Congrats on losing weight, but it is not nearly as easy as you portray.

Of course, when push comes to shove, they marry with their hearts. The spouses range from fellow runners to workaholics averse to exercise.

Oh, before I took up running, at age 52, I was double the male equivalent of picture #1. 40 lbs later, I’m in the best shape I’ve ever been in.

When I look at fat people, I say, there I was, but, by an act of my will, I’m not there anymore. Becoming a marathoner was a lot easier than quitting smoking. Been there, done that.

Etcoff was successful at depicting the message that beauty is not entirely in the eye of the beholder; however, she was rather unsuccessful at convincing me that our perception of beauty comes solely from something we biologically possess. I found it extremely difficult to accept Etcoff’s ideas that all cultures have the same ideals of beauty regardless of their nationality or race. On the other hand, by using a great deal of scientific research in cognitive science and evolutionary psychology, Etcoff was able to convince me that part of our beauty perception may be programmed into our brain circuits and has been throughout the history of humankind. She pulls together recent research on evolutionary topics to back up her suggestion that being attractive has survival value, and this is the reason humans’ reaction to beauty is not completely attributable to conditioning processes of our environment.

The nature nurture argument is a false argument… (its not a proportional division of both in a mix, its 100% both!).

The idea of the argument is to define the adaptability of the brain as the starter state and that its blank…

This is why there is such a hatred of medicine on the left… (for instance, the fight over stem cells was over a reason that would make abortion a social good. once they found another way to make them, the whole argument died out, so it wasn’t about ethics or the things that was the selling points to accept poison)

Etcoffs book though is very thorough…
Etcoff’s ideas were backed up by an astounding amount of evidence. She certainly led me to disavow my belief that images in the media and culture are the sole reasons for our obsession with beauty.

Remember a lot of the stuff that is or was considered the groundwork of tabula rasa has been discredited. Kinsey being a pedophile and having his subjects sexually assaulted to create the basis of child as sexual being (how else did he know what happens when babies are forced to orgasm over and over and describe that in detail?)

And of course Margret meads work is now known to be a sham.

The problem for the left is that the state didn’t change before we started to find out the scams… now it’s a race which is why there is so much urgency… time WAS their friend, now with the net flattening access to information, time is their enemy as things from the past no longer are rare and hidden.

The book was written almost a decadea go, and now there is even a lot more evidence.

Evolutionary psychology was and is the new replacement for what was poisoned before… however the other disciplne still has more political sway… but its dying.. its foundatiosn were corrupted, and so the propagation of falsehood and the inability to have it removed as people with a political interest in it refuse to do so, and refuse to no longer quote it.

In 400 years we would look back and understand this change… but now, we don’t even realize that there is much of a battle going on.

Most haven’t noticed that it’s the philosophers attempting to grab the top position again after the empiracle scientists kicked them off the thrown around gallileos time.

She and other researchers put the nail in the social models coffin… hwoever the social model is the foundation of feminism and feminisms justification that social changes they aremaking will all be good and not lead to harm. However they are aware of this stuff too, or else they wouldn’t hit the misery button so dead on all the time.

“Beauty as Bait” focuses on how humans are born into the world with the ability to discriminate the beautiful. Children, even babies, prefer what adults recognize as beautiful. Research on infants’ perception shows that children as young as three months are staring at attractive faces longer than at unattractive ones. Thus, beauty preferences are not learned; rather, we are born with beauty preferences, or as Etcoff believes “beauty detectors”.

While babies are “rating” adults for attractiveness, adults are doing the same to babies. Infants are helpless and need a huge amount of care. Thus, they had better be adorable and irresistible. Babies have triggers that set off emotions to stimulate adults to care for them and love them. These triggers are called The Kinderschema: soft skin, big eyes, a button nose, soft hair, and all the other features most babies possess. Perhaps because of this, human adults retain a preference for infantile features even in other adults.

This is why Japanese cartoons have this look… and not the thinner eyes that epicanthic folds presence or absence causes.

Its why women when trying to pick up a man or showing interest get this manic wide eye look… trying to open the eyes up… appearing younger (babies eyes are the same size as adults, so the body grows around them).

“Pretty Pleases” depicts the powerful impact beauty has in everyday life. According to Etcoff, beauty influences everything from our perceptions and attitudes to our behavior toward others. This chapter begins with the initial attraction between potential mates. Fertility is basically written on the female body. We know that the peak of fertility is age 20-24. By the end of a woman’s 30’s, her fertility has declined drastically, and by about 50 years of age a woman reaches menopause. However, for men there is no visible sign of a “good sperm carrier”. Most men are able to have children until they die. The difference between the sexes remains the main reason for male preference for women in their teens and twenties. Women on the other hand, don’t seek older men; rather, they prefer a man with signs of resources and one who is willing to invest in her and potential offspring.

if you analyze this from the view of lesbian feminists you can see why they worked so hard to try to make these things bad!

For instance. A lesbian woman in the prior era could not get a job that paid as high as a man… so she couldn’t buy flashy things that would attract another woman to her… she was put out of the competition..

Meanwhile.. equal pay, and ideological games have made women have bigger tails than peacocks. The peahens have glued male signals to themselves.

