eduardkoopman
Fire
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
- Posts
- 23,095
- Reputation
- 28,950
Can, we stop the cope. That children looks, is random.
Intro
It's about increased odds.
Children looks features, is mostly decided by the looks features, and attractivness, of the parents.
There is some significant amount of risk, on how it gets re-combined. So it also has a significant uncertain aspect. But it also has a significant of not mostly, predictive aspect (aka, the parents attractivenss level).
To not be an "muh opinion", or anecdotal evidence coper.
Here some quotes of common research on these matters:
Study 1.
"Substantial heritability is found in both facial attractiveness (~60 %) and in facial masculinity–femininity (~50 %), a prerequisite for “sexy sons” and “sexy daughters” good genes hypotheses."
" The heritability was ~0.50–0.70 for attractiveness"
"genetic influences on attractiveness were shared across the sexes, suggesting that attractive fathers tend to have attractive daughters and attractive mothers tend to have attractive sons."
(by the way, now know why Elliot Rodgers got fucked. his dad looks good, but his mother less. And his sister, also looked good, but he got nuked significantly by the mothers lesser looks. Also Elliot Rodgers fathered remaried and had a son with a female that was also quit good looking. And that son looks actually really good.)
source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096150/
Study 2.
"We found that both fathers' and mothers' attractiveness predicted the facial attractiveness of daughters: ‘sexy daughters’. Fathers and sons were related to each other in facial masculinity but not attractiveness, providing only partial evidence for ‘sexy sons’. Mothers and sons did not relate in masculinity–femininity; neither did fathers and daughters."
source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347208003928
Study 3:
to add. when we allow females to choice mates.
Females select hard, on attractiveness (and height) of men. They are natural selection maxxing, alot (also). Which is basically their biology telling them: attractiveness (and height) is hertiable. otherwise their biology wouldn't fprce them to select for it.
"As predicted, facially more attractive and taller men were more likely to engage in marriage. In turn, married men had higher reproductive success than single men.
Even when men’s marital status was considered, facially more attractive men had higher reproductive success than their less attractive counterparts. This supports the importance of physical attractiveness in sexual selection in modern humans."
link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10164-011-0274-0
Intro
It's about increased odds.
Children looks features, is mostly decided by the looks features, and attractivness, of the parents.
There is some significant amount of risk, on how it gets re-combined. So it also has a significant uncertain aspect. But it also has a significant of not mostly, predictive aspect (aka, the parents attractivenss level).
To not be an "muh opinion", or anecdotal evidence coper.
Here some quotes of common research on these matters:
Study 1.
"Substantial heritability is found in both facial attractiveness (~60 %) and in facial masculinity–femininity (~50 %), a prerequisite for “sexy sons” and “sexy daughters” good genes hypotheses."
" The heritability was ~0.50–0.70 for attractiveness"
"genetic influences on attractiveness were shared across the sexes, suggesting that attractive fathers tend to have attractive daughters and attractive mothers tend to have attractive sons."
(by the way, now know why Elliot Rodgers got fucked. his dad looks good, but his mother less. And his sister, also looked good, but he got nuked significantly by the mothers lesser looks. Also Elliot Rodgers fathered remaried and had a son with a female that was also quit good looking. And that son looks actually really good.)
source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096150/
Study 2.
"We found that both fathers' and mothers' attractiveness predicted the facial attractiveness of daughters: ‘sexy daughters’. Fathers and sons were related to each other in facial masculinity but not attractiveness, providing only partial evidence for ‘sexy sons’. Mothers and sons did not relate in masculinity–femininity; neither did fathers and daughters."
source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347208003928
Study 3:
to add. when we allow females to choice mates.
Females select hard, on attractiveness (and height) of men. They are natural selection maxxing, alot (also). Which is basically their biology telling them: attractiveness (and height) is hertiable. otherwise their biology wouldn't fprce them to select for it.
"As predicted, facially more attractive and taller men were more likely to engage in marriage. In turn, married men had higher reproductive success than single men.
Even when men’s marital status was considered, facially more attractive men had higher reproductive success than their less attractive counterparts. This supports the importance of physical attractiveness in sexual selection in modern humans."
link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10164-011-0274-0
