/sci/ - Science & Math

I'd say looks certainly come into play, but they're by no means the only factor.

>>6350215
I think you pretty much answered your own question. It's like asking do you think rich people buy more things than poor people.

There are plenty of ugly people who do good and get recognition.

>Do you think ugly people are treated worse than attrcive people?
Yes. Also you may not have realized this, but dumb people make less money and short people can't ride roller coasters.

>>6350338
im not shallow and i dont treat ugly people worse

This phenomenon has been shown to be existent in many fields, more attractive people have an advantage in happiness, income, etc.

Sucks to know but it's true.

>>6350273
There are plenty of beautiful people who do nothing and get recognition.

>tfw my big nose is not symmetrical, septum deviation
>tfw I need 2000$ for operaton or I'll be ugly forever

I just want it to be straight ;_;

Waht happened to judging people according to their sincerity and the inherent goodness of their intentions and actions?

Sure, it's great to be athletic, pretty, or a genius but I think everyone that isn't a complete sociopath should be able to express enough empathy to appreciate that people shouldn't have to suffer for what they haven't control over.

Because looks are literally pleasing at first impression. They're low-hanging fruit of mental arousal. If you actually have to find something beyond a lack of arousal in looks, then you have to spend fucking time and do fucking shit or hope they'll impress you.

First impressions man. How do you get a bunch of apes to respect you? First impressions.

You forget how dumb the "average" person is. They're pretty dumb.

clearly, there's a spectrum of characteristics that we can judge any given human on.

however I believe it's valid to ask whether attractiveness receives undue weight in judging, or that people stereotype (make instant judgements) according to how others look without getting to know them.

i don't necessarily agree either way; however it is a question worth considering for modern society.

>>6350587
ugly autist detected

>>6350587

pretty much this.

people will always tend to discriminate on whatever is most noticeable.

so if your redeeming quality isn't one that people may notice at first glance, you are perhaps at a bit of a disadvantage.

>>6350585

Give me "Has never happened in the history of the Earth" for a thousand.

"Sincerity" and "inherent goodness" are more spooks than anything else. We have empathy. That's it. There are smart people who lack empathy. There are powerful people who lack empathy.

And usually empathy nudges us towards "other agents are pretty valuable and necessary for a society which enables the creation of something called an individual.".

>>6350589

But I wasn't even disparaging looks. But they're literally the low-hanging fruit of mental arousal. You see for a second and go "WOW" or "UGH". You don't know the beauty of a man's soul or the meaning of his struggles from a single second. You have to waste time.

>>6350594

well gamble time. You just might find out he's just a dumb asshole. Or a smart asshole. or crazy.

>>6350592

>>Waht happened to judging people according to their sincerity and the inherent goodness of their intentions and actions?

>Give me "Has never happened in the history of the Earth" for a thousand.

I think you're being really overly cynical.

I dunno where you live, but just talk a walk outside; you'll realize most people are pretty understanding, even in the poorest parts of the world (sometimes, moreso).

we're not that incapable of benevolence.

>>6350592
>"other agents are pretty valuable and necessary for a society which enables the creation of something called an individual."

I'm fairly positive sense of self is intrinsic to humans; it would exist even without society.

>>6350598

They're pretty understanding because they have empathy.

But understanding is partially a matter of socioeconomic status. The "master class" is literally full of empathic idiots. Do you understand the type of psychology that someone has when they don't have that "urge" to explore the world but have been stuck without having to worry about food, shelter, or *insert any needs*. Like literally never having to worry.

The contempt of the upper class is real and rooted in notions of "natural order". Homeless people are either literally fallen demons, invisible, or "meat" to such assholes.

Hell, first world nations are literally full of empathic idiots.

"Why don't they just stop being lazy?"
"Why don't they just like stop fighting?"

