How subjective/objective are phenotypic preferences?

[enchanted_elixir]

What do you think?

Consider the following principles I have created to inform my decision.

1) The phenotypes you prefer are determined by a combination of things (not exhaustive):

• Inherited preferences
• The environment in which you were raised (exposure)
• Positive and negative feedback
• Phenotype–attractiveness mapping (progressively assigning certain phenotypes as more or less attractive based on the examples you’ve seen, thus, the preferences develops itself over time in this manner.)
• Formative experiences such as first crushes or early attractions.

Yet...

2) There seem to be universals (symmetry, proportions, eye shape, averageness, not having a wide nose, or extreme prognathism, coloring (especially for women), etc.)

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

 

[TesticularTorsion]

What do you think?

Consider the following principles I have created to inform my decision.

1) The phenotypes you prefer are determined by a combination of things:

• Inherited preferences
• The environment in which you were raised (exposure)
• Positive and negative feedback
• Phenotype–attractiveness mapping (progressively assigning certain phenotypes as more or less attractive based on the examples you’ve seen, thus, the preference develops itself over time in this manner.)
• Formative experiences such as first crushes or early attractions.

Yet...

2) There seem to be universals (symmetry, proportions, eye shape, averageness, not having a wide nose, or extreme prognathism, coloring (especially for women), etc.)

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

imo it is 70/30 of 1st and 2nd for attraction to an average looking guy since there isnt anything special about him for the majority.

and for a subhuman or sub 5's the 1st set of factors must be very strong, so much that they overpower the 2nd set, so the split would be around 120/-20 (ykwim).

and for chads/ people with very good 2nd set of factors, attractions the 1st set becomes irrelevant because they are universally attractive

 

[TesticularTorsion]

What do you think?

Consider the following principles I have created to inform my decision.

1) The phenotypes you prefer are determined by a combination of things:

• Inherited preferences
• The environment in which you were raised (exposure)
• Positive and negative feedback
• Phenotype–attractiveness mapping (progressively assigning certain phenotypes as more or less attractive based on the examples you’ve seen, thus, the preference develops itself over time in this manner.)
• Formative experiences such as first crushes or early attractions.

Yet...

2) There seem to be universals (symmetry, proportions, eye shape, averageness, not having a wide nose, or extreme prognathism, coloring (especially for women), etc.)

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

imo it is 70/30 of 1st and 2nd for attraction to an average looking guy since there isnt anything special about him for the majority.

and for a subhuman or sub 5's the 1st set of factors must be very strong, so much that they overpower the 2nd set, so the split would be around 120/-20 (ykwim).

and for chads/ people with very good 2nd set of factors, attractions the 1st set becomes irrelevant because they are universally attractive

 

[TesticularTorsion]

idk why it got posted twice

 

[enchanted_elixir]

imo it is 70/30 of 1st and 2nd for attraction to an average looking guy since there isnt anything special about him for the majority.

and for a subhuman or sub 5's the 1st set of factors must be very strong, so much that they overpower the 2nd set, so the split would be around 120/-20 (ykwim).

and for chads/ people with very good 2nd set of factors, attractions the 1st set becomes irrelevant because they are universally attractive

Thanks for your answer, but it could definitely use a rewording.