Perhaps an appreciation for beauty in the outside is a kind of by-product of an appreciation for beauty in the biological sense. In evolution, it is common for a trait to develop for one purpose and later be shanghai’d for another. (Gill bones became ears for instance).
Think about this: We evolved our hands so we could manipulate tools and our large brains so that we could do so in an intelligent manner and hunt, find food, etc. Yet these same things give us the ability to play the piano or write a novel. Things that they weren’t intended for.
Perhaps our appreciation for a sunset is a by-product of our appreciation of the beauty of the opposite sex which developed for the purpose of choosing/attracting a mate.
“Shoplifting is a victimless crime. Like punching someone in the dark.” -Nelson Muntz.
It’s well known that children that are “stimulated” in their childhood (i.e. by attention, physical touch, conversation, seeing objects) end up having better social skills and have better results on IQ tests.
Perhaps our appreciation of “beauty” derives from that fact? i.e. people that appreciate music or visual arts at a young age end up developping faster and/or are more “intelligent”?
Since human beings use their brains more than other species, I would think that would be a distinct evolutionary advantage.
La franchise ne consiste pas à dire tout ce que l’on pense, mais à penser tout ce que l’on dit.
H. de Livry
Two studies (whose names escape me) that I’ve brought up in a similar thread:
A bunch of infants were shown pictures of supermodels side-by-side with pictures of plain women. The plain women were made up in colors as bright as the supermodels were, but they lacked that “supermodel beauty”, as judged by contemporary standards. They recorded where each infant was looking and for how long. Every infant that looked at one of the pictures, spent most of his/her time looking at the picture of the supermodel. The supermodels seemed to grab most of the babies’ attention. Conclusion: standards of beauty are not entirely “learned” – there are some physical features that humans are hardwired to view as attractive.
Faces from several normal-looking women were “averaged” together by a computer algorithm, similar to the algorithm used for “morphing” special effects a la Terminator 2. Faces of several normal-looking men were also averaged together by the same algorithm. The average female face, and the average male face, which resulted from the application of this algorithm, were both drop-dead gorgeous. Conclusion: Average, or median, features are considered beautiful. This may be because median features indicate a lack of genetic defects.
I saw these on the Discovery channel, so they must be true.
They debunked that prenatal-Mozart-effect-on-IQ stuff, you know.
Gee, I seen them dumb chickens wearin’ out thar brains all afternoon – tryin’ ta get through that thar fence. . .whilst ah just laxed out thar on the grass.
tracer:
I took part in a series of Internet evaluations by the public of generted female and male Caucasian faces at this site over a year ago: http://www-psych.nmsu.edu/~vic/
It appears not to be polling people at the moment. But check out the receptionist there for a minute or two. It takes her a bit to warm up to your looks. (She appears not to be full-blooded Aryan, so I guess she’s a little suspicious of this business. Of course, once you cache her, she acquires a faster warm-up.)
I am aware of that. But if you spend time reading with your child, playing games with them, singing songs, and in general engaging their intellect, they will develop faster than if you lock them up in a room with no visual or intellectual stimulation.
