why is there a natural reaction to be nicer to attractive girls than unattractive ones? i often break that inclination, but at least at first it is usually there. It kinds of seems like a huge moral failing hardwired into humankind.
me: i imagine you probably are to some degree not to hate, but I think everyone is to a degree. Though it might not be based entirely on attractiveness as much as what you think the other person is able to offer you...
...and attraction/a relationship/etc is just one of many factors like socio-ecnomic position, intellect,etc
but i think even you would be hard pressed to say that you treat all people equally? or am I off base?
Jowanza: Yeah, I judge people for sure, but I don't treat the differently because of any outward feature.
me: of course you do.me: not that i can tell you how you act, i am simply stating what i think is a wide ranging human principle. i am not talking about being obviously biased, i am just saying that we do treat people differently on some level. part of that can be appearance. often that appearance is not physical like attraction is not necessarily physical.
Jowanza: I guess I would agree Human convention is to treat people differently based on their looks But I'm an outlier in that instance
me: maybe so. But how different do you have to be to be an outlier? cause i would assume your reaction to people of different races would be the same maybe for weight too but what if you were going to ask a girl out would you ask out the fat one or the skinny one? doesnt mean that you are directly mean to the fat one but you feel differently.
Jowanza: I would say this is a different question than my initial problem.
me: and then what about people who have diseases that eat away at their skin or something i would be way more hesitant to give them a hug yeah, well my first statement of what i was thinking was pretty poorly worded so i kind of led you astray.
Jowanza: Yeah Since I agree with most of your recent statements its clear the original lead me astray. We have to judge because we have preferences Economics is actually based on that idea that we have preferences.
me: yeah i just think that it is way interesting how fine that line can be as illustrated here somewhat between preferences and just being a a jerk
Jowanza: Indeed I think when you said "being nice" I interpreted that as common courtesy which may have been a fallacy on my part
me: hahahaha i definitely set up the nice in the wrong context. i meant like i just seem more interested. Not that i would have told some ugly girl to go find her own book. but i think when people bug me i am not as inclined to help them as well, like that weird spanish lady who was being way demanding and looked like a man. When i think a girl is really pretty i occasionally think about "what if she thought i was way cool, we could kick it" and so my service might be a little more chipper, though i try to keep that from happening. In both cases i would still make an effort to help them the best i could, but i would have a different attitude about it i think.
this sounds really wrong, but this whole thing just made me wonder about the age old maxim that we should not judge people based on their outward appearance, but rather what is inside. It seems like the premise of that advice is that people can't control what they look like on the outside, but can control their character. In large measure that is true, but I also think it is important to recognize the limitations of thinking that way. People can obviously control some aspects of their outward appearance. Inasmuch as people can control their outward appearance then aren't we just as morally free (meaning it's just as fair) to judge them based on that as on their character? (this has some major strings attached, i recognize-- one being where do you draw the line on controlling outward appearances -- clothing, hair coloring, makeup? Exercising/ being fit? Plastic surgery?)
And what about arguments that suggest a predisposition to act a certain way, like talking loud or something like that? are we then supposed to not judge aspects of personality if we deem that the person can't control them?
In other words, what is the basis of the injunction to "judge the inner, not the outer" if it is not the person's personal control over that aspect of their being?
I would make an extremist argument. In almost every way external appearance in more important than character judgments. This is true in our society on a number of levels, anecdotal and empirically. Look at the acne medicine industry, a cash cow, cosmetic surgery is another cash cow. Your appearance matters more than anything, people won't even give you a chance without it. I wonder if that's an evolutionary thing? That is, are we simply trying to minimize our losses by eliminating people from consideration based on a quickly identifiable trait?
really good points and questions. your argument for physical appearance having more power in the world is really good. I guess my question is more of a "is that morally ok for it have more sway in our individual lives?" And if so, under what circumstances? Where is the line between being some kind of bigot and just having preferences? What is out metric for judging the people we meet? (i think the evolutionary point is thought provoking in this regard.) It (the metric)is obviously situational and surely includes considerations of both internal and external aspects of another's being. Do they relate at all to that persons control over those characteristics?