What the hell do you mean 'do good'?
Make money and you'll get attention. Money is the bottom line

I'm attractive and I see plenty of ugly people with more friends than me. On new years this kind of fat, ugly guy basically disinvited me from a party, he was dating a cute girl that was there. It was insulting

Learn to make money, because that's all that matters. You can find your own happiness from there

>>6350603

Except the mode of production which has enabled our particular behavior of "exploring and categorizing the self" either through imagery, metaphorics, or linguistic technology would not be available unless we were in a society.

You don't realize how much you absorb without thinking and crush and chew in your unconscious.

>>6350608

Well "money"/"currency" and proto-capital has been a potent arousal mechanism throughout civilization. Especially in our time.

You could be tired as shit. Ready to hit the fucking sack. Someone drops $5000 on your lap. It's like fucking cocaine. You literally have a world of possibilities open to you in our society.

Money = arousal. It's literally arousing.

>>6350607

>But understanding is partially a matter of socioeconomic status. The "master class" is literally full of empathic idiots. Do you understand the type of psychology that someone has when they don't have that "urge" to explore the world but have been stuck without having to worry about food, shelter, or *insert any needs*. Like literally never having to worry.

if you claim they can't relate to others... what you're describing sounds like the exact opposite of empathy.

>>6350610

Well, why should it matter? Our sense of self is what it is. How it came to be seems immaterial. It's still worth respecting for its own sake. right?

>>6350621

No, it's a difference between the potential of empathic behavior and actually practicing that on most of humanity.

The litany of unspoken assumptions and behaviors that structure their world in comparison to a majority which kind of well...struggles.

It's like not being in the military and being in the military. After being in the military, you can't stand to watch shit like Star Trek or any of that Lone Survivor shit because it's totally fucking ignorant of the experience of most actual military guys. And yet such fictions structure actual models of how (average) people think the military works or how wars are fought or some shite.

Okay that was a tangent. But like imagine waking up for a Starbucks and going for a day of shopping and never having to worry about "okay I spent this money blah blah" and looks forward to a set path of college, job because of connections. All she has to do is avoid drug addiction and psychopathy. That's all she has to do.

You CAN'T practice the empathic behavior necessary for relating to even middle class citizens let alone the majority of humanity. Which is why contempt and belief in "natural orders" are the secular religious walls they erect to prevent contact with the edges of an outside reality.

>>6350624

Except the notion of "having a self that is worth respecting for its own sake" doesn't come out of a void. It's literally the linguistic and symbolic technology of a society that enables "animals" to become "individuals" in the sense we know it.

Yes we are valuable I guess but even that question would be meaningless without a society of other people to make you examine that.

>>6350630

still, i don't think self-image is meaningless just because it's partly a product of some artificial, "unnatural" influences.

the worth of the concept should not depend on how it comes to be.

for some considerations, all that matters is that it is.

>>6350628
Too much empathy outside your kin group is an aberration and an evolutionary disadvantage.

>>6350641

Ahhh I think I was arguing against some man of straw ha ha.

In that case of the usage of that "agent" sentence, I was just being sloppy and shorthanded. Of course we have some sense of our emotions and can relate to other people in that sense. And somehow that sense of value and meaning transfers...occasionally.

But I have to anticipate an attack (well what's the use of empathy for an agent) and countered it with "well society allows us to be individuals. It's in poor taste to disparage the people who make the tools you connect to your body for no reason other than not being your 'self'"

If you become too alienated from your fellow man, you lose the treasures and labor of countless neurological processing systems out of simple stupidity. My apologies though, I really wish I could make a more coherent summary of my intuitions at the moment.

>>6350658

Aberration isn't a value judgment. Every single thing on this Earth was an "aberration" before it become part of the landscape.

And evolutionary disadvantage isn't a "value" judgment. We live for ourselves and our own appetites. We don't live for the abstract idea of passing down genes. We might be part of a feedback system involving genetics but it gives us no "aim".

Plus too much empathy is far less of a problem than simple callousness in tandem with overconfidence and inflated self-esteem.

>>6350467
if you measure happiness by amount of fake smiles and attention someone gets from others on a daily basis, then no they arent happier.

