Jotasso
children of soulless dead entities
★★★
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2022
- Posts
- 203
é brasileiro?Right now i Reading "spring snow" by yukio Mishima, too many Pages but easy tô understand
é brasileiro?Right now i Reading "spring snow" by yukio Mishima, too many Pages but easy tô understand
Thanks for the recommendation, appreciate it.I really don't know how In Your Face (2010) by David Perret and his team at the Perception Lab has not been recommend. It's a professionally written and modern look at faces, evolution, sexual dimorphism, and chiefly, human attractiveness. It's concerned with facts until the ending chapters and is full of illustrations. I don't think it sold very well, but it's authority on this unprecedented subject asserts itself well.
The introduction is so funny, I am going to paste past of it here (it's fair use)
This book is for anyone who is curious about beauty. Its purpose is to explain, from a scientific point of view, our attraction to faces – an attraction that has driven the evolution of our species for millions of years, but that has only recently begun to give up its secrets to scientific study.
While we can normally agree on who has an attractive face, one of my central motivations in writing this book was to bring together the scientific results that demonstrate the diversity in attraction, that is, the reasons why different people find different faces attractive. While the work in my lab at the University of St Andrews, in Scotland, has produced some general rules of attractive faces, it didn’t take long for results to emerge that showed that not everyone plays by the same rules or focuses on the same cues when deciding who has an attractive face. Facial attraction is personal – and as we will see, it is heavily influenced by each of our unique upbringings, our experiences as well as our own appearance.
Perception is a well-established and widely taught branch of psychology and medical science that concerns how we make sense of the information coming at us through our senses. Visual perception is the most developed branch of this field. My interest in faces started as a student when I realized that the scientific methods for studying visual perception could be used to study more than just simple things like lines, distance, colour, and movement – they could be extended to more interesting aspects of our visual world. During the course of my doctoral training I became convinced that our brains have sections dedicated to helping us interpret faces. One night, sleepless with excitement, I knew that I would spend my whole career working with faces. I knew that it would be possible to answer many questions about how we see faces, but even then I knew that the subject would be so complex that there was not enough time in one life to address them all.
Once I began working on what makes faces attractive, the reactions my work received from fellow academics and others really surprised me: some people argued that human beauty should not be studied; most questioned whether it could be studied scientifically at all. I still fail to understand both of these convictions. Those that claimed that human attractiveness should not be studied were pointing to the wonderment and sense of magic alchemy surrounding beauty and attraction, which would be despoiled by scientific scrutiny. They argued that objectifying beauty, particularly female beauty, was dehumanizing and discriminatory, and turned individuals into statistics.
In my mind it was, and is, not at all demeaning to understand the origins of our feelings. An athlete is no less admirable because anatomy and sports science can pinpoint which muscles need to be developed to enhance performance. The colours of a butterfly wing or the smell of a lily are no less pleasurable when we know how these sensations are created by the physics of light and the chemistry of odours.
Other critics argue that beauty is subjective; it is in essence a personal feeling. This fact, it is argued, puts beauty beyond the methods of natural science, in the same way that the nature of conscious experience will always be just beyond the grasp of science. I believe that aesthetics, although subjective, can be studied using scientific methods, and it is my hope that many of my results will prove it to you.
My research into facial attraction comes from a strictly biological perspective. In this perspective, finding someone attractive is likely to reflect a purpose – not a conscious purpose but a biological function, much like finding food tasty helps us acquire the calories we need to power our life. In biology, the purpose of life is defined in terms of procreation, producing the next generation and the one after that. Not all attraction is related to sex and procreation, but a lot is. Consequently the book focuses on heterosexual attraction but all chapters also deal with face perception in a way that is independent of sexual preference. Ensuring offspring live long enough and well enough to produce their own offspring means that attraction has a more important role in human relations than simply influencing sexual allure.
If you do take this recommendation up, skip the last two chapters, chapters 10 and 11, as they are largely cope because I guess the subject matter was even too brutal to publish it without the cope injection to soothe neuroses.
@cvh1991 if you're big into books and are interested in looks theory, this is a good read. I bought it as a preowned paperback, but trust me it's quality and could be a hardback and a permanent addition to your collection.
I heard about it a few times, but it took until a reviewer and a viewer of FACEandLMS's work posted his thoughts on Goodreads for me to decide to see what it was about.
Do you have a pdf?I really don't know how In Your Face (2010) by David Perret and his team at the Perception Lab has not been recommend. It's a professionally written and modern look at faces, evolution, sexual dimorphism, and chiefly, human attractiveness. It's concerned with facts until the ending chapters and is full of illustrations. I don't think it sold very well, but it's authority on this unprecedented subject asserts itself well.
The introduction is so funny, I am going to paste past of it here (it's fair use)
This book is for anyone who is curious about beauty. Its purpose is to explain, from a scientific point of view, our attraction to faces – an attraction that has driven the evolution of our species for millions of years, but that has only recently begun to give up its secrets to scientific study.
While we can normally agree on who has an attractive face, one of my central motivations in writing this book was to bring together the scientific results that demonstrate the diversity in attraction, that is, the reasons why different people find different faces attractive. While the work in my lab at the University of St Andrews, in Scotland, has produced some general rules of attractive faces, it didn’t take long for results to emerge that showed that not everyone plays by the same rules or focuses on the same cues when deciding who has an attractive face. Facial attraction is personal – and as we will see, it is heavily influenced by each of our unique upbringings, our experiences as well as our own appearance.
