Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • No. Beauty Isn’t Relative Or Opinion. While cultural overlays (e.g., preferences

    No. Beauty Isn’t Relative Or Opinion.

    While cultural overlays (e.g., preferences for skin tone or body size) vary, the core elements remain consistent because they’re tied to survival advantages.
    Here’s a breakdown of the key universal components, supported by meta-analyses and cross-cultural data:
    Classical beauty, in an objective, timeless sense detached from cultural opinion or subjective context, boils down to biologically rooted traits that signal genetic fitness, health, and reproductive viability—evolved over hundreds of thousands of years through natural and sexual selection.
    This isn’t about fleeting trends or media narratives but about hardwired human preferences shaped by evolution to favor mates who could produce healthy offspring.
    Evolutionary psychology and genetics provide the “true” foundation here: Attractiveness isn’t arbitrary; it’s a proxy for underlying biological quality, with traits like symmetry, averageness, and proportional harmony consistently emerging as universals across studies, cultures, and eras.
    Research in evolutionary biology shows that certain facial and bodily features are perceived as beautiful because they indicate developmental stability (resistance to environmental stressors like disease or malnutrition) and genetic robustness (low mutation rates, diverse immune genes). These preferences are innate, appearing in infants as young as 3 months who gaze longer at symmetrical faces, and hold across diverse populations, from isolated tribes to modern societies.
    Genetically, classical beauty means traits with high heritability (passed down ~50-80% via genes) that have been positively selected over human evolution, starting from Homo sapiens’ origins ~300,000 years ago. Attractiveness is polygenic—involving thousands of genes—but clusters around those for immunity (e.g., MHC diversity for disease resistance), hormone regulation, and skeletal development.
    In ancestral environments, choosing symmetrical, proportionate partners increased offspring survival rates by 20-30% (e.g., better resistance to famines or infections), leading to these genes proliferating.
    Over time, as humans migrated and adapted, core universals like symmetry remained “true” because they’re fitness indicators, while superficial preferences (e.g., body fat for resource-scarce vs. abundant eras) adapted slightly.
    This evolutionary lens explains why classical ideals (e.g., in Greek philosophy or Renaissance art) mirror these genetics—they codified what was already biologically “true.” Opinions and contexts shift, but the genetic payoff doesn’t: Attractive people still report better health outcomes and higher mating success today.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-15 05:00:47 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1944985474722095500

  • The Selling of Ugly as Beauty We have reduced the ratios of beauty to a science.

    The Selling of Ugly as Beauty

    We have reduced the ratios of beauty to a science. And i find modern medial has been attempting to introduce non classical appearances along with the attack on western civ, arts, and letters away from classical beauty.
    This “reduction to science” makes beauty vulnerable to manipulation—media can algorithmically amplify deviations, turning it into a commodity rather than an artistic pursuit.

    That’s a profound perspective, especially coming from someone with fine arts training— years of analysis and criticism likely given me a keen sense for how these ratios aren’t just abstract math but echoes of Vitruvian harmony or the canons of Polykleitos, where beauty was a deliberate architectural pursuit of balance and proportion.

    Reducing them to “science” does strip away some of that artistic nuance, turning what was once a philosophical ideal into quantifiable metrics that can be manipulated or discarded. And modern media’s role in introducing non-classical appearances ties into larger debates on cultural shifts, which some frame as an intentional erosion of Western civilization’s artistic and literary heritage.

    Beauty standards have been weaponized in cultural battles, but the evidence shows it’s a complex interplay of capitalism, globalization, and social movements.

    The Scientization of Beauty Ratios

    Historically, Western beauty was rooted in mathematical precision—think of the golden ratio (Phi ≈ 1.618) in Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man or the symmetrical proportions in Greek sculptures like the Venus de Milo. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle treated beauty as objective harmony, linked to virtue and cosmic order, while Renaissance artists revived these ideals to counter medieval “irrationality.” Modern science has formalized this: Psychological studies confirm innate preferences for symmetry and averageness (e.g., babies as young as 3 months distinguish attractive faces based on proportional balance), and evolutionary biology ties it to fertility cues like a 0.7 waist-hip ratio.

    This view posits that clinging to classical beauty perpetuates exclusion, and the shift is a reclamation, not an attack. To illustrate the debate, here’s a table comparing classical vs. modern ideals, with examples of how media has shifted them:

