Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 10:26:17 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Hating the compliment "unconventionally attractive"

Started by itsfredtitmus, June 27, 2022, 06:10:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jamiefairlie

Quote from: bgmnts on June 29, 2022, 04:46:31 PMWell, we've all surely shagged lots of people we've not been attracted to, so I think conventional attraction and the survival of the species through breeding isn't necessarily linked.

Yeah but in my experience the two types of attraction feel very different. Also I'm not talking about 'any port in a storm' casual shag, I'm talking about that 'Sid James meets Cleopatra' kind of mania.

Jockice

Quote from: bgmnts on June 29, 2022, 04:43:11 PMUnconventionally, yes with an if.

Conventionally, no with a but.

Just as I thought.

imitationleather

Quote from: bgmnts on June 29, 2022, 04:46:31 PMWell, we've all surely shagged lots of people we've not been attracted to

Dunno about that, pal.

Video Game Fan 2000

#153
Quote from: jamiefairlie on June 29, 2022, 04:44:31 PMControversial like the over-extension of empirical science into religion? That kind of controversy?

Controversial like making a statement that has the form of a scientific argument and pleads empirical evidence for itself, but doesn't make scientific claims but instead semantic or epistemological ones.

In this case its claiming that semantics, and how we define certain things, is completely explained by psychology. Which might well be true, but its a very controversial thing to argue since its a philosophical statement and not a falsifiable or testable one. Trenter isn't doing this but he's arguing that attraction, construct, norm, etc. "in the main" have strictly psychological definitions. Which also puts him at odds with the position he's trying to defend since constructivism is going to be frequently dissatisfied with anything that wants an underlying biological explanation for semantics and knowledge claims since it tries to involve social structures and norms as much as it can. But I wouldn't disagree with him at all if he understood these arguments involve ideas that do come from social psychology, but also philosophy and numerous other disciplines.

Its still very sad to be a nominalist about beauty.


gilbertharding

When this thread is over, can someone let me know who won?

Johnny Yesno

Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on June 29, 2022, 04:58:31 PMIts still very sad to be a nominalist about beauty.

If I knew what a nominalist was, I might cry for them.

Video Game Fan 2000

don't bother they'd never know if you didn't tell them

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on June 29, 2022, 04:35:18 PMSurely you must see how statements like this can be controversial. You say these things have strict "biopsychosocial" definitions

Sorry where did the word "strict" blip into existence from?

This is what grinds my gears it becomes patently obvious that are more carried away with your imaginary argument that you think you are going win, than what is being said. You want nuance but you deny it to others.

QuoteI wouldn't dare say "social norms are..." then define them and their creation with total confidence like I have one theory that squares the circle.

Again I'll point out it was you that said saying attraction was a social construct was an own goal and sad, and again I'll point out you are spending an incredible amount of time exaggerating what I have said. 

I'll then also point out we were talking about conventions of beauty created by the media on what is deemed beautiful, I just said these would influence social norms (which they do through a variety of ways one of which, visual adaption an evolutionary biological theory with empirical evidence that is used interdisciplinary with psychology).  At one point I said:

Quoteyou see unconventional as less than conventional and it suggests that attractiveness is a) not socially created (it is)

Which I immediately followed with this

Quoteand b) is an innate measurable quality in the world (as someone else said this "natural order" has sometimes been pinned to symmetry).

This is the convention and how it influences notions of attractiveness (in this case unconventional and conventional), it's hardly a strict assertion that attractiveness is completely socially constructed, the fact that I related it to symmetry and aesthetics.  I was saying viewing unconventionally attractiveness as less than conventional is the convention of this social norm.  Regardless it really doesn't stack up this social constructionist hardliner you are trying to make me out to be, it comes down to one of those simple things where you can just ask rather than being a tit about it all.

Do I think attractiveness is purely socially constructed phenomena? Answer, No.

I am very eager to discuss other approaches to this just not with people that have already invented my position and want to to tell me what I think.  It's not particularly engaging.

It's not controversial to say or think that white people might have created social norms that other people have acculturated too, atleast it fucking shouldn't be, we don't need to know the exact why in which this has happened, though we do have empirical evidence, and the counter narrative that western ideals of beauty haven't had an influence on other cultures and that Indian women bleaching their skin and peroxiding their hair or East Asian blepharoplasty's are just amazing coincidences, is bullshit.

Just because people think it is controversial means fuck all, it is up to each and everyone to look at the arguments and decide what makes the most sense.

Try explaining things pointing to evidence, and not just postulating your opinion (and misrepresenting others) would be a start to a discussion on these issue.

Do that and I promise I will listen.

