# What's the advantage of having softer facial features? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 5, 2018, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204 "2018-02-05T06:40:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/21 "2018-02-06T00:38:20Z")
That might explain why human males have beards (mostly), and even explain why some groups of human have relatively beardless males (different groups of humans having different preferences). However, the tendency towards what has been described as “softer” facial features is found not just in _H. sapiens_, but also many other species between other primates and the genus\* Homo\*. This, to me, is indicative not of sexual preference in a particular species but more probably some other evolutionary pressures (like not needing massive jaws, or needing more space for a large brain). ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/22 "2018-02-06T00:43:04Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Of course, but **Tripolar** expressed unfamiliarity with such images. At any rate, Homo erectus and other human ancestors authentically had much more prominent brow ridges and generally less delicate facial features than modern humans, which is apparently what the OP was referring to by “hard-faced.” No, I expressed unfamiliarity with the unspecified images in the OP. If the OP means that our ancestors had more prominent facial features it’s certainly not proven by any images, we make an assumption based on differences between fossil skulls and our own. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/23 "2018-02-06T00:44:33Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And how did this originate? Well, it could have originated in any way at all, including possibly just random chance: If you start with a population of peafowl where the females just randomly happen to have a slight preference for fancy-tailed males, then over time, evolution will cause that slight preference to become more and more extreme, which in turn causes the fancy tails to become more and more extreme. The original slight preference for fancy tails might have had some underlying reason, or it might (being only slight) have been just random. In some other population of birds, the slight initial preference might instead have been for males with elaborate plumage around their necks, or brightly-colored beaks, or combs of skin, with just as much reason (or lack thereof) for any of these features. This almost seems parasitic. You could posit an era where there’s a lot of stress on peacock populations and only the peakcocks with simple, dull plummage survive. Except there may not _be_ any…this deleterious (to the species, not individual birds) may have pushed to 100% prevalence, where every peacock has it. I guess nature “gets rid” of the trait by making the peacocks extinct in that case. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/24 "2018-02-06T01:29:01Z")
Yup, extinction is certainly part of evolution. And usually, when you’ve got sexual selection going on, there’s some other selective forces that push back against the sexual selection going completely crazy (for instance, predators finding it easier to target the peacocks with impressive plumage). The fact that peacocks have gone to such extremes in their sexual selection suggest that they’ve been extraordinary lucky in not having very many such other selective pressures. So far, at least. On the other hand, peacocks’ impressive plumage has, in the real world, coincidentally given them a completely different adaptive advantage: One of the most successful species on the planet, despite not being particularly related to peacocks, has also decided that peacock tails are pretty, and so has made deliberate efforts to support peacocks in places where members of that species can see them. Even if something changed in peacocks’ natural habitat to drive them extinct there, they’d probably still live on in zoos. ---
**Author:** ![thatbpguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/258eb7/32.png) [@thatbpguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thatbpguy)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/25 "2018-02-06T01:45:14Z")
Humans use vision as their first impression. So features are important. Think, “easy on the eyes”. Men are predators/hunters and they want weaker and softer. Women are gathers and prefer harder and tougher. It’s primal- grrrr… ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/26 "2018-02-06T01:56:47Z")
