The Elite Forum
The Big Three Plus One => General Chat => Topic started by: RWG on April 04, 2009, 02:46:00 am
-
In a discussion I recently took part of involving "the best rapper" where I argued that one must be well known, have touched many people with their music and sold many records to be considered the best, I stumbled onto an interesting thought about objectivity and subjectivity.
Do you believe that most superlatives can be measured objectively?
Let's look at some examples. I'll expand on "most physically attractive well known person" vs "most attractive well known person to me" as the original example because this is something that most of us find interesting and can relate to.
I believe that we can determine the most physically attractive well known woman using several criteria, and I will explain how she is different than most attractive woman to me.
First, I will start by saying that Miley Cyrus is the most attractive well known woman to me. Why is this? Firstly, because she is well known, and then following she is objectively good looking enough for me to be satisfied by her looks, plus a whole bunch of stuff which is emotional (and therefore subjective.) For example, she dresses well, which is important to me (objectively more important to me than many other men.) Assuming what the media tells us is correct, she has good faith and strong family bonds, which are also important to me and not as important to others. I could go on, but you get the idea that these kind of things, style, faith, family trigger some sort of emotion in me which they do not trigger in others. She also fits the stereotype of Southern American which I find more attractive than other men, for no logical reason, simply for emotional reason.
Now let's examine the most physically attractive well known woman. First of all, she must be well known. Secondly, we must ask, what is it to be physically attractive? Objectively, being physically attractive means that basing strictly on visuals and physical conditions, one will display more characteristics which promote entities involving sexual pleasure, reproduction, maternal abilities and the like. What does this mean? Things like large breasts, rounded hips, good health (which includes weight,) good genes (for example very pale skin is more susceptible to cancer, therefore these genes are not as good,) and the visual of being able to care for themselves, and thus their young (things such as clean hair, no facial blemishes, etc.) Women that seem to fit this kind of criteria to name a few include Scarlett Johannson, Beyonce, Isla Fisher, Jessica Alba, and although it is very difficult to actually determine who is objectively the most physically attractive without thousands of hours of study and analysis, I have briefly outlined the method to do it and given some representations of possible superlatives.
For a third perspective, let's analyze "sexiest well known woman" from a subjective standpoint. We simply must ask, what does it mean to be sexy? Being sexy means having the ability to sexually excite, radiate sexuality and have a presence which makes others interested in sex. Of course, this involves being physically attractive as I mentioned in the past paragraph but also involves things such as the ability to actually have sex (smaller, thinner women would be easier to throw around or such; and also to consider is the fact that they have had sex many times and are open with their sexuality.) Some women who come to mind when pondering who is sexiest include Megan Fox or Paris Hilton. Although you personally may not find either of these women sexy, they both possess the attributes which encompass "sexy" and therefore are objectively sexy.
This whole bit brings an interesting question into play. What is a fetish? A fetish is something that triggers an emotion so much that it can cause one to neglect a few other aspects of one's character and being, that one will be extremely attracted to this fetish. As follows, any kind of interpersonal subjective emotional trigger that causes us to feel a woman is more attractive to us than she is on the objective scale could be considered a fetish. For example, many people consider Adriana Lima to be exceptionally sexy. Why is this? Part of it could be because of her self admitted abstinence for marriage. Logically and objectively, virginity should not be sexually attractive to men in the 21st century, however for emotional reasons some men see this as being extremely attractive.
To Sum
This applies to all superlatives which aren't easily measured. (Easily measured superlatives are things such as height, temperature, weight, etc.) We can determine who is funniest, who is coolest, who is the "best" at anything by studying what exactly makes up being the superlative. When the rank determined by objectively studying does not fit our personal rank, we are being subjective and this only happens when emotions are involved.
What do you think about this? Does anyone agree or disagree? Why do you disagree if this is the case.
Some things to consider;
-I focused on physical attraction and sexuality because it's a simple case which interests most of us.
-Don't say that because I'm a virgin I have no clue what I'm talking about here. Experience has absolutely nothing to do with this.
