Have you ever wondered why there are still “ugly” people despite the idea that attractive individuals have an easier time finding partners and reproducing? 🤔 Do genetics play a role in this phenomenon? Let’s explore the intriguing question together!
#attractivepeople #reproduction #genetics #evolution #partnership
Factors influencing partner selection:
- Physical appearance
- Personality traits
- Shared values and beliefs
Genetic diversity and evolution:
- Survival of diverse traits
- Adaptation to changing environments
- Importance of genetic variability
Conclusion:
By understanding the complex interplay of genetics, partner selection, and evolution, we can appreciate the diversity of individuals in our world. Let’s celebrate uniqueness and embrace the beauty of genetic variation! 🌟
Far more goes into relationships and having children than looks. Honestly, aside from when you’re young or basically blind dating like on apps, I’d say looks play a very small role for most people. Or at the very least, very few people care about getting with the hottest person they can.
Attractiveness is not like, one gene. Attractive parents can have ugly kids. And ugly parents can have kids who aren’t ugly.
Furthermore, I don’t believe it’s true attractive people reproduce more.
Because they marry other ugly people
Marrying for money might be one reason
The idea that attractiveness plays a minimal role in long-term relationships might stem from the concept of the ‘halo effect.’ Psychological studies suggest that we tend to associate positive characteristics, like kindness and intelligence, with physical attractiveness. Over time though, as we get to know someone, their personality traits become far more significant in how attractive we find them. Plus, societal norms have evolved; values like shared interests, emotional support, and financial stability often take precedence over physical appearance when settling down and starting a family. Sure, being good-looking might give you an initial advantage in the dating game, but it’s the deeper, intangible qualities that lead to durable unions. It could be argued, then, that the long game of relationships hinges less on surface looks and more on the beauty within.
It’s a bit complicated isn’t it? Genetics plays a wild game. But let’s remember We’re not just talking ‘good genes’ here, but also survival skills, personality traits, social status, and even environmental factors. Nature’s got layers, man.
A number of reasons:
1) Attractiveness is largely relative. There might be someone most would consider “ugly” with a physical feature that’s an absolute turn on for someone else
2) Most people can get beyond physical attraction with relationships
3) Attractive people don’t always have attractive kids
4) A lot of what makes someone attractive/unattractive is actually controllable and not genes. Being fat vs physically fit, dressing well/sloppy, the way you hold yourself, and so on. There are plenty of people with weird faces who are physically fit, have a lot of confidence and a great personality, who are well put together that can punch way outside their class and pull attractive partners
Because ugly and beautiful aren’t black and white. Besides beauty is one the eyes of the beholder.
Because attractiveness isn’t a trait like eye color.
Ugly people have just as many if not more kids than attractive people. People don’t die off before producing progeny unless the selection pressure is congenital heart disease or something. Ugly just has kids with ugly.
Because ugly still fucks
If humanity evolved from monkey’s then why do monkeys still exist?
Genetics my friend. You see there is this funny thing about them that aides in what you look like, how you think and how you go about things. What a lot of people don’t seem to grasp is that we have (unscientifically) no control over this. Genes also skip generations. Two people can be very attractive, have a child, and that childs genetics have awoken other traces of things from past ancestry, and that child is obese, deformed, autistic, etc.. etc..
So there is really no natural control over this.
its true that the genes for attractiveness are inherited from the parents, but its incorrect to act like there is a “attractive gene” and “ugly gene.”
facial features alone have at least 32 possible gene influences, which means there are 63443466000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 different possible facial feature layouts from the same two parents. ((rounded to the nearest hundred gazillion or something, I typed it out cause “raised to the 88th power ” doesn’t mean anything to most people)).
That really isn’t a typo or randomly typed number. A lot of those differences are probably so subtle you don’t really notice them, but you get the idea. For all intents and purposes appearances is complete rng, genetically at least.
