Symmetry and You

I'm a dorment Psychology Major and so this is all up my alley. I could go on and on about such findings in a multitude of contexts, and the validity within each context, then break those down into levels within each context until I get tired of my own voice. Opinion is this, though. Mathematical Sciences, Physiological Sciences, Psychological Sciences (especially in the realm of Subconscious awareness), then Sociological Sciences (which is tying right in with Cultural Anthropology in this case), while applying explorative retrospect - becomes more of a Political Science. I cringe at the thought of trying to make a point in the field.

The findings are merely findings and how one feels regarding what they have never been 'consciously' aware of, while every fiber of their being has always been, is kind of irrelevant as a whole. Have you ever sat down and had a heart to heart with your mitochondria? How about your medula oblongata? It's kind of like that. I'm probably just jaded.

Regardlessly, this is a good find and an interesting read, Alice. Also see 'Golden Ratio', if you haven't already. It's extremely relative. Then maybe Chaos Theory if you have the time. No, maybe Quantum Mechanics before that.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Sorry I had to be a dork and do this: Excerpts from 'Beautiful People'.

Quote:

the beautiful people, the beautiful people
it's all relative to the size of your steeple
you can't see the forest for the trees
you can't smell your own shit on your knees

Hey you, what do you see?
something beautiful, something free?

the worms will live in every host
it's hard to pick which one they eat most

the horrible people, the horrible people
it's as anatomic as the size of your steeple
capitalism has made it this way,
old-fashioned fascism will take it away

How ya doing, buddy?

Is it a little something called Entropy we might be referring to?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

Symmetry is perfection. And nothing is perfect in nature.

1/1.618 holds true.


Why is there agreement on standards of beauty?

Humaneness Recognition > Beauty may be a mechanism for recognizing that someone is human, and the aforementioned qualities may be ones that make a person most easily recognizable as human. When we see someone "soft on the eyes", we can relax a little, because the humaneness of the image is so clear.

Geometric Beauty > Standards of beauty may be related to natural mathematical proportions which have captivated humans across cultures since the beginning of time, such as the golden ratio (approximately 1.618:1). Some beautiful faces do seem to exhibit such geometric proportions.

Double Post:
Researchers took photographs of Japanese and Caucasian men and women. Participants in Japan and Great Britain were then asked to rate the physical attractiveness of these photographs. They agreed. The attractive faces had certain features in common. For instance, attractive females had higher cheekbones, a thinner jaw, and larger eyes relative to the size of the face.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I think I just realized that the original artical posted by Alice wasn't misinforming, just incomplete. Whatever student wrote that really half-assed it. There is symmetry in the asymmetrical ratio of aesthetic beauty. They just kinda left that whole, entire, important part out.

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Yamamanama

Well, that could be part of a groupthink mentality rather than an indication of a universal standard of beauty. Now, I might accept this if they tested more isolated people like in the Kalahari or Siberia.

I'm sure they do, within the contexts of their own, relative society and I mean, culture and researches. We simply don't associate our studies on this menial a subject matter.

I was speaking idiomatically.