-Just because you don't like the women I listed as examples doesn't mean I'm wrong. They are examples.
-Take what I said into consideration, think about it, and then describe how you feel about it.
-
I just read the whole thing.
Goose you are a virgin. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
However, I think you did a fine job on this topic idea! I do not focus my time and energy on learning about and fawning over the hottest new babes all over Hollywood. Instead, I prefer to look at nice girls who I come in contact with in my daily life. It is unrealistic to think you will become romantically involved with Paris Hilton, Megan Fox, Jessica Alba, or any of the other women you listed in your post. While they may be both physically attractive AND well known, I believe the real issue here is your choice to discuss them as your topic. There are many other areas where subjectivity can be compared to objectivity, but you chose to compare females in ways that have no impact at all upon your life. I think it may be more appropriate here to ask why you think it matters which of these females is most attractive or how they are attractive in different ways. I would've been more impressed to see a discussion about girls you actually know and can interact with. Perhaps if you focused your thoughts and eyes on more common people, you would see that being the MOST attractive or the MOST sexy isn't nearly as important as you seem to believe it is. I like how you show this with your paragraph describing fetishes, it shows that you recognize the idea that your mind may choose something that is objectively NOT the MOST whatever, even while knowing it, and still enjoy making that choice and sticking to it. If you expand on that idea only slightly, you will see that nearly any girl you can interact with will have certain traits and abilities that will get you to rate her higher than she belongs, objectively. Maybe with a realization like this, you will be able to entertain and enjoy being with a girl that isn't the MOST attractive girl you've ever seen, because you recognize there are certain aspects to her physique which you just cannot get over.
Although the topic was supposed to be about objectivity and subjectivity, my post relates more to the content of Ryan's topic-starting post than the ideas he was looking for. The last point he listed asked me to describe how I felt about what I had just read, and these are the things that came to mind. I'd also like to share a recent discussion I had relating to "favorites and "the best."
Only one night ago, I was eating at a restaurant with a large group from my school, and at one point the discussion began to focus on someone's favorite food. I have realized for some time that I do not often have a "favorite" for a particular category. From colors to foods to hair color, it's very hard for me to pick an option that stands clearly above the rest. The whole concept of "favorites" themselves was on the table here. In a rather in-depth conversation, several nice ideas came up. One person decided that everyone definitely has the right and reason to choose anything they like as their favorite for a particular category. Personal preference has everything to do with it and your opinion on something shouldn't depend on what others say or what society says, but on what your own mind believes. Another person decided that it was okay not to have a favorite in a particular situation, especially when the situation either does not apply at all to you or has only a very slight effect on your life.
The idea I'll bring to the table about objectivity and subjectivity is that of being a fan. From college hoops to the NBA and from the NHL to Major League Baseball, hundreds of millions of people attend sporting events each year. It's an almost universal practice to be a "fan" of a particular team from one of these fields of play. The idea of being a fan is very subjective, even though it is somewhat clear who the better teams are. If you ask someone who they'd like to win in a game between their hometown team and some dirty team from across the country, nearly everyone will pick their good old favorite team. Not everyone chooses to be a fan of the team in the city they live in, but they've still got an attachment to a particular team. The surprising thing about this whole practice is that being a fan involves sticking to your guns about a team regardless of what their record is or how they're playing lately. If people didn't become fans of particular clubs, some teams wouldn't last longer than a season or two, because their income would fall significantly due to lack of attendance. Objectively, it is usually pretty hard to tell who the better team is; the record alone isn't enough to identify all the characteristics a team has, because these team games revolve around so many different factors. Subjectively, however, the process is fairly straightforward. A fan simply has to choose a favorite team or player at some point, and they're done. By identifying with, say, the Cubs, the fan is set for life. Never will he have to scour dozens of pages of box scores and news clippings to find out what team is playing the best at that time, they've already made that decision.
