randym23 Posted July 27, 2009 #26 Share Posted July 27, 2009 well, I'm not one of them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR: Posted July 27, 2009 #27 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Men and women will eventually evolve into two separate species. Then what happens? Somehow, I doubt it. Other than a few exceptions, all species require both sexes to procreate. If men and women divide, I don't see how one or the other survive independantly. We will keep evolving together. Besides, Humans enjoy sex too much to split apart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exterminator Posted July 27, 2009 #28 Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) So according to this article, here is a comparison of male and female of future. WELCOME TO THE FUTURE! Roflmao Edited July 27, 2009 by Exterminator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
She-ra Posted July 27, 2009 #29 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Besides, Humans enjoy sex too much to split apart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashyne Posted July 27, 2009 #30 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Men will become Morlocks, women will become Eloi, but both species will be hermaphrodites O.O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuttychef Posted July 27, 2009 #31 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Darn knuckle dragging, it's costing me a fortune in manicures LOL. lol.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MitsuharuSan Posted July 27, 2009 #32 Share Posted July 27, 2009 You're telling me that japanese women will be even more beautiful than they already are? Man, I'm in trouble. Serious trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cetacea Posted July 27, 2009 #33 Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) All I can say is go look at some pictures of women from years ago. Depression women are really scary looking. Moviestars will never be as beautiful.It's all in the eye of the beholder and what is accepted as beautiful in the current world-view. Have you ever noticed that someone you consider ugly becomes more beautiful as time goes on and the ones that you consider beautiful become much more ordinary looking? As previously mentioned, yes, there are some changing trends but underlying concepts such as facial symmetry are less likely to change and this is what this research is based on, not on hair style and body type, there is quite a number of studies dealing with facial symmetry and mate choice which support this. What researchers? I disagree with this. As mentioned in the article: Markus Jokela a researcher at the university of Helsinki with a Phd. in Psychology. Plus a number of authors quoted in his work. On what grounds do you disagree exactly? Oh come on! Just who "assessed" who was attractive? "Participants of the Madison Senior Scholars program were recruited to look at and code a randomly selected sample of three thousand seven 1957 WLS respondent yearbook photos and a subsample of two hundred fifty-eight 1956 WLS respondent yearbook photos. Thirty-three different judges whose ages ranged from 63 to 91 years (average of 78.5) rated the photos. Each yearbook photo was rated by six men and six women using a photo-labeled 11-point rating scale, with end points labeled as not at all attractive (=1) and extremely attractive (=11). Photos were divided into 10 groups of roughly 300 photos per group and a final group of the 1956 photos. Judges rated one set of 300 per session and were required to have a break of at least 12 h between coding sessions. Several judges coded multiple sets of photos; a few coded all 11 sets of photos. In order to assess possible nonlinear associations between attractiveness and fertility, attractiveness was categorized in quartiles separately by sex, denoted as follows: 1=not attractive, 2=moderately attractive, 3=attractive, 4=very attractive." This is not actually scientific research, its just pop science assumptions made by random "researchers." I presume this is why it is being published in a scientific journal Here's the journal link: Physical attractiveness and reproductive success in humans: evidence from the late 20th century AGAIN: beauty does not necessarily mean beauty queen/top model/actress/superstar beautiful, just more than average. Building on what an earlier poster said, I really wish people would learn more about science and how it works before flat out dismissing studies... Edited July 27, 2009 by Cetacea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueguardian Posted July 27, 2009 #34 Share Posted July 27, 2009 The research found that the more attractive a woman the more likely they are to have children and the more likely those children are to be female. Source The women are letting down the male population, not good enough. Typical. , kidding, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueguardian Posted July 27, 2009 #35 Share Posted July 27, 2009 So according to this article, here is a comparison of male and female of future. WELCOME TO THE FUTURE! Roflmao Well if that's the future and men look that bad and people still exist then the women must find the men attractive still. OR is :PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR:'s post true. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted July 27, 2009 #36 Share Posted July 27, 2009 In the animal kingdom I believe a number of males are indeed more attractive than the female....... IE - Lions...the male lion is more attractive than the lioness... IMO and only in my opinion Deers...the male is more attractive Even in birds - the peacocks..the male is more attractive BAH thats what I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SQLserver Posted July 27, 2009 #37 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Again from Dawkins' Twitter. Uh oh, are you becoming a Dawkinsbot? As much as your personal experiences indicate that this may be untrue, statistically it is sound research. Kudos to Cetacea for the excellent summary. Cheers, SQLserver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWeather Posted July 27, 2009 #38 Share Posted July 27, 2009 hmmm sounds rather insulting to men to be honest....... I am not sure if I believe itAll I can say is....my daughter is a million times more beautiful than me LOL... See. Evolution! If you had a son, he'd be dragging a big stick and hitting things on the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWeather Posted July 27, 2009 #39 Share Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) Well, I