preferences?

[bokehgirl91]

why do you think people are not attracted to African American females as much compared to others? is it really the skin color or the attitude the media displays of them?

just had a burning questions(please don't hold back) I'm really curious to know people's thoughts on this and also apparently bored lol

 

[Yellow]

Are you talking about this kind of stuff?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/13/doll.study/

Most psychological studies are conducted in the US, and the majority of the rest in predominantly "Western" countries. The generally congruent cultural biases can skew the results in these kinds of studies.

 

[onesteptwostep]

These things are hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFbvBJULVnc

It also depends on what cultural groupings of blacks you're talking about. African Americans in California are much different than the ones down, let's say, the ones in the South.

 

[bokehgirl91]

I wasn't talking about anything specific necessarily... was just interested in knowing people's personal thoughts. That was a interesting video though

 

[bokehgirl91]

It also depends on what cultural groupings of blacks you're talking about. African Americans in California are much different than the ones down, let's say, the ones in the South.

how so? in the video I almost thought it was a joke but sadly it was real.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Why does it make you sad?

The girl just has different definition of what stealing is. That's where the confusion comes from. (looks like a mod deleted the video o

The cultural groupings matter because down in the South (and to a certain extent up in the North (Great Lakes), ethnicities are divided by socio-economic factors, whereas in California, the socio-economic hierarchy is dependent on education. Public education in California is incredibly diverse ethnicity-wise, whereas on the east coast there are schools that are predominately, ethnically divided.

 

[TheAdditional1]

Well this is interesting. I'll just say I appreciate this conversation. I'm going to do away with all delicacy or subjectivity for the sake of this convo - depicting how things are generally perceived in the US and my thoughts on that, but not necessarily reflecting my own opinions unless I say so:

It's a combination of a lot of things, but first and foremost, Western society has simply favored the white girl, and the various gradients away from them. Think: The long soft hair (gradient being white girl hair, hispanic girl hair similar to WGH, and heavy Asian/Indian hair...then black girl hair). The culture has almost universally combined to value that straight-down hair. Plus it does feel nice.

"Softer" features as well. It's hard to describe, but white girl features are just a less intense. Either naturally or by Westernization, this has been associated with feminism. Kind of conflicted because I don't know if that's a natural thing or if I'm a victim of western media myself.



Behaviors: Black girls are typically a little more aggressive but that's also a US cultural phenomenon. They have to be. Black girls from low-income areas cope with their hardships, their neighborhoods, and their cultural surroundings with attitudes; black girls who are "white-ish" on the inside tend to be "softer"; from a self-aware male perspective, "white-ish" girls will, to a guy, seem to react with submission, hurt, or with a submissive, almost cute girly anger. On the other hand black girls get MAD and get ATTITUDE. But more subjectively, one can choose to interpret this as either "nasty attitude" or "being fierce and fiesty". A lot of western world has been groomed to see it as the former. And it does fluctuate by individual girl. But there's just the difference between feisty girls, aggressive girls (e.g. the ones down to scrap and handle business like a G instead of being more catty about it...kind of masculine and gross).


Dialect will also change perspective...the "ratchet" accents are just irritating as hell to listen to, and worse when they're angry. But one weird thing, which is a phenomenon that has a HUGE affect on the perception of black girls: People tend to group black girls and black people all together, while white people have the benefit of being isolated. What do I mean? Take one ratchet black girl, have her make a scene; most people who see her are now going to make that judgement of most black girls; it's seen as "black girl behavior". Now take a ratchet white girl and have her do the same thing; she'll probably be isolated as trailer trash and not like the rest of them. So there's a very deeply permeating perception of negativity that black girls (and black people) have to deal with. It's almost subconscious. Black people pretty much grow up feeling judged for every stupid thing that any black person out there does. So thank you onesteptwostep for pointing out the difference, but subliminally people really group black people all together. Another subconscious L for African American girls (as the original question posed it).



