D
Deleted member 21044
Kraken
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2022
- Posts
- 8,362
- Reputation
- 12,898
"There are many ways a human can be ugly but only one way he can be beautiful."
The phenomenon of beauty is the core of the looksmaxxing doctrine, however most struggle to define and understand it.
What is beauty?
Beauty is an indicator of potential for evolutionary success. Simply put, beauty is a measurement of health and dimorphism. These two factors ensure optimal survival and offspring creation + protection and have been therefore evolutionarily selected as attractive. People who find these traits attractive are more likely to successfully pass on their genes, which ensure their children find these traits attractive as well and therefore this trend is perpetually enforced.
For the purpose of this text, however, i will define beauty as the lack of ugliness.
Now what is ugliness?
As is apparent from what i said above, ugliness is a lack of health and dimorphism. The question i want to explore is how is ugliness brought into existence?
A very common belief among looksmaxers is that ugliness is a genetically inherited trait. Let's examine this stance.
Ugliness is genetic.
This position implies that there are certain genes which express through the lack of health and dimorphism. Essentially a genotype that dooms an individual to be unhealthy and/or non-dimorphic and therefore ugly.
The obvious fault in this theory is that although they theoretically can exist, these genes have simply no reason to be present in any noticeable amount. If a mutation occurs which causes an individual to become unhealthy and non-dimorphic, and therefore evolutionarily unfit, the mutated gene will be swiftly bred out and replaced by genes which are more fit for the environment. The truth is that if a certain gene is beneficial for survival and procreation it will spread itself and eventually be present in the whole population. If a gene is detrimental to survival and procreation it will not be able to spread itself successfully and will die out.
This proves unmistakeably that any trait which is considered unattractive cannot be, by nature, hereditary on a large scale. (this does not include purely genetic diseases like hyperdactyly, which, predictably, only affect a miniscule portion of the population)
Ugliness is not genetic.
Ugliness is epigenetic.
This is the opposing side. Somewhat less common on .org and practically unknown to the general population.
First of all, what are epigenetics. Simply put - everything outside of genetics, in other words the environment in which an organism exists.
The epigenetic looks theory states that ugliness is a result of unnatural environmental conditions. These conditions influence the organism in ways it is not evolutionarily adapted to, which causes the organism do get distorted. Only in conditions for which the organism is designed by millions of years of evolution can it develop and retain ideal levels of health and dimorphism. When it is faced with unnatural factors where natural factors are expected, the processes in the organism will be offset.
Very good evidence for this stance can be provided by studying craniofacial proportions of humans in comparison to other animals.
Nowadays we take for granted that human faces are present in a wide range of shapes and sizes. This characteristic, however makes humans an extreme outlier in terms of the animal kingdom.
Let's compare a group of male wolves with of group of male humans.
You can clearly notice how strikingly similar the wolves' skulls are. The wolf is an organism precisely and deliberately designed by millions of year of natural selection and there is no biological reason for his skull to differ from individual to individual.
The humans on the other hand have all clearly very different craniofacial structure. Some have a higher gonial angle, some shorter midface, some have a bigger nose or a smaller mouth for example. Also notice how all of these humans are rather ugly.
It comes as obvious that humans, who were subject to same amount of natural selection as wolves for 99,9% of their history should all look as similar to each other as wolves do. And they would. That is, if it wasn't for epigenetics.
Humans no longer live in the conditions evolution prepared them for and this new environment has a catastrophic impact on their health and fertility. The organism essentially doesn't know how to properly develop and function in these new unprecedented conditions, which results in different kinds of biological malformations. The measure of environmental artificiality is directly related to the measure of ugliness with a causal link. The measure of environmental artificiality is also directly related to the measure of physical diversity with a causal link.
Ugliness is indeed epigenetic.
The beautiful human.
If i return to my definition of beauty as a lack of ugliness, i can conclude that the people who experience the least artificial epigenetic impact will be the most beautiful and most similar looking.
This brings about an interesting realization. That being that there are many ways a human can be ugly but only one way he can be beautiful. There is only one kind optimal development, health and fertility. Only one ideal of beauty. (per population - may slightly differ from race to race) Take teeth for example. Only one correct alignment but many types of malocclusion and dental disorders. It is the same with all other biological parameters.
The truth is all true Chads look the same and all true Stacies look the same. They share core features like 90° gonial angle, equal zygomatic and bigonial width, tongue-wide palate, perfectly straight teeth, perfectly hooded eyes, perfectly straight nose, forward grown mandible, good undereye support and so on.
So what does a "true Chad" look like?
An optimally developed human male will look something like this:
An optimally developed human female will look something like this:
Notice how the facial structures in both pairs are much more similar than what you normally see around. Very similar ratios and shapes.
I hope i brought some light into the nature of ugliness.
Dr. Bruh
+ bonus gigachad and gigastacy in colour
The phenomenon of beauty is the core of the looksmaxxing doctrine, however most struggle to define and understand it.
What is beauty?