> [@thatbpguy](#): > > Humans use vision as their first impression. So features are important. Think, “easy on the eyes”. Men are predators/hunters and they want weaker and softer. Women are gathers and prefer harder and tougher. It’s primal- grrrr… The problem this creates is that if the next generation of offspring averages features, you either end up with male offspring with soft features and less mating potential or female offspring with hard features and less mating potential. I have always thought that female’s preference for mates taller than them is going to create a giraffe arms race that will head into peacock territory at the current rate. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/27 "2018-02-06T04:20:06Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > No, I expressed unfamiliarity with the unspecified images in the OP. If the OP means that our ancestors had more prominent facial features it’s certainly not proven by any images, we make an assumption based on differences between fossil skulls and our own. That’s so self-evident that it makes your post rather pointless, then. Early humans in fact were “hard-faced” compared to modern humans, and the depictions of them as such obviously would have been based on skeletal remains. So you are not disputing any facts stated by the OP, only nit-picking the way he chose to state it. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/28 "2018-02-06T08:32:36Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > That image also portrays Neandertals as hunting rhinos. Does that make sense, or is it a case of “Hey, this weird thing and that weird thing maybe lived at the same time! I betcha they fought, I betcha.”) No, it makes [perfect](https://www.businesslive.co.za/rdm/technology/2017-03-09-neanderthals-ate-wooly-rhinoceros-and-mushrooms/) [sense](http://www.wired.co.uk/article/neanderthal-eating-diet-habits). ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/29 "2018-02-06T08:43:19Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > That’s so self-evident that it makes your post rather pointless, then. Early humans in fact were “hard-faced” compared to modern humans, and the depictions of them as such obviously would have been based on skeletal remains. There is, of course,[a danger i](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/dinosaurs-art-paleoartists-mistakes)n extrapolating based only on skeletal remains and not making allowances for a different soft tissue distribution than is the _H. sapiens_ norm. Our current reconstructions, as I understand it, are based on the statistical averages of soft tissue depths of various points on _modern_ human skeletons. Personally, I think that’s OK, but we should allow for the possibility that e.g. Neanderthals had very “fat” faces compared to us, which might have softened their features. Like Inuits or Siberians. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/30 "2018-02-06T14:17:58Z")
> [@Contemplation](#): > > Do you ever wonder why these certain features are more attractive in the first place? > Is it just pure coincidence to you? **Chronos** keeps beating me to the punch … but essentially, yes. In many cases, features that are sexually attractive are more or less coincidental. Though not entirely so - taking peacock tails again, they do tend to be based on at least something (in their case, being extremely eye-catching). In the case of humans, “softer features” appear to be an aspect of neoteny: > **[Neoteny in humans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny_in_humans)** > > Neoteny is the retention of juvenile traits well into adulthood. In humans, this trend is greatly amplified, especially when compared to non-human primates. Neotenic features of the head include the globular skull; thinness of skull bones; the reduction of the brow ridge; the large brain; the flattened and broadened face; the hairless face; hair on (top of) the head; larger eyes; ear shape; small nose; small teeth; and the small maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible Neoteny of the human body is indica... (Note that not _all_ neotenous features are sexually selected for: for example, short limbs are neotenous, while humans appear attracted to long-legged women and tall men). Why do neotenous features appear sexually attractive? Could be a host of reasons (typically neotenous features appear “cute” because they are associated with youth; maybe that feeds into it). One could just as easily postulate that neotenous features would be a turn-off, and propose evolutionary just-so reasons for it … essentially, it is sorta random. We could just as easily have, as a species, found big craggy features “attractive”, in which case there would be a bunch of excellent reasons for **that**. Though there is this: humans have become increasingly gracile over time (thinner-boned and slighter), and this has sound survival-associated reasons (it takes energy to build thick heavy bones and muscles, so if they aren’t needed … ). Perhaps “softer” features are just an outcome of that process … though “soft” or “hard” facial features would be a pretty tiny energy investment. Humans are lucky in that the features we find attractive sexual-selection wise aren’t a big deal. Imagine having to drag around a gigantic feathery tail all day. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/31 "2018-02-06T14:23:53Z")
