Doll Face (especially for Scorpion)

[chrisis]

[chrisis]

yet produced by an independent digital animator, racking up nearly 5 million views. I guess there must be something you missed

[lalala]

Scorpion, you just don't like the video because you don't want to face the truth that this is what is happening to you. We are brainwashed by the media and we try to model ourselves after what we see through the media. That is the point that the video is making...and it was executed very well I might add.

[Davey Jones]

But it has been proven scientifically that even babies look longer at symmetric and beautiful faces.

Nice addition. Not true, but it would help you make your point if it was. Babies like symmetry, yes. The rest is pulled out of your ass.

The maker hasn't studied evolutionary biology and knows nothing. Just dumb like the rest of the sheep.

C'mon, let's not pretend for a second that you know anything about evolutionary biology, Scorpion. You've proved that time and time again. Stick just screaming about how ugly you are. That's something we can agree on.

[25 going on 65]

I liked the video a lot.

[Davey Jones]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/news_feat...by_faces.shtml

This is not a scientific study. This is a newspaper article about a study. I've seen newspaper articles, based on studies, that say dogs are psychic. Surprise, surprise, look at the study, and dogs aren't psychic.

I'd have to see the methodology and the stock photos. Until then, babies prefer "beautiful faces" every bit as much as dogs can read minds.

EDIT: Can't find the source study. Was it even published in a legitimate journal? If this didn't get published in something note-worthy, chances are that some researcher was really grasping at straws to try to get in the news. Babies have pretty bad vision. I would have to guess that the model shots were more colorful or crisp, grabbing the child's attention. But there is no way to say one way or the other, because this bs probably wasn't published outside of the university's newspaper.

[Tracy C]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/news_feat...by_faces.shtml

You are fishing for validation for your disturbed and distorted views. You are accepting shaky evidence because it validates your disturbed and distorted view on things. You need to learn how to shake yourself out of this. The sooner you learn how to do that, the better off you will be and the sooner you will find happiness.

[Davey Jones]

Holy hell, Tracy...I think you just helped Scorpion have a breakthrough. I'd have to agree with her, Scorpion. You seem to just want what you think you're supposed to, because it's what's "best." Your girlfriend, for example. She is not a supermodel, yeah, and you think you're settling, but do you really feel like you're settling. Is she not awesome? Is she not good looking to you?

Do you really think you'd be happier with a model? You realize that you're allowed to like whatever you want and still be alpha, right? Alpha is taking what you want. It has nothing to do with taking what you're supposed to want.

[Davey Jones]

P.P.S. You're crazy if you think people are using "alpha" the same way as it applies in nature. The mating strategies among human populations aren't really suited for using the terms "alpha," "beta/satellite," etc. in a naturalistic way. At this population size and environment, any human who wants could find a mate using basically any strategy and reproduce offspring that will also survive to reproductive age.

To me, alpha just means bein' a boss and getting what you want, and anyone who pretends they're using it any more scientifically than that is just blowing smoke out of their ass, and probably spending too much time on those dumb pick-up artist websites.

Banging exclusively supermodels has jack to do with evolution and alpha male positions in mating hierarchies if those genes are no better or worse at surviving and reproducing (which they aren't). We're just trying to talk about being happy with what you have. No idea what you're talking about, but no one here is talking science.