There's an ongoing cultural change though, and black girls are slowly becoming more "desired". If you look at the whole historical picture, you can still see the gradient permeating - the whole "dark skin light skin" comparisons, and the almost universal attraction to "mixed girls". I'm not really saying anything intrinsic here, but just calling for everyone to note that gradient I that I first mentioned is still there. So consider that phenomenon.




At the end of the day it's sad that black girls are so poorly received. Sure there are a LOT of bad apples out there. But there are bad apples EVERYWHERE, but most races don't carry the burden of being singularly judged by the actions of the worst in their group. I grew up in one state, where there was a pretty high ratchet population. Most of my friends - a lot of blacks, plenty of mixed - would bad mouth black girls all the time. Wasn't very many "baddies" around, but it was still messed up that they would disrespect the same girls who could have been their mother. I moved to a different state for college (yup - California, the Oasis of Women) and it's a very different environment.



But yeah, all that was really half ranting...again, while I posted a few personal opinions, most of those perspectives were just observations I've had on the general population and their perspectives. And this all comes down to a number of factors - US history, Western perspective, the strange phenomenon of even the best of black girls being judged by the actions of the highly-visible worst, etc. I personally try to respect black girls as much as I can when they deserve it (not every girl of any race does), and I continue to do what I can to advocate for their struggle in this world.



+1's unedited rant over.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

Is this a thing? That people generally find black girls unattractive? I've not noticed this as a trend, but then again, I live in California which has been pointed to as having a different sort of vibe.

 

[onesteptwostep]

@Additional1

Yeah that ratchet part is good to bring up. The 'change' you're talking about is happening in music though, like for example, with Azealia Banks.

The problem with the whole race issue is that pop culture fails to bring out the diversity within the black population themselves. Blacks have largely one avenue in which they could express themselves, which was usually something like rap or hip hop. It used to be jazz a while ago, but jazz couldn't contain the angst blacks were up against.

Another problem is the religious congregations, which are often divided by ethnicities- of which I personally think is the root of the issue.

On whites, it's hard to say whether they were desirable in the beginning from the first place. "Whites" in the US are a combination of ethnicities; Dutch, Italian, German, Irish and so on. In a lot of the communities there's an order- a social hierarchy, because a lot of the culture is the same within these ethnic groups. What white people 'erk' at is the lack of social order; of etiquette and mannerism. African Americans have their own language when it comes to their own social order.

But all in all, it doesn't really matter in the more urbanized places, like Austin, NYC, Miami and LA.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I can only speak about my personal preferences, since I've never looked for any data on the subject. I personally find black women less attractive than women of other races, but I also think I know why. Firstly, their features tend to be more musculature and "masculine" than the features of other women. Also, I come from a predominantly black city, and I never got to know any black woman there who I could get along with intellectually and emotionally. I don't think it's a set rule, then, I think it's merely a tendency at best, informed by "black culture".

Now, that doesn't mean I'm utterly unattracted to black women, I'm simply more attracted to other women. I have not purposefully avoided dating them, it simply hasn't ever happened.

 

[bokehgirl91]

Why does it make you sad?

because going off her parents response I'm just going to assume since they were surprised at her answer that they didn't concisously put those things in her head so that thinking had to come from media.

makes me think that the media influence is so strong that, if they put a blue person always in from of the screen as the idea of beauty for decades upon decades people would probably believe it either consciously or subconsciously.

I've just learned in the last recent years of my life that sometimes I would have biased thinking on a whole range of things. Mainly beauty if it's not skin color then it's particular features or something subtly telling your mind. Even with TV it puts in your head you have to be in a relationship to be happy. I'm talking even shows like Disney this stuff is ingrained in your head.

 

[Pizzabeak]

why do you think people are not attracted to African American females as much compared to others?