Perception is a well-established and widely taught branch of psychology and medical science that concerns how we make sense of the information coming at us through our senses. Visual perception is the most developed branch of this field. My interest in faces started as a student when I realized that the scientific methods for studying visual perception could be used to study more than just simple things like lines, distance, colour, and movement – they could be extended to more interesting aspects of our visual world. During the course of my doctoral training I became convinced that our brains have sections dedicated to helping us interpret faces. One night, sleepless with excitement, I knew that I would spend my whole career working with faces. I knew that it would be possible to answer many questions about how we see faces, but even then I knew that the subject would be so complex that there was not enough time in one life to address them all.
Once I began working on what makes faces attractive, the reactions my work received from fellow academics and others really surprised me: some people argued that human beauty should not be studied; most questioned whether it could be studied scientifically at all. I still fail to understand both of these convictions. Those that claimed that human attractiveness should not be studied were pointing to the wonderment and sense of magic alchemy surrounding beauty and attraction, which would be despoiled by scientific scrutiny. They argued that objectifying beauty, particularly female beauty, was dehumanizing and discriminatory, and turned individuals into statistics.
In my mind it was, and is, not at all demeaning to understand the origins of our feelings. An athlete is no less admirable because anatomy and sports science can pinpoint which muscles need to be developed to enhance performance. The colours of a butterfly wing or the smell of a lily are no less pleasurable when we know how these sensations are created by the physics of light and the chemistry of odours.
Other critics argue that beauty is subjective; it is in essence a personal feeling. This fact, it is argued, puts beauty beyond the methods of natural science, in the same way that the nature of conscious experience will always be just beyond the grasp of science. I believe that aesthetics, although subjective, can be studied using scientific methods, and it is my hope that many of my results will prove it to you.
My research into facial attraction comes from a strictly biological perspective. In this perspective, finding someone attractive is likely to reflect a purpose – not a conscious purpose but a biological function, much like finding food tasty helps us acquire the calories we need to power our life. In biology, the purpose of life is defined in terms of procreation, producing the next generation and the one after that. Not all attraction is related to sex and procreation, but a lot is. Consequently the book focuses on heterosexual attraction but all chapters also deal with face perception in a way that is independent of sexual preference. Ensuring offspring live long enough and well enough to produce their own offspring means that attraction has a more important role in human relations than simply influencing sexual allure.
If you do take this recommendation up, skip the last two chapters, chapters 10 and 11, as they are largely cope because I guess the subject matter was even too brutal to publish it without the cope injection to soothe neuroses.
@cvh1991 if you're big into books and are interested in looks theory, this is a good read. I bought it as a preowned paperback, but trust me it's quality and could be a hardback and a permanent addition to your collection.
I heard about it a few times, but it took until a reviewer and a viewer of FACEandLMS's work posted his thoughts on Goodreads for me to decide to see what it was about.
Read siege
sorryThe Quran and the Bible
100 years of solitude is one of the best books I've ever read. So endlessly creative and engaging. I recommend it to everyone-100 years of solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
-Phenomenology of spirit by Georg Hegel
-Beyond good and evil by Friedrich Nietzsche
Just read the books you've written theoryThe Quran and the Bible
Truth, loved that book. Aside from keeping track of all the cookie cutter interchangeable spic names for characters.100 years of solitude is one of the best books I've ever read. So endlessly creative and engaging. I recommend it to everyone
I love the overarching philosophical perspective within that book--the implication that consciousness is ultimately a fluke--a biological paradox that makes no sense in accordance with the natural laws of efficiency. Especially in how this notion extends to the aliens themselves and thus their methods of communication. It delineates a very visceral, realistic scenario, in spite of the presence of gene resurrected vampires embedded with something as laughably retarded as the crucifix glitch. It's definitely one of the more unique first encounter, science fiction books on par with something like Childhood's End for example. I'd recommend it to everyone.
Honestly, all the literary slop in school (Catcher in the Rye, Flowers for Algernon, The Great Gatsby, The Giver, etc.) are all decent.I remember reading it in highschool and being shook.
I personally think Ubik is PkD's best book. Even though I revere Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep more, since it's the source material for Blade Runner.The Forever War,
Ubik, Philip K Dick
I laughed my ass off reading Wuthering Heights. I couldn't take it seriously at all. But yes, I do agree that Heathcliff is an excellent character and worthy of reverence.I'm presently reading Emile Brontë's Wuthering Heights . For anyone wondering why I am reading a book written by a female, the novel was simply included in a library at my disposal for leisurely perusing. I found Heathcliff, a diabolical and vengeful ruffian, to be an excellent misanthrope and worth acknowledgment.
He manipulates and abuses women for profit, and is willing to smack a pompous harlot in keeping to his vindictive proclivities. Kudos to Emile for writing this ruthless, all-too-human brute.
and the odysseyThe Illiad
Seneca's books are inadvertently the most hilarious thing I've ever read, on par with Wuthering Heights.
Yes, a must read.I have no mouth and I most scream
Read siege