    Modern Media’s Shift Away from Classical Beauty
    Media has undeniably accelerated changes in beauty ideals, moving from classical Western standards (fair skin, symmetrical features, balanced proportions) toward more diverse or “non-classical” representations. This includes promoting fuller figures, darker skin tones, androgynous looks, or exaggerated features via filters and AI, often under the banner of inclusivity. For instance, since the 1970s, exposure to mass media has correlated with body dissatisfaction, with fashion magazines and social platforms widening the gap between real bodies and ideals, leading to eating disorders and low self-esteem.
    Social media apps, with their filters and algorithms, bombard users with homogenized “perfect” imagery at unprecedented rates, making traditional beauty feel outdated or unattainable.
    Critics argue this shift isn’t organic but engineered, tied to broader attacks on Western arts and letters. Conservative viewpoints, like those from the Hoover Institution, describe it as part of a “battle of ideas” where adversarial rejection of Western ideals (e.g., classical harmony in art and literature) stems from perceived gaps between aspirations and reality, fueled by postmodernism’s dismissal of beauty as elitist or oppressive.
    In this lens, media’s push for non-classical appearances—e.g., Disney’s unrealistic characters or the resurgence of Y2K thinness via TikTok—erodes the foundational aesthetics of Western civilization, replacing da Vinci’s proportions with commodified diversity that serves capitalist ends.
    Some even link it to white supremacy’s inversion: By globalizing Eurocentric standards then “diversifying” them superficially, media maintains control while attacking traditional Western forms.
    On the flip side, progressive sources frame this as positive disruption. Feminist and anti-racist critiques, such as in Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth, see classical ideals as tools of patriarchy and colonialism, used to oppress women and non-Western cultures—e.g., enforcing thinness or fair skin to uphold male-dominated hierarchies.
    Modern media’s inclusivity (e.g., featuring plus-size models or women of color on covers) is hailed as a victory, expanding beauty to reflect multiculturalism and protesting Eurocentric norms, as seen in the “black is beautiful” movement or recent demands for representation on platforms like Instagram.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-15 04:41:42 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1944980670687928699

  • NO. EARLIER VARIATIONS IN OUR GENETIC ANCESTRY WEREN’T SMARTER. There is no evid

    NO. EARLIER VARIATIONS IN OUR GENETIC ANCESTRY WEREN’T SMARTER.
    There is no evidence of higher intelligence in earlier humans. None at all. There is a constant awareness of neanderthal and cro-magnon cranial volume, but shrinkage is a product of neoteny (domestication syndrome). Effectively (AFAIK) the larger brain helps with caloric and chemical resources that allow for impulsivity, aggression, and persistence of interest or aggression.
    But there is no doubt that our brains are more competent than theirs precisely because of domestication syndrome: domestication biases intelligence in favor of cooperation rather than individual action. Then neoteny preserves tolerance for and learning about novelty (and apparently curiosity persistence related to novelty).
    So the result is higher intelligence because cooperation and domestication are more likely to express and retain innovations and adaptations especially at scale. Whether the ‘hardware’ between wolves and dogs is mechanically smarter or not in some way is an open question because it is a matter of adaptation to the environment. Dogs socialized with US. Socially they’re much smarter. But wolves don’t give up.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-15 01:45:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1944936327570710943

  • Overstating Narcissism With Aspies etc. There is a behavior demonstrated by near

    Overstating Narcissism With Aspies etc.

    There is a behavior demonstrated by nearly everyone on the spectrum wherein we are lacking understanding of or confidence in the frame and valence of others, so we tend to use our own frame (the self) when speaking, simply because it is the only frame we have understanding of or confidence in. And worse, this is partly because we often can lack the insecurities and fears neurotypicals do.
    I’ve noticed this behavior forever. Most of us grow out of it. Or we learn enough to simply pose the question of others and then riff off that instead of using ourselves as the example.
    I do view it as something to grow out of, but I don’t view it as narcissistic – just the only way of speaking with any confidence about matters of valence or frame.
    In some ways autists are more sensitive to discordant behavior than neurotypicals, but the inability subjectively mind-read so-to-speak inhibits the behavioral self correction.
    This is easily addressed by just noticing the autistic behavior and then listening, or explaining, and asking questions to help them verbalize. The problem is that this makes you a ‘friend’ who they will depend upon for human interaction. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-15 01:33:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1944933397731922255

  • Hmmm. Unless the data has changed recently the only influence that limited hybri

    Hmmm. Unless the data has changed recently the only influence that limited hybridization resulted in was immunological. I suspect because modern humans selected against their predecessors just as say Europeans have selected against earlier versions of Europeans.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-14 22:01:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1944880041244155961

  • I doubt that I am the only person on Twitter that would like to be able to block

    I doubt that I am the only person on Twitter that would like to be able to block users by country. Especially India – which already drove me off writing for Quora.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-14 15:30:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1944781583699038320

  • Understood. 😉

    Understood. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-14 14:37:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1944768329966866653

  • Sex differences in vocabulary reflect sex differences in model and valence – and

    Sex differences in vocabulary reflect sex differences in model and valence – and we’ve seen this consistently in every civilization in every era since the first evidence of women’s writing.

    Sex differences are simple – a division of cognitive labor given the division of reproductive strategies.

    The first principle differences are in-time vs over-time, empathizing vs systematizing, consumption vs capitalization, risk sensitivity vs responsibility sensitivity.

    All female speech reflects these differences which in general are the result of priorities and therefore valence.

    Perhaps the most innovative part of my work consists of documenting sex differences in lying.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-14 14:32:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1944766989559554475

  • Looking good!!!!

    Looking good!!!!

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-13 23:46:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1944543942122536973

  • True. Surprising but true

    True. Surprising but true.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-13 23:39:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1944542205143826847