| Subcategories |
 |
Health, Mind & Body |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty
written by Nancy Etcoff
Studio : Anchor
by Anchor
Release Date : 2000-07-11
Publisher : Anchor
Released : 2000-07-11
Availability : Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Number of Items : 1
EAN : 9780385479424
Avg. Customer Rating: (based on 75 reviews)
List Price : $14.95
Our Price : $8.52
|
|
| |
|
Product Description |
In this provocative, witty, and thoroughly researched inquiry into what we find beautiful and why, Nancy Etcoff skewers one of our culture's most enduring myths, that the pursuit of beauty is a learned behavior. Etcoff, a faculty member at Harvard Medical School and a practicing psychologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, skewers the enduring myth that the pursuit of beauty is a learned behavior.
Etcoff puts forth that beauty is neither a cultural construction, an invention of the fashion industry, nor a backlash against feminism, but instead is in our biology. It's an essential and ineradicable part of human nature that is revered and ferociously pursued in nearly every civilizatoin--and for good reason. Those features to which we are most attracted are often signals of fertility and fecundity. When seen in the context of a Darwinian struggle for survival, our sometimes extreme attempts to attain beauty--both to become beautiful ourselves and to acquire an attractive partner--become understandable. Moreover, if we come to understand how the desire for beauty is innate, then we can begin to work in our interests, and not soley for the interests of our genetic tendencies. |
| |
|
Americancivilwar.com Review |
|
In the latter part of the 20th century, the adage "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" has evolved far beyond its original intent as an admonition against false vanity to become a cultural manifesto used to explain phenomena as diverse as the art of Andy Warhol and the rise of a multi-billion-dollar cosmetics industry. But is there something more to human reaction to beauty than a conditioned response to social cues? Yes, says Harvard Medical School psychologist Nancy Etcoff. Survival of the Prettiest argues persuasively that looking good has survival value, and that sensitivity to beauty is a biological adaptation governed by brain circuits shaped by natural selection. Etcoff synthesizes a fascinating array of scientific research and cultural analysis in support of her thesis. Psychologists find that babies stare significantly longer at the faces adults find appealing, while the mothers of "attractive" babies display more intense bonding behaviors. The symmetrical face of average proportions may have become the optimal design because of evolutionary pressures operating against population extremes. Gentlemen may prefer blondes not so much for their hair color as for the fairness of their skin--which makes it easier to detect the flush of sexual excitement. And high heels accentuate a woman's breasts and buttocks, signaling fertility. Is beauty programmed into our brain circuits as a proxy for health and youth? In marked contrast to other writers like Naomi Wolf (The Beauty Myth), Etcoff argues that it is, noting, "Rather than denigrate one source of women's power, it would seem far more useful for feminists to attempt to elevate all sources of women's power." --Patrizia DiLucchio |
| |
|
| |
|
Dissects the science of beauty |
|
The book 'Survival of the Prettiest' is a great read and helps one truly understand the role that beauty plays in our daily lives as well as the reasons for different types of behavior in people. It is extensively researched and a must read. With over seventy pages in references, the author truly knows what he/she is talking about. |
| |
|
Beauty is not Skin Deep |
The studies about babies staring at people who are definably more attractive are fascinating.
Also the perimeters of beauty are also intriguing. |
| |
|
Nicely researched |
About: Guide to what humans find beautiful and attractive about each other
Pros: Interesting, very thorough, well researched.
Cons: Almost a bit too well researched, the multitude of facts and studies thrown about can bog the reader down. You're pretty much guaranteed to feel worse about at least one part of your appearance after reading this book.
Grade: B+ |
| |
|
In the eye of the beholder |
Many of the reviews here complains about this being not a book scientifically strong enough.
But even looking at the index you can see what the text is about from the chapters 'the nature of beauty', 'beauty as bait', 'cover me', 'feature presentation' and 'fashion runaway'... since the book is written by someone like Dr. Etcoff, everybody expects the scientific cold point of view evident in every page.
But for many other disciplines the text is perfectly able to open wide a huge perspective in the general problem of the perception of beauty, its uses, and the necessity of it.
For people into arts, the thing about beauty perception and mathematical relation deeply rooted, not in the software but instead in the hardware, is fundamental in a time were the discussion is always about art not being interested in the aestethic depiction, perception or even consideration.
Of course it can be sort of very well known facts what she is saying here about the golden proportion, simmetry and genetic health, the 7 to 10 hip proportion and fertility in women, and even the relation between the mother's perception of beauty in their offspring and neoteny -a concept that certainly you can trace back to Stephen Jay Gould or any other 'divulgative' text, even like the mentioned here 'the selfish gene', etc.
But the real problem is context.
What this book is really good at, is filling the gap between those kind of books -biology, life sciences, perception- and the kind of studies that really need to approach the subject not only as a problem, but instead as a matter.
Not precisely aesthetics, but !fashion!.
Even at the very beginning is mentioned how nowadays an entire city can be stopped because Claudia Schiffer is at a starcaise making some photographs, giving us the clue to understand how this whole book can be seen; in a total different light and with such a different use.
The fact that every now and then Desmond Morris collides with Sandra Rhodes, Azzedine Alaia meets Darwin, opens the window and let you see the landscape is about the form, perception and construction of beauty as an adjective, as something we worn and sometimes have to endure.
So this book belongs in the shelf next to Anne Hollander, Valerie Steel or Alison Lurie. Comprehensive studies about the power of image, fashion and appeareance. And not precisely in the side of the 'scientific' bunch.
And it is an excellent entrance to think in the equation beauty, perception, process and representation that is so difficult to see, but so much necessary to really achieve: design with one eye into the biological process, art once again perceiving its duties, and science humanized through the contact with the arts, designs and fashion. Also I think everybody goes to the scientific side forgetting all the good concatenation of historical facts from corsets, wigs, make up, heels, making a very well define line between the subject -the beauty- and its uses.
As a companion I think also in the same shelf could it be 'Venus Envy' by Elizabeth Haiken, also a bridge between 'science and consumer culture'. |
| |
|
Good for pop psychology, but highly unscientific. |
This is a fun read for the layman, but it is not very scientific, furthermore, it is does not stand up to even the most basic scrutiny-don't think too hard if you want to enjoy this one!
For example, the idea that women are Darwinistically selected for their beauty is a hard buy. In all species except humans, males compete for the right to mate with females, but females can ALWAYS reproduce and pass on their genes; females do not need to force males to mate with them. Can you imagine a human society where a female cannot have sex and pass on her genes because her cheekbones are not high enough? It is purely laughable, if anyone is selected, it is us males.
Also, recent scientific evidence (see human genome project) suggests that sperm competition resulted because of the high levels of promiscuity of human females. This throws into question one of the most popular theories of evolutionary psychology, which posits that men roam and spread their seed while women stay home and take care of the kids. On the surface, evolutionary psychology tries to make sense of us, but in reality, it is like thinking the earth is flat. Let's leave science to the scientists. |
| |
|
|
|