If male humans _did_ have a sexually selected big feathery tail they’d not only be dragging it around all day, they’d be boasting about how much bigger, featherier, and bright theirs is compared to all the other guys and answering e-mail spam on how to make it huger, fluffier, and glow in the dark. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/32 "2018-02-06T14:39:11Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > If male humans _did_ have a sexually selected big feathery tail they’d not only be dragging it around all day, they’d be boasting about how much bigger, featherier, and bright theirs is compared to all the other guys and answering e-mail spam on how to make it huger, fluffier, and glow in the dark. 😉 😃 So true. Now everyone at work is looking at me giggling. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![TruCelt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trucelt/32/523_2.png) [@TruCelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TruCelt)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/33 "2018-02-06T17:38:08Z")
When considering sexual selection, social and cultural drivers have to be taken into account as well. If Peacocks fight by pulling each others’ tail feathers out, then it becomes clearer why females would prefer the long tailed males. We have no difficulty understanding why Danaerys Stormborn is intrigued by her husband’s long braid. Easter Island females may have preferred males whose families had built a Mo’ai. Building one would require great strength, a large cooperative social group, and engineering brainpower. One can see how that odd selection would confer a wider advantage. I think of evolutionary advantages as cataclysmic or chronic. I don’t know if I read that sometime or if it’s just pattern recognition on my part, but certainly it fits the natural pressures and evolutionary response. Evolution can sometimes be quick. An immune system quirk survives today in my family because the cataclysm of the Black Plague selected for it. HIV also selects for it, so despite the anecdotal evidence that it makes the common cold a far more unpleasant experience, it’s now a more chronic advantage. Humans are driven to nurture soft, cute things. We are horrified at the destruction of baby seals, even though we’ve never actually met one. We go to great lengths to raise the orphaned offspring of other species, and hold all adults responsible for the safety and well-being of children in the vicinity. Crimes against children are considered particularly vile, even in the prison environment. So now imagine a worst-case SHHTF\* scenario. The glaciers are encroaching, the food is dwindling, and there’s only so much room in the cave. Adults must fend for themselves, and children must be protected. Is not the soft-faced adolescent most likely to receive help rather than being sent out to brave the elements? Will that child not get a few precious months or years of extra support to survive the cataclysm? I recently read that brain scans show elephants respond to us the same way we respond to babies. They think we are cute. I’ve always wondered how we managed to domesticate something so intelligent, and so much bigger and stronger than we are. By the time they figure out that we are more vicious than cute\*\* it’s too late. This may be an example of how the urge to nurture could be used against us. (Cats! It explains domestic cats!) 😛 _S_\*\* Has Hit the Fan \*\*Yes, toward elephants we have been. I don’t care how nice a person you are, our species has not done well by the elephants who serve us. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/34 "2018-02-06T22:12:23Z")
The OP’s threads often run something along the lines of: “In the wilderness, 50 000 years ago, when we were using sticks to bash the heads of lions and Neanderthals, feature A would have been advantageous while feature B would have been disadvantageous, so why is feature B considered more attractive than feature A?” Which reminds me of this: [https://www.google.ca/search?q=you+might+not+like+it+but+this+is+what&num=20&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjL9s6Aj5LZAhVG9YMKHcNjBsgQ\_AUICigB&biw=1527&bih=845#imgrc=b\_Wn8Q-b1QATnM:](https://www.google.ca/search?q=you+might+not+like+it+but+this+is+what&num=20&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjL9s6Aj5LZAhVG9YMKHcNjBsgQ_AUICigB&biw=1527&bih=845#imgrc=b_Wn8Q-b1QATnM:) It’s not a dumb starting question but it would be nice if the lesson were learned from one thread to another. I have no idea if it’s the OP’s case, but there is an idea among some evolutionary psychology types that all evolutionary pressure is about evolving in a nasty, brutish and short life. You can prominently see this when PUAs and their ilk analyse human relations in terms alpha/beta wolves. They seem to think that success in life is about being the most brutal bully. It’s quite probable that up until 50 000-5000 years ago, life was indeed, overall, nasty, brutish and short. More recently, in particularly harsh periods or milieus, a major part of fitness is about brutal domination or the threat thereof. For example, in times of war or famine. Even in times of peace and plenty, the alpha/beta model may be accurate for the criminal underworld and prison. Such people often like to talk about chimpanzees and how the alpha male gets to mate with the