Survival of the Prettiest: 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."
~ Written on 2008-05-29

"The studies about babies staring at people who are definably more attractive are fascinating.

Also the perimeters of beauty are also intriguing. "
~ Written on 2007-10-27

"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+ "
~ Written on 2007-08-06

"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'."
~ Written on 2007-03-19

"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."
~ Written on 2007-02-28