- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Everything that we like or dislike is laid down in the form of stereotypes from childhood. If you were a child and you ate a sweet that someone put pepper on it, you probably won't want to try it again. If you like another person's eyes, personality, or maybe even gait, think about whether these traits are similar to those of your parents. Or are similar traits shared by other people you have the most affectionate feelings for?
The image of a loved one buried in the unconscious, following us all our lives, is formed due to strong emotional experiences that occur to us throughout life and are associated with the male or female sex. This is how our vision of the ideal/type is formed, “dictating”our preferences to us.
Whatever society and PR dictate for a certain type, you should close your eyes to it and look for someone similar to yourself in terms of your phenotype. Anthropologists will confirm it. Try to get rid of extraneous impurities and phenotypically alien genes that manifest in appearance, for future offspring. This provides some guarantees for the physical and mental health of your future children. Don't believe the myths, for example, that mestizos and mulattoes are healthier and more beautiful. Perhaps in the first generation, yes, but then, with further mixing, serious failures will begin. The most harmless thing is that your great-grandchildren will be ugly, much worse-sick or not adapted to a certain environment. A simple example: crooked teeth that don't fit in your mouth. Where is this coming from? Because the poor kid got a small jaw from his mom and big teeth from his dad. In general, this is all short and simplified, but if you go deeper, you can understand how important this is.
Hello! This is an interesting and rather complex question.
It concerns the scope of our preferences. For example, there are 2 opposing ideas. The first one says that people choose a pair similar to themselves. The second is that it happens exactly the opposite. Personally, the first one seems more correct to me.�
Another interesting area is what factors underlie such sympathy. What is the significance of genetics, imprinting, parenting, life experience and social influence … �
It seems to me that social attitudes and stereotypes, personal experience and expectations have a more significant impact on preferences, and genetics plays the last role.
A curious answer, in my opinion, is found in Efremov's Razor's Edge:
“- And why is a straight nose considered more beautiful? What does it matter?
– Straight nose – a straight path for inhaled air. For us, Europeans, northern people, a high bridge of the nose and a high palate are characteristic – the air passes into the throat in a steep arc and is better heated. But all this still needs to be investigated. Are the narrow eyes of Mongoloids really an adaptation to the rich ultraviolet light in mountains and high-altitude deserts? There are many similar questions that anthropology should have been dealing with long ago instead of racial demagoguery.”
Further, other external features are also analyzed. If you are interested, you can find the entire fragment based on the quote.
I have a love for red-haired girls, as I realized already as an adult, comes from cartoons. All the female characters I wasn't exactly breathing in were redheads: Jessica Rabbit, April O'Neill, Misty. Such cases…
That's a pretty good question, I want to tell you. I would also like to supplement the answers of most other people with the fact that the formation of patterns of perception of human appearance also depends on art, that is, its popular trends. It is art that directly affects the formation of the ideal appearance of individuals and sexes, as if destroying the previous framework of normals and setting its own.
You don't need to go far for examples: in the music videos of the 90s and 00s, during the explosion of hip-hop culture, wide baggy pants often flashed, after which ordinary people began to wear them.�
After the relatively large explosion of Morgenstern's popularity, I began to notice much more often short dreadlocks gathered in a ring, and so on.
The same story happens with taste preferences.
Well, if you think about the specific details, then you can most likely get to the source…
For example, I like people with a barely noticeable converging squint and / or a dark color of the iris, the darker the better (in this regard, black-eyed Ben Barnes has been bothering me for a long time). Over time, I realized that a slight esotropia looks like a person is looking at you more closely, and the distance between you is slightly reduced (after all, if you look at an object that is quite close to the face, then a person with ordinary eyes will have visual axes converge). And dark color is about the same story. Blah, blah, blah, when you're very interested and excited, the pupils can dilate, so we subconsciously find it attractive to look with dilated pupils, blah, blah. And black eyes – it's almost one solid extended pupil!))
In short, I love people with a conscious, attentive and insightful look, or at least an illusion of it))
Last year, the band Serebro confessed to the song “Mixed up”: “I got it all mixed up.I thought it was love. But it turned out to be wrong. I got it all mixed up. I thought it was love. I'm an exception to the rule.” The patterns are conditional. And the rules, trends, forecasts, and volatility assessment are in our heads, minds, and microcosms. Artem Kostyuzhev made a great comment about imprinting. And in addition to this, there are a huge number of factors that influence our choice, up to templates, as in the”pie” rhyme: “brunettes are for vicious passion / blondes are more for show-offs / and redheads bring happiness / love”. And the whole point is that these patterns can be cultivated by the environment and carefully played out in the culture, sorry for the tautology. How many artistic images are sung in connection with eye color? From the famous “Black Eyes” to the pop “Whiskey-colored Eyes”, which are” close-close ” to the lyrical heroine Natalia Vetlitskaya. In addition, a person as a biosocial being is influenced by the frame of approbation (approval from society) and even led by it. We tend to generalize, look for confirmation of our choice, indirectly,” accidentally ” connecting other psychological mechanisms. The same imprinting has a lot in common with testing ― it's like a snapshot, a snapshot of something important, significant for us at a certain moment in our life, and we store it in the “Favorites” folder of our memory or even turn it into a kind of filter regarding what is happening. It's like remembering your first love regularly and projecting/extrapolating it to others. More precisely, it is more appropriate to talk about a simulacrum ― an artificial image of what is not in reality.
I've been looking for you
Looking for you
In magazines, movies,
On the day I found it,
You're just like in a dream,
Just like in albums,
Where I drew
I'll paint you in gouache.
The one whom the lyrical heroine Zemfira fell in love with is a figment of her imagination, which surprisingly materialized into a living person with whom fate once… brought her together, as some writer would have written grandiloquently.
But the dilemma is that an image is a person, as well as a person is an image, a type, a character, and in general someone is average.
We often hear:
Perhaps, by endowing a person with individual traits that seem bright and attractive to us, we thereby, paradoxically, deprive them of their individuality. However, here you can easily get into an ontological polemic about the creation of the world. The point is different. The fact that we are engaged in typology, classifying objects (or phenomena) by the commonality of any features. And we do it because social attitudes affect us. Not to say it's that bad. Moreover, some researchers distinguish social identity, here is a curious dictionary description:
slovaronline.com “It's a pity that everything is too simple”, – the girls from the band Serebro in the song “Mixed up” concisely conclude what the essence of human dialectic is. Perhaps that's why we need generalization, testing, imprinting, cliches, unification and writing patterns about the engineering of human souls, so that it becomes easier for us internally. Apparently, this is the defense mechanism. But by exactly the same principle, we sometimes believe that opposites attract: even though everything that is brilliant is simple, but not everything that is simple is brilliant, sometimes it makes you sad.
All of the above can be crossed out and summarized: Maxim Pasmurnov nonsense smorozil. 🙂 And this will be true, because a person can be predictable by, roughly, 99%, no more; and the remaining 1% will take their life, bet on zero and win. And we sometimes need 99% to neutralize the obstinate 1%. And in the same way, there is no single proportion, someone can have a ratio of 98 to 2, and 86 to 14. However, 99% is like a guarantee of something so extremely relevant. Simple, convenient, for you. Satisfaction took place. And who gave us the illusion of guarantee (directly we, people, society, the universe), history is silent.