14:05 this part reminds me of a tweet “ariana grande learned the hard way that sometimes you think a guy is funny and amazing and in reality he’s just tall”
"No culture anywhere sees obesity as attractive, and to say otherwise is to try and normalize an unhealthy condition and try to blame culture for not accepting it." Dang! Very well said.
I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure that in the middle ages obesity was seen as an attractive sign, due to the fact that it meant you had a lot of money and resources to not starve
@@Rozenkratz It was probably attractive to be more fat than average, but not all the way obese. Of course individuals can have different tastes. There were probably people who found obesity attractive, but I think you could see it as something of a fetish, which this video didn't touch on
My great great grandmother was the 22nd of 24 children. Twenty-two of them made it to adulthood. She used to joke that she was so lonely with only 21 brothers and sisters, and that she really missed those two who didn't make it!
NinjaSheep you are good on most of your point, I just find that most fetishes are not from mental illness and most are perfectly fine. But it seems like you are more focused on the more. Out there stuff than what I would consider common fetishes.
It doesn't. You'd prefer getting smacked on the ass by an attractive guy/gal. Or you'd prefer to smell the feet of an attractive person, and so on. You get my point.
@@ValoriumStudios There's a distinction between short-term and long-term selection there. The sizable minority of women interested in NSA sex will be very choosy about looks, but women are well-known to set aside looks for long-term partnership.
Remember, it's about perception. I've never been over 148 lbs in my entire life, and I'm 6'1"... but neither gender seems to mind when they hit on me. Some people like tiny little sprite-looking women, and others like wispy, wraith-like guys.
I think that a tall straight figure looks healthy compared to a tiny disfigured one, looks developed. But of course there could be other issues, everyone has some.
I would argue that different cultures and time periods do have drastically different standards of attractiveness. Things like the ideal skin tone, body shape, body weight, hair color, hair texture, level of musculature, eyebrows, even forehead height have changed dramatically across time and are different between cultures. Yes for example obesity is pretty much never seen as attractive, but the ideal has ranged from rail thin to voluptuous, and also varies greatly person to person. Obviously there are a lot of standards of attractiveness which are instinctual like youth so they remain constant across time/culture, but to say that what we find attractive is not impacted by media or culture and that we all share the same standards of attractiveness which are governed by instinct is incorrect and too simplistic
Studies that support most what HE said are all there tho...and of course things like skin tone, and hair colour, texture would differ as that is already different between all races, it is not everyday that you see a naturally blond African person, but things like height, fat, jawline, good skin, good hair in natural colours, are all in very good to extremely attractive range across all cultures.(there are only minor variations to these set of same ideals, because of personal liking, geography, weather, race, culture etc.)
@@brownerjerry174 The study he used for the claim that attractiveness is universal (Sugiyama, L. S. (2015) ) does not appear to discuss the historical stability of the findings. All studies cited are younger than 80 years, i.e. not a single pre-industrial study is included (which might be due to lack of research from the time). I don't think the the study cited supports the claim that the discussed standard of attractiveness does not vary throughout time. So, for this discussion, there is no evidence provided so far one way or the other.
Yeah how does he miss this. Hell there was a very obvious difference in sexual attraction between white and African american culture (before kim and Instagram)
I agree, I remember telling a white girl (that was a friend) in the mid 2000s she’s getting a little booty. She broke down in tears. Then the Kardashians came along and everything changed. A big booty was no longer a ‘black thing’.
I mean I was always sorta uncomfortable with myself because I had a Dad the walked around naked a fair amount in the house because he was fairly proud of his package. After seeing porn and the like I was under the impression that it was meant to be a lot bigger, and it wasn't until I was in my mid to late teens that I found out his nickname with his buddies was "The Horse". To this day I rarely see someone bigger than my father even in porn. (Well my act of being creepy for the day is done)
Don't we just have a natural part somewhere on our heads? And I'd assume most people just part their hair where their hair naturally parts most of the time. (Except for people who part it directly in the center because that's a style they're going for.)
I know you're joking but I just want to clarify that all the points made in the video are to be taken generally, and each person will probably deviate from them to some degree.
from what I've seen from looking on websites it's pretty normal in men, whats really important is the actual size difference between your ring finger and index finger, the ratio correlates to penis size
Hello, an animator here: you're not wrong when you basically say that we design supposedly attractive characters by exaggerating the "ideal" proportions found in real life. But the main reason isn't really to make those characters sexy - it's simply to make those characters easier to decode by the viewer. If someone has an able body because the story calls for that, the character will look like an athlete times 10. If the main character is a young women and her goal is to find someone to love, she'll look like a playboy model. If someone's old, he or she'll become hunched over and frail, is someone's overweight, that person's going to turn into a balloon. And the same goes for the eyes. Eyes are the most expressive part of one's body. The mirror of the soul, as we say. That's why most cartoon characters have big eyes, it has, again, pretty much nothing to do with "sexyness". However, it is true, that, since most lead characters are supposed to be attractive or at least perceived as relatable (since, you know they are the good guys), AND because you want to make them as expressive as possible, you give them big eyes, as they're easier to work with. So, when certain blogs try to mark them as a way to sex up cartoon characters, they are plain wrong (unless the find Tom and Jerry sexy for example) Obviously, this is such and old trope, sometimes it can be fun to go against it, case and point Johnny Bravo, who you just mentioned . He has no eyes. Since the whole character is basically a typical "hero" character, turned upside down (he only looks the part, but entire useless and idiotic in any other sense), I guess, this fun, but challenging change in the design made him instantly recognizable - thus making it a rather smart move.
Bruh, it was more of a subtle reference to anime and its perceived attractiveness. American cartoons are more geared toward children or are more ugly generally but anime is much better drawn and for older demographics. Although, there are a couple of American examples, but please don’t list Tom and Jerry: that’s beastiality lol.
@@alanandrade2083 The trend of having large eyes in Japanese animation is a trend inspired by the work of Osamu Tezuka, who in turn was directly inspired by Disney's work of the time
If you compare eye sizes between male and female humanoid characters, females *generally* have larger eyes and/or smaller heads, giving them a significantly higher eyes to face ratio. This would suggest that "sexiness" plays some part in that creative decision. It's very noticeable in the case of Frozen. Looking through some other Disney films it seems to be a less and less distinct difference as the films get older.
Ian Hamilton I did hear that fact before but Disney and other American companies have stepped away from the well-drawn animation style, and this is all while Japan is focusing on such style. That style became more appropriate when talking about old Disney animation and newer anime as opposed to old anime and new American animation.
There are extremely strong correlations between age of men and health of children. In fact studies are finding that the health and age of the father can have more impact for conception than women. Women have more impact after conception. This is likely due to the probability of genetically healthy sperm.
Yes, older sperm is more likely to end in a misscarriage even if the mother is young. Its simply that the DNA isnt as strong because its been replicated so many times that its degraded over time. DNA degredation(aging) also affects the blue print for making sperm as it also affects the DNA in eggs. None of us can get away from the affects of time even as zygots.
@Joshua Bailey that is not what research is finding. the health of the father can directly impact the DNA of sperm through epigenetics. This occurs even before conception. It is recommended that if aman and a woman is tryign for a baby the father should stop drinkign and smoking well beforehand. Your thinking is factually outdated.
yeah I thought about this too I wanna believe the other points hes making but this makes me question it all, especially because he hasnt responded to it in 3 years
"If you know the enemy and if you know yourself, you need nod to fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know the enemy, but not yourself, for every victory gained you'll also suffer a defeat. If you know not the enemy, nor yourself, you'll sucumb in every battle"
@@georgeptolemy7260 Obviously. And being integrated within the society and having a social life has some important benefits. What i was trying to say is that there is nothing wrong with being alone (as in, romantically), whether It's voluntary or not and that It's possible to be happy with yourself without relying on other people.
I'm pretty sure even homosexual attraction is based on finding a healthy mate. The human brain is just dumb and sometimes our subconscious and conscious don't work together. For example I'm a gay guy, obviously I know I can't get pregnant nor get a man pregnant, but subconsciously I (am probably) looking for a man that will make a good mate.
Yeah, I'm a lesbian and look for pretty much the same things in women as do the straight guys, with an exception of "the more the better" cause I guess I can spot symmetry anyways? Also this made me realise i care about symmetry A WHOLE LOT, esp about whether the way a girl walks appears stable and balanced, or how assymetrical facial expressions are really unattractive to me :v. Really interesting.
I've always wondered if homosexuality is just a "crossing of wires", if the homosexual brain is just wired to be attracted to the pheromones of the same sex instead of the opposite sex. Idk, do we have any concrete biological data about what causes someone to be attracted to the same sex? I hope I'm not offending anyone, I'm just an uneducated straight male throwing out conjecture
SJNaka101 There's some evidence to support that the biological hardware in some parts of the brain in a homosexual person is comparable to that of a heterosexual person of the opposite sex, as a result of developmental misalignment between genital development (which occurs early on during pregnancy) and brain development (which occurs weeks later). Unfortunately, I can't really give you concrete specifics; I remember reading several articles displaying evidence along these lines, but it's been awhile since I read them and I failed to retain that information. But Google Scholar should help fill in that missing information.
But isn't that the way you become trans? I heard a theory that it's more due to the wrong hormones when the brain is establishing attraction. Also in different species homosexuality (or bisexuality) has different functions in the group and sometimes different functions. It might be a much more complex thing than we suspect. The thing remains that somehow a small percentage of the population not being straight somehow benefits our species, maybe it's because we can act like foster parents when in the wild there weren't any institutions providing that... I really am super curious of how exactly all that wiring happens.
You're not! I find it very fascinating too, and I'm really far from straight :D. I don't think though it's a simple crosswise issue. Because there's that weird, almost 50/50 split between, for example lesbians or bi women, where some prefer those with more "masculine" traits and other with "feminine" = the kind that most straight men are attracted to. It's also not quite the rule of "opposites attract" because I'm really femme but also only attracted to very feminine and graceful women. Thinking about this really makes you realize how complex the whole thing is, and that the reason might not be so simple...
Standards of beauty are DEFINITELY different across cultures. Some things are the same - don't think any culture finds wrinkles or broken bones attractive, for example - but you just need to look at the myriad of historical examples, from the leg-shaving advertising campaign to women in China binding their feet to the post-colonial trend towards lighter skin in India, to realize that culture makes a huge difference. Nobody finds obesity attractive, and nobody finds anorexia attractive, but that gap is very wide. Being "plump", not supermodel skinny, was the ideal at many points in history (you can even find some ads for products encouraging women to increase their weight). For men, the Greeks thought small genitalia were extremely attractive, and, well. That's changed significantly. I mean, I guess you could argue that those are "small" differences, but I would disagree, and I'd also be very curious about what constitutes a "large" difference, if that Chinese mutilation example doesn't. tl;dr it's more accurate to say "visibly unhealthy characteristics are never attractive" than "culture barely affects beauty standards"
*For men, the Greeks thought small genitalia were extremely attractive, and, well. That's changed significantly.* Greeks have a fairly particular gay culture where young handsome men would be sought out as intimate partners and said handsome men would explicitely try to gain the favors of older more powerful men. What I'm trying to say is that the standard isn't based on females' attraction toward big or small dicks, it's essentially based on males'. Could be that smaller penises are easier on the ass... Or a plethora of other reasons. Gay attraction isn't as biologically driven as conventional, straight attraction. My belief is that we're primates, we're hardwired to seek out certain traits in partners regardless of culture, as for the culture gap, I believe it's wider for men than it is for women. Men have higher testosterone levels thus they're hornier, have a wider range of "hot" and are overall more prone to be attracted to unconventional things because men see a whole lot of things as sexual, they have more opportunities to develop paraphilias along the way because of their innate higher sex drive (as opposed to female's innately lower and cyclic sex drive) and... They're meant to impregnate as many females as humanly possible, not the best females. Most primate and felines operate in a harem-like system, males don't care so much about physical traits in females aside from the fundamentals. For that reason I'd wager there are more men who'd be into extremely skinny or extremely fat, while women would be far more selective. This is essentially because women, being the incubators of our species and having limited shots (because of the dangers inherent to childbirth) probably had to pick the best mate possible. Yes, culture probably intervenes and orients humans' attraction but I very much doubt women would someday be attracted to negative shoulder-to-hip ratio in men or that men would be mainly attracted to jacked women. Culture never fully supersedes nature and attraction based on gender isn't the same because males and females aren't the same.