I think what I'm trying to bring up with this is that sometimes it is much easier to make a subjective decision based upon purely arbitrary factors than to go through a very complex sequence to determine the objective values of certain entities. Sports favoritism is just the first example I could think of for this, but I'm sure there are many more. Why do we sometimes make decisions that aren't based upon any research, knowledge, or solid reasoning? Why do we sometimes choose favorites and make big decisions without going any deeper than their initial feelings on an issue?
-
tl;dr
cliffnotes?
-
Read from "To Sum" on for cliffnotes.
-
Hmm...no I don't think so. The words "funny" and "cool" are entirely based on emotions and can't really be defined outside of how they make someone feel. Your entire post is about physical attraction and then you try to say we can also determine who is funniest, coolest, or the best at something (plus other things) by "objectively examining it." IMO, there's no way to objectively examine how funny someone is, since different people have different senses of humor and there isn't one sense of humor that effectively epitomizes all the others, much less one that is "correct."
Another example would be Olympics gymnastics/diving/anything that gets judged. When the gymnast (we'll go with gymnastics) begins his (we'll go with a man) routine, the judges are looking at how rigid his body is, how precisely timed his moves are, and a bunch of other stuff. When he finishes, deductions can be objectively made based on mistakes in the routine, but exactly how many points to be taken off is really a subjective thing. The scores from the judges usually end up being slightly different, but it's not really correct to say that someone is right and the rest are wrong. The scores can be averaged and the average can be declared the objective result, but this is merely compiling the subjective results and seeing where they lead.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that for things like Goose was mentioning, I don't think it's possible for humans to remove themselves from their emotions enough to state the objectively correct thing. I would say someone is funny because they make people laugh, and someone is cool because they make people say "Wow," and that's all emotional criteria.
-
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that for things like Goose was mentioning, I don't think it's possible for humans to remove themselves from their emotions enough to state the objectively correct thing. I would say someone is funny because they make people laugh, and someone is cool because they make people say "Wow," and that's all emotional criteria.
Miley Cyrus is my favorite celebrity who, as I see her, encompasses everything I want to find in a girl. She is not the most physically attractive woman in the world.
There, I just did it.
Something I've considered is that two things cannot be exactly alike. Since they cannot be alike, one must be better than the other. As follows, something has to be "the best." It is a condition of being.
Whether or not humans can objectively determine "the best" is what is the grander question in this all.
-
Goose says: But back to sexual attraction...
Tell me or give me any kind of example who is the funniest person ever or that you know of or the coolest person there is with objective criteria.
-
I laugh the most when I see Mitch Hedberg's skits or Conan O'Brien's shows but I can safely assume that neither of them are the "funniest ever."
-
"Goose you are a virgin. You don't have a clue what you're talking about."
qft
Each person has his/her own taste for liking or disliking people, regarding any kind of characteristic (beauty, coolness, whatever). Personally I don't find Miley attractive.. I mean, she's cute, but she doesn't attract me that much. Real situations are different though.. If I'd ever find her in a club or any public place where I could get to her, I'd be like "ZOMG SHE'S HOT", and who knows, I could get to her and kiss her and everything and find out that she's dumb, or she does something that I completely dislike. That's why you can't say that this or that famous person is "perfect" for you. The real thing is very different.. you can say that a celebrity is cute, is hot, is intelligent (sometimes they just look like though), but that's all. You could say that a good friend of yours is everything you ever wanted. That's fine, because you know the person, you know her habits, her tastes, sometimes a few secrets.. but saying that about someone you've never met is wrong. I mean, you can say that Miley has a lot of qualities that you like (like you listed there), but those might not be enough when the real thing happens, so it's all very subjective.
I'm talking about really liking someone here.. just hanging out is something completely different. You can tolerate a lot of things so you can have sex with that person you think it's hot. I mean, I could ignore Paris Hilton ignorance so I could have sex with her (more than once). You can tell wheter a woman is hot (in your opinion) just by looking at her, but you just can't say if she's nice, her sense of humour (which, personally, is one of the most important characteristics for me), if her sex is good, etc. I think Paris is dumb, but who knows if I'd ever hang out with her, I'd found out that she's actually fun, or might be attractive to me by other means.
