Some traits are more legible than others. That is, they are objective, quickly verifiable, and easier to describe.
Take height, for example. It's a single scalar quantity. You can specify it with two numbers. The preference gradient is well-defined. And it's universal -- 6'3 is the same height no matter where you live or who you are. This makes it a clean, natural choice of metric for intra-sexual status signaling. I.e., "my boyfriend is 6'3, therefore I, his girlfriend, am desirable."
Eye color (really, people use "color" as a proxy for "lightness", but I digress) is another such instance. It's a categorical variable with 4 or 5 options and a relatively ubiquitous hierarchy amongst them.
Compare these to say, inter-pupillary distance. Or philtrum : chin ratio. The vast majority of people do not have the vocabulary to describe, nor the latent tendency to consciously assess such traits. And even if they did, they would refrain from saying it out loud. You are never going to hear a girl tell her friend that her boyfriend has an ideal gonial angle.
Such traits are far less legible. They get clumped into high-level, hand-wavey descriptors like "handsome" that resist direct comparison. They're not given the same, unadulterated treatment as height or eye color, and thus never enter the mimetic flywheel. But that doesn't mean they don't matter. Far from it, in fact. Everyone can still sense them, on a visceral level.
The mistake, which I see many people here make, is concluding that if something is talked about more, it matters more. That's bad inference. You must distinguish importance from legibility. They are not bijective.
I take the opposite measure: if something is legible, I assume its importance is almost certainly being overstated. Cases in point:
- 6'3" or death is retarded. After you are +0.5-1SD height for your country, frame/proportions/everything else matters substantially more than any marginal height increase.
- Eye color differences are only reliably detectable in a) great lighting and b) from a distance of <10 feet. Even then, their only function is a moderate coloring boost. Compare this to your eye shape and spacing, which can change the harmony and character of your face to a degree that renders you unrecognizable, but is comparatively emphasized far less.
Take height, for example. It's a single scalar quantity. You can specify it with two numbers. The preference gradient is well-defined. And it's universal -- 6'3 is the same height no matter where you live or who you are. This makes it a clean, natural choice of metric for intra-sexual status signaling. I.e., "my boyfriend is 6'3, therefore I, his girlfriend, am desirable."
Eye color (really, people use "color" as a proxy for "lightness", but I digress) is another such instance. It's a categorical variable with 4 or 5 options and a relatively ubiquitous hierarchy amongst them.
Compare these to say, inter-pupillary distance. Or philtrum : chin ratio. The vast majority of people do not have the vocabulary to describe, nor the latent tendency to consciously assess such traits. And even if they did, they would refrain from saying it out loud. You are never going to hear a girl tell her friend that her boyfriend has an ideal gonial angle.
Such traits are far less legible. They get clumped into high-level, hand-wavey descriptors like "handsome" that resist direct comparison. They're not given the same, unadulterated treatment as height or eye color, and thus never enter the mimetic flywheel. But that doesn't mean they don't matter. Far from it, in fact. Everyone can still sense them, on a visceral level.
The mistake, which I see many people here make, is concluding that if something is talked about more, it matters more. That's bad inference. You must distinguish importance from legibility. They are not bijective.
I take the opposite measure: if something is legible, I assume its importance is almost certainly being overstated. Cases in point:
- 6'3" or death is retarded. After you are +0.5-1SD height for your country, frame/proportions/everything else matters substantially more than any marginal height increase.
- Eye color differences are only reliably detectable in a) great lighting and b) from a distance of <10 feet. Even then, their only function is a moderate coloring boost. Compare this to your eye shape and spacing, which can change the harmony and character of your face to a degree that renders you unrecognizable, but is comparatively emphasized far less.
