Do beautiful things function better?
Form Vs Function. Is beauty quantifiable? Is there a mathematical formula for this? And if so can beauty be given a numeric value? Ducati or Kawasaki? And is this true for people, is there a global trend that supports that people with preferred traits (physical, mental, nice ass) do better, live better, function better?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
44 Answers
Typically the beautiful people I encounter don’t function very well at all.
In people, the beautiful generally have it easier than those who aren’t as pretty. I remember hearing that in psych/sociology or something.
As for machines, etc, I’d say that usually the pretty things are more… wasteful? I can see how sometimes the stuff that makes things pretty would interfere with its function, but I’d just assume that the pretty-ness is more of an add-on.
I can’t even begin to think about how you would put into a number. Maybe a 1 – 10 scale, and make it an average on different things that contribute to it (all those maybe measured on a 1 – 10 scale. Kind of like how anything else that isn’t easily measured (by numbers, etc) is measured (performance at work, etc).
Not by virtue of their beauty no.
Beauty is subjective. Function is more measurable.
The Pontiac Trans Am looked good but function was somewhat lacking.
Most mathematicians find elegant proofs beautiful. Beauty in humans is correlated with better performance on intelligence tests and higher income. Efficiently functioning objects or processes are considered more beautiful (or elegant) than clunky, complicated things.
Beauty is a matter of preference, but generally we think that the things we like are more beautiful than things we don’t like. Thus, if we are considering how well something functions, something that functions better will be considered more beautiful than something that functions less well.
There is no absolute standard of beauty. It really is relative to whatever you are comparing the thing to. Because of that, beautiful things do function better. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be considered to be as beautiful as something that did function better.
Beauty can be quantified via surveys. You may even be able to correlate people’s opinions regarding beauty with other attributes of the things being assessed for beauty. However, these are all relative to unknowable scales. We can not know what is going on inside a person’s head, so how one person interprets beauty might be quite different from the way another person does.
Still, it’s a relativistic universe, so that’s nothing new.
Check out the golden ratio, especially in nature. One example of form and function being beautiful.
Beauty is completely independent of functionality.
I have found OXO kitchen utensils do.
As beautiful as I am I don’t always function well.
What does a rose function better than?
@Sarcasm I’m tempted to ask what the metrics are by which you reached this conclusion, but you prolly have an answer waiting.
I want to hate this question but I just can’t.
No, as an example, Roses have been bred to be more beautiful at the expense of their main function which was to smell good.
I’m very handsome and I operate like a well oiled machine. Maybe I’m an exception to the rule.
Spiders are quite beautiful, and they have no problem functioning at all. Of course, beauty is often in the eye of the beholder.
@Bluefreedom yes, you are, you sexy man you!
I would be more inclined to say that which functions best is also usually beautiful.
@evelyns_pet_zebra. Right back at you, pal. Great pictures of you at the Fluther Photobucket Group page also.
@Bluefreedom I can’t find the Fluther group on Photobucket anymore! Do you have a link?
The pretyness can have a brain.The scale 20:80.small chance for those in twenty.to be funcion
Madeline Albright or Lindsey Lohan—answer your own question.
take a computer as an example.If you want all those beautiful skins in windows you have to sacrifice some performance but if you use Windows classic skin your computer will run better.
Since when is the function of a rose to have an odor? Th function of all living things is to ensure the survival of their germ line.
my wiener works amazingly… and I’ve never heard anyone call it a thing of beauty.
@daloon great thanks
@loser I know huh
Anyways, can anyone help me with this concept, I’m going to stumble with it but try and explain, as far as beauty “being in the eye of the beholder” what about from a godlike perspective, he’d be saying to someone who see’s beauty “that ain’t beauty, this over here now that’s beauty” It’s limited by our perspective, that’s we hear the term “settle” in regards to finding a mate like “like I settled for them”. I think what beauty is, is an arrow in the direction of the higher, better, what leads to survival, or surviving better. there’s a boy for every girl, and a swine for every pearl
Well, in my job (software business) it goes like this:
*You can create something that is ugly like s**t but performs really well. BUT if the product will sometime fail (and this will eventually happen) the user will be outraged.
*On the other hand, if you create something that really looks well and it’s easy to use, the user will always give it another change, even if the product does not meet the functional requirements at all times.
So to the point: You can put a problem in a beautiful way so that others might see it smaller that it actually is…
I am beautiful, but rocket ships function better than I would at exploring space.
@pdworkin Most flowers attract the pollenating insects with their smell as well as their shape and color. However, Roses, in particular, were first found attractive to humans because of their distinctive smell, and were cultivated from their wild form because of it, until those who rule decided to choose form (beauty) over function (smell).
not in the sense of humans,..most of the time :)
@YARNLADY if roses were for their smell, how come there mostly harvested indoors, which eliminates there fragrance? Yeah, roses grown indoors don’t smell.
I don’t know, I’m fucking hot, and I hardly have to do anything.
Live Dolce and die Gabbana that’s what I say. Swine! hahaha
oops think Im losing mymind
@YARNLADY Since when do humans decide what the function of other biotes is? Roses have precisely the same function as you, or ants, or alligators: to propagate their genes. Everything else is anthropomorphic commentary.
@pdworkin I suggest you read up on Plant Husbandry. Humans have been deciding these things since the dawn of time. Some roses have to be grafted because they develop no seeds. Many fruit trees are grafted, because those grown from seed do not produce desireable fruit. Many foods have been developed no seeds.
@YARNLADY That’s just human beings crapping around. It doesn’t change the rose’s function. My, how anthropocentric you are on this topic.
@pdworkin Apparently I have a different definition of function than you do. Please don’t use personal insults.
Excuse me? Anthropocentric is neutral and descriptive. It’s certainly not an insult. Calm down, take some deep breaths.
@pdworkin I have no idea how my comments fit into that description, so It sounded like an insult.
@YARNLADY The potential for misunderstanding between us seems to be so high, that perhaps we should agree that we tend to disagree, and just disengage. I don’t want to fight with you, but I confess to being quite irritable about some of the things you say that I just fail to understand.
Best for all if we become ships that pass in the night. Thanks.
To an engineer, beauty is functionality coupled with simplicity.
@Shuttle128 there we go, that’s what I was looking for, form and function, maybe it is a little of survival of the prettiest.
Beautiful thoughts make me function better.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