Illuminati?

is it really the skin color or the attitude the media Illuminati displays of them?

just had a burning questions(please don't hold back) I'm really curious to know people's thoughts on this and also apparently bored lol

In other words yes, somewhere along the line it became fashionable to have whites as the main representative of Earth. Justifiably - yay, nay?
I mainly only say this because it's obvious someone owns the "large corporations" and can apparently have a say in marketing, if you catch my drift.

As soon as the caucasians took over they implemented mass protocols to keep them in power - sensibly? They, initially, had no control over any of it. It was mostly animal instinct. But now, even without realizing it(historically, sometimes), most of what they do has been to prolong this ideal and stay with it as long as possible. In the media you will occasionally see spikes; for a few years middle easterners become popular and you'll see an interest/demand for them on the telly (Aziz Ansari; etc). Typically, the same goes for blacks and they are summoned as needed.

Interestingly enough, an expert in biology or other relevant fields may need to be consulted. In actuality, to other humans (and maybe other animals), how attractive are the various features. Certain category of white are known for mainly have sharper, lean features with people of color generally being portrayed as having larger or rounder features. The rounder ones are usually regarded as being more 'feminine' and that goes for females of any persuasion with those round features. People claim envy is involved. As long as it isn't too extreme people generally wouldn't mind having a piece of it. If you're going to go that far may as well get the deluxe in some form, lest ye be ridiculed (by no one?) and sent back to the mart.

Albeit, females with sharper features are still capable of being lady like. By that it is generally assumed pointier nose or firmer lips. Like I said, there's probably a "golden ratio" regarding the ideal and the fact that USA population is steadily mixing and becoming brown isn't helping.

The question is, is "pale" personage actually attractive in some way? Sure? Or has the world mostly been under the impression that someone has been tampering with our senses and making it seem like that's what should be sought after, psychologically? Every now and then you'll see an interracial couple walking by (male-female vice versa sex) and I suppose one wonders whether they'll end up staying together forever or not.

 

[Grayman]

Black woman attitude is an issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8CBYEKKng

The woman in this video is very attractive but more importantly she is attractive as a person.

Black woman attitude:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_GXakzuojM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFtot6he7No

Not sure I agree fully with all of the opnions on these videos but it does add some perspective.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Here is definitive answer to all the questions and confusions in this thread:

There are only 3 races. White, Black, and Asian (aka Mongoloid). Everything else is a combination of two or more in some racial admixture ratio.

Blacks reach puberty earlier.

Have higher testosterone levels.

Have lower Intelligence Quotients. Average IQ of source blacks (Subsaharan Africans) is 70. In civilized nations, mental retardation is anything below 80.

Have many significant genetic differences which predispose them to more physical violence, mental impulsivity (e.g. the MAO-A gene). I.e. attitude problems.

...not saying these differences are good or bad. Just realities created by nature or God or whatever it is in between the two which created the differences between the races.

But here is the truth: there are also anatomical differences in terms of bone structure which affects bodily conformation, i.e. proportioning of limbs and facial features. Any medical doctor skilled in physical anthropology and forensic research can determine the race of a given skeleton based on just a few bones. E.g. a single femur bone is enough to determine the race of an entire skeleton. Dentists can determine the race of a given patient based on differences in features of each tooth and the mouth in general.

Skull conformation (i.e. 'shape') is no different.

In terms of attractiveness, there are simple mathematical ratios which appeal broadly to the highest number of people. The ratios have been researched aggressively over and over and over again over the millenia. Here is a recent study with the result:

"The 18-year-old student is blessed with what is described as the perfect face. It matches an international blueprint for the optimum ratio between eyes, mouth, forehead and chin, endowing her with flawless proportions..."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2132896/Florence-Colgate-Girl-Britains-beautiful-face.html

White people on average have these particular mathematical ratios in their skull conformations, facial features and body proportionings more often (i.e. their phenotype as a reflection of their genotype puts the ideal mathematical ratios for beauty on display) than the other races.