@@toplad8113 There are plenty of people that are solely attracted to things outside societal norms for body types. I think men with big hips are cute and I know a fair amount of dudes who like buff girls. Quit the pseudoscience and stop overanalyzing everything
I don't think women are always doing their makeup to impress men all the time. Some makeup is so fantastical and grande that I'm pretty sure it's to show off their skills and artistry to other women. I highly doubt most men would pick up on any subtle details that some women put into their makeup, but other women most definitely will. Maybe you could argue that's a way to intimidate other women and beat the competition?
Maybe its not the primary motive more "looking good" itself is weighted by opposite sex attraction. Id say its the same for men trying to build muscle, they may just want to be stronger, more able or appear better but masculine attraction is an implicit and unavoidable quality of these personal desires.
lrose For me personally, I don't care if men or people in general don't notice the (rare) occasion of me wearing make-up. I care when they notice when I'm not wearing make-up when it seems more appropriate. Like at a party, or if I have a pimple on my face, or during a formal event. Bottomline, it's not exactly to impress people, it's to not embarrass yourself in front of them
Being physically attractive, from what I know, can also mean that you're healthy. This is cuz it includes taking good care of your body, such as by washing your face after wearing make-up, exercising on a regular basis, having a healthy diet, etc.
I just remembered a girl grabbed my hand in middle school and said it really looked nice and complimented a few more times. I was so fucking creeped out.
Hey, just wanted to let you know I think your videos are of a really high quality. I'm always surprised how few views they get though. Keep up the good work, and maybe try a little click bait to get the numbers up, but once people find your stuff, they'll stay for the quality thoughtful content
I've been told this on several occasions and have thought about it with every video... It was proven to me after I did the Taxes video when I finally decided to make the most clickbaity title I've ever done - "You're Doing Them Wrong." People suddenly want to know what they're doing wrong... which right away I was worried that people could call me out because I never actually say what they're doing wrong (which is their W4, not their 1040). Anyway, I digress. I know if I titled this something like "Why You Think She's Hot" or even threw the word sex in there somewhere, the views would flow right in. But... I'd just feel dirty doing that, hah.
Knowing Better it's definitely a topic of contention. Hey, new video topic! A quick thought on clickbait titles is if you're getting more views on a video, it may not be because your content is good but simply you are clever enough to hook people in with your title. Are people watching because they are genuinely interested, or because they are susceptible to exaggerations of truth?
I think its more so a function of your subscriber base. YT channels snowball over time and naturally their videos will get a baseline of views large enough to post them in search and suggested bars. If you've ever seen a big YT channel where their old terrible videos still get 500k views, you'll see what I mean. The game is more about consistency and you know marathon/not a sprint etc etc.
This is pretty much the norm, but the thing to remember is that a norm does not necessarily fit for everyone. In the end you have to find what partner fits for you and while superficial sexual traits help, it is only the beginning.
As a lesbian I wish there was more research about how people pick same sex partners. The straight male stuff kind of applies in my opinion but lesbian beauty standards are different for sure. The ovulation thing changing attraction does still apply in my personal experience. If I start randomly wondering if im actually bisexual thats a pretty good sign that im ovulating and I’ll be over it by the end of the week. The type of dude i find myself inexplicably attracted to in those times is pretty much always a shy scrawny nerd and never an alpha dude.
This makes me that lesbians might have more testosterone than straight women, seen as you said you go towards the scrawny nerd type when ovulating, making you seem a lil more uhhhhh "alpha" ig...or dominant maybe
Eh... many things here seem to contradict with my observations. From the fact that throughout history the ideal of beauty changed many times (such as there being time periods when small breasts were preferable) to more significant cultural differences (say, Japanese women wanted to look flat with no curves whatsoever, thus wearing belts around their waist that would hide the natural curvature of the body), to the fact that symmetry isn't always desirable - yes, not enough symmetry is bad, but too much is also bad. When you show people pictures of perfectly symmetrical faces, they look creepy and artificial, sort of like the uncanny valley effect. Then there's BMI... BMI works well if you compare people of similar fitness, so say a couch potato with a BMI of 20 is much more healthy than a couch potato with a BMI of 30. Yet an athlete with a BMI of 30 is most likely going to be much more attractive than a couch potato with a BMI of 20. Now athletes will generally have BMIs of at least 25, since they have plenty of muscle tissue as opposed to fat tissue. Claiming that the ideal BMI is below 20 would pretty much disqualify athletes as unattractive... which I think seems rather ridiculous, so the research must have been bogus. And ending with the fact that it's not uncommon for people to be aware that their choice of style (clothing, hairstyle, facial hair, etc.) makes them less attractive, yet they still go with their style because not everyone makes their decisions with looking as attractive as possible as their goal. Although sure, healthy looking people tend to be more attractive. I don't think I've seen any evidence against this theory. This might have stayed a constant throughout time and cultures. The thing is, what "healthy looking" means seems to differ in history and between cultures. In places where starvation is a major danger, having some fat is a sign of health. In places where cholesterol is more likely to kill you than starvation, it's the opposite. Another example is tanned skin - for a long time in Europe it was unattractive and aristocracy would put much effort to keep their skin untanned, because tanned skin was associated with peasantry. Nowadays, skin that is tanned just right is seen as most attractive, while untanned skin might be seen as sickly and unhealthy. For more extreme examples, many cultures had practices such as Chinese foot binding, Mayan cranial deformation etc. - practices that modern people would see as extremely unhealthy and unattractive, yet apparently somewhere in the past they had their proponents. Maybe as a "if you survived THAT, you must have a strong immunity system..." I guess piercing and tattoos also fall into this category, especially the more extreme variants.
I feel like knowing better would dismiss everything you've said as falling under the category of fashion, not attractiveness. I personally disagree with that assessment, but I'm pretty sure that is what he would say.
I don't know. I mean there is still a preference for women being thin in Asia, and black men tend to like women a bit thicker, while white men like something in between. I think you are comparing the difference between races, rather than say 15th Century Japan to now. Also just because a body shaped was desired, does not mean it was sexually pursed, quite the opposite in fact. Open sexuality/adultery was scandalized in most ancient cultures because it eroded family structure, and therefore the women you see depicted in statues, are actually depicting the 'decent' look, not the sexy look.
This video only focuses on the average psychological/genetical predispositions of our species... different cultures and ideas obviously have an impact on what is deemed attractive, and also on whether or not you should even try to be attractive (in contrast to being pure, decent, intelligent etc.). On your point about BMI, I don't see where he claims the opposite.
I feel like a large part of attraction is learned and not as innate as people would have you believe. I ain’t a scientist tho so I can’t back up my statement.
Can't help but notice that most on-screen references are to the same paper by Sugiyama. I don't have time to check the article, but is it a review? Or are the sample sizes significant? (and obviously is it peer reviewed) Otherwise that kind of lopsided empiricism isn't lending too much credence to these broad conclusions. I'm interested to know if this is all unanimously verified by science
"Isn't lending too much credence to these broad conclusions" This was my biggest issue with this video - it watched like a lot of pop culture facts on attractiveness *without context*. Human psychology is really tough to nail down because it *isn't* completely empirical. So I'm a little disappointed at this claim at all of these empirical, black and white, conclusions. One huge example that I noticed of these facts being taken out of context was the one with women and risk of birth defects. It absolutely starts rising at a way larger rate after 30, but it's really in the late 30s, early 40s that the risk gets particularly significant for possible birth defects. Then some claims (about the reason for men's preference of the number of children a woman has, for example) just seemed a little... reaching as concrete conclusions. Perhaps he thought it went without saying "take this all with a grain of salt," but this just didn't seem terribly thorough, and could have done with more context for my taste. Perhaps part of the issue is that, as someone who very much was trained in the "nature and nurture" school of "effect on human behavior and perception," and with a background in biological anthropology, too much of an "evolutionary psychology" video is just going to be something that I struggle to find thorough and concrete. I said it about psychology, but too much even of our biological anthropology rests in lost data, so I struggle to really give a ton of credence to evolutionary psychology. It's difficult for me to find myself fully in support of the idea of modern humans justifying current social behavior with past situations which are not always or necessarily often well understood, *and then people using this work as empirical fact.* Maybe I just don't know enough about evolutionary psychology.
It's good to be able to see how far a youtuber has come from when they started, and the mistakes they made along the way. Some parts of this video are interesting and probably accurate, but others are not, and some parts are problematic. (examples: attraction does vary a lot across cultures, he made a lot of generalizations that are often not true, etc.) But videos like this show that the creater is a real person with a wide range of beliefs, and show they can change over time. edit - okay well he just said that people prefer partners of their own race and implied that was a biological trait so that's a bit much for me
But that is true. People do find their own race more attractive. This is not news to anyone? Other than that, the markers for female attractive are so similiar across the world. Again, this is not a surprise to anyone is it?
@@arthurmcbride1235 people do not biologically like others of the same race, that is culturally implanted. This is basic science. Attraction also varies hugely across cultures, I'll send you a link
@@ezra7088I didn't say it was biological, and I disagree that the mechanism can be described as ""culturally implanted""; but it is true - the world is not a melting pot for a reason. And while there are variations in the traits of attractiveness across cultures, the human animal is remarkably consistant. We are the same species. We could argue over the degree of the variation and how much is significant but it wouldnt change much. If you can't find a wife of your own kind, you will take the most attractive Inuit or Micronesian you can get. This is not a big surprise to anyone I think.
spells don't make me laugh . Men make sperm daily. old eggs are more environmentally degraded by radiation than young eggs. Sperm made daily. Not affected by the radiation present in life
@@TheSP33DFREAK they are demons lol UA-cam comment moderation and deceit is their fuckerd up g0d who gives a shit about the rampant misinformation it's part of hell . We should know better than to even look at these handicapped idiots
I bring up balding in this video. Sorry to draw the comparison - but who else goes bald when they're young? Sick people, cancer patients, etc. Going bald is *usually* a sign of illness... so... yes it is a massive turnoff. You are better off shaving your head completely. Because that makes it more of a fashion statement and hides the balding. I started going gray at 18, men in my family don't go bald... thankfully.
12:15 I love this level of detail! You can see the feet going on the couch in the bottom left corner. That must have been very hard to set up but just proves why his videos are so good! Thank you so much my friend.
The video is interesting, but some wrong factoids really stood out to me, like 1. the use of "alpha" and "beta" male when this concept has been widely debunked and the suggestion that women over thirty have a much larger chance of having complications with their children - something that has also been debunked. So some of this research seems to be based off dated information and made me skeptical of the rest of the research.
Agree with almost everything, except the part when you say "age of the father has no correlation to the health of the children" "En la acondroplasia. La mayor parte de los casos (75 a 90%) se consideran mutaciones de novo relacionadas con edad paterna avanzada." "In achondroplasia (dwarfism) Most cases (75 to 90%) are considered de novo mutations related to advanced paternal (of the father) age" Victoria del Castillo Cruz (2012) Genética clínica. Manual Moderno. México
To be fair, the point about cancer patients balding doesn't make much sense. Sure, they bald, and they are sick. But they bald because of exposure to radiation in chemotherapy. And radiation poisoning wasn't much of a thing over most of our natural history during which humans evolved, so the claim that cancer patients have anything to do with baldness being a negative is most likely just wrong.
TastMFC That wasn't the major evidence of that paragraph and also if you already have genetic deficiency it is easier to get cancer. You know, most cancers need like multiple mutations and if you are already born with some then more likely. It not why we dont see bald as attractive but it does work.
Some skin sicknesses will make you lose your hair as well as some vitamin deficiencies. B12 deficiency being one of them. Some stress disorders will also make you lose your hair.
I’ve been there. Gender Archetypes are extremely hard to live up to, and getting caught up in what most heterosexual women (or men) look for in a potential mate/partner can be demoralizing if you don’t “fit the mold”. I don’t really feel all that “masculine” either, but I don’t really want to be if it means I have to lie. I like my shortish height, soft hands, medium shoulders etc. and I think we as a culture are getting closer to embracing non-conformity. Think of the “Short Kings” meme for example.
