How can beauty be measured if no two people look alike?

[Richmondbread]

Outside of identical twins, of course. No one looks alike really, so how can objectively say X looks better than X. Some factors such as ideal body fat, but most of it is highly subjective , is it not?

[Tooting Carmen]

Yes, most of it is subjective, rather like other things that you yourself almost certainly believe in e.g. racial hierarchy.

[Richmondbread]

Yes, most of it is subjective, rather like other things that you yourself almost certainly believe in e.g. racial hierarchy.

I don't subscribe to "White Supremacy" if that's what you believe.

[Activateur]

Same question can be asked:

How can you properly classify someone of a phenotype, if two persons of the same phenotype don't look alike?

Anthropology and classifying is all broad term/umbrella term and purity spiraling always. This is why I DON't get it why these people get mad if I call alpines asian, when they plot exactly between the two races metrically.


Unless there are more clades of x phenotype, just like they do with the Y-dna haplogroups. Some sort of alpine -b1 alpine b2 type and so on. You can't classify someone with a pure phenotype classification anyway. This is why classifying is very subjective too. analogous with beauty. and very biased, only to fit agenda. Classifying isn't drawn by boundaries, so there is that problem. There's no, adapted framework for classifying people. Unless you're using my lepto-eurymorph extreme classification which I posted in that thread of alpine are reduced meds or cro magnons. But that would be metrics, not facial feautres, which sometimes account for more than 50% of the classifcation because ppl don't care about metrics or have wrong definitions of them. Like token nigger said high-headedness = acrocephaly which was wrong, but he kept the same retarded idea all over the thread just to fit his shitty agenda and to defend his rep lol.

Anthropology is filled with guys like these. with no understanding of terms and unwilling to approach new theories, scheme and embrace new innovative ideas. This is the problem of anthropology on this site.

I am telling you about anthro because this is the key to understanding beauty too. After I was upgraded with anthropology, I figured out why I dislike some phenotypes, it made me open the view on the world and reverse-engineer it. Now I grouped which phenotypes I like which I don't. BUt phenotype isn't a principal component, it is divided between some others too. viscerocranium for example neurocranium, and what sits on viscerocranium, besides bone(== metrics) it is a complex thing. But I NOW began to understand lately about the principal components too.

There was something about a golden ratio in faces, go look for it. But imo, I can always tell if a person's beauty is overrated or underrated by a trend.

On very good principal component would be a high rooted nose, with long distance between selllion subnasale and slightly upturned for example. And many others. We can't list them here right now.
But almost always, the more nordid a person is, the more beautiful it is.

[Incal]

Also, it has a lot to do with fads and trends, specially among anglo women, who are the most easily manipulable creatures on whole earth. And right now, fat christian white guys are at the bottom of the totem pole.

[Annihilus]

beauty is in the eye of the beholder

[Valkyrion]

Human sub-conscious mind is programmed to find evolutionary advantageous features as attractive and psychophysical defects and deformities as repulsive, also attractiveness is partially social construct in way that certain features are valued more in certain cultures at certain times.

During middle ages obesity was attractive, because at that time 99% of people lived at edge of starvation and if you were obese back then it implied that you have abundance of resources needed for survival.

[Nietzsche300]

I made my mind about that and about why ancient Greeks were a "higher race".

Reason supports the functions of the senses.
Nervous system and senses develop through the difficulty in the nutrition.
We have 5 Senses:
Man and animals: Ears (visual navigation: plant-eaters have eyes on the sides and ears on the back side of the head; meat-eaters: eyes in front, ears in the middle)
Insects: Eyes (navigation through smell)
Plants: smell (navigation through touch -- meat-eaters have touch 100%)
Single-cell organisms: touch
Virus: taste (when we are sick cold we lose our taste)
What must the man do to become an Overman?
He must sink his nose (which becomes tiny: the holes come together? -- compare those of the plant-eaters) in his mouth, where taste and touch(tip of the tongue) are already present. The eyes must become "deeper" and sink there where the nose now is, the ears become smaller and come where the eyes are, and on the back of the head (and for a long time perhaps in the head residing) must grow new senses.

[Roy]

Also, it has a lot to do with fads and trends, specially among anglo women, who are the most easily manipulable creatures on whole earth. And right now, fat christian white guys are at the bottom of the totem pole.

It sucks for Rich, then.

[Tooting Carmen]

I don't subscribe to "White Supremacy" if that's what you believe.

Based on some of what you have said, I think otherwise.