White skin also promotes the concept of beauty, health, intelligence, spirituality etc (darkness is at a minimum subconsciously associated with evil, ignorance, ill health etc).

White skin is not the primary determinate of beauty as proportioning is though. Here is evidence. These are Africans with typically black skull and facial feature proportioning who also happen to possess a genetic mutation which gives them a phenotype of 'white' skin. Not saying they are 'ugly' personally, but because the proportioning is not even close to approaching the ideal mathematical ratios, itll be a hard sell to most people that they are physically attractive relative to the average white:

Math is math. DNA is DNA. Reality is reality. Emotion, bias, and wanting things to be different (wishful thinking poised as 'egalitarianism') has nothing to do with these facts. In my experience the mass media does EVERYTHING it possibly can to convince people that that which is ugly is attractive and vice versa these days, generally speaking. These truths I've mentioned herein make the mass media very nervous. The truth runs counter to their agenda to keep the people confused about simple realities. By keeping people confused (of all races) they maintain their control. This is the reason, for example, accounting principles are not required study in public schooling.

 

[Brontosaurie]

those are not typical black facial features by any stretch.

if you're right, what's the need for lies?

your thinly veiled "not judging" does little to hide the fact that you're selectively highlighting universally desirable traits in the white race. come on.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Bronto would be please be specific and cite references if you disagree?

 

[Brontosaurie]

you're just gonna keep pretending those are typical black facial proportions, and that you weren't simply listing superior traits in the white race?

i don't understand what kind of reference would be called for. i was doing you a service. like pointing out your untied shoelaces. would you ask me for sources then?

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

the Bronto drama saurus.

Such assumptions and unreferenced statements are not becoming of posts in an INTP forum

 

[Brontosaurie]

yeah i just assumed your post consists entirely of claims about how the white race is allegedly superior. it's not like i read it in that same very post of yours conveniently available two scrolls up. shall i give you a link? do you want me to find out the manufacturer, distributor and retailer of your shoelaces?

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

whatevs

 

[Brontosaurie]

you could have mentioned waist-hip-ratio and dat ass.

 

[Black Rose]

those are not typical black facial features by any stretch.

@Brontosaurie

Maybe you could post a picture of an albino african who does have typical african features.

 

[Grayman]

@Gregory

The 'mathematical ratios' simply define an existing bias but do nothing to define where bias comes from.

 

[Brontosaurie]

@Brontosaurie

Maybe you could post a picture of an albino african who does have typical african features.

nah.

1. most africans don't suffer from strabismus or prominent asymmetries

2. you could easily find those eye-nose-whatever proportions in african women too. the beauty measurement referenced in DrGregoryHouses post has little correlation with race. africans have bigger flatter wider noses, thicker lips and a more forward-pointing skull. they don't have very different frontal linear proportions.

3. albinos aren't relevant

 

[Black Rose]

3. albinos aren't relevant

Being relevant means you quote people to better make you points.
Its really tempting to derail but derails start from both parties talking past each other.
Thanks for quoting me.

P.S. if face features have beauty based on symmetry what besides symmetry contributes to beauty. What determines a person's preference for certain ratios?

 

[onesteptwostep]

@Gregory

There are no such thing as race. Race is just a macro categorization of differing cultural groups. If you put together a group of people and let them live together for centuries, of course they're going to start to look the same, act the same, and think the same.

Asians in America look and act significantly different from their counterparts back home. Changes happen within two or even one generation. Same with African Americans, and it goes for White/European Americans too (and Latinos/Hispanics). The food they eat, the climate that they're in, the cultural values and norms they hold- these all account for the physical make-up of the peoples.

Hopefully what you've posted wasn't serious, because if you were being serious about it, that's how eugenics came about. Aryan supremacy and so on.

 

[Rook]

Holy fuck.


Are races(I prefer to class humans in cultures, but meh) different?
Yes.
The way gregor describes it?
Not in all it's extremity.