I personally find people who aren’t overly masculine with a bit of feminine qualities to be attractive so I wouldn’t worry about it just make yourself the best version of your self you wanna be 👍
I'm five foot one and I was dating a guy who's six foot four. See, THAT turned out to be unreasonable because I could only kiss him if we were both sitting down. But he didn't like being kissed anyway, so it's kind of a moot point. The guy I ACTUALLY love is five foot four (because he's Sicilian, not because he's weak or anything), which is much better for me, shrimp as I am.
I'm also 6'4", and I also have similar issues. I'm too tall for ALl of my ex's... my tallest girlfriend was only 5'3... and my girlfriend i have now is only 5'0 exactly. I am surprised I haven't had a 5'10 tomboy like my own mother.
Idk, I mean this is fine stuff to know but I think getting too hung up on this is a great way to become an incel. There's other things to consider like individual taste, fetishes, and of course how desperate and/or lonely someone is.
Humans notice difference far more than similarities. It's a wired in bias. Often when a couple says they're opposite, they're actually quite similar in many ways compared to the average person on the street. It's often a just few significant personality differences that stand out in contrast to each other, like introversion vs extroversion. Sometimes differences compliment each other well. Like if one person is more disagreeable, moody, or has a dominant personality, they might match up well with someone who compliments that. Imagine two hard assed argumentative people in a relationship together... That's not going to go well.
Actual professional of behavioural psychology, social anthropology and sexual preference disorders here. A lot of what Better, here, has commented on is unfortunately not very accurate. Although it can generally be agreed to be more or less accurate to a some degree, it isn't consistent, at all. Historically, various civilisations and societies have shown characteristics of varying degrees of similarity to the studies Better has mentioned and commented on. On that, to this day, many societies still retain differences that fundamentally damage these studies. And, in fact, we have plenty of extra studies that show remarkably big differences. We know for a fact some societies did, in fact, find overweight women as more attractive. Although not quite obese. To not go on a rant; when it comes to psychology, human attraction is based on an extreme long list of variables that simply pointing it all down to "body shape" and "appearance", isn't at all very accurate or a great metric to use. Now, when in reference to only primary sexual attraction, some of these do appear to be quite consistent throughout our human civilisation. However, most humans do not only use primary sexual attraction, but also secondary attraction, which requires further understanding of one another. You can call this "growing a bond". This is, for example, why dates are a thing. Humans are simply a little too complex in coupling decision making. And everything from an extremely stressful day, to atypical sexual preferences, can all change that. On top of it all, what we would've otherwise considered a consistent variable that appears strongly in a variety of generational cohorts, do in fact change. For example, the recent advent of enjoying large asses and thighs, now. This wasn't nearly as prominent pre-15 years ago. To cut it all short, we can trace a good couple of these studies back to less than savoury individuals continuing *now obsolete* studies from several decades ago. But, I expect little less from the American Psychiatric association, I'll admit. I've made it my life to study precisely this. Whilst much of what you commented on and summarised, Better, can be traced back to some truth - Much of it hasn't been consistently demonstrable. There's a large spectrum to general human attraction - excluding atypical attraction. And that really is the least of it. But, then again, asking you to make a varitable anthology series of dozens of hours worth of content, and still yet summarising a decade of college work, is also quite the task. Nevertheless.
9:03 maybe the studies weren't out yet when this was done. After Father is 40+ risk of autism increases. There was also one study that indicated that children of older fathers were less attractive. "FUCK!" i cried in to the wind as someone with older parent (could've been beautiful)
You might want to update this video. There have been significant links found between older men and issues with their offspring, especially AUSITM! There is no significant link between older women and autism, however.
Um, corsets we not invented to give women a smaller waste!!! Please don't perpetuate that myth. Corsets were invented, like modern bras, to support the breasts. Padding was added to accentuate the hips and give a smooth figure. But that wasn't the corsets doing. There are working corsets and fashionable corsets. Much like the sports bra vs the push up bra. They were simply a garment worn for support. Corsets are still uses today for medical reasons.
The only thing I'll say contrary to your issue with opposites attract is that it can counteract both flaws. I am very disorganised but chilled and my wife is very organised but can worry about things. Between the 2 of us she brings necessary organisation and I bring a degree of clarity to situations. It seems to work.
The problem is the jump from advantage to adaptation It is impossible to prove that any trait is adaptive, especially behavioral traits. It's fundamentally no better than any other kind of storytelling.
You left out a ton of important information in this video. Like you said the media doesn't dictate beauty standards, they just reflect what people already believe. A HUGE omission: *who* decides what elements of culture get reflected has an impact on what gets reflected, and what gets reflected influences what people believe is natural, normal, and right. That isn't just fashion. It's how ideology is constructed. I'm also sad to see you repeat so many tropes rooted in that distorted reflection of culture with seemingly no awareness of how those tropes are constructed. Some of the basic facts you cited are incorrect. The 2D:4D measure is not settled science. There are about a thousand papers on the subject, most of which have not had reliably reproducible results. Even studies that do conclude a positive correlation disagree about what to measure and what it actually correlates to. The truth is, we don't know if ring finger length actually means anything of significance. Women might rate hands with longer ring fingers higher on average for reasons that have nothing to do with hormones. We don't know. I've watched almost all your videos and found most of them to be well crafted and well informed. This one is uncharacteristically horrible. What happened?
I think this video definitely needs an update - what we see as “biological” or “innate” a lot of the time can also be accurately summed up as “heterosexual,” “white,” and “wealthy,” and that doesn’t sum up the experiences or attractions of a LOT of people. Granted, the science probably needs to be explored further, and we also need to talk about how one can intentionally broaden and be conscious of their tastes as to open themselves up to other experiences. Our unconscious biases are probably more plastic than we think
I dont see the whole "older men are seen as more attractive" Most women end up with a guy that's 2 to 4 years their senior, relationships where a woman in her prime (20 to 25) dates a guy 10+ year her senior are fairly rare, and her not leaving him or divorcing him to end up with a guy closer to her age is even rarer. PS: the male salt and pepper sex symbols like George Clooney, where primarily eye candy for middle aged women, he is someone that my mom really likes, but my peers dont care about (I'm a woman in my 20's as well). Younger women look at ryan Gosling, chris Evans, or jason momoa... celebs in their 30's mostly, not 40's or 50's, I've even hear young women say now that "Brad Pitt was cute in the 90's now hes old"
@@motivatedstorm3816 nope, pretty sure hes referring to the guy who's a doctor, lawyer, construction worker, astronaut, bartender, and plumber all at the same time
i'd like to add that while the media may not shape what we find attractive, it does shape what is expected, if the media consistently shows us only the peak of what people look for in a body, there will be people who see anything less than perfect as disgusting
the 'age doesn't matter for men' point has been disproved. higher incidence of autism has been correlated with aging, deteriorating sperm. amongst other things.
I have to contest the assertion that culture/time period has nothing to do with the perception of physical beauty and attractiveness, at least in some ways. There was a time when makeup, high heels, and lace was all the rage--for men. You might say that's fashion, but that was what wealthy women looked for. So were moles, consider beauty marks, for both men and women. Cancer indicator, anyone? Some cultures value very pale skin, some like a healthy looking tan. Not that an acquired tan is healthy at all. But some are born with it and don't need ultraviolet radiation to produce it. At one point, a high forehead (emphasized by shaving the eyebrows) was considered beautiful. In the latter part of the 19th century, tiny waists were attractive--so tiny that women wore corsets that prevented them from getting a full breath and were constantly passing out. A full bust and bustle was expected, but a woman's waist was supposed to be small enough that her man could span it with his hands. Again, you can call that fashion, but men still seemed to like it. One of the biggest issues in attractiveness that has changed over time is women's ideal weight. Point blank, most modern men don't consider overweight women desirable. Yet art from centuries past portraying the epitome of female sexiness shows a lot of (at least, compared to today's sexiest women) overweight women. Check out the Birth of Venus. Not even the Mona Lisa is skinny. Even the more slender artistic models and royals aren't modern model skinny. This didn't change dramatically until the 1970s. Just check out a picture of Marilyn Monroe (5'5" 118 lbs 36-24-34, 1950s)) vs. Twiggy (5' 6" 112 lbs, 31-23-32 1960s). Twiggy's physical type and weight standards are maintained in modern times. Gal Gadot is 5' 10", 128 lbs, 32-23-34). Now, you might not think that's much difference, but you've got to add 4-6 lbs per inch of height. That means Marilyn Monroe at 5' 6" would be at least 10 pounds heavier than Twiggy and at 5' 10" she'd still be at 10 -20 lbs heavier than Gal Gadot--though Marilyn had a significantly bigger bra size. I'm not sure that men necessarily go for bigger "everything". As far as I can tell, they just want it well displayed. Something else significant that you don't mention is that there is a LOT of individual variation in what they consider attractive. Studies look at averages of large groups. I remember reading a long time ago that familiarity, similarity, and a good opinion (or affection) affect someone's attraction more than anything else. I guess that helps explain why cheaters are still far in the minority. That, and intelligence and a conscience. Cheating leads directly to single parenting in many cases, which certainly is a huge disadvantage for the children of those relationships. That's well documented in modern times, and I can't imagine that the emotional conflict and split resources was good for children in centuries past either, though divorce was a lot harder to come by. Somehow, I don't see cheating as evolutionarily advantageous for human beings. Ensuring the survival of children over the long human childhood seems to me to trump the introduction of new genes into the pool.
I wonder how the impact of wealth has affected women's perception of attractiveness in men has changed over time, or if it has at all, as society has changed and they've become less reliant on men as breadwinners. Also, how the whole ovulation aspect plays on a woman's perception of attractiveness for those who have either extremely messed up or totally non existent cycles.
I think economic wealth as an attractiveness factor is sometimes misconstrued. While there are gold diggers and women who want to be taken care of, per my experience, the reverse implication is more important in modern western dating. I.e. it's less that a high income is a plus to women than lack of gainful employment is a turnoff. Just from some cursory empirical research of worming women over age 30, a man without a job is the big red flag, indicating some dysfunction. My conclusion as to unattached hetero males: you don't need to be a tycoon, but you don't want to be dead weight.
They have found that long term use of the birth control pill has led women to choose male partners with more feminine features and less masculine features, which would make sense since women who are on the bcp don't ovulate.
You're not right. The image and standards of beauty change in time. In the past the curvy, voluptuous women were considered beautiful. Today you'd just call them obese or fat.
6:40 - "I still haven't seen Frozen. And I won't" Watching in 2019, and I haven't seen it, either. I hope you've kept good to your word (unless you're watching it for a movie review; that I'd love to see).
Hmm, they say it’s “money” quite a lot, but are women specifically attracted to “money” or how resourceful a man is? What I’m saying is, obviously, there are gold diggers who go after money, but they quickly leave a man once she’s exhausted enough of his resources I just can’t picture a woman being attracted to a straight up boring and ugly male because he’s “rich,” but rather I feel like it’s more so his power or his resourcefulness or ability to rise up in the social latter...the “alpha” personality traits commonly correlated with wealth. I feel like THAT is what most women are attracted to when it’s viewed as “money.” I could be wrong! I haven’t read the studies too in-depth, but just a thought
I find the idea of marrying a wealthy man disgusting, I've never wanted that lifestyle. To me, his job status is important because of what it would say about his lifestyle and ability to support himself.
Obviously i don't know you, but you might just be. So, what are you gonna do about it? There's lots of ways to improve your attractiveness, while you probably won't be a model or a 10, you can still get yourself a few points with social skills or self-improvement. Read a book, go to the gym and get some flattering clothing. Learn how to be nice and interesting. Brush your teeth. Etc, etc. I hate when people complain about their lot in life, and so do others. Life sucks and then you die. Try to have fun, make friends and drink good beer.
If your face isn’t great you can still be attractive to a woman. Be nice, funny, and responsible. Make yourself as attractive as you can with working out, eating well, and maintaining a good weight. Get a good education or good job that pays well. Baldness or hair loss isn’t a huge factor. Many women don’t care about hair on the head. Grow a goatee and mustache combo if your face isn’t the best. It’s masculine and covers some. Have your own home, own vehicle, and having a good family is a bonus.