And so the women are not willing to be with a man who earns less (they are hypergamous), and the men are not indicating fertility when this happens.

And so the relationship degrades so that she is free to select a ‘better’ mate. feminism blames this process on the men… that way the women don’t give up on the destructive process, but instead assert that it’s the mens fault for behaving wrongly. Bad bad men.

Remember they also deny biology! So anyone accepting this social model has to deny that there is this mating fertility beaty selection thing going on underneath.

If its socially constructed, then all should be fine.. and the men are just socially ill… and they get blamed for the biology they and women cant change!

In other words, like a black man they cant escape their genetics and they are blamed for nto being the new socialist man.

The fashion mags always defining short hair as feminine.. which women believe, but men will say that its not… who is right? The men… not the women telling other women! but women will not listen to men..

So instead they keep listening to this cadre of women (I have worked with personally) and they deny that mens desires and beauty likes are important.

They make the mens desires to be bad because in the absence of biology mens desires are a choice, and to them they are all invalid choices.

This has led to the decimation of the western populace. If they make any of the mistakes they fall off the fertility tree… (heck even the promotion of birth control causes a hormonal change that would make a woman who found her husband witout it dislike him, and a woman who found her husband with it dislike him when she is off of it!) for more on the play of hormones read susan pinkers work.

i ahve removed the html… removed quotes.. pasted into notepad.. the list goes on on my attempts, but nothing is working. sigh.

Other things you will find out is why women have breasts… (because we stand up now, and so it creates the primate attractor on the front. There is a famous picture in which you cant tell that the breasts are the butt, and the butt is the breasts. Size is not related to milk production)

You find out about lip color and what it tells you.. women tend to use darker read lipsticks during certain times in their menses.

And studies show that the more fertile a woman is, the more flesh she shows.

There is really so much out there… and the three groups that know the most are the researchers… the best marketers (not the hoaky ones), and players who study these things for advantage. However the players augment this with other things too. like behavior and body language.

end part 2

[having problems posting as the system gives no error messages… so i am finding the error by posting in sections]

Sergey, just because you cant see the pattern, doesn’t mean there isnt one.

Fertility and fertility cues are the pattern…

So.. the norm is fertility cues, not specific fertility cues…

Lets see rubens… if you look at the pictures and project the modern era, or no era and let them stand alone, you would say… hey, fat women were in then. This is the propaganda used to help establish tabula rasa… the point your alluding to.

What indicates health in context with society?

In rubens era a woman who was fat and not married was what? rich and lived without vitamin difficiency. She has enough calories to carry a baby to term and a fat waist so that she doesn’t die in childbirth. This during a time when the birth deaths topped 20%.

Each one of your examples can be shown to exist in the context of whether they had plenty or not.

Today HEALTHY sans secondary indicators is in… one can just select for health, one need not select for health and wealth making a negative like fat be a positive.

Botticelli’s period the wealthy did not starve or have lean times. In fact the people didn’t either like in reubens era. And the greeks were looking for an ideal sans reality… so they didn’t need to include a wealth indicator in their concepts.

Howeer all the fertility cues that are important are in all of them. they are symmetrical, their hips are wide eough for a large brain to pass through. They have enough weight to carry a baby, they have long hair… their looks are symmetric, and so forth.

We ignore all that because we don’t know those are the cues.

And if you don’t know what the pattern is, and don’t see it, it don’t mean that it isnt there.

Its there. once you learn what the cues are, you can then assess their presence.

To assert that no norm exists when you don’t know the points that make up the norm is an interesting concept.. it shows how we as a populace easily accept logical fallacies without being alerted to them if unexamined.

Sans extenuating contextual indicators, we all go for the same things…

In one study hundreds of cultures were studied, and they found more than 200 different points that were equivalent between ALL OF THEM… outside of that there were the few that were different that defined the mass.

We take the 200 of them for granted so we don’t include them in our assements.

After all, in what year was air discovered? You would be very surprised at what was noted before it…

as leftism removes nuance and detail, we lose our ability to assese things. we move to a realm where our knowledge is more incomplete, and yet we have to work as if it was complete. We cant sit and wait till we find out…

howver there is a big difference between the assertions of the main stream media, which is where this tabula rasa argument from the left comes from and has been taken in, and the actual information which everyone is too lazy to look up. so they operate often without remembering where the knowledge came from, and so they assume that its correct.

I would suggest a couple of books to read…

“Survival of the prettiest” http://www.amazon.com/Survival-Prettiest-Science-Nancy-Etcoff/dp/0385479425 and

“the science of beauty” is part of the title and another book too.

One indicator that it’s all the same is that our specied intermarries… another indicator that we are much the same is that plastic surgeons don’t have a race key card for what they will do to make a person prettier. They do the same things… the few things that are race specific are actually minimal and relegated to fashion. So while they may favor a thin nose for the north, or a flat nose for the heat, they all favor a symmetrical one and a smaller one!

There are a lot of sites that now incorporate the findings… but the findings go against leftism/communism/ etc… so we don’t hear much about them… the same way that we arent informed that fertility starts to decline in women at 25… that would blow the ideologues pushing later family life… (which causes tons of problems and why things are really bad).

End of pt 1