EPIGENETICS - The Nature Of Ugliness (HIGH IQ THREAD)

[ascension!]

Yes. But teeth are much more important than tongue. Mewng is cope, the tongue force is miniscule.

Do you plan to redo our conversation, but now about Epigenetics?

It's interesting asf, I think you’ve already told me something about this, but I don’t remember well... I’m currently thinking of purchasing an appliance called “Starecta” which restores the height of the teeth and therefore, the molar support returns and posture, jaw and spine restores.

 

[Deleted member 21044]

Do you plan to redo our conversation, but now about Epigenetics?

It's interesting asf, I think you’ve already told me something about this, but I don’t remember well... I’m currently thinking of purchasing an appliance called “Starecta” which restores the height of the teeth and therefore, the molar support returns and posture, jaw and spine restores.

Tomorrow. I have to sleep now.

 

[enchanted_elixir]

So, good oral posture without tongue tie and enganging the posterior-third of the tongue to be able to hold and raise the maxilla, along with good body posture, good nutrition and not being malnourished together with a good hormonal profile can determine the development of someone who is going through puberty?

I'm 15-years-old and I'm going to have an appointment with my ortho next week to get some X-rays to see if my cross-bite is skeletal or dental origin and then do something about it, though I'm mainly going to see if he'll approve of having my tongue tie removed, so I can mew.

Not determine, but influence it.

 

[sibience]

View attachment 1966483

that is literally a guy

JFL thinking that 0 harmony girl is attrative.

 

[Deleted member 21044]

that is literally a guy

JFL thinking that 0 harmony girl is attrative.

??? How is that a guy? She's super feminine.

 

[Mastermind]

Brutal high IQ thread
Indeed, one perfect alignment but many malocclusions to fuck your teeth up

 

[sibience]

??? How is that a guy? She's super feminine.

Only saved by her extremely straight long hair lmao.

Nigger amount of bimaxillary prognathism, and the jaw/chin area just has too much bone

 

[Deleted member 21044]

Only saved by her extremely straight long hair lmao.

Nigger amount of bimaxillary prognathism, and the jaw/chin area just has too much bone

You're trolling aren't you.

 

[Survivor95]

"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.

View attachment 1966475
View attachment 1966351

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:

View attachment 1966446View attachment 1966447


An optimally developed human female will look something like this:

View attachment 1966467View attachment 1966472


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

View attachment 1966481View attachment 1966483

Spoiler: Tagging whitepillers

@krisal @WhiteBlackpiller @Shitfacegoodbod=mog @Tallooksmaxxer @beatEMinGTA @ike57 @pneumocystosis @curlyheadjames @Dr. Mog @anticel

Yes, I wandered why animals in general looked the same , but humans so diferențe from individual to individual. The way they live is so major for the humans. So epigenetics. I am sure the food we eat have so much contribution to pur development.

 

[sibience]

You're trolling aren't you.

No I'm not. She literally has African maxillary prognathism. And africans are the most masculine race. Do you not see it?


And that also ruins harmony.

 

[Mastermind]

Very interesting theory and pretty high IQ.

The issue is as always lack of proof. And what external factor could be so impactful that it changes you from a potential Chad to an incel? The unlikelyhood of this leads me to believe a different theory: Monogamy impurified Chad gene pools. Since fathers and brothers were able to choose a partner for their female relatives, they looked for men with money and status. Basically anything else than genes. This lead us to where we are today.

That and mouthbreathing, horrible lifestyles and habits, etc.

 

[Whatashame]

"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.

View attachment 1966475
View attachment 1966351

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:

View attachment 1966446View attachment 1966447


An optimally developed human female will look something like this:

View attachment 1966467View attachment 1966472


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

View attachment 1966481View attachment 1966483

Spoiler: Tagging whitepillers

@krisal @WhiteBlackpiller @Shitfacegoodbod=mog @Tallooksmaxxer @beatEMinGTA @ike57 @pneumocystosis @curlyheadjames @Dr. Mog @anticel

first it doesnt seem like peak appeal to women

You say margot RObbie had optimall development but she used braces

--
Also, you say that "everyone should be beautiful", guess what? The bar for what is considered attractive would just be raised. Thats how it works.