I overcame my shabby looks by learning to salsa dance. I found out that women will overlooked my physical flaws if i showed to be a smooth, fun dancer. Then I also learned that being funny is King! Making them laugh is the best technique to make a woman like you. Actually to make anyone like you!
I think the first point made about beauty standards not changing with culture or time is completely untrue. Time especially, if you look at art in the past you’ll see women that have baby faces and clearly have more fat. Even in the past few years you could see a change in focus between girls that are skinny and girls with more curves.
Your production of this video with douchebag you was perfectly done, and a really clever way to approach this. I appreciate your empiricism and tact, as always!
This is a great conversation of the biological side of attraction, but I think that culture definitely plays a big role in what we desire physically from our partners. To say otherwise is to be ignorant of the facts. I don’t think this goes against most of what you said tho. There may be biological underpinnings which are flouted or supported by cultural norms. The first thing that comes to mind is the ways that female attractiveness has changed over the last 30 years in America. Women used to want to be skinny and feared having a “big but” yet now voluptuous women are praised and many women try to have a bigger but. I’m sure there are many such examples throughout history. A combination of both factors then, social and biological, determines our sexual preferences. There can be no other way about it.
There is so much that is unconscious. There was a study in the 1960s where they showed men pictures of women to rate their attractiveness. Then, they took the same pictures and diluted the pupils and there was a significant increase in scores. When a woman is sexually ready, her eyes will dilate. Literally, almost nobody consciously knows this is happening but we do deep down.
i became so jaded over time that i don't even look at conventionally attractive women anymore. unless they explicitly show off it's honestly quite sad to listen and realize you don't check a single mark and the only thing you can realistically do is to slim down
I'm not very convinced - there's a flaw in the conclusions to a certain degree and a bit of misunderstanding about how cultural factors (or the media) and social psychology do have an impact on how we pick a partner and what we drives attractiveness *overall*. Overall being the key word here, as my concern is that specific factors that KnowingBetter is listing are being overestimated in their importance in the overall decision of choosing a partner. That's not to say the studies cited are incorrect, nor that there has been a misunderstanding about their conclusions, nevertheless, I think this video's title is a little misleading regarding the actual content of the video, because it's very clear that what it is being talked about here is the base instinctual drive in every human when choosing a mate. I think the viewer would come away much better informed if the title were changed to the following :'Where physical attraction begins from the genetic and psychological perspective" However, the video's arguments don't gel with how people actually *pick a partner* because it assumes humans only act on instinct alone and being social animals with the right brain tools to create language and complex societies, we're capable of making choices that might defy our base instincts and drives. The wider society (whether it's a stone age tribe or modern metropolis) will no doubt influence how you choose a partner and that wider society may indeed focus on the said particular traits, but these can vary from culture to culture. And that's not even considering how on the individual level humans choose a partner, which can be driven by very personal experiences and conscious decisions. The matter is complicated further when you consider sexual fetishes, or individuals who are not hetero-normative. The videos proposed model for how humans pick partners is extremely limited as it entirely ignores social, cultural, and individual factors which do play a part. If these factors are indeed a myth as claimed, I don't really see a compelling reason outlined here to accept this point. Though I maintain my point above simply re-titling the video to "Where physical attraction begins from the genetic and psychological perspective" would resolve my disagreement - though that's not very friendly for SEO and the youtube algorithm :/
16:13 I disagree. It's because exaggerated features always look better in animation. Proportional human characters often look too stiff and clunky for traditional 2d animation styles.
1. The Talmud discusses a type of jewelry used by women of the time meant to squeeze out fat to give an overweight appearance. 2. Similarly Rabbi Johanan is described as being extremely beautiful (to the point of femininity) as well as unbelievably fat. 3. It was less than 20 years ago when every woman was worrying about “does this make my butt look big” I don’t think it’s all media, but it is undeniably a big part of what drives attractiveness. You even mentioned that the desired BMI is underweight.
I disagree with his assertion that the popular culture doesnt influence what we find attractive. The cultures which surround us inform our values, and what we look for in a Relationship. The more media you consume and the less discernment that you have, the more likely you are to be influenced by popular culture.
I don't have super strong feelings either way, but I swear I feel like most of these qualities can be disregarded just by getting to know someone and developing a close intellectual relationship.
It's important to keep in mind that the research he's describing is about perceived attractiveness, not romantic success. These are the traits which are selected when presented with a bunch of photographs in a lab, not necessarily a check list one goes through when meeting new people in real life.
@@SirPhysics this is a very good point. Someone who is attractive but an asshole will struggle more than someone who is less attractive but confident and kind.
Since about 2/3 if all men at age 35 suffer from some degree of hair loss, I seriously doubt that the reason baldness is usually not considered attractive to women is due to an alleged resemblance to sickness. Male pattern baldness is also very distinctive and can hardly be mistaken for someone suffering from cancer or some other serious disease. It's a minor inconvenience in all other circumstances, so why would women suddenly interpret it as a sign of genetic inferiority when looking for a partner. It's just not likely that women for reasons related to genetic inferiority would have evolved an instinct to find men with typical male pattern baldness unattractive. The fact that women tend to find a guy suffering from baldness but shaves his head completely more attractive seems to further negate this assumption. A completely bald person is almost exclusively either very old, suffering from a disease or shaving his head. In other words, male pattern baldness is very common and not a sign of genetic inferiority but complete baldness definitely is. So, why would women prefer completely bald men to men displaying typical male pattern baldness? It just does not make any sense from a natural selection perspective. That is why evolutionary biologists make a clear distinction between evolution by natural selection and sexual selection. The latter tend to lead to quite bizarre and irrational phenomenons that natural selection just can't account for. The male peacock's tail feathers is a good example. But, this is true for humans as well. You ought to be very careful when trying to explain sexual attractiveness in evolutionary terms. The logic of natural selection often just doesn't apply. More often it's a form of slippery slope effect or an arms race if you like. In other words, there is not always a clear rationale to why certain traits are considered more attractive than others.
Probus Excogitatoris I agree. I was like how would women have an evolutionary trait for perceiving chemo therapy? Tbh, not many sicknesses cause baldness . Lupus and what else . Men tend not to get lupus any way. Pattern baldness just doesn’t look good. Kinda like having a scraggly thin beard.
The media does indeed tell people what is attractive. As an example the media in African countries tells the people that light skin is more attractive and there is a huge skin bleaching issue in these countries.
So guys don't have sex with women they find unattractive? Guys don't have different standards for sex partners and relationship partners? Guys don't think "she's attractive enough to f- but not attractive enough to care about"? Or "she's attractive enough to care about but not attractive enough for commitment"?
14:05 this part reminds me of a tweet “ariana grande learned the hard way that sometimes you think a guy is funny and amazing and in reality he’s just tall”
bruh the height difference was like 5 feet
"No culture anywhere sees obesity as attractive, and to say otherwise is to try and normalize an unhealthy condition and try to blame culture for not accepting it." Dang! Very well said.
The fact that he called out such a practice directly made me respect him even more.
I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure that in the middle ages obesity was seen as an attractive sign, due to the fact that it meant you had a lot of money and resources to not starve
@@Rozenkratz It was probably attractive to be more fat than average, but not all the way obese. Of course individuals can have different tastes. There were probably people who found obesity attractive, but I think you could see it as something of a fetish, which this video didn't touch on
C Kpdx well no unless in remote villages, west Africans follow the Eurocentric form of beauty
Im sorry but this video is full of misinformation.
So called "fertility godesses" exist for a reason.
17 minutes 57 seconds of pure anxiety
Fucking this
Was somewhat of a relief for me most of the way through
That moment when you realize love isn't real it's just your brain tricking you into being attracted to someone for the primal need to reproduce
Masochist, why would you sit through all of it if it's giving you anxiety?
Jackson S Why are y'all getting anxiety from this video?
Knowing Better: “Before modern medicine, that number was only about six”
My great great grandparents, after having 14 children: pathetic
14/30 probably
My great great grandmother was the 22nd of 24 children. Twenty-two of them made it to adulthood. She used to joke that she was so lonely with only 21 brothers and sisters, and that she really missed those two who didn't make it!
@@lelandunruh7896 Damn that's dark as fuck, your grandmother was a savage. I love it.
My grandma has like 12 siblings
My grandpa who had over 50 kids: weak
Grow a beard, hit the gym, take care of your health, brush and floss, have disposable income?
Naaaah, I think I'll just wing it with my personality!
a beard??
What’s she gonna do for you? Oh yeah, nothing. Pass.
got it!
Bro there's only one muscle in the body you need to work out
.
.
.
. the BrAinnn
Impossible to have disposable income these days unless you are born wealthy because governments steal from their citizens!
This only brings up a lot of questions about fetishes.
Government experiments
NinjaSheep you are good on most of your point, I just find that most fetishes are not from mental illness and most are perfectly fine. But it seems like you are more focused on the more. Out there stuff than what I would consider common fetishes.
My phrasing was a bit poor for what i was trying to bring across
It really does make me wonder
It doesn't. You'd prefer getting smacked on the ass by an attractive guy/gal. Or you'd prefer to smell the feet of an attractive person, and so on. You get my point.
Chris Rock said it best:
Men: "What she look like?"
Women: "What he do?"
Cope
Rati Mati what is cope? Baby don’t hurt me
@@ValoriumStudios There's a distinction between short-term and long-term selection there. The sizable minority of women interested in NSA sex will be very choosy about looks, but women are well-known to set aside looks for long-term partnership.
Redlettermedia did a funny explanation of this.
What about non binary
even if the media were responsible for standards of beauty, we're responsible for the media.
Its a cycle. We influance media, witch influances otheres witch influances media.
@@ihatetobethatguy1481 I don't want to sound like a grammar Nazi but wtf!
@@PrabhablyAGoodUA-camr where's the media witch?
We blame the media, but forgets we are the media.
Bob Kramer fuck how is this the first time I’ve seen this
"The taller you are the healthier your percieved to be"
Knee and back pain: am I a joke to you?
*sneers Wadlowly*
Remember, it's about perception.
I've never been over 148 lbs in my entire life, and I'm 6'1"... but neither gender seems to mind when they hit on me.
Some people like tiny little sprite-looking women, and others like wispy, wraith-like guys.
Lies im 5’8 and guys turn me down because I’m too tall.
@@inderjitkainth5353 those guys are probably intimidated to be honest. They probably aren’t 6 feet. Also, a few examples holds no value in statistics.
I think that a tall straight figure looks healthy compared to a tiny disfigured one, looks developed. But of course there could be other issues, everyone has some.
I would argue that different cultures and time periods do have drastically different standards of attractiveness. Things like the ideal skin tone, body shape, body weight, hair color, hair texture, level of musculature, eyebrows, even forehead height have changed dramatically across time and are different between cultures.
Yes for example obesity is pretty much never seen as attractive, but the ideal has ranged from rail thin to voluptuous, and also varies greatly person to person.
Obviously there are a lot of standards of attractiveness which are instinctual like youth so they remain constant across time/culture, but to say that what we find attractive is not impacted by media or culture and that we all share the same standards of attractiveness which are governed by instinct is incorrect and too simplistic
100% agree
Studies that support most what HE said are all there tho...and of course things like skin tone, and hair colour, texture would differ as that is already different between all races, it is not everyday that you see a naturally blond African person, but things like height, fat, jawline, good skin, good hair in natural colours, are all in very good to extremely attractive range across all cultures.(there are only minor variations to these set of same ideals, because of personal liking, geography, weather, race, culture etc.)
@@brownerjerry174 The study he used for the claim that attractiveness is universal (Sugiyama, L. S. (2015) ) does not appear to discuss the historical stability of the findings. All studies cited are younger than 80 years, i.e. not a single pre-industrial study is included (which might be due to lack of research from the time). I don't think the the study cited supports the claim that the discussed standard of attractiveness does not vary throughout time. So, for this discussion, there is no evidence provided so far one way or the other.