So yeah, unless you get the real thing, you can't say how "good" someone is for you, specially famous people that you'll probably never get in touch with.
-
Since they cannot be alike, one must be better than the other. As follows, something has to be "the best."
This is a really weird statement.
-
Scarlett Johannson has a ton of moles... or rather, did before she went and had them surgically altered to compete for the title of "beauty queen". Look at pictures of her as a kid actor (one of her first roles was in "The Horse Whisperer").
That being said, this topic is pretty lame because not everyone sees attractiveness in the same way. There are people that think Scarlett is nothing to write home about!
-
You guys are all missing the point of the topic.
Vitor... I cleared that up by saying Miley, as I see her through the media encompasses a lot of things which I find attractive in a girl, even though many of these aren't attractive to a lot of other guys.
And Dayle... read point 3 on the bottom of the OP. You avoided the whole subjective/objective discussion by pointing out a slight error I made.
Max... why is that statement weird? I think it's a good statement which works.
-
Yeah Ryan, I get your point. I have my opinion about someone, you have yours - personally I don't find Miley that attractive, that's fine. I'm just saying that what media gives you might not be the real truth about someone, so it's completely pointless to say that someone famous has a "lot of good qualities" when in fact they have a lot of bad ones that you aren't aware of. It's like saying a game is fantastic because you've seen a video of it, but you've never played it before. It may look good, but is the gameplay good enough? Will the game hold you up for more than one hour, or will you get bored of it? Even the graphics, are they really good as seen on the video? Only after a few hours of play you will be able to anwer these questions. I guess this applies here :P
-
Dude, I'm just saying that through the lens I see her, I see a lot of things I would like to see in my future girlfriend/wife... I'm not saying Miley is perfect by any means. What don't you understand?
-
Hmm the topic of conversation has definitely shifted. Goose, two things not being alike doesn't make one better than the other. This is as simple as colors, red and blue; neither is better than the other.
-
I'm just saying that what you see on the media probably is wrong/twisted (you said that aswell). Also, I'm telling two things basically: firstly, you just can't workship someone famous (like I hope you don't) because media tells that she got those qualities. The media says that she has strong family bonds, but how true is that? It's alright for you to want someone with strong family bonds, but you just can't take a famous person as an example because you just.. don't know anything about her. It's ok to find her "cute", beautiful, hot, you could masturbate all day thinking of her, but it's wrong to say "wow this is the girl I wanted to me". Secondly, you can't tell when a girl has got qualities you really want on your gf or whatever.
I've always thought about the "perfect girl" for me. Black hair/eyes, white skin, a nice smile, big boobs, smart, nice sense of humour, doesn't have any issue with sex, likes to play videogames, is lazy to do stuff, doesn't go a lot to parties (and do shit at them).. this is the one I've always dreamed of, and luckily I've found one very very "close" to it (https://forums.the-elite.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ezboard.com%2Fintl%2Faenglish%2Fimages%2Femoticons%2Ftongue.gif&hash=7cfc888ebd66cf455a55fd5e124ee8267da91148). She sucks badly at videogames, but you know, it's even better that way, I love how she gets mad to me when I give more attention to a game than to her (https://forums.the-elite.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ezboard.com%2Fintl%2Faenglish%2Fimages%2Femoticons%2Ftongue.gif&hash=7cfc888ebd66cf455a55fd5e124ee8267da91148). Maybe I'd also prefer that she wouldn't go to so many parties and drink much, but it's wonderful, because it's exactly what I do! We end up getting drunk and it's very nice. I can't tell objectively some more good qualities that she's got that I wouldn't think of at first, but when you get to know someone, you find out things you end up liking or disliking, which you didn't before. Luckily this girl "fits" most of my requirements (https://forums.the-elite.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ezboard.com%2Fintl%2Faenglish%2Fimages%2Femoticons%2Ftongue.gif&hash=7cfc888ebd66cf455a55fd5e124ee8267da91148) But who knows? Maybe I'll end up with a blonde girl who is completely different from her, and end up liking her even more!