" beauty is a measurement of health and dimorphism" its just not true. Of course some things (Acne, very recessed jaws and other diseases are a measurement of health. But its not only that. Or do you think blue eyes are a measurement of health? Or light skin? Those are cultural. What exactly do you mean by dimorphism?

"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."

Its a very big misconception about evolution. And actually arrogant that such a basic premise wouldve passed by the eyes of all the scientists. Evolution is way more complicated than that. Lets talk about examples of dozens thousands of years ago. A woman is beautiful and because of that she tends to give birth earlier. Giving herself and the child more chances to die.
Not only that but in evolution the genes that passes are not the ones who reproduces and had 10 children. 10 children are hard to feed and take care off. Are the ones who could reproduce and make sure those would SURVIVE. Beauty is not a survival mechanism, it helps with reprodution only.
Other thing: In the past you would meet way less attractive people than nowadays, that you see 1 insanely gl person at each scroll. The idea of beauty was less rigorous.

U have a big misconception of what is epigenetics, epigenetics is about dna mutations. What youre talking is simply environmental.

"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."

Chimps also have very diff faces. You just can see human faces differences more clearly because of.. evolution.

I did this text in a hurry but theres so much more to say and im sure if i would go even depper into this i would find even more arguments. I spend a lot of my time in the last months researching about this shit and my conclusion is that its by far most genetic. Debating with the Mew its very clearly the lack of evidence and argumentation capabilty. The biggest evidence, the monkey mouth breathing study, contradicts them

 

[Deleted member 27219]

View attachment 2069210
first it doesnt seem like peak appeal to women

View attachment 2069212You say margot RObbie had optimall development but she used braces

--
Also, you say that "everyone should be beautiful", guess what? The bar for what is considered attractive would just be raised. Thats how it works.

" beauty is a measurement of health and dimorphism" its just not true. Of course some things (Acne, very recessed jaws and other diseases are a measurement of health. But its not only that. Or do you think blue eyes are a measurement of health? Or light skin? Those are cultural. What exactly do you mean by dimorphism?

"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."

Its a very big misconception about evolution. And actually arrogant that such a basic premise wouldve passed by the eyes of all the scientists. Evolution is way more complicated than that. Lets talk about examples of dozens thousands of years ago. A woman is beautiful and because of that she tends to give birth earlier. Giving herself and the child more chances to die.
Not only that but in evolution the genes that passes are not the ones who reproduces and had 10 children. 10 children are hard to feed and take care off. Are the ones who could reproduce and make sure those would SURVIVE. Beauty is not a survival mechanism, it helps with reprodution only.
Other thing: In the past you would meet way less attractive people than nowadays, that you see 1 insanely gl person at each scroll. The idea of beauty was less rigorous.

U have a big misconception of what is epigenetics, epigenetics is about dna mutations. What youre talking is simply environmental.

"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."

View attachment 2069234
Chimps also have very diff faces. You just can see human faces differences more clearly because of.. evolution.

I did this text in a hurry but theres so much more to say and im sure if i would go even depper into this i would find even more arguments. I spend a lot of my time in the last months researching about this shit and my conclusion is that its by far most genetic. Debating with the Mew its very clearly the lack of evidence and argumentation capabilty. The biggest evidence, the monkey mouth breathing study, contradicts them View attachment 2069241

Choose a real animal and not a fursuit to try and prove your point

 

[Deleted member 21044]

Choose a real animal and not a fursuit to try and prove your point

Ru @Lecherous ?

 

[Deleted member 27219]

Ru @Lecherous ?

