Jammer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Staying on the topic of attractiveness being
> quantifiable, but it's quantification doesn't make
> it attractive, merely measures it;
>
> There are some very interesting sub-threads above.
>
> I find it hard to believe the 1.618-1 ratio in
> attractive faces is a survival trait hard
> wired...

I don't know if I'd call it a 'trait', more of an aspect of survival. This gets way into Darwinian evolution.
>
> If we find this ratio attractive, for whatever
> reason, than does the replication of the ratio
> PROVE it was understood? Or merely that the ratio
> is how we measure what a majority of humans FIND
> attractive.

In this case I agree its merely a measurement of what we find attractive. But for some reason the measurement has been hardwired into us by evolution.
>
> This is a pretty core concept of where my logic is
> dragging me.
>
> Anyone/everyone thoughts?
>
> Jammer
>
>