TrenterPercenter

#159
Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on June 29, 2022, 04:58:31 PMTrenter isn't doing this but he's arguing that attraction, construct, norm, etc. "in the main" have strictly psychological definitions.

Say this one more time motherfucker, I dare you, I double dare you......





Seriously though give it a rest.


Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on June 29, 2022, 04:58:31 PMIts still very sad to be a nominalist about beauty.

FFS right I SAID unconventionally attractive and conventionally attractive are not on an ordinal scale (other than the one is being created by the convention) they are nominal i.e. they are not related to each other in discrete equal units i.e.  this is why someone that is unconventionally attractive can be more attractive than someone that is conventionally attractive - as lots of posters have pointed out.

Fucking hell how do you keep fucking this up so badly.

Come explain to me how this universally ordinal system of beauty works please....is it like top trumps?

Video Game Fan 2000

#160
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on June 29, 2022, 05:24:57 PMSorry where did the word "strict" blip into existence from?

This is how I interpretted your "in the main" and saying I should "understand" the definitions from the biopsychosocial perspective. Or that I'm wrong because I refuse to understand them, or whatever. When from my perspective its a bit annoying that you won't understand that "construct" and "tradition" and "norms" etc. all have numerous non-psychological definitions, some being in common use for over a century.

QuoteThis is what grinds my gears it becomes patently obvious that are more carried away with your imaginary argument that you think you are going win, than what is being said. You want nuance but you deny it to others.

OK, I can apologise. I'm sincerely not looking to win. I love talking and arguing about this stuff, so I'm eager to engage on controversial issues.

You say I say "I think..." too much, that's why! I'm a theorist, I speculate and critique. I don't want to win or even prove people wrong, even if my opinions are pretty strong.


QuoteIt's not controversial to say or think that white people might have created social norms that other people have acculturated too, atleast it fucking shouldn't be, we don't need to know the exact why in which this has happened, we do have empirical evidence, and the counter narrative that western ideals of beauty haven't had an influence on other cultures and that Indian women bleaching their skin and peroxiding their hair or East Asian blepharoplasty are just amazing coincidences, is bullshit.

Just because people think it is controversial means fuck all, it is up to each and everyone to look at the arguments and decide what makes the most sense.

My problem here is that you're describing social practices that we can all agree exist and all real, and have a political motivation (western colonialism) - so far, so good - but just because we agree on the reality of the practice doesn't mean that a particular framing or theorising of that practice grows out of it immediately. It doesn't imply constructiv(ion)ism, it doesn't imply a particular idea of what a "norm" is and how norms are enforced. I do not think there is consensus about this and I don't think it is anywhere near as empirical as you seem to think is - a lot of the work you're referencing is done in history and anthropology, not sciences. Again, I'm talking about framing and methodology here and not the existence of the practices themselves.


QuoteTry explaining things pointing to evidence, and not just postulating your opinion (and misrepresenting others) would be a start to a discussion on these issue.

Do that and I promise I will listen.

But when I refer to the evidence, which are the ideas and how they're being used, you call it "pseudointellectual". We're going to be cross purposes because your area is the things being framed and mine is in critiquing how we frame them, and to look at other ways of framing them.

In this instance, constructivism makes a lot of assumption about the relation between norms and practices. In some particular cases like the experience of beauty or the experience of attraction, it relies on ideas of tradition or culture that aren't necessarily scientific, but often pre-scientific ideas which themselves are freighted with philosophical presumptions and archiac political ideas. The idea that beauty itself is instituted by social norms is a difficult one for me for many reasons, and especially when we're talking about marginal or minority positions.  For example, you wouldn't want to critique a minority or nonwestern group who believes a certain feature or work is objectively or universally beautiful and say "no, you don't understand! see it like us westerners do - its just beautiful relative to your culture and tradition", which is something that happens more than you'd expect in literature or even anthropology. I've read some stinkers believe me.

and...

QuoteDo I think attractiveness is purely socially constructed phenomena? Answer, No.

Sure. So there is no reason to argue, really. Instead ask this question: what is it in attractiveness, imagining a regular attractiveness nothing "non-conventional", is which not socially constructed or normative? This is the question that interests me, and I see reductive constructivist or nominalist positions as effacing this possibility to answer it. Which is not very minoritarian or pluralistic, not too great for addressing non-occidental ideas or practices.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on June 29, 2022, 05:45:52 PMMy problem here is that you're describing social practices that we can all agree exist and all real, and have a political motivation (western colonialism) - so far, so good - but just because we agree on the reality of the practice doesn't mean that a particular framing or theorising of that practice grows out of it immediately. It doesn't imply constructiv(ion)ism, it doesn't imply a particular idea of what a "norm" is and how norms are enforced.