Yeah how does he miss this. Hell there was a very obvious difference in sexual attraction between white and African american culture (before kim and Instagram)
I agree, I remember telling a white girl (that was a friend) in the mid 2000s she’s getting a little booty. She broke down in tears. Then the Kardashians came along and everything changed. A big booty was no longer a ‘black thing’.
if you are in the position where someone is about to check your d size haven't you already won?
Joshua Ogunmefun yeah I never understood that shit
I mean I was always sorta uncomfortable with myself because I had a Dad the walked around naked a fair amount in the house because he was fairly proud of his package. After seeing porn and the like I was under the impression that it was meant to be a lot bigger, and it wasn't until I was in my mid to late teens that I found out his nickname with his buddies was "The Horse". To this day I rarely see someone bigger than my father even in porn.
(Well my act of being creepy for the day is done)
@@OtKH00 That's some messed up shit man.
@@OtKH00 the fuck did I just read
@@emailjwr we're proud of dad, disappointed in OtK.
Who else looked at their fingers?
What if your ring and index fingers are basically the same length?
@@nolanboles8492 small pp
@@robinwarren6924 Whatever. I've still got two perfect children, so obviously no problems there.
If they're yours.
Study's bullshit mate. It's as if acupunture was taken seriously.
Who’s been on a Knowing Better binge?
Yep
Always!
If patriotic dies everyone is died yes to I'm spamming this
Hhahahahha so accurate to my current situation
Yeah. Im starting to get attached to this guy.
Me during the first half of the video: well, I'm surprised I ever had a girlfriend.
Me during the second half of the video: I'm a greek God.
Slightly better to be a Zeus than a Typhon.
I'm right handed and part my hair on the right.
I'm an anti-hero
I'm ambidextrous, and legit have no part.
Don't we just have a natural part somewhere on our heads? And I'd assume most people just part their hair where their hair naturally parts most of the time. (Except for people who part it directly in the center because that's a style they're going for.)
SilverRain I’m left handed and part my hair to the left, well Center left
@@MinishMoosen Yeah, my hair has a bunch of mini 0parts
@@andrewstickley6681perfect neutral
I'm right handed and part my hair on the right... And I prefer women with short hair...
So I'm a movie villain that desires sickly women?
And I'm a Yanomami tribesman, I prefer chubby girls.
Yes
I know you're joking but I just want to clarify that all the points made in the video are to be taken generally, and each person will probably deviate from them to some degree.
You are misinterpreting statistical data, applying it to an individual rather then a group!
I've never dated a woman with short hair, but some look really good with short hair.
At least I have the ring finger thing going for me
I thought that was normal
Kyle, I gots some alpha fingers
Wait, ring fingers aren't supposed to be longer?
from what I've seen from looking on websites it's pretty normal in men, whats really important is the actual size difference between your ring finger and index finger, the ratio correlates to penis size
I don't have a longer ring finger :'(
Hello,
an animator here:
you're not wrong when you basically say that we design supposedly attractive characters by exaggerating the "ideal" proportions found in real life. But the main reason isn't really to make those characters sexy - it's simply to make those characters easier to decode by the viewer. If someone has an able body because the story calls for that, the character will look like an athlete times 10. If the main character is a young women and her goal is to find someone to love, she'll look like a playboy model. If someone's old, he or she'll become hunched over and frail, is someone's overweight, that person's going to turn into a balloon.
And the same goes for the eyes. Eyes are the most expressive part of one's body. The mirror of the soul, as we say. That's why most cartoon characters have big eyes, it has, again, pretty much nothing to do with "sexyness". However, it is true, that, since most lead characters are supposed to be attractive or at least perceived as relatable (since, you know they are the good guys), AND because you want to make them as expressive as possible, you give them big eyes, as they're easier to work with. So, when certain blogs try to mark them as a way to sex up cartoon characters, they are plain wrong (unless the find Tom and Jerry sexy for example)
Obviously, this is such and old trope, sometimes it can be fun to go against it, case and point Johnny Bravo, who you just mentioned . He has no eyes. Since the whole character is basically a typical "hero" character, turned upside down (he only looks the part, but entire useless and idiotic in any other sense), I guess, this fun, but challenging change in the design made him instantly recognizable - thus making it a rather smart move.
Ah, yes, right! +1
Bruh, it was more of a subtle reference to anime and its perceived attractiveness. American cartoons are more geared toward children or are more ugly generally but anime is much better drawn and for older demographics. Although, there are a couple of American examples, but please don’t list Tom and Jerry: that’s beastiality lol.
@@alanandrade2083 The trend of having large eyes in Japanese animation is a trend inspired by the work of Osamu Tezuka, who in turn was directly inspired by Disney's work of the time
If you compare eye sizes between male and female humanoid characters, females *generally* have larger eyes and/or smaller heads, giving them a significantly higher eyes to face ratio. This would suggest that "sexiness" plays some part in that creative decision. It's very noticeable in the case of Frozen. Looking through some other Disney films it seems to be a less and less distinct difference as the films get older.
Ian Hamilton I did hear that fact before but Disney and other American companies have stepped away from the well-drawn animation style, and this is all while Japan is focusing on such style. That style became more appropriate when talking about old Disney animation and newer anime as opposed to old anime and new American animation.
"Women find facial scars attractive"
Ah that makes sense why I simped for Zuko from a young age lol
Probably because he was the only boy who wasnt a war criminal or a bald boy with a tattoo on his head in the show
to be fair, Sokka was pretty cute too and not a war criminal.
@@nat2206 cant believe I forgot about sokka he is the most alpha of alpha males
I have like some Harry Potter kind of scar meaning i have one on my forehead.
@@hm.7959 He was semi bald at one point. Remember that awful hairstyle from previous seasons?
He is a sassy bısh, that's why we love him.
There are extremely strong correlations between age of men and health of children. In fact studies are finding that the health and age of the father can have more impact for conception than women. Women have more impact after conception. This is likely due to the probability of genetically healthy sperm.
Yes, older sperm is more likely to end in a misscarriage even if the mother is young. Its simply that the DNA isnt as strong because its been replicated so many times that its degraded over time. DNA degredation(aging) also affects the blue print for making sperm as it also affects the DNA in eggs. None of us can get away from the affects of time even as zygots.
@Joshua Bailey that is not what research is finding. the health of the father can directly impact the DNA of sperm through epigenetics. This occurs even before conception. It is recommended that if aman and a woman is tryign for a baby the father should stop drinkign and smoking well beforehand.
Your thinking is factually outdated.
@Joshua Bailey how?
yeah I thought about this too I wanna believe the other points hes making but this makes me question it all, especially because he hasnt responded to it in 3 years
"If you know the enemy and if you know yourself, you need nod to fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know the enemy, but not yourself, for every victory gained you'll also suffer a defeat. If you know not the enemy, nor yourself, you'll sucumb in every battle"
Sun tse. Do you really know the enemy
Lol I’m currently reading this book
What if you know yourself, but not the enemy
Dont worry guys, most of us will just end up settling out a fear of being alone
To be fair, that's not as bad as actually being alone, despite what the movies say...
What's wrong with being alone?
Mgtow sounding better and better than settling for an entitled land whale
@@alexanderl9721 we're social animals
@@georgeptolemy7260 Obviously. And being integrated within the society and having a social life has some important benefits. What i was trying to say is that there is nothing wrong with being alone (as in, romantically), whether It's voluntary or not and that It's possible to be happy with yourself without relying on other people.
I'm pretty sure even homosexual attraction is based on finding a healthy mate. The human brain is just dumb and sometimes our subconscious and conscious don't work together. For example I'm a gay guy, obviously I know I can't get pregnant nor get a man pregnant, but subconsciously I (am probably) looking for a man that will make a good mate.
Yeah, I'm a lesbian and look for pretty much the same things in women as do the straight guys, with an exception of "the more the better" cause I guess I can spot symmetry anyways? Also this made me realise i care about symmetry A WHOLE LOT, esp about whether the way a girl walks appears stable and balanced, or how assymetrical facial expressions are really unattractive to me :v. Really interesting.
I've always wondered if homosexuality is just a "crossing of wires", if the homosexual brain is just wired to be attracted to the pheromones of the same sex instead of the opposite sex. Idk, do we have any concrete biological data about what causes someone to be attracted to the same sex? I hope I'm not offending anyone, I'm just an uneducated straight male throwing out conjecture
SJNaka101 There's some evidence to support that the biological hardware in some parts of the brain in a homosexual person is comparable to that of a heterosexual person of the opposite sex, as a result of developmental misalignment between genital development (which occurs early on during pregnancy) and brain development (which occurs weeks later). Unfortunately, I can't really give you concrete specifics; I remember reading several articles displaying evidence along these lines, but it's been awhile since I read them and I failed to retain that information. But Google Scholar should help fill in that missing information.
But isn't that the way you become trans? I heard a theory that it's more due to the wrong hormones when the brain is establishing attraction. Also in different species homosexuality (or bisexuality) has different functions in the group and sometimes different functions. It might be a much more complex thing than we suspect. The thing remains that somehow a small percentage of the population not being straight somehow benefits our species, maybe it's because we can act like foster parents when in the wild there weren't any institutions providing that... I really am super curious of how exactly all that wiring happens.
You're not! I find it very fascinating too, and I'm really far from straight :D. I don't think though it's a simple crosswise issue. Because there's that weird, almost 50/50 split between, for example lesbians or bi women, where some prefer those with more "masculine" traits and other with "feminine" = the kind that most straight men are attracted to. It's also not quite the rule of "opposites attract" because I'm really femme but also only attracted to very feminine and graceful women. Thinking about this really makes you realize how complex the whole thing is, and that the reason might not be so simple...
"Looks at ring finger, it's longer than pointer"
"Looks in mirror"
"Visible confusion"
Standards of beauty are DEFINITELY different across cultures. Some things are the same - don't think any culture finds wrinkles or broken bones attractive, for example - but you just need to look at the myriad of historical examples, from the leg-shaving advertising campaign to women in China binding their feet to the post-colonial trend towards lighter skin in India, to realize that culture makes a huge difference. Nobody finds obesity attractive, and nobody finds anorexia attractive, but that gap is very wide. Being "plump", not supermodel skinny, was the ideal at many points in history (you can even find some ads for products encouraging women to increase their weight). For men, the Greeks thought small genitalia were extremely attractive, and, well. That's changed significantly.
I mean, I guess you could argue that those are "small" differences, but I would disagree, and I'd also be very curious about what constitutes a "large" difference, if that Chinese mutilation example doesn't.
tl;dr it's more accurate to say "visibly unhealthy characteristics are never attractive" than "culture barely affects beauty standards"
*exactly*
*For men, the Greeks thought small genitalia were extremely attractive, and, well. That's changed significantly.*
Greeks have a fairly particular gay culture where young handsome men would be sought out as intimate partners and said handsome men would explicitely try to gain the favors of older more powerful men. What I'm trying to say is that the standard isn't based on females' attraction toward big or small dicks, it's essentially based on males'. Could be that smaller penises are easier on the ass... Or a plethora of other reasons. Gay attraction isn't as biologically driven as conventional, straight attraction.
My belief is that we're primates, we're hardwired to seek out certain traits in partners regardless of culture, as for the culture gap, I believe it's wider for men than it is for women. Men have higher testosterone levels thus they're hornier, have a wider range of "hot" and are overall more prone to be attracted to unconventional things because men see a whole lot of things as sexual, they have more opportunities to develop paraphilias along the way because of their innate higher sex drive (as opposed to female's innately lower and cyclic sex drive) and... They're meant to impregnate as many females as humanly possible, not the best females. Most primate and felines operate in a harem-like system, males don't care so much about physical traits in females aside from the fundamentals. For that reason I'd wager there are more men who'd be into extremely skinny or extremely fat, while women would be far more selective. This is essentially because women, being the incubators of our species and having limited shots (because of the dangers inherent to childbirth) probably had to pick the best mate possible.
Yes, culture probably intervenes and orients humans' attraction but I very much doubt women would someday be attracted to negative shoulder-to-hip ratio in men or that men would be mainly attracted to jacked women. Culture never fully supersedes nature and attraction based on gender isn't the same because males and females aren't the same.
That's because it's all about the ratio between hips and waist. Waist should be way smaller than hips.