I'm going to raise a somewhat controversial argument to this. You may or may not believe in it, but I do, so here's my take on it.
Firstly, I have to state that its an argument based on evolution.
Evolutionary theory states that one of the fundamental purpose of our life on earth is to pass on our genetic code to the next generation. Thus, we as a species engage in a "survival of the fittest" style of living, a system that is inherent in our very beings. I'm not going to get into what the crux of that is simply because its late and I'm sleepy, but basically, the most fit to reproduce do so and those who are not fit are unable to pass along there genes, and thus their "existence" dies out in the coming generations.
Now, when applying this to your question, it makes absolute sense that you are "nicer" or more interested in good looking girls than uglier looking girls, per say. Survival of the fittest indicates that the strongest individuals pass on their genes, but it isn't a one way street. A strong individual is not going to seek out a weak individual to mate with. No, the theory emphasizes the concept that the strong seek out the strong and the weak are left in the dust. Thus, from a purely physical level, someone that looks good indicates an individual who is "strong" in their "gene structure" and thus appears to be conducive to mating. Someone who is ugly, a trait that we don't necessarily desire, indicates, at a primal level, that they have traits that aren't valued as highly and thus we are less prone to want to engage in behavior that is conducive to mating.
You wouldn't engage in the act of "courtship" with someone if you felt as if you didn't want to court them. Acting interested is a form of courtship and thus you don't engage in that behavior around people you aren't interested in. It sucks. It dehumanizes people. But, from first appearances, at least I think, thats the way people work.
Thats not to say ugly people can't impress in other ways, or that good looking people can't be terrible people, and thereby reduce one's yearning to mate with them. All I'm saying is that from a purely physical aspect, this may be the reason why.
a forum for questions or thoughts about anything...
Get your mind right, get your grind right.
Free yourself from your self-imposed immaturity.
Unpack the world and understand yourself.
Life is a... uh, depends on how you dress her.
A celebration.
Jowanza: Way sketch
ReplyDeleteI'm not that way
me: i imagine you probably are to some degree
not to hate, but I think everyone is to a degree. Though it might not be based entirely on attractiveness as much as what you think the other person is able to offer you...
...and attraction/a relationship/etc is just one of many factors
like socio-ecnomic position, intellect,etc
but i think even you would be hard pressed to say that you treat all people equally?
or am I off base?
Jowanza: Yeah, I judge people for sure, but I don't treat the differently because of any outward feature.
ReplyDeleteme: of course you do.me: not that i can tell you how you act, i am simply stating what i think is a wide ranging human principle. i am not talking about being obviously biased, i am just saying that we do treat people differently on some level. part of that can be appearance. often that appearance is not physical
like attraction is not necessarily physical.
Jowanza: I guess I would agree
Human convention is to treat people differently based on their looks
But I'm an outlier in that instance
me: maybe so. But how different do you have to be to be an outlier? cause i would assume your reaction to people of different races would be the same
maybe for weight too
but what if you were going to ask a girl out
would you ask out the fat one or the skinny one?
doesnt mean that you are directly mean to the fat one but you feel differently.
Jowanza: I would say this is a different question than my initial problem.
me: and then what about people who have diseases that eat away at their skin or something
i would be way more hesitant to give them a hug
yeah, well my first statement of what i was thinking was pretty poorly worded
so i kind of led you astray.
Jowanza: Yeah
Since I agree with most of your recent statements
its
clear the original lead me astray. We have to judge
because we have preferences
Economics is actually based on that idea
that we have preferences.
me: yeah
i just think that it is way interesting how fine that line can be
as illustrated here somewhat
between preferences
and just being a a jerk
Jowanza: Indeed
I think when you said "being nice"
I interpreted that as
common courtesy
which may have been a fallacy on my part
me: hahahaha
i definitely set up the nice in the wrong context.
i meant like i just seem more interested. Not that i would have told some ugly girl to go find her own book. but i think when people bug me i am not as inclined to help them as well, like that weird spanish lady who was being way demanding and looked like a man. When i think a girl is really pretty i occasionally think about "what if she thought i was way cool, we could kick it" and so my service might be a little more chipper, though i try to keep that from happening. In both cases i would still make an effort to help them the best i could, but i would have a different attitude about it i think.