I lived in africa for twenty years, and though there are average anatomical differences
(people in these warmer zones tend to have wider nostrils and lips and lessened hair growth, this trend is also noted in indonesia)

Some 'blacks' have facial structures identical to the caucasian standard, and vice versa.

I'm not even going to source this, you are wrong.
You need to travel around more mate.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

@Gregory

There are no such thing as race. Race is just a macro categorization of differing cultural groups. If you put together a group of people and let them live together for centuries, of course they're going to start to look the same, act the same, and think the same.

Asians in America look and act significantly different from their counterparts back home. Changes happen within two or even one generation. Same with African Americans, and it goes for White/European Americans too (and Latinos/Hispanics). The food they eat, the climate that they're in, the cultural values and norms they hold- these all account for the physical make-up of the peoples.

Hopefully what you've posted wasn't serious, because if you were being serious about it, that's how eugenics came about. Aryan supremacy and so on.

If I understand your position here you are basically trying to say race is not real and is purely a social construct.

If one is going to argue that the sun doesn't shine in its face at noon...well, then there is nothing that can be said to try to maintain reason and self evident truth in the conversation.

To argue against the reality of race is to argue against the existence of DNA.



Rook I would ask you to keep in mind that exceptions aside, generalities underlie major principles. Pointing out that there are exceptions to every rule does not negate the rule. In fact, it merely reinforces its existence.

 

[onesteptwostep]

If you're going to take a still snapshot of humanity now, it might be reasonable to say that race exists. However, considering that we live in a world where time flows forward, it's better to assume that race is malleable and that it's more of a generalized categorization. How do you account for biracial children? People who've lived in cultures that are not of their own?

You seem to not realize that in the past century there's been a huge diaspora of peoples. This number is growing, and will continue to grow, to the point where racial distinction cannot account for a certain type of beauty or intelligence.

 

[Rook]

Rook I would ask you to keep in mind that exceptions aside, generalities underlie major principles. Pointing out that there are exceptions to every rule does not negate the rule. In fact, it merely reinforces its existence.

Strawman cherry pickers.

I have no need to argumentate further, you are free to continue yer useless religious folly.

♥ COFFEE TIME ♥

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

If you're going to take a still snapshot of humanity now, it might be reasonable to say that race exists. However, considering that we live in a world where time flows forward, it's better to assume that race is malleable and that it's more of a generalized categorization. How do you account for biracial children? People who've lived in cultures that are not of their own?

You seem to not realize that in the past century there's been a huge diaspora of peoples. This number is growing, and will continue to grow, to the point where racial distinction cannot account for a certain type of beauty or intelligence.

1.618 equals 1.618 now.

1.618 will still equal 1.618 100 trillion years from now.

That which is aesthetically ugly/ beautiful now will be aesthetically ugly/ beautiful 100 trillion years from now.

Light, intelligence, beauty, truth vs. darkness, ignorance, ugliness, and lies will remain immutable as well.

I suggest you study harmonies present in mathematics and music. Might expand your mind beyond the here and now...beyond even a few generations from now.

Here is a taste of the infinite truths which transcend all time and space:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS67HA4YMCs

 

[onesteptwostep]

I believe you've completely missed the point I was making. Race is not static.

Going by your logic, if race is static, then it would be impossible for African ethnicities to marry European ethnicities.

Oh wait, Obama is half white, half black.. the heck..

That which is aesthetically ugly/ beautiful now will be aesthetically ugly/ beautiful 100 trillion years from now.

Light, intelligence, beauty, truth vs. darkness, ignorance, ugliness, and lies will remain immutable as well.

I do hope you're just trolling here. I'm being serious on this subject.

 

[Grayman]

Onestep

Races do fit the classification of various subspecies. This isn't that variable.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subspecies

Please review (a)


People only deny that there is a such a separation because of the obvious abuse this line of thinking would enable. It would enable a whole new level of segregation similar to natzism and their supreme race.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

I believe you've completely missed the point I was making. Race is not static.