No but what did that guy say that made you think that

 

[Deleted member 21044]

No but what did that guy say that made you think that

Apes aren't real. They're dudes in fursuits or CGI

I didn't believe it myself at first but after I watched this video among others I've really started to question if a lot of the animals the school system and government tells us are real aren't even real at all. Are dinosaurs even real? It just sounds so mythical. That could be a reason why they...

looksmax.org

 

[Deleted member 27219]

Apes aren't real. They're dudes in fursuits or CGI

I didn't believe it myself at first but after I watched this video among others I've really started to question if a lot of the animals the school system and government tells us are real aren't even real at all. Are dinosaurs even real? It just sounds so mythical. That could be a reason why they...

looksmax.org

He's right. Seeing this right now I am thinking about making a fake animal megathread

 

[Deleted member 21044]

He's right. Seeing this right now I am thinking about making a fake animal megathread

You are him lol you won't fool me.

 

[Deleted member 27066]

An optimally developed human male will look something like this:

View attachment 1966446View attachment 1966447

SpongeBob is a gigachad then

 

[klip11]

"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.

View attachment 1966475
View attachment 1966351

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:

View attachment 1966446View attachment 1966447


An optimally developed human female will look something like this:

View attachment 1966467View attachment 1966472


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

View attachment 1966481View attachment 1966483

Spoiler: Tagging whitepillers

@krisal @WhiteBlackpiller @Shitfacegoodbod=mog @Tallooksmaxxer @beatEMinGTA @ike57 @pneumocystosis @curlyheadjames @Dr. Mog @anticel

I actually agree with the epigenetics angle. Various studies have shown that males who are subjected to early life stress tend to end up shorter and have more facial asymmetry than males not subjected to early life stress. So even if you have genes which predispose you to be tall and have a symmetrical face, an early stressful environment can thwart that development. Your genes "assume" that you will have at least a good enough environment for them to properly develop in.

 

[Deleted member 21044]

I actually agree with the epigenetics angle. Various studies have shown that males who are subjected to early life stress tend to end up shorter and have more facial asymmetry than males not subjected to early life stress. So even if you have genes which predispose you to be tall and have a symmetrical face, an early stressful environment can thwart that development. Your genes "assume" that you will have at least a good enough environment for them to properly develop in.

Water.

 

[Deleted member 22354]

OP claims that all optimally developed humans should look very similar to each other, as they share core features that are indicative of good health and evolutionary success. @Whatashame already mentioned some core flaws. I want to give a science based but also easy to understand response.

While some aspects of the text are >maybe< supported by scientific evidence, there are some core points simply wrong.

1. Oversimplification of beauty and attractiveness: While OP claims that beauty is a measurement of health and dimorphism, attractiveness is influenced by a range of factors, including personal preferences, cultural norms, and social context. One study found that facial attractiveness was related to multiple factors, including averageness, symmetry, and sexual dimorphism (Rhodes, 2006).
2. Disregarding the role of genetics in ugliness: OP argues that ugliness is purely epigenetic, resulting from unnatural environmental conditions.
   • However, genetics play a significant role in determining physical appearance, including features that may be considered unattractive. (Zaidi 2018; Livshits 1991).
   • The genome-wide association study by Shaffer et al. (2016) identified multiple genetic loci that contribute to normal human facial morphology.
   • Next: Liu et al. (2012) conducted a genome-wide association study among Europeans and identified five genetic loci that influence facial morphology.
   • I can go on for days btw.
3. Assumption that optimally developed humans should look very similar: OP also suggests that optimally developed humans should share core features, with only one ideal of beauty. However, natural genetic variation results in a range of appearances even among healthy individuals. A study by Claes et al. (2018) showed that facial morphology is influenced by complex interactions between genetics and environmental factors, resulting in diverse facial features.
4. Ignoring cultural differences in perceptions of beauty: The author's argument assumes a universal standard of beauty, which does not account for variations in beauty standards across different cultures and societies. For example, Perrett et al. (1994) found that cultural differences can influence the perception of attractiveness, with Japanese and UK participants showing different preferences for certain facial shapes in women. This supports the argument that beauty ideals can vary across different cultural contexts.
   