>>6350585
>everyone that isn't a complete sociopath
they are subhuman scum lol
seriously anyone who helps a soiopath in life is stupid
ignore them and their values brethren.

>>6350588
modern society will only ponder the question if an attractive person presents it to them.

>>6350598
>most people are pretty understanding,
TO AN EXTENT. MAYBE. IF THEY FEEL GIVING THAT DAY.

and what OP is talking about is getting ahead and far in life. NOT WALKING OUT THE DOOR. JEUS FUCKING CHRIST.

>>6350743
Get over it already, girl. I mean just look at yourself, you're pathetic. Back to the reddit, please.

>>6350215

Well, every species supports good looking individuals because of their good genes.

But unless you're ugly as fuck high accomplishments can make up for not being a model - at least for men.

If you're a woman and not hot you should mabe consider to jump off a bridge to make room for the better looking ones.

>>6350607
stop fucking saying "literally" where it doesn't apply

theories and ideas how and what does the hippocampus do?

>>6350919
sry, forgot to check out from the thread

>>6350761
Yes, you are scum.

>>6350810

Every species has a roughly different idea of "good looking" because their scanning systems look for different points and different body plans or don't even rely on the visual scanning system but other senses.

Our "beauty" is the result of the sexual prejudice of bilateral organisms with visual scanning systems from hundreds of millions of years ago.

Bilateral individuals with numerous genetic mutations also have a high correlation with unsymmetrical "looks".

If an individual of bilateria went for an asymmetrical individual, they'd have a higher chance of producing sterile/unviable offspring. So the bias for asymmetrical individuals was weeded out.

It's not that all "ugly" people are inherently lesser people, not true by far. But our judgments are based on bias'. Not because any species looks consciously for "genes". Bias and arousal has to be phenotypically developed first!

Likewise, symmetrical features don't 100% correlate to "norm" or "viable" offspring or even to those who have them.

If you're a man, it's okay to be ugly as long as you're physically fit and somewhat smart with talent.

If you're a girl well then plastic surgery is your only option.

More people would be symmetrical (that is, evidently provided with sustenance during crucial periods of very early fetal development) if we actually demanded that pregnant mothers be more responsible.

Yet the opposite is true. We have a social prohibition to criticising any woman who is pregnant.

Second problem is that women (and men) are generally physically degenerate. Very few people eat right and exercise. Obese people without anything good to pass on, genetically or culturally, are happily getting pregnant and having kids.

If the kids are misshapen little retarded freaks we are expected to praise them as "Gifts from God".

Amanda Knox has been proven innocent you illiterate twat. She was demonized by ass backwards Italy.

>>6351101
Why are you calling me a twat? Take your self-hatred elsewhere you stupid cunt fodder. Hahahaha.

>>6351073

"Eating right" and "exercising" are a matter of cultural tools and cultural accommodations.

When we have a break in how physiologies develop as opposed to something like a century ago, maybe the issue is more of a social and economic one than the wretched hatred of wanna-be moralists and priests. I don't think people who would've been "all right" a century ago but are obese now are "degenerate". Their bodies are literally in different modes of production and consumption that aren't adapted to something RADICALLY NEW TO MAN'S PHYSIOLOGY (the perpetual availability of high-fat, high-sodium, high-carb food).

You don't say "Why isn't this dog conducting behaviorial therapy to modulate its mood" when you put it in a cage or if the only stimulation you give it is the daily food it eats.

And having babies is socially encouraged (duh). Part of that is economics (you need younger workers to support old retirement) and part of it is unconscious game theory on part of the parents. It's a gamble that pays off if the child is successful. Ascend to a comfortable living or be stuck in a flat zone that isn't satisfying.

You can't be angry with agents for choosing viable strategies that don't fit an autistic vision of "how the world should be without any consideration of underlying mechanics" compared to "how the world is and how agents react to their environment".

>>6350215
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect#Role_of_attractiveness

>>6351105
"Amanda Knox is a murderer but she's beautiful so it's okay" is both wrong and foolish. Any research into the case shows that she's entirely innocent and that the persecutor was biased against her from the outset of the case.