Going by your logic, if race is static, then it would be impossible for African ethnicities to marry European ethnicities.

Oh wait, Obama is half white, half black.. the heck..

I do hope you're just trolling here. I'm being serious on this subject.

Yes I agree, with you on your main point. But I don't know that you are applying the truth you are pointing out far enough. And how is it that my logic makes any provision for Blacks to not be capable of race mixing with whites? Or asians with whites or any of the possible combinations of black-white-asian?

I agree, there is no stasis. All physical beings are in a constant state of either evolution or devolution (eugenic vs. dysgenic development). There are several genetic mechanisms by which this process occurs. Most mechanisms require millions even billions of years to take effect one direction or the other (eugenic vs. dysgenic).

Racial mixing of various subspecies via copulation and reproduction is one particular mechanism. This particular mechanism either sets the one particular subspecies back thousands if not millions of generations in 1 single generation and at the same time by default sets the other one particular subspecies forward thousands is not millions of generations in 1 single generation.

Which is perhaps the single biggest reason why certain races prefer to mix with certain other races. Subconscious or not.

It will always be this way. Light and intelligence and truth and beauty is always preferable to the opposite.

The intentions of the social sciences to do away with race and promote the absurd silly ideas of equality is as absurd and silly as changing the fundamental characteristics of matter and the laws of thermodynamics themselves. Even if...even if (and they won't!) they succeed in diluting all races down to a single raceless species of homo sapien in a thousand years time: the laws of nature will eventually promote evolution towards new racial distinctions in the infinite future.

~The Ideal is Eternal, Self Evident, and Immutable. The pursuit of the Ideal is the purpose of all Life. As long as there is Life...~

 

[onesteptwostep]

@Grayman
I'm not denying that categorizes exist.

I'm just surprised that Gregory is involving race with intelligence and beauty. That's the root of racism, though I wouldn't say Gregory himself is one.

 

[Grayman]

It will always be this way. Light and intelligence and truth and beauty is always preferable to the opposite.

Your science makes sense but your additions like this are meaningless. You state it as if these things are an objective standard evolution 'will' seek out. Intelligence is not always a benefit to survival. Larger brains consume more energy and therefore are less useful in an environment that cannot sustain it. Beauty is linked more with procreation than it is facial structure and wtf is light?

 

[onesteptwostep]

Yes I agree, with you on your main point. But I don't know that you are applying the truth you are pointing out far enough. And how is it that my logic makes any provision for Blacks to not be capable of race mixing with whites? Or asians with whites or any of the possible combinations of black-white-asian?

I agree, there is no stasis. All physical beings are in a constant state of either evolution or devolution (eugenic vs. dysgenic development). There are several genetic mechanisms by which this process occurs. Most mechanisms require millions even billions of years to take effect one direction or the other (eugenic vs. dysgenic).

Racial mixing of various subspecies via copulation and reproduction is one particular mechanism. This particular mechanism either sets the one particular subspecies back thousands if not millions of generations in 1 single generation and at the same time by default sets the other one particular subspecies forward thousands is not millions of generations in 1 single generation.

This is where I disagree. Asian Americans have shown that humans change within one or two generations. post #26

For the better, I mean.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

...People only deny that there is a such a separation because of the obvious abuse this line of thinking would enable. It would enable a whole new level of segregation similar to natzism and their supreme race.

I've personally found the association between Hitler and eugenics necessarily being evil as ridiculous as the following thought process (for one example):

Hitler used the toilet standing up. Therefore standing up is bad. Therefore every human being that henceforth ever lives should avoid standing up.

or

Hitler used toilets and indoor plumbing. Therefore toilets and indoor plumbing is bad. In fact, the principles of engineering which make toilets and indoor plumbing possible are bad. Therefore all such principles must be evil. henceforth every human being that henceforth ever lives must avoid understanding and applying the principles.