have yet to meet a man that see's Megan Fox as unattractive.Of course, women can most certainly affect how they are perceived. IE: That same Megan Fox has tattoos that most certainly degrade an otherwise pristine female. I don't think she's that hot... If she passed me by, I wouldn't give her a second look. Now. Rose McGowan -Rawwwwrrrrr- . Or Summer Glau! Or Holly Valance! Now they're fracking women . Darn knuckle dragging, it's costing me a fortune in manicures LOL. Rofl, the metrosexual life of a caveman . Edited July 27, 2009 by GreyWeather Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gabe Posted July 27, 2009 #40 Share Posted July 27, 2009 "Participants of the Madison Senior Scholars program were recruited to look at and code a randomly selected sample of three thousand seven 1957 WLS respondent yearbook photos and a subsample of two hundred fifty-eight 1956 WLS respondent yearbook photos. Thirty-three different judges whose ages ranged from 63 to 91 years (average of 78.5) rated the photos. Each yearbook photo was rated by six men and six women using a photo-labeled 11-point rating scale, with end points labeled as not at all attractive (=1) and extremely attractive (=11). Photos were divided into 10 groups of roughly 300 photos per group and a final group of the 1956 photos. Judges rated one set of 300 per session and were required to have a break of at least 12 h between coding sessions. Several judges coded multiple sets of photos; a few coded all 11 sets of photos. In order to assess possible nonlinear associations between attractiveness and fertility, attractiveness was categorized in quartiles separately by sex, denoted as follows: 1=not attractive, 2=moderately attractive, 3=attractive, 4=very attractive." The small sample of judges and their own subjectivity and limited diversity makes the study slightly biased. Shouldn't their attractiveness rather be rated by a computer based on symmetry and ratio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted July 27, 2009 #41 Share Posted July 27, 2009 See. Evolution!If you had a son, he'd be dragging a big stick and hitting things on the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlippySlug Posted July 27, 2009 #42 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Somehow, I doubt it. Other than a few exceptions, all species require both sexes to procreate. If men and women divide, I don't see how one or the other survive independantly. We will keep evolving together.Besides, Humans enjoy sex too much to split apart I wasn't serious about that. I doubt there is anybody out there (with the exception of a few hardcore helminthologists that don't get out much) that doesn't realize this. In the animal kingdom I believe a number of males are indeed more attractive than the female.......IE - Lions...the male lion is more attractive than the lioness... IMO and only in my opinion Deers...the male is more attractive Even in birds - the peacocks..the male is more attractive BAH thats what I think I was thinking the same thing. I spent a good ten minutes last night trying to think of a species in which the female is more attractive. I couldn't think of any. Why do people have a problem with this anyway? Women are becoming more attractive, hooray! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted July 27, 2009 #43 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I wasn't serious about that. I doubt there is anybody out there (with the exception of a few hardcore helminthologists that don't get out much) that doesn't realize this.I was thinking the same thing. I spent a good ten minutes last night trying to think of a species in which the female is more attractive. I couldn't think of any. *SMACK*...don't be cockey LMAO And yep we woman are better looking........well at least getting there LOL according to the article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlippySlug Posted July 27, 2009 #44 Share Posted July 27, 2009 And yep we woman are better looking........well at least getting there LOL according to the article Women everywhere, don't believe what you were told as a child. The barbie doll IS the new standard of beauty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cetacea Posted July 27, 2009 #45 Share Posted July 27, 2009 The small sample of judges and their own subjectivity and limited diversity makes the study slightly biased. Shouldn't their attractiveness rather be rated by a computer based on symmetry and ratio? True, the sampl size is not amazing but it's also drawing on other studies reporting similar things. Computer based analysis would be interesting as a comparison but let's not forget that what they are testing is actually attractiveness as perceived by people. Ideally the sample size would have been larger and more diverse to reduce the possibility of individual bias influencing the outcome but I still find it more founded than people going; 'it sounds strange, I don't agree' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Supertypo Posted July 27, 2009 #46 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Building on what an earlier poster said, I really wish people would learn more about science and how it works before flat out dismissing studies... Me to, so we dont waste time on stupid jokes...like this one ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Supertypo Posted July 27, 2009 #47 Share Posted July 27, 2009 while men remain as aesthetically unappealing as their caveman ancestors. LOL Im sure this study is done mainly by men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dance_of_death Posted July 27, 2009 #48 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Ok, beauty is a relative term. What some people find beautiful I might find unatractive. For example, most of my friends dont like tattoos or piercings on women but I find it sexy as long as its not too excessive. And, seriously, arent women already beautiful enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
80's Baby Posted July 27, 2009 #49 Share Posted July 27, 2009 "The researchers have found beautiful women have more children than their plainer counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female." That would explain why my mother had 5 girls and no boys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glyndowers heir Posted July 27, 2009 #50 Share Posted July 27, 2009 'Evolution driving women to be more beautiful' in that case Mrs GH is at the pinnacle of the evolutionary tree! (note she is stood behind me as I write this!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now