Stop talking about constructivism it's unnecessary. It's like I need to tie your hands behind your back so you can stop distracting people with your lexical gesticulating - stop using unnecessary words and deal with the content, it's not less intelligent to be clear and concise.

South Korean women pay people to remove their eyelids to make them look more like Western eyes this is wide practice.  They say "I want to look like the western people I see on tv".  Fiji first got TV in 1995 at the time the anthropologist Anne Becker was there studying eating habits of the island by 1998 she was reporting young woman having the same level of eating disorders as mainland America with a 13% in url purging, they said when asked "I want her body" and "I want her size" when talking about a character from Beverly Hills 90210.

Empirical evidence has been collected on both of these issues and have been triangulated via a number of ways to understand the phenomena and they all point towards acculturation of western ideals of beauty.

Now.......if it isn't that then what is it? If it doesn't "imply what a norm is" then what does it imply?

The other thing you need to do is commit to your terms.  A social norm is..... then stick to it, ambiguity of terms is a con mans trick.  A social norm is defined as a shared social beliefs about behaviour that is what we are working on.

I've deleted all your other junk because you keep going on about constructivism, you shoe horned that into the conversation not me and it's not necessary to any of this.

thenoise

Woman: beautiful but wearing glasses and having freckles, and having a hair colour other than blonde.

Man: ugly but well-dressed

Video Game Fan 2000

Trenter, how am I supposed to discuss constructs without the theory to which they belong? Do you want me to assume that they're naturally existing objects in the world that we can have direct empirical evidence of - we have trees, dogs, fish, rain and social constructs? One of these things is clearly not like the others. Abstract theoretical objects like "norm" or "construct" are not pre-existing, material objects we can all agree exist. They're speculative models relative to this theory or that theory.

And besides, even if it was doable to assume otherwise, its problematic to naturalise things!

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on June 29, 2022, 06:29:21 PMNow.......if it isn't that then what is it? If it doesn't "imply what a norm is" then what does it imply?


Its an anthropological account of a social practice, it could imply different things depending on the method. Do you think things have one and exclusively one meaning or implication?

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on June 29, 2022, 06:29:21 PMThe other thing you need to do is commit to your terms.  A social norm is..... then stick to it, ambiguity of terms is a con mans trick.  A social norm is defined as a shared social beliefs about behaviour that is what we are working on.

This is another area where we are total cross purposes.

In empirical sciences you need precise definitions because you can't collect data otherwise. You have to say "attraction means XYZ", "beauty means ABC", etc. or you can't study it at all and you can't communicate clearly about it. Got it.

The issue is in that on my side of the coin, I have to deal with things that have multiple simultaneous usages and meanings. I have to think about how "tradition" is meant in idealism, how its meant in the study of history, what it means empirically, what it means to this philosopher or that cultural theorist. This is also true in reality where John's usage of the word "beauty" won't be the same as Jane's.  My definitions are elastic because I have to talk about multiple systems of ideas and methodologies all at once. I'm sorry if this is aggravating or wishywashy, but otherwise I'd just have presume one definition was correct and unchanging.  You might say I'd be imposing a beauty standard!

Neither of us is wrong, we're just from massively different research backgrounds.


Bernice

Starting a thread about the phenomenology of getting a big stonk/wide on when you're having that first massive snog with someone you've been lusting after for time and neither of you fanny-dryers are invited, let me tell you.

Video Game Fan 2000

can't shake the feeling that this is how colonialism happened

TrenterPercenter

Seriously VGF2K you had a chance and ya blew it!


I won't be wasting this much time again.

Video Game Fan 2000

I have no idea what the correct answer could have possibly been.

What was Mr Chips actually doing?

thenoise

Women: shaven head and tattoos

Men: full head of hair and no tattoos

TrenterPercenter

The theory is that western ideals of beauty influenced behaviour in other countries that theory was developed via observations and data (triangulated as I explained).

You avoided the question, reverted to type and just continued talking to yourself, I've had enough of that nowadays and really REALLY don't need an A-level philosophy lesson from someone clearly gunning for a one-way audience.

Video Game Fan 2000

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on June 29, 2022, 07:21:19 PMThe theory is that western ideals of beauty influenced behaviour in other countries that theory was developed via observations and data (triangulated as I explained).

Not refuting any of this, at all. At this point I'm just repeating myself that there are dozens of ways of framing/discussing norms and practices across different disciplines. In particular that there is no one single way of understanding the relationship between a norm and a practice. Does the empirical data itself "imply what a norm is" - no, it doesn't, but it does describe the practices related to different kinds of norms and normative behaviours.

It might not be interesting to you to ask what a norm is, what a construct is... etc. relative to aesthetics, or what philosophical assumptions are behind different methodologies. But its really interesting to me. Don't know what to say more than that, really.