Beauty and The Brain
Apparently beauty basically depends on what you've been exposed to and what is therefore easy on your mind, or so says Piotr Winkielman, of the University of California, San Diego.
What a grand statement. And how did the esteemed doctor arrive at the dramatic conclusions? Random-dot and geometric pattern experiments. Wonderful. While his conclusions seem reasonable, the "experiment" relies heavily on the participant's subjective rating of "attractiveness" of an object - which could easily be skewed based on the images shown. "As predicted," the researchers write, "participants categorized patterns more quickly and judged them as more attractive when the patterns were closer to their respective prototypes."
Jump three suppositions ahead and you get "This ...," he said, "accounts for cultural differences in beauty -- and historical differences in beauty as well -- because beauty basically depends on what you've been exposed to and what is therefore easy on your mind."
Huh?
I think the only conclusion that can be reached from this social experiment is that the brain finds recognizable patterns more appealing (I don't think I've ever used the word "attractive" to describe random dot patterns). To leap ahead and make irresponsible assertations without direct proof is asinine.
For example - we've all heard of or experienced the "fact" that many men marry a woman that either looks like, or displays qualities possessed by the man's mother. Couple that with the fact that most men are exposed to their mothers (sorry, no orphans in this study) more than anyone else in their lives - remember the doctor said "beauty basically depends on what you've been exposed to and what is therefore easy on your mind".
The conclusion?
Freud was right! Most men have an oedipal complex.
Me thinks the good doctor is trying to validate Freudian analysis (because he studied it in PSY102) because he is trying desperately to find the reason why he got a boner in the shower once while thinking about his mother.
What a grand statement. And how did the esteemed doctor arrive at the dramatic conclusions? Random-dot and geometric pattern experiments. Wonderful. While his conclusions seem reasonable, the "experiment" relies heavily on the participant's subjective rating of "attractiveness" of an object - which could easily be skewed based on the images shown. "As predicted," the researchers write, "participants categorized patterns more quickly and judged them as more attractive when the patterns were closer to their respective prototypes."
Jump three suppositions ahead and you get "This ...," he said, "accounts for cultural differences in beauty -- and historical differences in beauty as well -- because beauty basically depends on what you've been exposed to and what is therefore easy on your mind."
Huh?
I think the only conclusion that can be reached from this social experiment is that the brain finds recognizable patterns more appealing (I don't think I've ever used the word "attractive" to describe random dot patterns). To leap ahead and make irresponsible assertations without direct proof is asinine.
For example - we've all heard of or experienced the "fact" that many men marry a woman that either looks like, or displays qualities possessed by the man's mother. Couple that with the fact that most men are exposed to their mothers (sorry, no orphans in this study) more than anyone else in their lives - remember the doctor said "beauty basically depends on what you've been exposed to and what is therefore easy on your mind".The conclusion?
Freud was right! Most men have an oedipal complex.
Me thinks the good doctor is trying to validate Freudian analysis (because he studied it in PSY102) because he is trying desperately to find the reason why he got a boner in the shower once while thinking about his mother.
life just a good
Posted by
CHIC-HANDSOME |
7:18 AM
Jamesee,
life just a good
Not quite sure what you mean by that. Care to elaborate?
Posted by
Cynosarges |
10:10 AM