@@toplad8113 There are plenty of people that are solely attracted to things outside societal norms for body types. I think men with big hips are cute and I know a fair amount of dudes who like buff girls. Quit the pseudoscience and stop overanalyzing everything
stop writing essays in UA-cam comments !!!!!
I don't think women are always doing their makeup to impress men all the time. Some makeup is so fantastical and grande that I'm pretty sure it's to show off their skills and artistry to other women. I highly doubt most men would pick up on any subtle details that some women put into their makeup, but other women most definitely will. Maybe you could argue that's a way to intimidate other women and beat the competition?
I wear makeup to avoid terrifying people on the street with my hideous visage.
Maybe its not the primary motive more "looking good" itself is weighted by opposite sex attraction. Id say its the same for men trying to build muscle, they may just want to be stronger, more able or appear better but masculine attraction is an implicit and unavoidable quality of these personal desires.
lrose For me personally, I don't care if men or people in general don't notice the (rare) occasion of me wearing make-up. I care when they notice when I'm not wearing make-up when it seems more appropriate. Like at a party, or if I have a pimple on my face, or during a formal event.
Bottomline, it's not exactly to impress people, it's to not embarrass yourself in front of them
Yes and being an attractive woman also makes you more likeable in general. Not everything in life is about mating lol.
Being physically attractive, from what I know, can also mean that you're healthy. This is cuz it includes taking good care of your body, such as by washing your face after wearing make-up, exercising on a regular basis, having a healthy diet, etc.
My husband and I are almost the exact opposite of the description of what people look for in a partner.
Am I the only one who just noticed that Chad from the Chad meme is a poorly drawn Johnny Bravo?
yeha if anything Johhny Bravo is an incel. He had an entire TV series on him trying to get laid and it was all for naught :(
Actually his head is in the shape of the country chad. Fun fact!
Billy Sooner Even getting buff didn’t help him
He would have gotten laid if he worked legs
@@WarPigstheHun he got a girl but she dumped him for whatever reason on valentines day (she liked him too)
"the more comically large they are the more attractive they seem"
wait until they see me get a spoonful of ice cream
I just remembered a girl grabbed my hand in middle school and said it really looked nice and complimented a few more times. I was so fucking creeped out.
Honestly could not tell that your hair was parted...
Hey, just wanted to let you know I think your videos are of a really high quality. I'm always surprised how few views they get though.
Keep up the good work, and maybe try a little click bait to get the numbers up, but once people find your stuff, they'll stay for the quality thoughtful content
I've been told this on several occasions and have thought about it with every video... It was proven to me after I did the Taxes video when I finally decided to make the most clickbaity title I've ever done - "You're Doing Them Wrong." People suddenly want to know what they're doing wrong... which right away I was worried that people could call me out because I never actually say what they're doing wrong (which is their W4, not their 1040). Anyway, I digress.
I know if I titled this something like "Why You Think She's Hot" or even threw the word sex in there somewhere, the views would flow right in. But... I'd just feel dirty doing that, hah.
Knowing Better it's definitely a topic of contention. Hey, new video topic! A quick thought on clickbait titles is if you're getting more views on a video, it may not be because your content is good but simply you are clever enough to hook people in with your title. Are people watching because they are genuinely interested, or because they are susceptible to exaggerations of truth?
I think its more so a function of your subscriber base. YT channels snowball over time and naturally their videos will get a baseline of views large enough to post them in search and suggested bars. If you've ever seen a big YT channel where their old terrible videos still get 500k views, you'll see what I mean. The game is more about consistency and you know marathon/not a sprint etc etc.
This is pretty much the norm, but the thing to remember is that a norm does not necessarily fit for everyone. In the end you have to find what partner fits for you and while superficial sexual traits help, it is only the beginning.
I thought the graph was in inches for a second and had a mini heart attack.
Lmao
LmaO sAme
As a lesbian I wish there was more research about how people pick same sex partners. The straight male stuff kind of applies in my opinion but lesbian beauty standards are different for sure. The ovulation thing changing attraction does still apply in my personal experience. If I start randomly wondering if im actually bisexual thats a pretty good sign that im ovulating and I’ll be over it by the end of the week. The type of dude i find myself inexplicably attracted to in those times is pretty much always a shy scrawny nerd and never an alpha dude.
This makes me that lesbians might have more testosterone than straight women, seen as you said you go towards the scrawny nerd type when ovulating, making you seem a lil more uhhhhh "alpha" ig...or dominant maybe
Eh... many things here seem to contradict with my observations. From the fact that throughout history the ideal of beauty changed many times (such as there being time periods when small breasts were preferable) to more significant cultural differences (say, Japanese women wanted to look flat with no curves whatsoever, thus wearing belts around their waist that would hide the natural curvature of the body), to the fact that symmetry isn't always desirable - yes, not enough symmetry is bad, but too much is also bad. When you show people pictures of perfectly symmetrical faces, they look creepy and artificial, sort of like the uncanny valley effect.
Then there's BMI... BMI works well if you compare people of similar fitness, so say a couch potato with a BMI of 20 is much more healthy than a couch potato with a BMI of 30. Yet an athlete with a BMI of 30 is most likely going to be much more attractive than a couch potato with a BMI of 20. Now athletes will generally have BMIs of at least 25, since they have plenty of muscle tissue as opposed to fat tissue. Claiming that the ideal BMI is below 20 would pretty much disqualify athletes as unattractive... which I think seems rather ridiculous, so the research must have been bogus.
And ending with the fact that it's not uncommon for people to be aware that their choice of style (clothing, hairstyle, facial hair, etc.) makes them less attractive, yet they still go with their style because not everyone makes their decisions with looking as attractive as possible as their goal.
Although sure, healthy looking people tend to be more attractive. I don't think I've seen any evidence against this theory. This might have stayed a constant throughout time and cultures. The thing is, what "healthy looking" means seems to differ in history and between cultures. In places where starvation is a major danger, having some fat is a sign of health. In places where cholesterol is more likely to kill you than starvation, it's the opposite. Another example is tanned skin - for a long time in Europe it was unattractive and aristocracy would put much effort to keep their skin untanned, because tanned skin was associated with peasantry. Nowadays, skin that is tanned just right is seen as most attractive, while untanned skin might be seen as sickly and unhealthy. For more extreme examples, many cultures had practices such as Chinese foot binding, Mayan cranial deformation etc. - practices that modern people would see as extremely unhealthy and unattractive, yet apparently somewhere in the past they had their proponents. Maybe as a "if you survived THAT, you must have a strong immunity system..."
I guess piercing and tattoos also fall into this category, especially the more extreme variants.
I feel like knowing better would dismiss everything you've said as falling under the category of fashion, not attractiveness. I personally disagree with that assessment, but I'm pretty sure that is what he would say.
Ooh, those sexy lip plate piercings
I don't know. I mean there is still a preference for women being thin in Asia, and black men tend to like women a bit thicker, while white men like something in between. I think you are comparing the difference between races, rather than say 15th Century Japan to now. Also just because a body shaped was desired, does not mean it was sexually pursed, quite the opposite in fact. Open sexuality/adultery was scandalized in most ancient cultures because it eroded family structure, and therefore the women you see depicted in statues, are actually depicting the 'decent' look, not the sexy look.
This video only focuses on the average psychological/genetical predispositions of our species... different cultures and ideas obviously have an impact on what is deemed attractive, and also on whether or not you should even try to be attractive (in contrast to being pure, decent, intelligent etc.). On your point about BMI, I don't see where he claims the opposite.
I feel like a large part of attraction is learned and not as innate as people would have you believe. I ain’t a scientist tho so I can’t back up my statement.
Can't help but notice that most on-screen references are to the same paper by Sugiyama. I don't have time to check the article, but is it a review? Or are the sample sizes significant? (and obviously is it peer reviewed) Otherwise that kind of lopsided empiricism isn't lending too much credence to these broad conclusions. I'm interested to know if this is all unanimously verified by science
"Isn't lending too much credence to these broad conclusions"
This was my biggest issue with this video - it watched like a lot of pop culture facts on attractiveness *without context*. Human psychology is really tough to nail down because it *isn't* completely empirical. So I'm a little disappointed at this claim at all of these empirical, black and white, conclusions.
One huge example that I noticed of these facts being taken out of context was the one with women and risk of birth defects. It absolutely starts rising at a way larger rate after 30, but it's really in the late 30s, early 40s that the risk gets particularly significant for possible birth defects. Then some claims (about the reason for men's preference of the number of children a woman has, for example) just seemed a little... reaching as concrete conclusions.
Perhaps he thought it went without saying "take this all with a grain of salt," but this just didn't seem terribly thorough, and could have done with more context for my taste.
Perhaps part of the issue is that, as someone who very much was trained in the "nature and nurture" school of "effect on human behavior and perception," and with a background in biological anthropology, too much of an "evolutionary psychology" video is just going to be something that I struggle to find thorough and concrete. I said it about psychology, but too much even of our biological anthropology rests in lost data, so I struggle to really give a ton of credence to evolutionary psychology. It's difficult for me to find myself fully in support of the idea of modern humans justifying current social behavior with past situations which are not always or necessarily often well understood, *and then people using this work as empirical fact.* Maybe I just don't know enough about evolutionary psychology.
-Ugos
absolutely agree with both these comments
Actually, increased paternal age after a point is associated with increased risk of genetic defect.
Petunia and Poppy yup
that wasnt the only misinformation
”short hair is a sign of illness and infertility”. And here I’m currently standing in my bathroom, giving myself a haircut.
It's good to be able to see how far a youtuber has come from when they started, and the mistakes they made along the way. Some parts of this video are interesting and probably accurate, but others are not, and some parts are problematic. (examples: attraction does vary a lot across cultures, he made a lot of generalizations that are often not true, etc.) But videos like this show that the creater is a real person with a wide range of beliefs, and show they can change over time.
edit - okay well he just said that people prefer partners of their own race and implied that was a biological trait so that's a bit much for me
Sources to say otherwise?
Hes not wrong though
But that is true. People do find their own race more attractive. This is not news to anyone? Other than that, the markers for female attractive are so similiar across the world. Again, this is not a surprise to anyone is it?
@@arthurmcbride1235 people do not biologically like others of the same race, that is culturally implanted. This is basic science. Attraction also varies hugely across cultures, I'll send you a link
@@ezra7088I didn't say it was biological, and I disagree that the mechanism can be described as ""culturally implanted""; but it is true - the world is not a melting pot for a reason. And while there are variations in the traits of attractiveness across cultures, the human animal is remarkably consistant. We are the same species. We could argue over the degree of the variation and how much is significant but it wouldnt change much. If you can't find a wife of your own kind, you will take the most attractive Inuit or Micronesian you can get. This is not a big surprise to anyone I think.
Man, that Sugiyama must be one amazing source.
The father's age matters also in the genetic health of the child.
True, but I'd say a majority of "old dad" kids are fine. There is a correlation with higher chance of certain things, of course.
spells don't make me laugh . Men make sperm daily. old eggs are more environmentally degraded by radiation than young eggs. Sperm made daily. Not affected by the radiation present in life
@@TheSP33DFREAK they are demons lol UA-cam comment moderation and deceit is their fuckerd up g0d who gives a shit about the rampant misinformation it's part of hell . We should know better than to even look at these handicapped idiots
Are you sure about this? got a source?
Not nearly as much
I like scumbag knowing better. He single?
Great video :)
+KayleighMarie He is most definitely single. I'll put you in touch.
I bring up balding in this video. Sorry to draw the comparison - but who else goes bald when they're young? Sick people, cancer patients, etc. Going bald is *usually* a sign of illness... so... yes it is a massive turnoff. You are better off shaving your head completely. Because that makes it more of a fashion statement and hides the balding. I started going gray at 18, men in my family don't go bald... thankfully.
Is non-balding not a sign of homosexuality?
Stuart Morrow No...
Stuart Morrow | dafuq?
12:15 I love this level of detail! You can see the feet going on the couch in the bottom left corner. That must have been very hard to set up but just proves why his videos are so good! Thank you so much my friend.
The video is interesting, but some wrong factoids really stood out to me, like 1. the use of "alpha" and "beta" male when this concept has been widely debunked and the suggestion that women over thirty have a much larger chance of having complications with their children - something that has also been debunked.
