On 9/3/07, Biju Chacko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/3/07, Ramakrishnan Sundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > Abhijit Menon-Sen said the following on 03/09/2007 10:17: > > > > > That doesn't make sense. They get whatever is in both gene pools, good > > > or bad. Besides, there isn't a "look good" gene. > > > > Ah, but you _notice_ only the better looking specimens. > > > > There is something to Biju's "mongrelisation" theory. The Lebanese are > > probably the best looking people in the middle east, even without all > > the cosmetic surgery. Cross a Leb with a Mexican and you get Salma Hayek! > > A list of mixed race celebrities would be pretty long -- though I'm > not sure it actually proves anything. :)
If you believe beauty is a social and cultural construct then obviously this theory is baloney. If you believe there is some objective standard for human attractiveness then this theory is testable. One study I've read says that people find "average" faces more attractive - that if you take a sample set and produce an image that is the "average" of the faces, that it will be considered more attractive than a specific face. If this theory is true, and if hybridization generally produces features that are somewhere between the parent populations, then indeed hybrids would be expected to be more attractive. -- Charles (a mongrel)