Absurd and silly. This is the 'logic' of retards and degenerates.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

This is where I disagree. Asian Americans have shown that humans change within one or two generations. post #26

For the better, I mean.

Ahhh, so you'd admit there is such as thing as worse vs better at the very least? Perhaps then a conversation isn't entirely pointless.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Ahhh, so you'd admit there is such as thing as worse vs better at the very least? Perhaps then a conversation isn't entirely pointless.

It depends on what you're talking about when you say 'what's better' or 'what's worse'.

If you're going to label superior 'traits' based on race, I'd personally say that that's when someone's crossed the line. Even if you generalize. And even if you do generalize, there are no statistical proofs to back up the points you're making. Which means you're just playing stereotypes.

Either way, I sort of have a feeling you're advocating for racial superiority.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Personally, skin color itself doesn't really affect me, nor do media portrayals or age, gender, or honestly, sex. What does factor in are symmetry, communication/empathy/intelligence, and mutual acceptance. Having said that, I don't find the majority of black people attractive, mainly because I don't find most people attractive period. Of course, most people aren't like this, but I'm not sure I understand their perspectives on all this. I think there's also a lot of overlap with S.E.S./poverty culture, especially in the U.S.

Otherwise, dafuq is going on with House citing phrenology and a bunch of stuff only tangentially related to attractiveness at best?

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

It depends on what you're talking about when you say 'what's better' or 'what's worse'.

If you're going to label superior 'traits' based on race, I'd personally say that that's when someone's crossed the line. Even if you generalize. And even if you do generalize, there are no statistical proofs to back up the points you're making. Which means you're just playing stereotypes.

Either way, I sort of have a feeling you're advocating for racial superiority.

Isn't that the purview of Es and Ss and Fs and Js?

I have certainly and specifically been avoiding being an advocate for either side of any given opposites.

I'm not advocating for the superiority or inferiority of anything. The assignment of value in terms of what is preferable is up to the determinants of the universe not me or anyone else.

Merely pointing out that intelligence versus stupidity/ beauty versus ugliness are opposites, for example.

If there is a projection of value onto one or the other, say a preference for stupidity over intelligence on the part of the individual or society...no, this is not my interest. I have zero interest in such circle jerks. If I'd be interested in such a spectacle and distraction I'd tune into MSNBC or Fox News or tyhe WWE or some other source of mental tripe designed to titillate malleable emotions in the vain attempt to avoid the tireless pursuit of truth. That would not be very INTP of me.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Oh, okay then.

The impression I was getting was that Caucasians were more beautiful. You claimed that [post #14]

White people on average have these particular mathematical ratios in their skull conformations, facial features and body proportionings more often (i.e. their phenotype as a reflection of their genotype puts the ideal mathematical ratios for beauty on display) than the other races.

with no evidence to back up what you were saying. It promotes a stereotype, especially when people of non-white ethnicities view it. I could do with same with Asians, but I prefer not to flaunt about with my genetic source code.

Bringing up albinos in the picture was silly as well. There are plenty of European albinos as well, you know >.>

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Personally, skin color itself doesn't really affect me, nor do media portrayals or age, gender, or honestly, sex. What does factor in are symmetry, communication/empathy/intelligence, and mutual acceptance. Having said that, I don't find the majority of black people attractive, mainly because I don't find most people attractive period. Of course, most people aren't like this, but I'm not sure I understand their perspectives on all this. I think there's also a lot of overlap with S.E.S./poverty culture, especially in the U.S.

Otherwise, dafuq is going on with House citing phrenology and a bunch of stuff only tangentially related to attractiveness at best?

Phrenology LOLZ. Absurd and Silly.

Phrenology is to what I have been citing as astrology is to rocket science.

