I think I saw the program that Omnigamer was referring to on Discovery or one of those channels. It was about what the characteristics of beauty were and finding mental patterns relating to our conceptions about them.

It basically boiled down to semetrics, wherby people with more semetrical faces rated consistently higher on the beauty scale, and proportion, where people with a certain ratio to their facial features also scored higher. I think they came up with some kind of beauty quotient or something (it correlated to the 'golden mean' somehow if I remember correctly) to ascertain mathematically how someone can be rated for beauty.

Anyway, I think this relates to the findings here in a sense, because I think it could serve to refute the notion of pre-birth conceptions of the face. It just seems more likely that a child would derive their interest in pretty faces from sharing the same mental recognition of semetrics and proportion that adults do, than them having an instinctual concept of what a face is. No one disputes that infants have an affinity for color and patterns, but it's never assumed that they have imbedded mental conceptions of "red" or "circle" simply because they might prefer a bright red ball over a grey block.

Just my hackish 2 cents..

 

[mrklaw]

This is stupid.

If babies are predisposed to recognise 'attractive' faces, then doesn't it follow that those faces are what grown up society will deem 'attractive'?

If babies all suddenly thought the Elephant man was attractive, then Vogue would be running articles on how to get a longer Schnozz.

 

[Hitokage]

This is stupid.

If babies are predisposed to recognise 'attractive' faces, then doesn't it follow that those faces are what grown up society will deem 'attractive'?

If babies all suddenly thought the Elephant man was attractive, then Vogue would be running articles on how to get a longer Schnozz.

Two words: Sexual Selection.

 

[Jim Bowie]

Hey, guys, back massages feel good. I'm still halfway into this theory, anybody want to give me money for continued funding?

BTW, there's an actual market for ugly girl pron. So some guys must prefer ugly faces.

 

[aoi tsuki]

Hey, guys, back massages feel good. I'm still halfway into this theory, anybody want to give me money for continued funding?

BTW, there's an actual market for ugly girl pron. So some guys must prefer ugly faces.

This was about the worst i could find for ugly girl porn:

Girls so ugly they use their faces to make gorilla cookies.


Girls so ugly they're paid to put their clothes on in strip joints.


Girls so ugly they can make an onion cry tears of pain.

Maybe i've just been worn down by local standards, but color me disappointed.

 

[Dilbert]

Actually, the REALLY fascinating topic -- at least to me -- is how aesthetically pleasing things came to have VALUE in an economic sense. Things like artwork and diamonds are extremely expensive...why is that so? Also -- how come many upper-echelon leaders in government and business tend to be attractive?

 

[Loki]

Sorry, Locke and his tabula rasa is full of shit. Sometimes you need to test your arguments instead of staying in rhetoric, and genetics have shown to be a powerful part in not only the makeup of the brain, but how one thinks. Human nature, sadly, is not as malleable as some would hope.

Too bad the study of classical genetics didn't evolve until nearly three centuries after Locke's death-- can't really fault him for that.


My point was not that tabula rasa was totally correct, but only to point out that Plato's conception of innate knowlege, which was diametrically opposed to it, is pretty far out there-- particularly in the degree that Plato took it to, which was concerned with specific, technical knowledge (not merely procedural/perceptual knowledge such as recognition of faces or motor skills). This was an outgrowth of his "real and ideal forms" philosophy; Plato felt, iirc, that people were reincarnated (or was it just that their souls were preexistent somewhere in the ether before being born? Haven't read Plato in 6+ years ), and hence had been exposed to the "ideal forms" of objects, which is why we can always recognize, say, a chair, or a table, despite not being able to explicitly define it, even when the specific chair we're looking at is grossly incongruous with our common conception of what constitutes a "chair". In cognitive psychology, this line of reasoning is given modern expression through the concepts of "necessary features" and "defining features" of objects.


Yes, much of human nature is not as malleable as we had supposed, but genetic determinism likewise doesn't provide the whole picture. As far as I know, most of what is considered "innate" (i.e., genetic or hormonal; the latter ultimately comes back to genetics anyway) by experts falls under "temperament and disposition"-- that is, whether one is quick-tempered, docile, curious and alert, dull, prone to frustration etc. This is what I've read, personally, though Cyan would know more about this stuff than I would. My point was that there is nothing akin to the specific inborn knowledge posited by Plato.


As for why I feel that there would be a greater likelihood of an innate preference for symmetry than for some abstract concept of "beauty" (which is what the article seemed to be theorizing), it's because of feature-based perceptual theory, which is based on a connectionist model of perception, meaning that there is a neuronal network which sends spreading activation to other neurons ("nodes" in the psychological parlance) when they are themselves activated by specific features-- say, a straight or curved line. These features then "build upward" into more complex features, eventually forming a whole image.


Based upon this-- and this is pure conjecture on my part-- symmetry can be viewed as allowing for greater mental economy, in a sense, as fewer distinct nodes must be activated in order to form a coherent whole (image), since some of the features on the right side will be identical to features on the left side, only arranged differently in space (right versus left); this might be a bit quicker in terms of mental processing than activating separate nodes for entirely distinct features, and would lead to a preference for the more easily processed faces/objects. As I said before, it's purely conjecture on my part, but seeing as how the evidence for a preference for symmetry from a young age seems fairly compelling, I figured I'd throw something out there. Because though I've seen a lot of studies noting this preference, I've never read of one that posited any sort of a mechanism for it.

Actually, the REALLY fascinating topic -- at least to me -- is how aesthetically pleasing things came to have VALUE in an economic sense. Things like artwork and diamonds are extremely expensive...why is that so? Also -- how come many upper-echelon leaders in government and business tend to be attractive?

Sounds more like a sociological question than a scientific one. Things like diamonds and stuff can be fairly easily explained-- shiny, sparkling, featuring intricate geometric precision in terms of shape (which can again go back to perceptual theory in terms of why that's appealing), and can be used as an adornment; its scarcity helped to increase its value even further. For things like art etc., it's a bit trickier. Any ideas?


As for the attractiveness of many captains of industry and governmental leaders, I think that-- beyond the preference for attractive people that this entire topic is concerned with-- it goes back to the "alpha male" theory. I recall you mentioning that you thought it was funny how most execs seem to have the fabled "executive hair"; I think this fits squarely with such a mentality-- lustrous hair, evolutionarily-speaking, is seen as being indicative of virility and strength/dominance. Obviously you've made these connections before, because they're pretty obvious if one is well-read (which you are), so I'm curious as to why you threw the question out there-- do you think there's much more to it than that?