[bunga-bunga]

I don’t think many 80-year-olds are objectively good looking. It's not fair to judge the people who stay together for love and not for physical attraction past a certain age.

> that tells random strangers they are ugly

I don't go around telling people my lover's weaknesses, but that's how statistics are made.

[master-lincoln]

There is no such thing as "objectively good looking", beauty is a subjective thing based on past experiences.

[filoleg]

Sure, let's rephrase it to be more accurate, despite everyone knowing what they meant by that phrase anyway, and this just being nitpicking.

"Objectively good looking" means "someone that a heavy majority of people would subjectively find extremely attractive".

[snapcaster]

Come on man, why do people say this? Do you actually think this? I understand there might be some disagreements or edge cases but it's really pretty close to objective

[kibwen]

Nah. The most beautiful women I've ever had the pleasure of meeting were unremarkable in photos, but in-person radiated an ineffable energy that made it impossible to keep my eyes off of them. When a couple of octogenarians look at each other and describe each other as attractive, that energy is what they're talking about. Framing attractiveness as mostly objective belies inexperience.

[bunga-bunga]

That’s why I said “good looking” and “physical attraction” rather than generically “beautiful”. No doubt people can be “beautiful in person” but still “objectively ugly”

[dragonwriter]

> No doubt people can be “beautiful in person” but still “objectively ugly”

“Ugly” is inherently subjective.

[bawolff]

I mean, i think most people's definition of attractiveness is different from the societal orthodox view of what is attractive (e.g. your average movie star). That doesn't mean i dont know what people are talking about when they say these sorts of things.

Objective is probably a bad choice of words because in addition to not matching individual likes, the societal "orthodox" view varries by culture a lot.

[Karellen]

OK, can you tell me, objectively, how attractive Tom Holland and Hailee Steinfeld are?

I can tell you objectively how tall they are, if one is taller than the other, and precisely how much. Height is an objective measurement.

What are the attractiveness measurements for Tom and Hailee? Which is more attractive, and by how much? What is the scale? What are the reference points? How are the instruments used to measure it calibrated?

If aliens showed up on earth, how would you explain this objective measurement to them? How would aliens rate on it? How would their native measure of objective attractiveness compare to ours? In comparison to how their measures of length, or time, or temperature, or mass, would.

[bunga-bunga]

> Which is more attractive, and by how much? What is the scale?

No scale, yet we have plenty of beauty contests, so I'd start there for an answer. Humans are regularly compared to others. We have different tastes but, socially, "beauty" is intended as an average.

Art studies could also point you in the direction of "objective beauty"

[Karellen]

> We have different tastes but, socially, "beauty" is intended as an average.

That sounds like a subjective comparison then, not an objective one.

Edit: If people were to judge beauty subjectively, rather than objectively (as you claim they do), how would that be different?