References:

• 1.Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199-226.
• 2.Zaidi, A. A., White, J. D., Mattern, B. C., Liebowitz, C. R., Puts, D. A., Claes, P., & Shriver, M. D. (2018). Facial masculinity does not appear to be a condition-dependent male ornament and does not reflect MHC heterozygosity in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(4), E332-E340.
• 2.Livshits, G., Kobyliansky, E., & Pavlova, M. (1991). Genetics of human body size and shape: body proportions and indices. Annals of Human Biology, 18(1), 1-20.
• 2.Shaffer, J. R., Orlova, E., Lee, M. K., Leslie, E. J., Raffensperger, Z. D., Heike, C. L., ... & Weinberg, S. M. (2016). Genome-wide association study reveals multiple loci influencing normal human facial morphology. PLoS Genetics, 12(8), e1006149.
• 2.Adhikari, K., Fontanil, T., Cal, S., Mendoza-Revilla, J., Fuentes-Guajardo, M., Chacón-Duque, J. C., ... & Acuña-Alonzo, V. (2016). A genome-wide association scan implicates DCHS2, RUNX2, GLI3, PAX1 and EDAR in human facial variation. Nature Communications, 7(1), 1-13.
• 2.Liu, F., van der Lijn, F., Schurmann, C., Zhu, G., Chakravarty, M. M., Hysi, P. G., ... & Kayser, M. (2012). A genome-wide association study identifies five loci influencing facial morphology in Europeans. PLoS Genetics, 8(9), e1002932.
• 3.Claes, P., Roosenboom, J., White, J. D., Swigut, T., Sero, D., Li, J., ... & Shriver, M. D. (2018). Genome-wide mapping of global-to-local genetic effects on human facial shape. Nature Genetics, 50(3), 414-423.
• 4.Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., & Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature, 368(6468), 239-242.

 

[Deleted member 21044]

OP claims that all optimally developed humans should look very similar to each other, as they share core features that are indicative of good health and evolutionary success. @Whatashame already mentioned some core flaws. I want to give a science based but also easy to understand response.

While some aspects of the text are >maybe< supported by scientific evidence, there are some core points simply wrong.

1. Oversimplification of beauty and attractiveness: While OP claims that beauty is a measurement of health and dimorphism, attractiveness is influenced by a range of factors, including personal preferences, cultural norms, and social context. One study found that facial attractiveness was related to multiple factors, including averageness, symmetry, and sexual dimorphism (Rhodes, 2006).
2. Disregarding the role of genetics in ugliness: OP argues that ugliness is purely epigenetic, resulting from unnatural environmental conditions.
   • However, genetics play a significant role in determining physical appearance, including features that may be considered unattractive. (Zaidi 2018; Livshits 1991).
   • The genome-wide association study by Shaffer et al. (2016) identified multiple genetic loci that contribute to normal human facial morphology.
   • Next: Liu et al. (2012) conducted a genome-wide association study among Europeans and identified five genetic loci that influence facial morphology.
   • I can go on for days btw.
3. Assumption that optimally developed humans should look very similar: OP also suggests that optimally developed humans should share core features, with only one ideal of beauty. However, natural genetic variation results in a range of appearances even among healthy individuals. A study by Claes et al. (2018) showed that facial morphology is influenced by complex interactions between genetics and environmental factors, resulting in diverse facial features.
4. Ignoring cultural differences in perceptions of beauty: The author's argument assumes a universal standard of beauty, which does not account for variations in beauty standards across different cultures and societies. For example, Perrett et al. (1994) found that cultural differences can influence the perception of attractiveness, with Japanese and UK participants showing different preferences for certain facial shapes in women. This supports the argument that beauty ideals can vary across different cultural contexts.