>>6351161
So what? Calling someone a twat isn't gonna make you seem right or make you right or make the person want to even give heed to your words.
Learn some basic manners and respect, kid.

>>6351106
>"Eating right" and "exercising" are a matter of cultural tools and cultural accommodations.

In the first world, these tools and accommodations are available so what is your point?

>I don't think people who would've been "all right" a century ago but are obese now are "degenerate".

I beg to differ. The evidence is that they are.

>And having babies is socially encouraged (duh). Part of that is economics (you need younger workers to support old retirement) and part of it is unconscious game theory on part of the parents.

What does that have to do with anything. The point I am making is that people don't optimize their own genetics, and typically they don't optimize it for their kids. In fact they handicap themselves and their kids.

>>6351173
Not the guy who called him a twat, Just saying that twat guy is right.

>>6351234
That doesnt answer my question.
So please refrain from talking.

>>6351173
fuck you bitch this 4chan not debate club

if you want to downboat people for being omg so mean! head to reddit

>>6351256
k boring, goodbye :)

>>6350215
>Look at the piece of shit amanda knox
fuck you, she's innocent you stupid prick

>be italian courts
>hurr durr, we have no fucking idea what we're doing - wut ar justiceses??
>"she's guilty!"
>"oh no wait, sorry, we fucked up the evidence, she's actually innocent
"...wait a minute, we want a retrial!"
"kk we've changed our minds, shes actually guity again. we can haz extradition plz?
no. they can fuck off
she'll never be going back there

stupid fucking italians and their shithouse justice system.

>>6351300
u wanna lick her pussy?

>>6351303
well, yeah. but that aint the point =p

>>6351306
why do you want to though? what if she has a very ugly pussy that looks dangrous?

>>6351312
nah, she aint the type to have an ugly pussy. she'll keep herself well groomed.

>>6351316
i was thinking of an actual scary weird pussy, one that needs surgery to look normal.

>>6351320
why the hell would you think she's got that??
she aint even actually a murderer, they already locked up the nigger who actually did it anyway

>>6351326
>amanda knox
... any girl can have a fucked up pussy dude

>>6351329
no, not 'any girl'. you'd have to be a massive cum slut who takes so much dick that it just totally ruins you.

>>6351337
sigh, i mean born defomities or just an unattractive looking vulva.
whatever, i still think shes a narcsissitic or psychopathc girl who comes off as ingenuine.

>>6351339
> i mean born deformities or just an unattractive looking vulva.
well yeah, but it's extremely rare. and she's no more likely to have that than any other girl.

> i still think shes a narcsissitic or psychopathc girl who comes off as ingenuine.
nah, i like her. and wtf makes you think she's psycopathic or narcissistic?? i mean besides the whole 'maybe i murdered my housemate' thing, which in all likelihood is just italian 'lawyers' spouting complete shit.

>>6351353
no its not rare.
good looking vulvas are rare.
most girls in porn have weird vulvas.

when u see her interview she seems fake. thats all there is to it.

also, i asked >>6351312
>why do you want to though? what if she has a very ugly pussy that looks dangrous?

>>6351360
>good looking vulvas are rare.
erm, no they aint
>most girls in porn...
ahahah! ok, i think i found your problem
girls in porn aint a good representation of all girls in general!

>when u see her interview she seems fake. thats all there is to it.
oh great, well why dont you get yourself down to the courthouse and testify that 'she seems fake' and see how well that go's down, hmm?
oh wait, you dont know her and have no idea if she's fake or not.

>why do you want to though? what if she has a very ugly pussy that looks dangrous?
because shes hot. and in the unlikely event of that, yeh, i'd bail.

Have you seen A. Knox's parents?

Fugly.

/sci/ is interested in why good looking people are good looking, the answer is wise decisions about health and fitness by the parents, particularly during gestation and the sensitive early years. If you look like a fugly asymmetrical mofo, its not your genetics, they were probably fine. It was likely your mom, getting sick during pregnancy (violating that ancient norm of keeping pregnant women the hell away from everyone else) where bilateral symmetry was affected by differing rates of reaction on each side.