So some of this research seems to be based off dated information and made me skeptical of the rest of the research.
To be fair he did say "so called" alpha male. I took that to mean just, what you think of when you hear alpha male.
Well said.
Agree with almost everything, except the part when you say "age of the father has no correlation to the health of the children" "En la acondroplasia. La mayor parte de los casos (75 a 90%) se consideran mutaciones de novo relacionadas con edad paterna avanzada." "In achondroplasia (dwarfism) Most cases (75 to 90%) are considered de novo mutations related to advanced paternal (of the father) age"
Victoria del Castillo Cruz (2012) Genética clínica. Manual Moderno. México
Why would you type this in Spanish?
@@alastor8091 translation
This. Outside of that flub, the video is masterful. But that mistake was jarring.
I’m a firm believer in that there must be some sort of attraction initially to even generate a relationship ***
You don't have to be a believer, it's a scientific fact.
there are always exceptions in nature
there are always exceptions in nature
Not in an arranged marriage!
Yeah the exception is being very drunk
To be fair, the point about cancer patients balding doesn't make much sense. Sure, they bald, and they are sick. But they bald because of exposure to radiation in chemotherapy. And radiation poisoning wasn't much of a thing over most of our natural history during which humans evolved, so the claim that cancer patients have anything to do with baldness being a negative is most likely just wrong.
TastMFC That wasn't the major evidence of that paragraph and also if you already have genetic deficiency it is easier to get cancer. You know, most cancers need like multiple mutations and if you are already born with some then more likely. It not why we dont see bald as attractive but it does work.
@@tuyiren781 what about ripped bald guys like the dude playing Luke Cage, most women seem to find him attractive
TastMFC him saying culture doesn’t have an effect on what’s considered attractive is wrong some things are learned like baldness meaning sickness
Some skin sicknesses will make you lose your hair as well as some vitamin deficiencies. B12 deficiency being one of them. Some stress disorders will also make you lose your hair.
you're missing the point, often sickness and thinning hair are correlated so we evolved to look out for it.
I don't know why I watch these videos, they always make me feel insecure about how few masculine qualities I have.
I’ve been there. Gender Archetypes are extremely hard to live up to, and getting caught up in what most heterosexual women (or men) look for in a potential mate/partner can be demoralizing if you don’t “fit the mold”. I don’t really feel all that “masculine” either, but I don’t really want to be if it means I have to lie. I like my shortish height, soft hands, medium shoulders etc. and I think we as a culture are getting closer to embracing non-conformity. Think of the “Short Kings” meme for example.
I personally find people who aren’t overly masculine with a bit of feminine qualities to be attractive so I wouldn’t worry about it just make yourself the best version of your self you wanna be 👍
As long as you can bring yourself up to around average then you'll probably be fine
I'm five foot one and I was dating a guy who's six foot four. See, THAT turned out to be unreasonable because I could only kiss him if we were both sitting down. But he didn't like being kissed anyway, so it's kind of a moot point. The guy I ACTUALLY love is five foot four (because he's Sicilian, not because he's weak or anything), which is much better for me, shrimp as I am.
I'm also 6'4", and I also have similar issues. I'm too tall for ALl of my ex's... my tallest girlfriend was only 5'3... and my girlfriend i have now is only 5'0 exactly. I am surprised I haven't had a 5'10 tomboy like my own mother.
So since I'm broke and a 10, when I make some money I'll be a 12.3. I like the way this is going
Ryan Hendricks you mean a 20.3? wish me luck im like a 6 but id be a lot cuter without acne and taller :(
If you think you’re a 10 you’re probably not a 10
Idk, I mean this is fine stuff to know but I think getting too hung up on this is a great way to become an incel.
There's other things to consider like individual taste, fetishes, and of course how desperate and/or lonely someone is.
Ugly person confirmed.
Don't worry about being better. There are desperate people out there!
Ryan Henderson what terrible advice
5:20....biggest moral booster of my life
"Opposites attract has been proven wrong over and over again" got me feeling weird cuz my gf and I are exact opposites
how so?
How are things working out a year later?
He’s speaking broadly. Outliers exist
Humans notice difference far more than similarities. It's a wired in bias. Often when a couple says they're opposite, they're actually quite similar in many ways compared to the average person on the street. It's often a just few significant personality differences that stand out in contrast to each other, like introversion vs extroversion.
Sometimes differences compliment each other well. Like if one person is more disagreeable, moody, or has a dominant personality, they might match up well with someone who compliments that. Imagine two hard assed argumentative people in a relationship together... That's not going to go well.
@@lightfeather9953 Well, it will work well if the objective is to set every room you enter on fire 😅
Actual professional of behavioural psychology, social anthropology and sexual preference disorders here.
A lot of what Better, here, has commented on is unfortunately not very accurate. Although it can generally be agreed to be more or less accurate to a some degree, it isn't consistent, at all. Historically, various civilisations and societies have shown characteristics of varying degrees of similarity to the studies Better has mentioned and commented on.
On that, to this day, many societies still retain differences that fundamentally damage these studies.
And, in fact, we have plenty of extra studies that show remarkably big differences.
We know for a fact some societies did, in fact, find overweight women as more attractive. Although not quite obese.
To not go on a rant; when it comes to psychology, human attraction is based on an extreme long list of variables that simply pointing it all down to "body shape" and "appearance", isn't at all very accurate or a great metric to use.
Now, when in reference to only primary sexual attraction, some of these do appear to be quite consistent throughout our human civilisation. However, most humans do not only use primary sexual attraction, but also secondary attraction, which requires further understanding of one another. You can call this "growing a bond". This is, for example, why dates are a thing.
Humans are simply a little too complex in coupling decision making. And everything from an extremely stressful day, to atypical sexual preferences, can all change that.
On top of it all, what we would've otherwise considered a consistent variable that appears strongly in a variety of generational cohorts, do in fact change. For example, the recent advent of enjoying large asses and thighs, now. This wasn't nearly as prominent pre-15 years ago.
To cut it all short, we can trace a good couple of these studies back to less than savoury individuals continuing *now obsolete* studies from several decades ago. But, I expect little less from the American Psychiatric association, I'll admit.
I've made it my life to study precisely this. Whilst much of what you commented on and summarised, Better, can be traced back to some truth - Much of it hasn't been consistently demonstrable. There's a large spectrum to general human attraction - excluding atypical attraction. And that really is the least of it.
But, then again, asking you to make a varitable anthology series of dozens of hours worth of content, and still yet summarising a decade of college work, is also quite the task.
Nevertheless.
9:03 maybe the studies weren't out yet when this was done. After Father is 40+ risk of autism increases.
There was also one study that indicated that children of older fathers were less attractive. "FUCK!" i cried in to the wind as someone with older parent (could've been beautiful)
"but that's enough fat-shaming for now" omg i'm subbed
TRIGGERERD
its not even correct
knowingbetter, You are physically attractive.
You might want to update this video. There have been significant links found between older men and issues with their offspring, especially AUSITM! There is no significant link between older women and autism, however.
AUSITM
@@correctionguy7632 yeah someone clearly had an older dad
Um, corsets we not invented to give women a smaller waste!!! Please don't perpetuate that myth.
Corsets were invented, like modern bras, to support the breasts. Padding was added to accentuate the hips and give a smooth figure. But that wasn't the corsets doing. There are working corsets and fashionable corsets. Much like the sports bra vs the push up bra.
They were simply a garment worn for support.
Corsets are still uses today for medical reasons.
The only thing I'll say contrary to your issue with opposites attract is that it can counteract both flaws. I am very disorganised but chilled and my wife is very organised but can worry about things. Between the 2 of us she brings necessary organisation and I bring a degree of clarity to situations. It seems to work.
are you still together
The problem is the jump from advantage to adaptation It is impossible to prove that any trait is adaptive, especially behavioral traits. It's fundamentally no better than any other kind of storytelling.
Doesn't apply on an evolutionary biology perspective. Men were typically dead by 40 until the modern era so it never really came up.
Sorry, wrong line replied to...
@@daveharrison4697 I was like "lol, what? wanna fight me brah?". then just "lol, what?"
I love this channel. Unbiased, in-depth information on things.
Ahhhh, He's great at non-political stuff, but ...
You left out a ton of important information in this video. Like you said the media doesn't dictate beauty standards, they just reflect what people already believe. A HUGE omission: *who* decides what elements of culture get reflected has an impact on what gets reflected, and what gets reflected influences what people believe is natural, normal, and right. That isn't just fashion. It's how ideology is constructed.
I'm also sad to see you repeat so many tropes rooted in that distorted reflection of culture with seemingly no awareness of how those tropes are constructed.
Some of the basic facts you cited are incorrect. The 2D:4D measure is not settled science. There are about a thousand papers on the subject, most of which have not had reliably reproducible results. Even studies that do conclude a positive correlation disagree about what to measure and what it actually correlates to. The truth is, we don't know if ring finger length actually means anything of significance. Women might rate hands with longer ring fingers higher on average for reasons that have nothing to do with hormones. We don't know.
I've watched almost all your videos and found most of them to be well crafted and well informed. This one is uncharacteristically horrible. What happened?
Oh man, comments on your old videos are cancer. I love what the channel has become now.
Ikr lmao
I just started watching him a week ago and this was a bit shocking
Looking at the most attractive male figures in Asian you might find disagreement.
YUPPPP I mean millions of women wouldn't throw themselves at these kpop idols.
Actually other cultures do have different beauty standards. Albeit they are less prevalent beauty standards, like eyeshape, they are still there.
6" is in the 90th percentile jesus never knew about that one
Your hair parting skills are top notch.
I found this channel maybe 2 weeks ago and I’m obsessed. I can’t get enough.
I think this video definitely needs an update - what we see as “biological” or “innate” a lot of the time can also be accurately summed up as “heterosexual,” “white,” and “wealthy,” and that doesn’t sum up the experiences or attractions of a LOT of people. Granted, the science probably needs to be explored further, and we also need to talk about how one can intentionally broaden and be conscious of their tastes as to open themselves up to other experiences. Our unconscious biases are probably more plastic than we think
This has nothing to do with biology, this is psychology, not a real science
This has nothing to do with white.
I dont see the whole "older men are seen as more attractive"
Most women end up with a guy that's 2 to 4 years their senior, relationships where a woman in her prime (20 to 25) dates a guy 10+ year her senior are fairly rare, and her not leaving him or divorcing him to end up with a guy closer to her age is even rarer.
PS: the male salt and pepper sex symbols like George Clooney, where primarily eye candy for middle aged women, he is someone that my mom really likes, but my peers dont care about (I'm a woman in my 20's as well). Younger women look at ryan Gosling, chris Evans, or jason momoa... celebs in their 30's mostly, not 40's or 50's, I've even hear young women say now that "Brad Pitt was cute in the 90's now hes old"
The type of man you find attractive and the type of man you marry don't necessarily have to coincide.
“But what is definitely not a good hair signal is balding”
I think we all know someone who can contradict that.
Let me guess, Dwayne the rock Johnson, Danny Devito and more ofc
@@motivatedstorm3816 nope, pretty sure hes referring to the guy who's a doctor, lawyer, construction worker, astronaut, bartender, and plumber all at the same time
i'd like to add that while the media may not shape what we find attractive, it does shape what is expected, if the media consistently shows us only the peak of what people look for in a body, there will be people who see anything less than perfect as disgusting
the 'age doesn't matter for men' point has been disproved. higher incidence of autism has been correlated with aging, deteriorating sperm. amongst other things.
