.@KevinSimler returns to blogging with an ambitious, convincing theory of beauty. I buy almost all of it but I'm concerned with the difference between beautiful and attractive.
https://meltingasphalt.com/a-natural-history-of-beauty/ …
-
That got me thinking, are there attractive human physical characteristics that can be considered "proof of work"? The closest I can think of is something like long, shiny hair but I'm not sure about that.
-
-
They can be explained as mere signals of health. Are there human physical attributes that are actually *costly* like peacock feathers or flowers? Maybe hair, maybe big beards or big breasts? Idk
-
Muscles can NOT simply be explained as a sign of health, since you can be healthy for 90 years without developing noticeably large muscles. You only get them by doing a lot of physical labor
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
it varies depending on the culture of the times – in an age of scarcity, it was excess – being fat was a lot of work. (I think this is still working out for Kim Jong Un in DPRK). A while ago it was skinny-ness, and now strong-and-fit is in
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.