The rest of you tossers can debate but the answer is obvious and sad, parents have bad eating and behavior habits and they screw up their kids in the womb, and then screw them up as they develop post-partum. I see it every fucking day on the bus. Kids drinking blue cola and eating candy, fat obese Moms, crack head dads, etc. Sure, some proportion might be dad's spermatogenesis, as sperm require more divisions than the egg. And men generally are more susceptible to damage and take more drugs, etc.

>>6351383
it's nature and nurture. genetics definitely plays a part.

fattys are ugly in both genders, and if you have parents that have genes that predispose you to be a chubb, then you'll probably end up as one.

>>6351372
dude, sit down.
i aasked a simple question and you wanted to fight about amanda. i literally dont care what happens to her or if you like her. JUST STOP.

>>6351402
> i literally dont care what happens to her
well fuck you! you dont care if an innocent person get's done for a crime they didnt even fucking do!??!
eat shit!
hope you get wrongly accused of rape or something, and then convicted, then you'll see what it's fucking like you stupid cretin!

>>6351407
firstly she seems guilty
secondly its not in my hands so why should i worry about this?
i do care if shes not guilty but srsly whats the point of u licking her proverbial ass on 4chan ?

>Do you think ugly people are treated worse than attractive people?

I've personally experienced this. I've looked both attractive and unattractive.

Please don't be the person who treats others badly because they have acne.

>>6351415
>firstly she seems guilty
..she 'seems' guilty?
wtf?!? SEEMS guilty?? who the fuck are you to judge her anyway? you sound just as shit as those hack italian lawyers.

in science theres this thing..oh yeah, you probably havent heard of it, it's called EVIDENCE! and fucking using the EVIDENCE to actually back up your bullshit claims and PROVE whether someone did or didnt murder someone!
also ever heard of 'innocent until proven guilty'?? coz they dont have shit on her
and OF COURSE her fucking DNA is on the kitchen knife because it's the knife she uses in the KITCHEN in her own fucking house! so obviously it's there, just like my DNA is probably on my own kitchen knife right now, it doesnt prove shit.

>secondly its not in my hands so why should i worry about this?
yeh, it aint your issue, and you dont have to worry, but saying that you dont even care about a potential miscarriage of justice and an innocent person spending decades in prison (she did actually serve 4 years already, btw, and was then acquitted...so yeah) makes you sound like a worthless sociopathic faggot!

>i do care if shes not guilty but srsly whats the point of u licking her proverbial ass on 4chan ?
i aint 'licking her ass' i just dont like shitty foreign courts abusing their power and shitting on innocent people.

I don't think people this good looking should go to jail.
#freeian

>>6351432
>in science theres this thing..oh yeah, you probably havent heard of it, it's called EVIDENCE!
i bet you failed law school :P

>>6350376
Good for you. Unfortunately the same can't be said of society at large.

>>6351432
uhh i do care its just that i dont know much about the case really. also the fact of everyone obsessed with her looks makes me care less about it.

>>6351444
she shaves her legs, combs her hair, uses natural looking makeup, coses her legs, probably works out, cuts her nails, wears normal female dress and flats.

ANY ONE CAN DO THAT.

>>6351457
Yeah but look how cute she is, I think she's innocent and so is Ian.

>>6351451
i didnt do law school

>>6351452
people aint obsessed with her looks. it's not actually the point. the point is that they have fuck all actually evidence on her, and absolutely no motive either.

>>6351470
dude, anyone can look cute.
also she seems ingenuine and like she thinks out every thing she says

>>6351478
>dude, anyone can look cute.
no they cant - some people are born ugly.
also, 'anyone'? coz guys dont like it if you call them 'cute'
'hot' works for both genders. 'cute', only for girls, and even then, only some girls.

>>6351482
dude. calm down.
i dont care if u like amanda. plz stop talking abt her on my thread as i dont thnk shes atractive

You are saying that like its a bad thing.