I have to contest the assertion that culture/time period has nothing to do with the perception of physical beauty and attractiveness, at least in some ways. There was a time when makeup, high heels, and lace was all the rage--for men. You might say that's fashion, but that was what wealthy women looked for. So were moles, consider beauty marks, for both men and women. Cancer indicator, anyone? Some cultures value very pale skin, some like a healthy looking tan. Not that an acquired tan is healthy at all. But some are born with it and don't need ultraviolet radiation to produce it. At one point, a high forehead (emphasized by shaving the eyebrows) was considered beautiful. In the latter part of the 19th century, tiny waists were attractive--so tiny that women wore corsets that prevented them from getting a full breath and were constantly passing out. A full bust and bustle was expected, but a woman's waist was supposed to be small enough that her man could span it with his hands. Again, you can call that fashion, but men still seemed to like it. One of the biggest issues in attractiveness that has changed over time is women's ideal weight. Point blank, most modern men don't consider overweight women desirable. Yet art from centuries past portraying the epitome of female sexiness shows a lot of (at least, compared to today's sexiest women) overweight women. Check out the Birth of Venus. Not even the Mona Lisa is skinny. Even the more slender artistic models and royals aren't modern model skinny. This didn't change dramatically until the 1970s. Just check out a picture of Marilyn Monroe (5'5" 118 lbs 36-24-34, 1950s)) vs. Twiggy (5' 6" 112 lbs, 31-23-32 1960s). Twiggy's physical type and weight standards are maintained in modern times. Gal Gadot is 5' 10", 128 lbs, 32-23-34). Now, you might not think that's much difference, but you've got to add 4-6 lbs per inch of height. That means Marilyn Monroe at 5' 6" would be at least 10 pounds heavier than Twiggy and at 5' 10" she'd still be at 10 -20 lbs heavier than Gal Gadot--though Marilyn had a significantly bigger bra size. I'm not sure that men necessarily go for bigger "everything". As far as I can tell, they just want it well displayed. Something else significant that you don't mention is that there is a LOT of individual variation in what they consider attractive. Studies look at averages of large groups. I remember reading a long time ago that familiarity, similarity, and a good opinion (or affection) affect someone's attraction more than anything else. I guess that helps explain why cheaters are still far in the minority. That, and intelligence and a conscience. Cheating leads directly to single parenting in many cases, which certainly is a huge disadvantage for the children of those relationships. That's well documented in modern times, and I can't imagine that the emotional conflict and split resources was good for children in centuries past either, though divorce was a lot harder to come by. Somehow, I don't see cheating as evolutionarily advantageous for human beings. Ensuring the survival of children over the long human childhood seems to me to trump the introduction of new genes into the pool.
I wonder how the impact of wealth has affected women's perception of attractiveness in men has changed over time, or if it has at all, as society has changed and they've become less reliant on men as breadwinners.
Also, how the whole ovulation aspect plays on a woman's perception of attractiveness for those who have either extremely messed up or totally non existent cycles.
I think economic wealth as an attractiveness factor is sometimes misconstrued. While there are gold diggers and women who want to be taken care of, per my experience, the reverse implication is more important in modern western dating. I.e. it's less that a high income is a plus to women than lack of gainful employment is a turnoff. Just from some cursory empirical research of worming women over age 30, a man without a job is the big red flag, indicating some dysfunction.
My conclusion as to unattached hetero males: you don't need to be a tycoon, but you don't want to be dead weight.
They have found that long term use of the birth control pill has led women to choose male partners with more feminine features and less masculine features, which would make sense since women who are on the bcp don't ovulate.
Nerd looking for someone to date: *Hey gurl I’m rich in knowledge!*
You're not right. The image and standards of beauty change in time. In the past the curvy, voluptuous women were considered beautiful. Today you'd just call them obese or fat.
6:40 - "I still haven't seen Frozen. And I won't"
Watching in 2019, and I haven't seen it, either. I hope you've kept good to your word (unless you're watching it for a movie review; that I'd love to see).
Hmm, they say it’s “money” quite a lot, but are women specifically attracted to “money” or how resourceful a man is?
What I’m saying is, obviously, there are gold diggers who go after money, but they quickly leave a man once she’s exhausted enough of his resources
I just can’t picture a woman being attracted to a straight up boring and ugly male because he’s “rich,” but rather I feel like it’s more so his power or his resourcefulness or ability to rise up in the social latter...the “alpha” personality traits commonly correlated with wealth. I feel like THAT is what most women are attracted to when it’s viewed as “money.”
I could be wrong! I haven’t read the studies too in-depth, but just a thought
He meant it that, it doesnt necessarily MAKES the man attractive, it just makes him MORE attractive.
Kinda like...it accessorizes whatever's already there?
Yeah
I find the idea of marrying a wealthy man disgusting, I've never wanted that lifestyle. To me, his job status is important because of what it would say about his lifestyle and ability to support himself.
Lol this was a very good and educational video but it also just told me how ugly I am damn 😭😭
Trey Caldwell Please don't take that from this video! :)
Obviously i don't know you, but you might just be. So, what are you gonna do about it? There's lots of ways to improve your attractiveness, while you probably won't be a model or a 10, you can still get yourself a few points with social skills or self-improvement. Read a book, go to the gym and get some flattering clothing. Learn how to be nice and interesting. Brush your teeth. Etc, etc. I hate when people complain about their lot in life, and so do others. Life sucks and then you die. Try to have fun, make friends and drink good beer.
just become rich and wait for when their not picking alpha males
If your face isn’t great you can still be attractive to a woman. Be nice, funny, and responsible. Make yourself as attractive as you can with working out, eating well, and maintaining a good weight. Get a good education or good job that pays well. Baldness or hair loss isn’t a huge factor. Many women don’t care about hair on the head. Grow a goatee and mustache combo if your face isn’t the best. It’s masculine and covers some. Have your own home, own vehicle, and having a good family is a bonus.
I overcame my shabby looks by learning to salsa dance. I found out that women will overlooked my physical flaws if i showed to be a smooth, fun dancer.
Then I also learned that being funny is King! Making them laugh is the best technique to make a woman like you. Actually to make anyone like you!
I think the first point made about beauty standards not changing with culture or time is completely untrue. Time especially, if you look at art in the past you’ll see women that have baby faces and clearly have more fat. Even in the past few years you could see a change in focus between girls that are skinny and girls with more curves.
Your production of this video with douchebag you was perfectly done, and a really clever way to approach this. I appreciate your empiricism and tact, as always!
This is a great conversation of the biological side of attraction, but I think that culture definitely plays a big role in what we desire physically from our partners. To say otherwise is to be ignorant of the facts. I don’t think this goes against most of what you said tho.
There may be biological underpinnings which are flouted or supported by cultural norms. The first thing that comes to mind is the ways that female attractiveness has changed over the last 30 years in America. Women used to want to be skinny and feared having a “big but” yet now voluptuous women are praised and many women try to have a bigger but.
I’m sure there are many such examples throughout history. A combination of both factors then, social and biological, determines our sexual preferences. There can be no other way about it.
After watching this I got ring finger extension surgery, now its literally twice the size and I feel way more confident😁
There is so much that is unconscious. There was a study in the 1960s where they showed men pictures of women to rate their attractiveness. Then, they took the same pictures and diluted the pupils and there was a significant increase in scores.
When a woman is sexually ready, her eyes will dilate. Literally, almost nobody consciously knows this is happening but we do deep down.
I think I just filled the entire bingo card of undesirable 👍
same
i became so jaded over time that i don't even look at conventionally attractive women anymore. unless they explicitly show off
it's honestly quite sad to listen and realize you don't check a single mark
and the only thing you can realistically do is to slim down
As a bi guy this just makes me soooo curious how my attraction to guys works in comparison
I'm not very convinced - there's a flaw in the conclusions to a certain degree and a bit of misunderstanding about how cultural factors (or the media) and social psychology do have an impact on how we pick a partner and what we drives attractiveness *overall*. Overall being the key word here, as my concern is that specific factors that KnowingBetter is listing are being overestimated in their importance in the overall decision of choosing a partner.
That's not to say the studies cited are incorrect, nor that there has been a misunderstanding about their conclusions, nevertheless, I think this video's title is a little misleading regarding the actual content of the video, because it's very clear that what it is being talked about here is the base instinctual drive in every human when choosing a mate.
I think the viewer would come away much better informed if the title were changed to the following :'Where physical attraction begins from the genetic and psychological perspective"
However, the video's arguments don't gel with how people actually *pick a partner* because it assumes humans only act on instinct alone and being social animals with the right brain tools to create language and complex societies, we're capable of making choices that might defy our base instincts and drives. The wider society (whether it's a stone age tribe or modern metropolis) will no doubt influence how you choose a partner and that wider society may indeed focus on the said particular traits, but these can vary from culture to culture.
And that's not even considering how on the individual level humans choose a partner, which can be driven by very personal experiences and conscious decisions. The matter is complicated further when you consider sexual fetishes, or individuals who are not hetero-normative.
The videos proposed model for how humans pick partners is extremely limited as it entirely ignores social, cultural, and individual factors which do play a part. If these factors are indeed a myth as claimed, I don't really see a compelling reason outlined here to accept this point.
Though I maintain my point above simply re-titling the video to "Where physical attraction begins from the genetic and psychological perspective" would resolve my disagreement - though that's not very friendly for SEO and the youtube algorithm :/
When everyone is trying to look like anime characters.
16:13 I disagree. It's because exaggerated features always look better in animation. Proportional human characters often look too stiff and clunky for traditional 2d animation styles.
1. The Talmud discusses a type of jewelry used by women of the time meant to squeeze out fat to give an overweight appearance.
2. Similarly Rabbi Johanan is described as being extremely beautiful (to the point of femininity) as well as unbelievably fat.
3. It was less than 20 years ago when every woman was worrying about “does this make my butt look big”
I don’t think it’s all media, but it is undeniably a big part of what drives attractiveness. You even mentioned that the desired BMI is underweight.
Sometimes I rewatch this to remind myself why I’m ugly and also that it’s not going to get better because I ain’t getting any younger
I disagree with his assertion that the popular culture doesnt influence what we find attractive.
The cultures which surround us inform our values, and what we look for in a Relationship.
The more media you consume and the less discernment that you have, the more likely you are to be influenced by popular culture.
No sources but he does I wander who i will believe?
I don't have super strong feelings either way, but I swear I feel like most of these qualities can be disregarded just by getting to know someone and developing a close intellectual relationship.
It's important to keep in mind that the research he's describing is about perceived attractiveness, not romantic success. These are the traits which are selected when presented with a bunch of photographs in a lab, not necessarily a check list one goes through when meeting new people in real life.
@@SirPhysics this is a very good point. Someone who is attractive but an asshole will struggle more than someone who is less attractive but confident and kind.
Since about 2/3 if all men at age 35 suffer from some degree of hair loss, I seriously doubt that the reason baldness is usually not considered attractive to women is due to an alleged resemblance to sickness. Male pattern baldness is also very distinctive and can hardly be mistaken for someone suffering from cancer or some other serious disease. It's a minor inconvenience in all other circumstances, so why would women suddenly interpret it as a sign of genetic inferiority when looking for a partner. It's just not likely that women for reasons related to genetic inferiority would have evolved an instinct to find men with typical male pattern baldness unattractive. The fact that women tend to find a guy suffering from baldness but shaves his head completely more attractive seems to further negate this assumption. A completely bald person is almost exclusively either very old, suffering from a disease or shaving his head. In other words, male pattern baldness is very common and not a sign of genetic inferiority but complete baldness definitely is. So, why would women prefer completely bald men to men displaying typical male pattern baldness? It just does not make any sense from a natural selection perspective. That is why evolutionary biologists make a clear distinction between evolution by natural selection and sexual selection. The latter tend to lead to quite bizarre and irrational phenomenons that natural selection just can't account for. The male peacock's tail feathers is a good example. But, this is true for humans as well. You ought to be very careful when trying to explain sexual attractiveness in evolutionary terms. The logic of natural selection often just doesn't apply. More often it's a form of slippery slope effect or an arms race if you like. In other words, there is not always a clear rationale to why certain traits are considered more attractive than others.
Probus Excogitatoris I agree. I was like how would women have an evolutionary trait for perceiving chemo therapy? Tbh, not many sicknesses cause baldness . Lupus and what else . Men tend not to get lupus any way. Pattern baldness just doesn’t look good. Kinda like having a scraggly thin beard.
going bald young is genetic
The media does indeed tell people what is attractive. As an example the media in African countries tells the people that light skin is more attractive and there is a huge skin bleaching issue in these countries.
So guys don't have sex with women they find unattractive? Guys don't have different standards for sex partners and relationship partners? Guys don't think "she's attractive enough to f- but not attractive enough to care about"? Or "she's attractive enough to care about but not attractive enough for commitment"?