females while beta males don’t. Yet such people hardly ever talk another primate which resembles humans at least as much as chimpanzees: bonobos. Civilized society resembles the bonobos’ tranquil consensual exchanges and conflict de-escalation rather more than chimpanzees. Even among chimpanzees, violence and threats may be common but grooming (making nice with others) is a common way to gain status ( [Chimpanzee - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee#Social_structure) ). The alpha chimp is often a sort of politician and diplomat. A chimpanzee who seeks to become alpha by being a tyrannical bully can cause other chimps to form a coalition against him (what we would call a coup). The researcher who came up with the alpha/beta wolves theory has disavowed such a way of describing social behavior ([Dominance hierarchy - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_(ethology)#Controversy) ). Turns out, it had more to do with strangers being stuck together in trying circumstances (like we see in criminal gangs or prison) than natural behavior. Note how the human subcultures where the brutish alpha model is most accurate, gangs and prison, are at the bottom of society. Also note how the most effective militaries emphasize teamwork and require leaders to care for their subordinates. Once you’re in a well-organized society with the economic basics covered, once you no longer live in fear and desperation, how well you do has more to do with positive-sum cooperation than zero-sum competition. It has more to do with kindness, impulse-control and intelligence than domineering behavior or the ability to prevail in physical confrontations. It’s why women will care a lot more about [Ryan Gosling](https://www.google.ca/search?q=ryan+gosling&num=20&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo-_yUoJLZAhVhjFQKHfwqAxkQ_AUICigB&biw=1527&bih=845) being good with animals or [Paul McCartney](https://www.biography.com/.image/t_share/MTE5NTU2MzE2Mjk4OTcwNjM1/paul-mccartney-9390850-1-402.jpg) wanting to hold your hand than about Stipe Miocic being UFC heavyweight champion. Look at one of the most desirable women in the world, Anne Hathaway, she could have gotten just about any man and she went for Adam Shulman, the human incarnation of a [puppy](https://www.google.ca/search?q=adam+shulman&num=20&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGqtvxm5LZAhVS4WMKHQqXBHcQ_AUICigB&biw=1527&bih=845) . Does [this guy](http://realstreetshit.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/young-musk-e1427758046552.jpg) look like he went to the top of society through violence? Neotenous features may be related to youth but also to minds which are kind and intelligent rather than brutish, who have power because they have the ability and willingness to help rather than to hurt. ---
**Author:** ![Folly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folly/32/3219_2.png) [@Folly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folly)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/35 "2018-02-06T22:48:22Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Neither dogs nor horses have exposed white sclera in the same way that humans do. The white sclera is normally not exposed unless the animal is rolling its eyes. In humans, the sclera is exposed all the time. > > It has been suggested that the exposed white sclera in humans serves to enhance social communication by allowing easy detection of where a person is looking. Except for the googly eyed\* breeds. My Boston Terrier’s sclera is exposed all the time. \*almost certainly a technical term ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/36 "2018-02-07T00:29:11Z")
Also [wow](http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/013/564/doge.jpg) Much sclera How shibu So surprise Who guess ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/37 "2018-02-07T00:59:14Z")
> [@Folly](#): > > Except for the googly eyed\* breeds. My Boston Terrier’s sclera is exposed all the time. That’s the result of highly _unnatural_ selection.😉 ---
**Author:** ![Contemplation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Contemplation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemplation)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/38 "2018-02-07T03:29:01Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > The OP’s threads often run something along the lines of: “In the wilderness, 50 000 years ago, when we were using sticks to bash the heads of lions and Neanderthals, feature A would have been advantageous while feature B would have been disadvantageous, so why is feature B considered more attractive than feature A?” Which reminds me of this: [you might not like it but this is what - Google Search](https://www.google.ca/search?q=you+might+not+like+it+but+this+is+what&num=20&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjL9s6Aj5LZAhVG9YMKHcNjBsgQ_AUICigB&biw=1527&bih=845#imgrc=b_Wn8Q-b1QATnM:) > It’s not a dumb starting question but it would be nice if the lesson were learned from one thread to another. > I have no idea if it’s the OP’s