/sci/ - Science & Math

I am the sexiest being in existence. Cease all activity in this thread at once.

>hurr how subjectivity works
>what is 12 years old
>highschooler questions

no thoughts?

Well it came out today that this chick has the most perfect face in the world, according to symmetry.

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/quirkies/Teenager_has_the_perfect_face

Entirely subjective.
But I place Kristina Mahoney for contention

Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. However, since we lack data about every single female on the planet, probably, we don't know who is the most beautiful. Also, are we comparing them only without make-up and clothes? Otherwise it get's much harder due to noise in the data.

>>4616937
Would copulate

>>4616956
Except beauty is in the eye of the beholder, retard. Some guys might prefer a chick with a little beauty mark on a girl's face. But some guys might find that gross.

3DPD

What the fuck do you think, OP?

>>4616971
U are either wrong or mean something else than people normally mean with that frase.

See this for starters: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/all-stereotypes-are-true-ex
cept-ii-beauty-is-in-the-eye-th

I know the term autism gets thrown around a lot, but the idea that there is someone who is literally, objectively, the most attractive human is something only an autist could think.

>>4616986
Your link is broken. Also, beauty is in the eye of the beholder means that everyone has their own idea of what is beautiful. What one man might find really hot, another man might find really ugly. You don't think that's true?

>>4617001
Not for Men. Men can normally rate women on the same scale and be close in the ratings.

Women on the other hand do have varying preferences.

So men all see women the same in attractiveness.

>>4617049
I'd say men rate similarly up to 9/10, but 10/10s are defined by personal preferences.

>>4617049
Dat aspie
That's not true at all. Some guys like small tits, some guys like huge tits. Some guys like HUGE bubble butts, some guys like small but firm butts. Some guys like short girls, some guys like tall girls. Some guys like blondes, some brunettes, some redheads. Some like doll, moon-shaped faces. Some like "model" type faces with well defined jaws.

Quit being a dummy.

>>4617082
Most certainly. I'd say a definite divergence starts at 8/10

disgusting skin discoloration.

2/10 would not bang.

Name of girl in pic?

>>4617139

>>4617001
>Your link is broken. Also, beauty is in the eye of the beholder means that everyone has their own idea of what is beautiful. What one man might find really hot, another man might find really ugly. You don't think that's true?

That is not what it means. It means that beauty is entirely relative. But it isn't. Humans across all cultures agree in broad strokes what is beautiful and what is not. Judgements of beauty is a human
universal.

Link works fine for me, otherwise just google it.

>>4617049
>Women on the other hand do have varying preferences.

Don't think so. The attractiveness of men is similar to the attractiveness of women. It is a human universal and pretty much all humans agree what is attractive and what is not. No surprise. If it was completely relative like the popular idiom frase 'claims', that wud be extraordinary, evolutionary speaking. It is obviously not the case. Humans are similar to the other mammals in mate selection.

hmmmmmmmmm

>>4616937
small eyes,
2/10 would not bang

>>4617322
the agreement is not perfect. i'd give it a spearman's of maybe 0.7

Even entertaining the idea that beauty isn't completely subjective is ludicrous.

The hottest girl on Earth simply means the girl who is found to be attractive by the most amount of people.

Whether or not beauty is subjective is irrelevant to the task of objectively finding out who that girl is.

>>4618104
how much agreement there is is interesting. if the hottest girl wins by a huge majority or a slim plurality is of interest.

Answer to your second question: Yes.

>>4618114
You're objectively wrong.

>>4617148
Ae Sook Photoshoop

>>4618116
Depends. If you can show good rank correlation, then yes, he's objectively wrong, if not, then he isn't.

>>4618124
You're objectively wrong.

>>4618139
you're objectively trolling

>>4618142
You're wrong, but I'm less certain of the objectivity this time. To lend credence to my rebuttal of your accusation, I'll elaborate on previous statements.

>Answer to your second question: Yes.
>>You're objectively wrong.
The second question was:
>or does the subjectivity of beauty render such a classification meaningless?
and just to clarify for the record:
>such a classification
refers to:
>hottest girl on Earth

Replying "Yes" to the question "Does subjectivity of beauty render a classification of hottest girl on Earth meaningless" is objectively wrong, and here's why:

"Hot" is a colloquialism for attractiveness. Given thousands of empirical examples from studies showing that attractiveness is synonymous with activity in the pleasure centers of the brain, we can state with certainty that 'to be attractive' means to instigate activity in a person's pleasure centers. The question asks whether or not someone can find meaning from the classification of hottest person; based upon the objective preceding arguments it would not be without cause to say that the hottest girl on Earth with be the one who activates the pleasure centers of the most beings on Earth. This gives the classification "hottest girl on Earth" a semantic correlate. Id est, it has meaning. Having meaning means that is logically is not 'meaningless'. Ergo, that poster was objectively wrong. QED.

(1/2)

>>4618142
You're wrong, but I'm less certain of the objectivity this time. To lend credence to my rebuttal of your accusation, I'll elaborate on previous statements.