Cuz ugly people procreate with ugly people? I’m not being an asshole here either. If you are “attractive” who are you going to procreate with? More likely and “attractive” person. And what happens with the “ugly” people? Well, everyone wants to feel loved so they band together.
Not to mention “ugly” and “attractive” change over time, so of course they stay in the pool
People of all “beauty standards” have relationships and raise kids.
It’s not like only supermodels are having children! Everyone else still does as well.
Because a diverse gene pool has been one of the largest factors to our success as a species. Think “types”.
When I see two attractive people they usually have one kid…maybe two. But when I see an ugly couple they always have five or more kids.
We have had extremely few generations at any beauty standard, humans have a lot of genes and humans pick numbers of children for reasons having nothing to do with objective (?) partner attractiveness.
A great deal of modern physical beauty standards are also things that have little or nothing to do with genetics vs. exercise and grooming.
I think attractive people would indeed stay single much longer. Most couples with kids aren’t really attractive compared to singles mostly. But that’s just my personal perspective after spectating people.
“Attractiveness” the way you’re saying it is informed largely by social norms that often change.
Romantic/sexual attraction is more complex, consiting both of how one was socialized and certain biological factors.
So not fitting whatever contemporary beauty standard, doesn’t provide an evolutionary disadvantage.
Also there are plenty of “ugly” people that don’t have any inheritable unnatractive characteristics, They’re just bad at taking care of themselves.
There are lots more ugly people to start with and they tend to have a shitload of kids.
Funnily when You have a 6 dígits bank acount or more You suddenly are very desirable
Look around you in any town centre. I see women that would make Shrek blush pushing prams.
Beer: helping ugly people get lucky for thousands of years.
Because genetics don’t work that way. Here’s an easy example: tall, stalky, big head, big hands, and a wide chin look great on a man, not so much on his daughter.
imagine john cena with a wig. there is chances his daughter look like that a day. is he good looking ? YES, would a woman with this face be good looking ? hell no
ugly people fuck each other, and fuck like rabbits
Being attractive gets you laid. Being strong/smart/or resourceful keeps you alive long enough to get laid. Being stupid keeps you from caring about whatever ( the flood or your position in life or the tigers trying to eat you) so you focus on feeling good so you get laid. Being young means you’re more likely to survive traumas so you get laid. Being old means you’re wise and experienced enough to get laid. Being short means you can hide in small spaces so you survive to get laid. Being tall means you stand out from others and can see over obstacles for danger so you get laid. Being black with curly hair means you’re better suited for hit environments so you’re able to function in the sun and get laid. Being white, red hair, etc etc etc… it’s not that your idea is wrong. It’s just that humans are great at finding ways to overcome struggles and reproduce
What is considered good looking changes over time
Maybe attractive people actually are becoming more common though. You haven’t seen the uggos who existed hundreds of years ago.
Your entire premise is flawed.
I was thinking about this earlier when I saw my neighbour.
The genetics that made an attractive father masculine and strapping might not look good on his daughters.
The genetics that made an attractive mother feminine and pretty might not look good on her sons.
I don’t find anyone ugly, everyone has something,skin,hair,
Cause nature has the last laugh.
Some genes remain dormant in attractive people (just like every other person) that can show up in their kids.
You are beautiful on the inside OP, that’s all that matters
There are far more “Ugly” people than pretty people, and we are getting our swerve on.
Because attractive people are not more likely to find a partner and reproduce. You’ve started with a false assumption.
I know plenty of attractive couples who have birthed notably unattractive children.
People aren’t all shallow assholes
I’ve seen attractive parents have not so attractive kids (I don’t like calling nice people ugly). Genetics are VERY weird
All answers are wrong. There’s such a thing as regression towards the mean. Tall parents have, on average, children that are shorter than them. And similarly short parents have, on average, taller children than them. Our genes just push us towards the average for some reason. I think the same is applicable towards how we look as well https://www.jstor.org/stable/41465842
Because attractive people aren’t more likely to reproduce