Is it true that attraction is objective and that male attraction can be determined by things like Maxilla, jawline, chin width, and etc?
Are there any alternative theories of attraction? Here is a random theory I came up with inspired by Schopenhauer.
"But we’re ultimately driven to fall in love not with people we’ll get on with, but with people whom the the Will-to-Life recognises as ideal partners for producing what Schopenhauer bluntly called ‘balanced children.’ All of us are in any case a bit unbalanced, he thought: we’re a bit too masculine, or too feminine, too tall or too short, too rational or too impulsive. If such imbalances were allowed to persist, or were aggravated, in the next generation, the human race would, within a short time, sink into oddity. The Will-to-Life must therefore push us towards people who can, on account of their compensating imbalances, cancel out our own issues – a large nose combined with a button nose promise a perfect nose. He argued that short people often fall in love with tall people, and more feminine men with more assertive and masculine women."
Attractive people are more balanced people and thus exhibit more positive lukewarm reactions from people ( they get rated within 6-8 on a 10 point scale) and have mass appeal. Ugly people are simply people that are unbalanced and thus exhibit more polarizing reactions from people ( they get rated as either 1-2 or 9-10, but they more often get rated as 1-2) because they have to find someone else that balances them out and that is not always guaranteed.
Of course, there are objective attractive signals like weight that one can control, hopefully.
So, is there any support for my theory? My theory does fit within the framework since it offers explanations for studies like https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-11095-001 and etc.
Are there any alternative theories of attraction? Here is a random theory I came up with inspired by Schopenhauer.
"But we’re ultimately driven to fall in love not with people we’ll get on with, but with people whom the the Will-to-Life recognises as ideal partners for producing what Schopenhauer bluntly called ‘balanced children.’ All of us are in any case a bit unbalanced, he thought: we’re a bit too masculine, or too feminine, too tall or too short, too rational or too impulsive. If such imbalances were allowed to persist, or were aggravated, in the next generation, the human race would, within a short time, sink into oddity. The Will-to-Life must therefore push us towards people who can, on account of their compensating imbalances, cancel out our own issues – a large nose combined with a button nose promise a perfect nose. He argued that short people often fall in love with tall people, and more feminine men with more assertive and masculine women."
Attractive people are more balanced people and thus exhibit more positive lukewarm reactions from people ( they get rated within 6-8 on a 10 point scale) and have mass appeal. Ugly people are simply people that are unbalanced and thus exhibit more polarizing reactions from people ( they get rated as either 1-2 or 9-10, but they more often get rated as 1-2) because they have to find someone else that balances them out and that is not always guaranteed.
Of course, there are objective attractive signals like weight that one can control, hopefully.
So, is there any support for my theory? My theory does fit within the framework since it offers explanations for studies like https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-11095-001 and etc.