>Answer to your second question: Yes.
>>You're objectively wrong.
The second question was:
>or does the subjectivity of beauty render such a classification meaningless?
and just to clarify for the record:
>such a classification
refers to:
>hottest girl on Earth

Replying "Yes" to the question "Does subjectivity of beauty render a classification of hottest girl on Earth meaningless" is objectively wrong, and here's why:

"Hot" is a colloquialism for attractiveness. Given thousands of empirical examples from studies showing that attractiveness is synonymous with activity in the pleasure centers of the brain, we can state with certainty that 'to be attractive' means to instigate activity in a person's pleasure centers. The question asks whether or not someone can find meaning from the classification of hottest person; based upon the objective preceding arguments it would not be without cause to say that the hottest girl on Earth with be the one who activates the pleasure centers of the most beings on Earth. This gives the classification "hottest girl on Earth" a semantic correlate. Id est, it has meaning. Having meaning means that it logically is not 'meaningless'. Ergo, that poster was objectively wrong. QED.

(1/2)

>>4618154

(2/2)

Now with regards to my second statement of someone else being objectively wrong.

He said:
>Depends. If you can show good rank correlation, then yes, he's objectively wrong, if not, then he isn't.

Since I previously established the objectivity of the first statement and implicitly showed the non-dependent nature of its objective truth-functionality. It logical follows that this statement is objectively wrong in that it does not depend on anything for his statement to be objectively wrong. It is objectively wrong, it will always be objectively wrong, and it is objectively wrong in every possible universe. The statement that there is a contingent factor in his wrongness is in itself also objectively wrong. Everyone in this thread is retarded, most everyone on /sci/ is retarded. Go fuck yourselves for being so goddamn retarded and not realizing what I've said by yourself. QED.

Eat a bag of baby dicks.

>>4618154

the statement you said was wrong was
>Depends. If you can show good rank correlation, then yes, he's objectively wrong, if not, then he isn't.

which is not in disagreement with what you are saying

you are so keen on being right while others are wrong, that you fail to notice when people are in agreement.

perhaps you don't know what rank correlation is

>>4618160
You haven't shown that there is a "most"

there could be two women who get equal votes.

so eat some more dicks

>>4618167
He doesn't know what rank correlation means, obviously.

>>4618163

Everything you said is entirely irrelevant. Because his wrongness is not dependent. It has no dependent nature whatsoever. He is wrong. Period. Fullstop. End of statement. Which makes your statement: "It depends", also objectively wrong. You are wrong and retarded. Period. Fullstop. End of rine.

Kill yourself.

>>4618167

That is completely irrelevant. The classification is not rendered meaningless by that scenario.

Kill yourself.

>>4618168

Completely irrelevant.

Kill yourself.

>>4618170
Show me that there is agreement on who the hottest women is, that there isn't either

a tie,

or so many almost equally hottest women that the votes between them are to be considered noise

>>4618172
>>4618170
>>4618174
>irrelevant

>i don't understand, therefore i'm right

come back when you understand what people are saying, and then you'll find they are agreeing with you.

>>4617139
>mfw I love you

>>4618176

All of those scenarios have absolutely no bearing on the classification being meaningless, only your ability to comprehend it. That would be like saying special relativity is meaningless.

Kill yourself.

now op

when you say "girl" you mean female..... from any specie?

>>4618094
>the agreement is not perfect. i'd give it a spearman's of maybe 0.7

Something like that, yeah.

Beyonce is the most beautiful in the world, People Magazine says so and they are the authority on these things, right?

>>4618179

I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand why you are wrong. However, you're still wrong, objectively. Because you seem to still believe that his truth is dependent, which I've already showed is objectively wrong. To continue to believe that shows how retarded you are.

Kill yourself.

>>4618167
Extremely unlikely for there to be two females getting the exact same vote if we surveyed the entire population of the Earth.

The perfect woman....

>>4618211
She could be cute if not for the eye lenses.

No, it's subjective.
Some guys only like blondes, some only asians, etc.

Keep waifu threads on /tv/, please.

>>4616780
>>4618211
challenger appears

>>4618154
>Given thousands of empirical examples from studies showing that attractiveness is synonymous with activity in the pleasure centers of the brain, we can state with certainty that 'to be attractive' means to instigate activity in a person's pleasure centers.

"Given that eating turkey makes me sleepy, we can state with certainty that 'turkey' means something that causes sleepiness."

>based upon the objective preceding arguments it would not be without cause to say that the hottest girl on Earth with be the one who activates the pleasure centers of the most beings on Earth.

That's analogous to saying that if blue is the most popular favorite color, then blue is objectively the best color.

This whole thread is absurd.

>>4618228

>>4618181
show this, or kill yourself

a counter example has already been given.

>>4618191
there may be 20,000 females who get a vote so near to each other that the difference has no statistical significance

>>4618236
it's not that, he just hasn't shown that there is a best colour. he assumes attractiveness as an ordering has a maxima

Even completing disregarding nurture (which would be stupid), you're most attracted to someone who shows signs that their genes will complement yours well. Obviously this differs from person to person.

Stop being such autists.

PROTIP: it is possible to be overly reductionist

Listen to Einstein:
"Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler."

There was a great documentary on this about 12 years ago. I don't know if she was the hottest, but there was this girl named Zara who was a total babe. Perfect proportions. I believe it aired on the Discovery Channel in 3 or 4 installments.

>>4618211
She can not be perfect because she is not cooking dinner or patching the crotch-holes in my pants.

Probably some Mexican or Indian chick.

>those eyes
shoooped.

>>4618296
Circle lens and makeup

Is this the hottest guy on earth

if beauty is not subjective and all dudes think the same kind of women are attractive, then nobody must think asians/latinos are hot because I find them to be quite unattractive.

>>4618346
i once banged zizz

true story