Why are there ugly people?

University of Life Lecture



’Why are there ugly people?’



Indeed, why are there ugly people in the world? If evolution really works shouldn't there have been an environmental pressure to get rid of ugly people? Aren't people picking the most attractive partners they can find to reproduce? Shouldn't this lead to the elimination of ugly people over time?

No.

Evolution is a clever fellow. Evolution doesn't care much about aesthetics as we do. Of course symmetrical features are often an excellent sign of good health and good genes. And certainly we prefer to have sex with a model if we could. But we do not all have sex with models. There are not enough of them to go around.

Our male genes have realized this a long time ago. They can sit around waiting for the model, or go with whatever is available and hope that maybe the next generation male finds a model. For the male genes it is a win-win situation. For the male form this is not always true. The male form might end up with an aesthetically displeasing female form.

The male genes are in control of the one organ that matters for the male form; the penis. The male genes have hardwired the penis to go after whatever female form that comes along. This process was facilitated by the invention of beer. Hence men will reproduce with any female form imaginable.

The female genes have similar desires. They have not hardwired the female sex organ in a similar way to the male form. Instead they are hardwired in to the brain and transformed it. It has become specialized in the conniving task of trapping men. Any man.

Beautiful people are actually doomed. They have to find a suitable partner of similar beauty which is time- and energy consuming. Time and energy that could have been spend on reproducing. Ugly people just do it.

Why do beautiful people still exist you ask? They don't. It is well known that beauty is a cultural value that has changed over the ages. This was not a whim, but a necessity. Whenever a certain type was labeled as beautiful it was doomed to perish because of the actions of male and female genes. And once again a new cultural form of beauty had to be invented.



Spuriousmonkey

source

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why r there ugly people?
Absurd.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think because ugly people mate with ugly people. Or, the ugly person is male yet he is more aggressive and more "alpha male" like than men that look "normal" because he had to fight to "fit in."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Without ugly,

we would not know beauty.

 

Guys will fuck anything.

 

Even you

 

I take it you are a natural repellent for homosexuals?

 

I am reasonably sure:
(1) you have no evidence supporting any of this paragraph.
and
(2) you just made it up as it seems reasonable to you (perhaps to others also)

There have been several empirical studies of what is considered beautiful using photos of many different ordinary people (no one famous like a political leader or movie star etc. included.) In one I remember some of the details of not only were the original photos judged, but various "morphed" version of two or more were also included in the set to be rated by the participant judges (Mainly university students who received a small monetary compensation or if psychology students perhaps extra credit for participating.)

I do not remember all the results, but the most important one was exactly opposite to you POV. For example, if all original photos (of one sex) were morphed into one, producing a very average female, she was "very beautiful" in average of scores. Apparently anything that takes you significantly away from the average of the group you are a member of, is less attractive to you. For example, there were Asian as judges and in the photos. They preferred the morphs made of Asian originals over the morphs made of Caucasians original and again the average of the "paired morphs" (two originals made into one photo) scored higher than the average of the originals etc.

I.e. Increditable as it may seem to you, the truly average girl (or man) is more beautiful and less ugly to the average guy (or woman) than the average of the real women (or men) of the original photos. Not everyone becomes more beautiful or less ugly by becoming more average, but most do, if judged by their own group and all non-own group averages are less beautiful than own group averages.

The demonstrable facts seem to be just the opposite of your claim. Can you support it in any way?

 

But in what context?

I think our preferences are context-specific. In one context, we'll like something, but in some other context, we won't like that same thing so much, or not at all.

 

good job water.
don't get pissed at me. simply, i believe your new line of thought is suprisingly like one of my currents of the guadzillions (that they are irrelevent---funny how you see, like, a poster, that has a way of living that you already see yourself or something eh?);

anyway,
i'm being a little willy.
PEACE

 

The context of most of most such studies was a many students individually looking at computer screen displayed photos and rating the image for "beauty" etc. on some scale (1 to 10?) Probably there were some repeats to make sure they were at least looking at the screen etc. (E.G. They would not get paid if on first view given a 2 and on second view 15 minutes later a 10 etc. + possibly other controls. I forget the details.)

 

I take it you do not believe beauty is in the eyes of the beholder? That there is a universal law that defines degrees of beauty?

 

I see beauty in most people.

 

What? Work at what? What do you think ugly is?