case, but there is an idea among some evolutionary psychology types that all evolutionary pressure is about evolving in a nasty, brutish and short life. You can prominently see this when PUAs and their ilk analyse human relations in terms alpha/beta wolves. They seem to think that success in life is about being the most brutal bully. > > It’s quite probable that up until 50 000-5000 years ago, life was indeed, overall, nasty, brutish and short. More recently, in particularly harsh periods or milieus, a major part of fitness is about brutal domination or the threat thereof. For example, in times of war or famine. Even in times of peace and plenty, the alpha/beta model may be accurate for the criminal underworld and prison. > > Such people often like to talk about chimpanzees and how the alpha male gets to mate with the females while beta males don’t. Yet such people hardly ever talk another primate which resembles humans at least as much as chimpanzees: bonobos. Civilized society resembles the bonobos’ tranquil consensual exchanges and conflict de-escalation rather more than chimpanzees. > > Even among chimpanzees, violence and threats may be common but grooming (making nice with others) is a common way to gain status ( [Chimpanzee - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee#Social_structure) ). The alpha chimp is often a sort of politician and diplomat. A chimpanzee who seeks to become alpha by being a tyrannical bully can cause other chimps to form a coalition against him (what we would call a coup). > > The researcher who came up with the alpha/beta wolves theory has disavowed such a way of describing social behavior ([Dominance hierarchy - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_(ethology)#Controversy) ). Turns out, it had more to do with strangers being stuck together in trying circumstances (like we see in criminal gangs or prison) than natural behavior. Note how the human subcultures where the brutish alpha model is most accurate, gangs and prison, are at the bottom of society. Also note how the most effective militaries emphasize teamwork and require leaders to care for their subordinates. > > Once you’re in a well-organized society with the economic basics covered, once you no longer live in fear and desperation, how well you do has more to do with positive-sum cooperation than zero-sum competition. It has more to do with kindness, impulse-control and intelligence than domineering behavior or the ability to prevail in physical confrontations. > > It’s why women will care a lot more about [Ryan Gosling](https://www.google.ca/search?q=ryan+gosling&num=20&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo-_yUoJLZAhVhjFQKHfwqAxkQ_AUICigB&biw=1527&bih=845) being good with animals or [Paul McCartney](https://www.biography.com/.image/t_share/MTE5NTU2MzE2Mjk4OTcwNjM1/paul-mccartney-9390850-1-402.jpg) wanting to hold your hand than about Stipe Miocic being UFC heavyweight champion. Look at one of the most desirable women in the world, Anne Hathaway, she could have gotten just about any man and she went for Adam Shulman, the human incarnation of a [puppy](https://www.google.ca/search?q=adam+shulman&num=20&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGqtvxm5LZAhVS4WMKHQqXBHcQ_AUICigB&biw=1527&bih=845) . Does [this guy](http://realstreetshit.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/young-musk-e1427758046552.jpg) look like he went to the top of society through violence? > > Neotenous features may be related to youth but also to minds which are kind and intelligent rather than brutish, who have power because they have the ability and willingness to help rather than to hurt. You seem to be implying that rougher features are associated with aggression. AFAIK, there is no correlation between physical features and aggressive behavior. Somone with the physical features I described in the first post could be a very gentle, yet still be able to withstand blows to the face in case it happens, as well has having a nice brow ridge to shield the eyes from the sun. ---
**Author:** ![Folly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folly/32/3219_2.png) [@Folly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folly)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/39 "2018-02-07T03:33:07Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > That’s the result of highly _unnatural_ selection.😉 Fair. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204/40 "2018-02-07T09:52:29Z")
> [@Contemplation](#): > > You seem to be implying that rougher features are associated with aggression. AFAIK, there is no correlation between physical features and aggressive behavior. Somone with the physical features I described in the first post could be a very gentle, yet still be able to withstand blows to the face in case it happens, as well has having a nice brow ridge to shield the eyes from the sun. Hippos have much softer features than rhinos, but they kill orders of magnitude more people 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-advantage-of-having-softer-facial-features/808204.md?page=3)