>>6351485
>plz stop talking abt her on my thread as i dont thnk shes atractive
i dont give a fuck what you think

>>6351491
;_;
Why couldn't they sentence her to 25 years with me?

>>6351494
because forcing someone to put up with your company is against the geneva convention
ZING!

>>6351495

Kill yourself.

>>6351505
not yet, but thanks for the suggestion :)

>>6351495
I wouldn't 'use' her for more than 15 minutes daily, and that would be only for licking.

>>6351516
you only lick for 15 minutes??
get some stamina, brah

>>6351521
W-well I h-have to be on /sci/, b-bro.

>>6351524
dude
no guy is licking my clit for 15 minutes
5 mins is enough
also i wouldnt suck anyones dick so lol PEACE

>>6351532
o i am a. knox btw

>>6351532
>5 mins for clit
Well, that leaves 10 minutes for face and legs licking

>>6351532
meh, depends how good he is at it. you wouldnt want to go again?

>also i wouldnt suck anyones dick so lol PEACE
wat? why?
if a guy is getting you off wouldnt you wanna return the favor?
you cant just taketaketake, and not give, well, you shouldnt anyway.

>>6351535
haha, yeh rite. altho i would totally love it if knox was actually a channer

>>6351536
>Well, that leaves 10 minutes for face and legs licking
dude, that is weird.

>>6351539
>if a guy is getting you off wouldnt you wanna return the favor?
nah cuz hes only doing it so i suck his dick

>>6351204

They're not available to everyone and within their schedule. Even then, you have to have a behavioral habit of "working out" and that's not really taught at all unless you're in an actual athletics program in which case you're already predisposed to athletics!

>The evidence is that they are.

I used to be obese when I was a kid and now I'm /fit/ material going to med school. It's a matter of taught and learned behavior in response to an environment. The environment of "high fat high salt high carb" has expanded ridiculously beyond our culture's willingness to teach some level of fitness WITH COMPETENCY. So don't give me "oh well we have like gym coaches" when such classes reinforce fitness as "punishment" and "unpleasant duty"

>The point I am making is that people don't optimize their own genetics,

So what? Nobody really "optimizes" their genetics. They self-select on the basis of bias and arousal. Smart people tend to attract other smart people and vice versa.

You're a complete buffoon if you think people are supposed to have an inbred notion of a concept that is less than two hundred years old and which they don't need to deal with in their mode of production/survival.

If you want better "behavior", you can't just call people names and envelop yourself with some secular Calvinist version of predestination where because you have CERTAIN mental behavior/tools, you're automatically a "chosen one". If you want to see your mental tools reproduced, you have to teach such behavior at a painful pragmatic level.

>>6351539
>meh, depends how good he is at it. you wouldnt want to go again?
no, i have low sex drie. it would get old after once

>>6351545
nah, not if it's a guy you actually care about, and he cares about you.
one-way is fine, if he's horny and you're not, or vice versa.

it aint exactly romantic if you pose it as some kind of bargaining/negotiation is it?
>ok hun, i'll suck your dick, but only if you lick me out first. deal?

if he is a dickhead, then by all means take your pleasure and fuck off. like on 'american pie reunion', with stiffler and loni 'blowjob' lipstein, rite?

>>6351548
>no, i have low sex drive
ugh, that must suck

>>6351554
>with stiffler and loni 'blowjob' lipstein, rite?
???

and yeah if its love i can suck dick but other wise no

>>6351566
well basically in high school she'd given him a blowjob (or several) but he never repayed the favor
so they meet up at the highschool reunion, and she takes him into the bathroom, climbs up onto the counter, and has him eat her out. then when he thinks it's his turn she just says "uh-uh, not this time" and just leaves. and he's pretty pissed off coz he presumed she's suck him off after.

>and yeah if its love i can suck dick but other wise no
whats love got to do with it? if you like a guy, then why not?
being selfish with sexuality aint cool.