Beauty is an indicator of potential for evolutionary success. Simply put, beauty is a measurement of health and dimorphism. These two factors ensure optimal survival and offspring creation + protection and have been therefore evolutionarily selected as attractive. People who find these traits attractive are more likely to successfully pass on their genes, which ensure their children find these traits attractive as well and therefore this trend is perpetually enforced.
For the purpose of this text, however, i will define beauty as the lack of ugliness.
Now what is ugliness?
As is apparent from what i said above, ugliness is a lack of health and dimorphism. The question i want to explore is how is ugliness brought into existence?
A very common belief among looksmaxers is that ugliness is a genetically inherited trait. Let's examine this stance.
Ugliness is genetic.
This position implies that there are certain genes which express through the lack of health and dimorphism. Essentially a genotype that dooms an individual to be unhealthy and/or non-dimorphic and therefore ugly.
The obvious fault in this theory is that although they theoretically can exist, these genes have simply no reason to be present in any noticeable amount. If a mutation occurs which causes an individual to become unhealthy and non-dimorphic, and therefore evolutionarily unfit, the mutated gene will be swiftly bred out and replaced by genes which are more fit for the environment. The truth is that if a certain gene is beneficial for survival and procreation it will spread itself and eventually be present in the whole population. If a gene is detrimental to survival and procreation it will not be able to spread itself successfully and will die out.
This proves unmistakeably that any trait which is considered unattractive cannot be, by nature, hereditary on a large scale. (this does not include purely genetic diseases like hyperdactyly, which, predictably, only affect a miniscule portion of the population)
Ugliness is not genetic.
Ugliness is epigenetic.
This is the opposing side. Somewhat less common on .org and practically unknown to the general population.
First of all, what are epigenetics. Simply put - everything outside of genetics, in other words the environment in which an organism exists.
The epigenetic looks theory states that ugliness is a result of unnatural environmental conditions. These conditions influence the organism in ways it is not evolutionarily adapted to, which causes the organism do get distorted. Only in conditions for which the organism is designed by millions of years of evolution can it develop and retain ideal levels of health and dimorphism. When it is faced with unnatural factors where natural factors are expected, the processes in the organism will be offset.
Very good evidence for this stance can be provided by studying craniofacial proportions of humans in comparison to other animals.
Nowadays we take for granted that human faces are present in a wide range of shapes and sizes. This characteristic, however makes humans an extreme outlier in terms of the animal kingdom.
Let's compare a group of male wolves with of group of male humans.
You can clearly notice how strikingly similar the wolves' skulls are. The wolf is an organism precisely and deliberately designed by millions of year of natural selection and there is no biological reason for his skull to differ from individual to individual.
The humans on the other hand have all clearly very different craniofacial structure. Some have a higher gonial angle, some shorter midface, some have a bigger nose or a smaller mouth for example. Also notice how all of these humans are rather ugly.
It comes as obvious that humans, who were subject to same amount of natural selection as wolves for 99,9% of their history should all look as similar to each other as wolves do. And they would. That is, if it wasn't for epigenetics.
Humans no longer live in the conditions evolution prepared them for and this new environment has a catastrophic impact on their health and fertility. The organism essentially doesn't know how to properly develop and function in these new unprecedented conditions, which results in different kinds of biological malformations. The measure of environmental artificiality is directly related to the measure of ugliness with a causal link. The measure of environmental artificiality is also directly related to the measure of physical diversity with a causal link.
Ugliness is indeed epigenetic.
The beautiful human.
If i return to my definition of beauty as a lack of ugliness, i can conclude that the people who experience the least artificial epigenetic impact will be the most beautiful and most similar looking.
This brings about an interesting realization. That being that there are many ways a human can be ugly but only one way he can be beautiful. There is only one kind optimal development, health and fertility. Only one ideal of beauty. (per population - may slightly differ from race to race) Take teeth for example. Only one correct alignment but many types of malocclusion and dental disorders. It is the same with all other biological parameters.
The truth is all true Chads look the same and all true Stacies look the same. They share core features like 90° gonial angle, equal zygomatic and bigonial width, tongue-wide palate, perfectly straight teeth, perfectly hooded eyes, perfectly straight nose, forward grown mandible, good undereye support and so on.
So what does a "true Chad" look like?
An optimally developed human male will look something like this:
An optimally developed human female will look something like this:
Notice how the facial structures in both pairs are much more similar than what you normally see around. Very similar ratios and shapes.
I hope i brought some light into the nature of ugliness.
Dr. Bruh
+ bonus gigachad and gigastacy in colour
@krisal @WhiteBlackpiller @Shitfacegoodbod=mog @Tallooksmaxxer @beatEMinGTA @ike57 @pneumocystosis @curlyheadjames @Dr. Mog @anticel
Last edited:
take gisele bunchen and adriana lima.. they both have perfect dentofacial growth yet one objectively fogs the other and looks completely different. in general even if mouth breathing and environmental factors were 100% the cause of ugliness, why do i see so many people with good jaw development but still ugly from the front? there's so many things that don't make sense about that argument. and even when you talk about things that aren't related to face, like vertical proportions and height. are you going to tell me that the length of people's limbs are determined by their environment??