I haven't looked into 'phrenology' much but from what I remember from my exposure to it in a psychology course a couple of decades ago I'm inclined to believe it may have been invented to make the pure science I'm citing in this thread appear illegitimate. The association between the science of racial differences and phrenology is certainly promoted ad nauseum these days towards this end (to make it appear as if the former is as illegitimate as the latter). As if phrenology was ever taken any more seriously by serious thinkers than palm reading...

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Oh, okay then.

The impression I was getting was that Caucasians were more beautiful. You claimed that [post #14]
with no evidence to back up what you were saying. It promotes a stereotype, especially when people of non-white ethnicities view it. I could do with same with Asians, but I prefer not to flaunt about with my genetic source code.

Bringing up albinos in the picture was silly as well. There are plenty of European albinos as well, you know >.>

You are missing the point. Seems like your understanding is getting lost in the proverbial weeds of distinguishing between general rules and specific exceptions.

It took me awhile to get to that epiphany where calculus all of a sudden made sense. It is okay to walk away not understanding, too. We aren't all going to end up understanding all the deeper nuances in science and life.

 

[onesteptwostep]

No I understand the point you're making. My beef with your explanation of it is that it promotes stereotypes, and that it paints a picture of racial superiority. You've explained that those were not your intentions, so to that extent, personally, I will take your word for it.

The problem is more political than personal, here.

 

[Doktorin Zylinder]

My last ex was black, but she was born and raised in Canada (where I currently reside) in a predominantly multicultural area. I think she said she and her sister were the only black girls in her school. Her family was also from the Caribbean, so that might also have something to do with it. They seemed to have a different mentality than the black people I knew when I lived in the US. She was quite beautiful, though, on the order of Lupita Nyong'o. She was very quite, spoke like the vast majority of people in the city, and was somewhat ambitious. She was unstable, though, which lead to a lot of problems. I don't have any problem with anyone due to the color of their skin, so I'm not sure why people wouldn't like women of African descent. I also seem to be race, sex, gender, and age blind when it comes to people I have relationships with.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Phrenology LOLZ. Absurd and Silly.

Phrenology is to what I have been citing as astrology is to rocket science.

I haven't looked into 'phrenology' much

Mong. Source the points in post #14, peer-reviewed plz.

 

[Tannhauser]

In terms of attractiveness, there are simple mathematical ratios which appeal broadly to the highest number of people. The ratios have been researched aggressively over and over and over again over the millenia. Here is a recent study with the result:

"The 18-year-old student is blessed with what is described as the perfect face. It matches an international blueprint for the optimum ratio between eyes, mouth, forehead and chin, endowing her with flawless proportions..."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2132896/Florence-Colgate-Girl-Britains-beautiful-face.html

....
Math is math. DNA is DNA. Reality is reality. Emotion, bias, and wanting things to be different (wishful thinking poised as 'egalitarianism') has nothing to do with these facts. In my experience the mass media does EVERYTHING it possibly can to convince people that that which is ugly is attractive and vice versa these days, generally speaking. These truths I've mentioned herein make the mass media very nervous. The truth runs counter to their agenda to keep the people confused about simple realities. By keeping people confused (of all races) they maintain their control. This is the reason, for example, accounting principles are not required study in public schooling.

"Here is a study" he wrote and posted a link to a newspaper article.

Your posts in this thread is one of the biggest collections of hokum I have seen in a while, but I will comment on the math thing: The golden ratio occurs some places in nature, but any ratio occurs an infinite number of places in nature. It just happened that some artists got the idea that there something beautiful about the ratio. There is absolutely zero science behind it. Subsequently the idea has been perpetuated by journalists like the one who wrote your linked article, obviously in the lack of better things to write about.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Ever heard of the internet, peeps? Yes, all the information is out there and super easy to find. Peer reviewed and all.

I can summarize it all in one quick rhetorical question, though:

Controlling for age, why hasn't an Oprah or Rosie O'Donnell or Barbara Streisand graced the centerfold feature on Playboy?