 

Feel free to leave

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why do you care what Sciforumers have to say about you? It's a VERY VERY small handful of people all over the world... not your next door neighbors or coworkers.

 

The situation is not as bleak as you paint it:

The Evolution of Mating Preferences and Major Histocompatibility Complex Genes
Dustin J. Penn and Wayne K. Potts
The American Naturalist, volume 153 (1999), pages 145–164

House mice prefer mates genetically dissimilar at the major histocompatibility complex (MHC). The highly polymorphic MHC genes control immunological self/nonself recognition; therefore, this mating preference may function to provide "good genes" for an individual's offspring.
MHC-dependent mating preferences may also function to avoid inbreeding; a hypothesis consistent with other evidence that MHC genes play a role in kin recognition.

Science. 1988 Jun 3;240(4857):1331-2.

Familial imprinting determines H-2 selective mating preferences.

Yamazaki K, Beauchamp GK, Kupniewski D, Bard J, Thomas L, Boyse EA.


Inbred male mice typically prefer to mate with females of a different, non-self H-2 haplotype. To determine whether this natural preference is irrevocable or results from familial imprinting, a test system was used which relied on previous observations that B6 males (H-2b) mate preferentially with congenic B6-H-2k rather than B6 females, and B6-H-2k males with B6 females. This preference was reversed in B6 males fostered by B6-H-2k parents and in B6-H-2k males fostered by B6 parents, preference in these cases favoring the same H-2 type. Thus, H-2 selective mating preference is acquired by imprinting on familial H-2 types.

Nature 352, 619 - 621 (15 August 1991)

Mating patterns in seminatural populations of mice influenced by MHC genotype

Wayne K. Potts*, C. Jo Manning*† & Edward K. Wakeland

BECAUSE of the central role of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes in immune recognition1−3, it is often assumed that parasite-driven selection maintains the unprecendented genetic diversity of these genes4−7. But associations between MHC genotype and specific infectious diseases have been difficult to identify8,9 with a few exceptions such as Marek's disease10 and malaria11. Alternatively, MHC-related reproductive mechanisms such as selective abortion12−15 and mating preferences16,17 could be responsible for the diversity. To determine both the nature and strength of selection operating on MHC genes by we have studied components of selection in seminatural populations of mice (Mils musculus domesticus). Here we assess MHC-related patterns of reproduction and early (preweaning) mortality by analysing 1,139 progeny born in nine populations, and 662 progeny from laboratory matings. Reproductive mechanisms, primarily mating preferences, result in 27% fewer MHC-homozygous offspring than expected from random mating. MHC genotype had no detectable influence on neonatal (preweaning) mortality. These mating preferences are strong enough to account for most of the MHC genetic diversity found in natural populations of Mus.


However, this exoticness in mice is not measured by appearance, but rather by urinary odor. And that is why men less frequently wash their underwear than women. We are still in tune with their biology. Or maybe this is why women with a partner insist on washing their Man's underpants so often. More than the man thinks is necessary. She is undermining his chances to attract another partner.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981 Sep;78(9):5817-20.

Distinctive urinary odors governed by the major histocompatibility locus of the mouse.

Yamaguchi M, Yamazaki K, Beauchamp GK, Bard J, Thomas L, Boyse EA.

It has been shown that major histocompatibility complex (MHC) types affect the mating choices of mice and that mice can be trained to distinguish arms of a Y maze scented by odors from MHC-congeneic mice. It is now shown that sensory discrimination of MHC types by trained mice in the Y maze is equally effective with urine as the source of odors. Trained mice, male and female, successfully distinguished between urines of MHC-dissimilar F2 segregants of an MHC-congeneic cross but not between urines of MHC-identical F2 segregants. In a control study with a transfer of training procedure, in which reward was withheld to eliminate any basis for new learning, the trained mice successfully distinguished between urines from panels of MHC-congeneic inbred and F2 segregant congeneic mice that had not previously been used as urine donors. Thus urine, which is a source of chemosensory signals in many species, is also a potent source of the MHC-determined odors that distinguish individual mice.

And as a closing statement I would like to bring accross the point that you can indeed just say whatever you want. But isn't it much more fun to say whatever you want based on actual science? Hone your scientific search engine skills and start cracking.

 

Don't looks (and a few other clues) help determine whose genes are worth passing on?

 

Ugly people were invented by beer-makers to make you buy more beer.

Probably.