References:

• 1.Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199-226.
• 2.Zaidi, A. A., White, J. D., Mattern, B. C., Liebowitz, C. R., Puts, D. A., Claes, P., & Shriver, M. D. (2018). Facial masculinity does not appear to be a condition-dependent male ornament and does not reflect MHC heterozygosity in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(4), E332-E340.
• 2.Livshits, G., Kobyliansky, E., & Pavlova, M. (1991). Genetics of human body size and shape: body proportions and indices. Annals of Human Biology, 18(1), 1-20.
• 2.Shaffer, J. R., Orlova, E., Lee, M. K., Leslie, E. J., Raffensperger, Z. D., Heike, C. L., ... & Weinberg, S. M. (2016). Genome-wide association study reveals multiple loci influencing normal human facial morphology. PLoS Genetics, 12(8), e1006149.
• 2.Adhikari, K., Fontanil, T., Cal, S., Mendoza-Revilla, J., Fuentes-Guajardo, M., Chacón-Duque, J. C., ... & Acuña-Alonzo, V. (2016). A genome-wide association scan implicates DCHS2, RUNX2, GLI3, PAX1 and EDAR in human facial variation. Nature Communications, 7(1), 1-13.
• 2.Liu, F., van der Lijn, F., Schurmann, C., Zhu, G., Chakravarty, M. M., Hysi, P. G., ... & Kayser, M. (2012). A genome-wide association study identifies five loci influencing facial morphology in Europeans. PLoS Genetics, 8(9), e1002932.
• 3.Claes, P., Roosenboom, J., White, J. D., Swigut, T., Sero, D., Li, J., ... & Shriver, M. D. (2018). Genome-wide mapping of global-to-local genetic effects on human facial shape. Nature Genetics, 50(3), 414-423.
• 4.Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., & Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature, 368(6468), 239-242.

Jfl at thinking it's right because "scientists" said it. The "science" makes no sense. Scientists also say that being gay is normal jfl. Use your brain.

 

[Deleted member 25938]

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.

Dr. Weston Price's book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects touches on the importance of diet and nutrition in the retainment of what he calls the physiognomic "tribal patterns" exhibited by a group of peoples.

In one case, he cites this example. These boys (of the same tribal group) look like they could be siblings, but in actuality they live on four different islands. A similar case to the wolves you posted in OP. Now, had they used the modernized diet of their time (early 1900s I assume), then that pattern would likely have been broken significantly.

 

[Adamant]

A very common belief among looksmaxers is that ugliness is a genetically inherited trait. Let's examine this stance.

It's not a belief. People are born with recessed faces.

And if Pottenger is correct, it will take you multiple generations to improve your genetic expression.

IMO, the biggest problem is that nobody knows what is our natural diet. (cooked vs raw food, high-fat or low-fat, animal-based or plant-based etc..)

 

[flippasav]

Cope.

Chad and Stacy in colour:

 

[Deleted member 21044]

Cope.

Chad and Stacy in colour:

View attachment 2132809View attachment 2132810

Both downgrown and recessed. Look at his underye jfl.

 

[flippasav]

An optimally developed human male will look something like this:

View attachment 1966446View attachment 1966447


An optimally developed human female will look something like this:

View attachment 1966467View attachment 1966472

]

I love this tho

 

[enchanted_elixir]

Good thread, this thread doesn't say that epigenetics is the reason you're not chad, more to say that epigenetic is why you're subhuman.

 

[Pei]

"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.

View attachment 1966475
View attachment 1966351

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:

View attachment 1966446View attachment 1966447


An optimally developed human female will look something like this:

View attachment 1966467View attachment 1966472


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

View attachment 1966481View attachment 1966483

Spoiler: Tagging whitepillers

@krisal @WhiteBlackpiller @Shitfacegoodbod=mog @Tallooksmaxxer @beatEMinGTA @ike57 @pneumocystosis @curlyheadjames @Dr. Mog @anticel

Barrett mogs with his higher pretty boy gonial angle, why tf you wanna look like a Minecraft character

 

[Bewusst]

You forgot about race mixing, which is similar to dog breeding and artificial selection and a huge factor contributing to today's problems. And I don't mean this in a racist way