So yeah, maybe I'm not right here, but you think you want someone with strong family bonds, but when you find THE girl for you, you may end up seeing that it totally sucks (https://forums.the-elite.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ezboard.com%2Fintl%2Faenglish%2Fimages%2Femoticons%2Ftongue.gif&hash=7cfc888ebd66cf455a55fd5e124ee8267da91148) It's an advice here. Free your mind to this kind of stuff, try different kinds of girl so you can get close to what you really want.
-
Guys you're all missing the point of the topic. We're supposed to talk about subjectivity vs. objectivity instead of responding to Ryan's girl thoughts.
Vitor: When Goose was looking for Topic of the Week suggestions, my first suggestion was "Describe the perfect girl for you," but he turned it down, saying people weren't interested in those things. I hope that is next week's topic (https://forums.the-elite.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ezboard.com%2Fintl%2Faenglish%2Fimages%2Femoticons%2Fsmile.gif&hash=1adea417e08e9042f9ce1a5426616bf29f2ca20e)
-
Yeah heh, I know I got off the topic subject, but I think this is a good subject to talk about (https://forums.the-elite.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ezboard.com%2Fintl%2Faenglish%2Fimages%2Femoticons%2Ftongue.gif&hash=7cfc888ebd66cf455a55fd5e124ee8267da91148)
-
No, the point of this topic is Goose sucks and his topics are lame.
-
Well this topic WASN'T lame...
-
It's ok Tyler. If Dayle wants to be immature and have personal bias against me there's nothing stopping her.
Objectively I'm a far better person than subjectively she makes me out to be.
-
You're lame. Dance competitions topics are lame. This topic somehow isn't, I liked it
-
Hmm the topic of conversation has definitely shifted. Goose, two things not being alike doesn't make one better than the other. This is as simple as colors, red and blue; neither is better than the other.
I disagree. It may not seem evident to us now, but with 1000s of hours of research, studying every factor in determining which color is better, I am positive that one color is objectively better than the other.
-
I have too, Goose. Tell me what color you came up with, and I bet you're wrong.
-
What Thiradell said. You're confusing certain scales and mixing them up, Goose.
-
Look up the well-ordering principle if you want. Any finite, orderable set has a smallest (equivalently, largest) element. If it's possible to "rate" (ie, order) women, then there must be a hottest. The problem is, the ordering mechanisms differ for each person, and it's quite tough to actually decide between two close women. However, theoretically, based on your ordering scheme, one will exist. This would only apply to colors if it was possible to rate them based on some criteria, AND if the set of colors was finite (you could argue it is or it isn't).
We can pretty much end this right here and just point to Elisha Cuthbert anyway.
-
Well if you like that kind of girl then Marisa Miller is hotter than Elisha Cuthbert.
-
I would say that stuff like nationality or gender isn't comparable to each other in terms of one being better than the other. Same goes with a lot of other stuff.
On a sidenote, I think Japanese people don't have an exact translation for "objectivity" or "subjectivity" so they use something like "looking from the outside in" which I think is quite a better way to describe what is objective and what is not.
-
Ha ha Goose you fucking loser.
-
oneshot ♥
-
Goose i swear to God, if you can get to New York I can get a Jew to fuck you. Take the offer man, take the offer.
-
Oooh, Jews are tempting. My bigotry tells me not to care much about them, so I wouldn't mind doing a fuck and chuck on one of them. Plus, a lot of the JAPs, especially those in NYC are fineeeeeeeee.
If I'm down there I will let you know and I will take the hook up with pleasure.
-
Goose's virginity is somehow an issue in every topic now? (https://forums.the-elite.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ezboard.com%2Fintl%2Faenglish%2Fimages%2Femoticons%2Ffrown.gif&hash=9bb8520656650a7c2457ae0ae2ee8996e4109fd6)
-
Alrite Goose, you'll have to wait 3 months tho son. "Hold on for one more day..."
-
3 months sounds fair
-
Time for a new topic of the week. I think we should do the perfect woman topic that was brought up inside this. Ryan's asleep but he'll see it in the morning and make a new one I think.