Jowanza:I see your point
I can see that
this sounds really wrong, but this whole thing just made me wonder about the age old maxim that we should not judge people based on their outward appearance, but rather what is inside. It seems like the premise of that advice is that people can't control what they look like on the outside, but can control their character. In large measure that is true, but I also think it is important to recognize the limitations of thinking that way. People can obviously control some aspects of their outward appearance. Inasmuch as people can control their outward appearance then aren't we just as morally free (meaning it's just as fair) to judge them based on that as on their character?
ReplyDelete(this has some major strings attached, i recognize-- one being where do you draw the line on controlling outward appearances -- clothing, hair coloring, makeup? Exercising/ being fit? Plastic surgery?)
And what about arguments that suggest a predisposition to act a certain way, like talking loud or something like that? are we then supposed to not judge aspects of personality if we deem that the person can't control them?
In other words, what is the basis of the injunction to "judge the inner, not the outer" if it is not the person's personal control over that aspect of their being?
I would make an extremist argument. In almost every way external appearance in more important than character judgments. This is true in our society on a number of levels, anecdotal and empirically. Look at the acne medicine industry, a cash cow, cosmetic surgery is another cash cow. Your appearance matters more than anything, people won't even give you a chance without it. I wonder if that's an evolutionary thing? That is, are we simply trying to minimize our losses by eliminating people from consideration based on a quickly identifiable trait?
ReplyDeletereally good points and questions. your argument for physical appearance having more power in the world is really good. I guess my question is more of a "is that morally ok for it have more sway in our individual lives?" And if so, under what circumstances? Where is the line between being some kind of bigot and just having preferences? What is out metric for judging the people we meet? (i think the evolutionary point is thought provoking in this regard.) It (the metric)is obviously situational and surely includes considerations of both internal and external aspects of another's being. Do they relate at all to that persons control over those characteristics?
ReplyDeleteI'm going to raise a somewhat controversial argument to this. You may or may not believe in it, but I do, so here's my take on it.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I have to state that its an argument based on evolution.
Evolutionary theory states that one of the fundamental purpose of our life on earth is to pass on our genetic code to the next generation. Thus, we as a species engage in a "survival of the fittest" style of living, a system that is inherent in our very beings. I'm not going to get into what the crux of that is simply because its late and I'm sleepy, but basically, the most fit to reproduce do so and those who are not fit are unable to pass along there genes, and thus their "existence" dies out in the coming generations.
Now, when applying this to your question, it makes absolute sense that you are "nicer" or more interested in good looking girls than uglier looking girls, per say. Survival of the fittest indicates that the strongest individuals pass on their genes, but it isn't a one way street. A strong individual is not going to seek out a weak individual to mate with. No, the theory emphasizes the concept that the strong seek out the strong and the weak are left in the dust. Thus, from a purely physical level, someone that looks good indicates an individual who is "strong" in their "gene structure" and thus appears to be conducive to mating. Someone who is ugly, a trait that we don't necessarily desire, indicates, at a primal level, that they have traits that aren't valued as highly and thus we are less prone to want to engage in behavior that is conducive to mating.
You wouldn't engage in the act of "courtship" with someone if you felt as if you didn't want to court them. Acting interested is a form of courtship and thus you don't engage in that behavior around people you aren't interested in. It sucks. It dehumanizes people. But, from first appearances, at least I think, thats the way people work.
Thats not to say ugly people can't impress in other ways, or that good looking people can't be terrible people, and thereby reduce one's yearning to mate with them. All I'm saying is that from a purely physical aspect, this may be the reason why.