I ask this not as the obvious physical traits that are genetically appealing, but the qualities of ones perspective that can be admired by most decent sentient biengs. Please give examples maybe something an individual had said or had done.
How do you define "decent sentient being"?but the qualities of ones perspective that can be admired by most decent sentient biengs.
So all you're asking for is a list of people that are deemed to be admirable in speech or action?Please give examples maybe something an individual had said or had done.
Could you provide evidence for this please?if you cannot do that there is no point in your existence
Why should I ask myself that?the only question you should be asking yourself is who's opinion is it.
I know what makes em ugly.....
The way to "make" someone beautiful would be to form a checklist of all the various cues (both the basic ones and the current status quo) and make them compliant to as many as possible.
Going to toss in a quick hypothesis:
I'd deconstruct beauty (as far as what human's consider to be ideal) to be a an overall preference for observable "health traits" and genetic qualities. This could include things like physiological cues, physiological symmetries, etc.
The most obvious health traits that would be considered "universally" poor would be things like abnormalities or defects. Would also include old age or signs of illness. The actual physical symmetries (waist to hip ratios and whatnot) are probably a learned preference as opposed to a true standard since it's based on things like local cultures and traditions.
The way to "make" someone beautiful would be to form a checklist of all the various cues (both the basic ones and the current status quo) and make them compliant to as many as possible. A combination of conditioning and false advertising LOL. Examples - targeted physical conditioning to obfuscate the genetic predisposition to weight gain; dental work to fix crooked teeth; boob job to make different sized boobs the same size, expensive clothes to obfuscate lack of strength/dominance cues, etc.
I ask this not as the obvious physical traits that are genetically appealing, but the qualities of ones perspective that can be admired by most decent sentient biengs. Please give examples maybe something an individual had said or had done.
I ask this not as the obvious physical traits that are genetically appealing, but the qualities of ones perspective that can be admired by most decent sentient biengs. Please give examples maybe something an individual had said or had done.
Symmetry, smooth blending, well defined features, and color variety.
they did not ask for physical traits. is it that difficult to think of a trait that's not physical such as a sense of humour? or the type of humour?
this is really stupid.
There is no such thing as a non-physical trait. There are body traits, personality traits, cognitive traits, etc.; however, they are all quite physical. If you hadn't noticed, the OP is asking an objective question but constraining it with subjective criteria which has not been objectified yet. So, I provided the most accurate answer given all the known objective components.
On the other hand, humor, creativity, etc. are all potentially aspects of high genetic quality. That is why some people are attracted to variants of those traits (good reproduction possibilities); however, the type of sense of humor and the type of creativity can be turn-offs for people as well. Symmetry, blending, and definition are usually what make or break these traits.
this is possibly the most stupid thing i have ever read. you might as well be a machine...
besides, from what i could tell your original explanation seemed to be just analyzing the physical components of the pictures. then when you were called out on it, you came up with this to cover your ass.
and don't play semantics with me. anyone with a brain cell knows what the op means by a non-physical trait.
what is the real question is why you never even mentioned one or even bothered to besides your form, color, blending etc is not even correct.
we can use something as simple as a sense of humour, one can like a goofy sense of humour while another finds that distasteful and prefers a dry which has nothing to do with their blending or symmetry (because it could be perfectly executed though it's different) just as the perfect color red is not going to appeal to everyone just as a crude sense of humour may appeal to certain people as being genetically attractive or a good trait (because they are attracted to it) while to another it is seen as low genetic quality. besides, when people are asked what traits they are looking for in a partner, for example, what they are looking for or attracted to can be qualitatively different person from person even with general attributes listed as honesty, intelligence, sense of humour, kindness etc. this has nothing to do with symmetry or blending in this case. it's just a different taste altogether or a different matter of context. symmetry and blending play a part in context but it's important to not dismiss the difference between personal taste vs the impersonal.