If youve observed faces, the facial skull bones and the the way soft tissue interact with the positional orientations you can read the face's natural history in a sense. That being you can tell certain habits that a person has like mouthbreathing or sleep apnea (overbites are giveaways) or types of recession. Many of these are poorly oriented but healthy bone tissues much of time. A reposition of the bones rather than changing the absolute shape and volume of them can fix ugly aesthetics in many cases (like facial melt or narrow+long face.)
Anthropologically, we can see how poor diet and the dysgenics of the conveniences of modernity can change the palate shape of native populations within just one generation of exposure. Its a misdirection to consider most cases of unattractive looks as purely genetic, most of the world's population actually have good/normal genes for their species. The Agriculturepill as I call it shows what happens to skulls (the palate in particular) once humans adopted agriculture. Poor facial development is generally a disease of civilization. Grain and less nutritious foods(but more available) weaken the facial bones and weak facial bones adapt to poor breathing which is a functional adaptation.
What is beautiful is functional, attractive faces indicate optimal functional breathing (why do only ugly people deal serious cases of sleep apnea or breathing issues?) Attractive faces are well formed faces because they have the correct orientations (which becomes the ideal as a natural consequence) to uphold breathing and chewing functions because of good nutrition and postural habits (by chance of dietary and postural habits in modernity.)
Beautiful faces are generally just uncrushed versions in comparison to ugly poorly developed faces which have to warp in various directions to adapt to poor breathing/chewing. This variation of the dimensions that a poorly developed face can grow accounts for the vast variation of facial differences throughout the world's population but just like FaceandLMS describes, beautiful people are almost a species of their own. They follow a more formulaic structure in their face, this is actually just genetic potential but modernity makes it a lottery due to its uncertain environmental conditions that form faces. Unattractive poorly developed people, while most of the population are actually deviating from the natural human form (which primitive people attained without much effort.) There are vastly more variations of ugly faces than there are of attractive faces.
Other poor development is usually from poor gestation or poor childhood development which squanders otherwise good or adequate genes. While shortness in men is mostly racial, genetic potential isnt always reached, poverty (poor developmental environment) can stunt one even shorter than they are meant to be. Low prenatal T can be from the chemical or stress exposure of the mother affecting the future of the newborn baby boy yet the genetic code he has still holds the ability to birth a normal child. Notice how ugly parents sometimes have attractive offspring and visa versa? Environment is a very important factor and has large effects on the genes.
Now to my point:
If people blame genetics too much how does that help people get corrective surgeries? If you are ugly by means of poor craniofacial development and the medical establishment sees your ugly condition as genetic all they'll do is basically tell you is you're shit outta luck. Most doctors will see your form as being what your genes destined you to have become (which in anthropological and historic context know isnt true) and turn you away from your needed surgical correction. Surgical correction is a solution to poor development because if you fix functional problems, better asthetics are a natural byproduct rather than just the end. Good function and good looks are self catalytic and self reinforcing.
If we keep blaming genetics alone, then facial deficiencies will not be recognized by medical professionals as needing intervention, they'll continue to look at narrow palates, sunken eye sockets, recessed jaws, crowded teeth, narrow nasal passages and mouthbreathing as normal parts of the human condition and will refuse to treat these problems in the ways that are needed. Most doctors dont know shit about these things and just get by just like wageslaves in their daily grind, they dont really want to give much thought on this (thats why the public has to do it for them.) We are shooting ourselves in the foot by scapegoating genes because insurance companies and doctors will do their best NOT to help you for financial reasons by not getting you referrals to get the corrections you need.
If you are going to blame genes, you'll have to modify the expression as blaming how your genes interact with the modern environment.
Note: This discussion discounts the familial congenitally deformed cases.
Note: Attractiveness is described through a genetic potential baseline, not relative to the apex of attractive people (should they be a more favorable race.)
Anthropologically, we can see how poor diet and the dysgenics of the conveniences of modernity can change the palate shape of native populations within just one generation of exposure. Its a misdirection to consider most cases of unattractive looks as purely genetic, most of the world's population actually have good/normal genes for their species. The Agriculturepill as I call it shows what happens to skulls (the palate in particular) once humans adopted agriculture. Poor facial development is generally a disease of civilization. Grain and less nutritious foods(but more available) weaken the facial bones and weak facial bones adapt to poor breathing which is a functional adaptation.
What is beautiful is functional, attractive faces indicate optimal functional breathing (why do only ugly people deal serious cases of sleep apnea or breathing issues?) Attractive faces are well formed faces because they have the correct orientations (which becomes the ideal as a natural consequence) to uphold breathing and chewing functions because of good nutrition and postural habits (by chance of dietary and postural habits in modernity.)
Beautiful faces are generally just uncrushed versions in comparison to ugly poorly developed faces which have to warp in various directions to adapt to poor breathing/chewing. This variation of the dimensions that a poorly developed face can grow accounts for the vast variation of facial differences throughout the world's population but just like FaceandLMS describes, beautiful people are almost a species of their own. They follow a more formulaic structure in their face, this is actually just genetic potential but modernity makes it a lottery due to its uncertain environmental conditions that form faces. Unattractive poorly developed people, while most of the population are actually deviating from the natural human form (which primitive people attained without much effort.) There are vastly more variations of ugly faces than there are of attractive faces.
Other poor development is usually from poor gestation or poor childhood development which squanders otherwise good or adequate genes. While shortness in men is mostly racial, genetic potential isnt always reached, poverty (poor developmental environment) can stunt one even shorter than they are meant to be. Low prenatal T can be from the chemical or stress exposure of the mother affecting the future of the newborn baby boy yet the genetic code he has still holds the ability to birth a normal child. Notice how ugly parents sometimes have attractive offspring and visa versa? Environment is a very important factor and has large effects on the genes.
Now to my point:
If people blame genetics too much how does that help people get corrective surgeries? If you are ugly by means of poor craniofacial development and the medical establishment sees your ugly condition as genetic all they'll do is basically tell you is you're shit outta luck. Most doctors will see your form as being what your genes destined you to have become (which in anthropological and historic context know isnt true) and turn you away from your needed surgical correction. Surgical correction is a solution to poor development because if you fix functional problems, better asthetics are a natural byproduct rather than just the end. Good function and good looks are self catalytic and self reinforcing.
If we keep blaming genetics alone, then facial deficiencies will not be recognized by medical professionals as needing intervention, they'll continue to look at narrow palates, sunken eye sockets, recessed jaws, crowded teeth, narrow nasal passages and mouthbreathing as normal parts of the human condition and will refuse to treat these problems in the ways that are needed. Most doctors dont know shit about these things and just get by just like wageslaves in their daily grind, they dont really want to give much thought on this (thats why the public has to do it for them.) We are shooting ourselves in the foot by scapegoating genes because insurance companies and doctors will do their best NOT to help you for financial reasons by not getting you referrals to get the corrections you need.
If you are going to blame genes, you'll have to modify the expression as blaming how your genes interact with the modern environment.
Note: This discussion discounts the familial congenitally deformed cases.
Note: Attractiveness is described through a genetic potential baseline, not relative to the apex of attractive people (should they be a more favorable race.)