>>6351557
no, sex is borig anyway

>>6351577
lol
nice story
props to the fake girl
anyway so what? i dont wanna do something i wont. its like telling me to paint your nails cuz u dont wanna do it. GO FUCK URSELF. =D

>>6351587
not for me, but w/e
protip: get a bf who also has a low sex drive. if you dont match up, he'll probably end up cheating. just saiyan.

>>6351593
you aint ever seen american pie?
huh, ok

>anyway so what? i dont wanna do something i wont.
well yeah, i get that, and i'm the same, but if it's a guy you really really like, theres no reason not to. people do nice things all the time for people they like. oral is just another option.

> its like telling me to paint your nails cuz u dont wanna do it.
wat? why would i have you do it? i'd just paint them myself.

>>6351602
ok thanks for the advice lol

you can also get yourself off. no big deal really.

>>6351641
yeh, true. but it feels so much better if someone else is doing it.
(also, if i could lick myself, i would, but even I aint that flexible) =p

>>6351546

Where to begin with you....

>(RE: Exercise) They're not available to everyone and within their schedule.

Excuses excuses. Bottom line is these people are choosing not to get physical activity. Everybody has free time. EVERY BODY.

>(RE: people are obese/degenerate and becoming moreso as time goes on) I used to be obese when I was a kid and now I'm /fit/ material going to med school. It's a matter of taught and learned behavior in response to an environment.

So... you're an exception to the rule which in effect proves that rule.

>The environment of "high fat high salt high carb" has expanded ridiculously beyond our culture's willingness to teach some level of fitness WITH COMPETENCY.

No argument there. But I'm not referring to fitness as some special program, merely being active, say, walking just 150 minutes a week would do it.

>So don't give me "oh well we have like gym coaches" when such classes reinforce fitness as "punishment" and "unpleasant duty"

Yes, no doubt "physical education" is a joke and counterproductive.

>So what? Nobody really "optimizes" their genetics. They self-select on the basis of bias and arousal. Smart people tend to attract other smart people and vice versa.

You must not be very fit. At higher levels of fitness (about average really) everyone from all levels will think you are attractive.

Anyway, fit people optimize their genetic potentials. Fit attracts fit, ok. Smart attracts smart. Everybody has biases.

>You're a complete buffoon if you think people are supposed to have an inbred notion of a concept that is less than two hundred years old and which they don't need to deal with in their mode of production/survival.

My contention is that it is the parents which do this to their kids, pre-conception, by failure to maintain their own health or behaviors, and post-partum by programming and reinforcing bad behavior and food/drug choices on their kids. Theres a word for this: dysgenic.

What are talking about? Almost all people have symmetrical faces. It's the shape of the brow ridge, jawbone, cheekbones, eyebrows etc. that determines how good looking someone is, not how symmetrical their faces are.

You're assuming these people make it there by looks alone, rather than by mainstream media's greed. There's plenty of cuties and plenty of killers out there.

What makes Knox special? She's a cutie and she's a killer. This shit sells. Same thing with Kardashian: C-grade celebs are always getting themselves into stupid shit to get some tabloid-time. They are literal attentionwhores.

>>6352981
>Knox
Isn't she officially recognised as innocent.

I've seen psychological experiments in which beauty even effected things such as how trustworthy and intelligent someone was estimated to be (even though there were no actual correlations between those traits).

>though luck uggos

>>6352981
>What makes Knox special? She's a cutie and she's a killer.
no she's actually NOT a killer (but i agree, she is cute)
italians just have a shit and corrupt justice system.
>guilty..innocent!...guilt again!
make up your fucking mind, retards

>They are literal attentionwhores.
knox isnt. she doesnt like the attention, and probably wishes none of this shit ever happened.
it's really bad to go through your best friend dying, even worse when you get blamed for it and harassed for years over it.

>>6352987
>Isn't she officially recognised as innocent.
the italians changed their minds at the appeal court, and decided she's guilty again.
im almost certain shes innocent. i know the type to do something like that, and it's just definitely not her.