Overview

I remember this chapter I had read in school, it was a story really of a little girl who had lost her
mother. On being asked about the description of her mother, all she could say was, "My mother
is the most beautiful woman in the world!" It was quite the other way round when she was
discovered though! The question is, do we really view beauty as skin deep, or do we mean
something more. What we see is something that is true. If it is so what do we mean by “beauty is
only skin deep.” We are doubtful when we take into account the story about the little girl’s
saying “My mother is the most beautiful girl in the world.”

“Beauty is only skin deep”-this maxim was first stated by Sir Thomas Overbury in his poem “A
Wife” (1613): “All the carnal beauty of my wife is but skin-deep.”1

Social psychology tells us that beauty in fact is not only skin deep. That is that beautiful people
actually are nicer and friendlier. The argument goes as follows. Hopefully, we can all agree that
we subconsciously assign positive characteristics such as intelligence and friendliness to
beautiful people. Studies confirm this assumption. We then treat these people nicer than we treat
others. Studies confirm this as well. The improvable hypothesis is that beautiful people are
beautiful on the inside as well. As a result of having been beautiful and therefore kindly treated
children they develop a positive self-image and treat others as they have learned others treat
them. This continues into adulthood creating beautiful people that are friendlier and nicer than
less beautiful people. Thus beautiful looking people become truly beautiful people by way of a
self-fulfilling prophecy. Our experience with beautiful people being nice fuels are expectation by
way of a psychological phenomenon known as association that similar looking (and therefore
also beautiful) people will also be nice. We in turn treat them nicer and they treat us nicely in
return further developing their own good character. We find evidence of this belief in popular
songs "you must have been a beautiful baby, you must have been a wonderful child; you must
have been a beautiful baby cause baby look at you now"2

1
URL: http://www.trivia-library.com/b/origins-of-sayings-beauty-is-skin-deep.htm
2
URL:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_%27beauty_is_only_skin_deep%27_mean
Beauty is a perception, the physical form appreciated by the observer. Such a concept suggests
that beauty comprises two distinct but competing elements- the one who is beautiful, and the
others who considers the one beautiful. Both contribute to whether beauty is deemed to be
present- the ‘subject versus beholder’ hypothesis. In this essay i pounder the motives of each side
in turn and the impetus behind beauty itself.3

Is beauty only skin deep?

When considered from the viewpoint of the ‘selfish gene’, attractiveness has been an issue since
the dawn of sexual reproduction; Darwinian evolution relies on the principal of non-random
selection. Progress needs a direction in which to move and this is formed principally by the
‘survival of the fittest’, reaching reproductive maturity and yielding offspring. However, a
second filter is formed by completion of partners- sexual selection.4

The natural variation within a species creates a phenotypes and thus a rank of survival advantage,
with some better adopted to attract a particular than others, ‘survival of the prettiest.’ From an
evolutionary aspect, function always precedes form.5 If the generic objective of life is to mate
with the best available partner, any features promoting the owner’s genome will be a favorable
investment. Many species of fish are brightly colored and intricately patterned, exposing them to
predators in the effort to reproduce; the exquisite tail of a peacock may appear to be a costly
luxury but has the clear aim of attracting a hen.6 These characteristics maybe intended to express
an individual’s ability to survive despite such extravagance.7

In human sexual selection, male and female have different reproductive strategies. A male
requires a partner who is receptive, highly fertile and healthy. In 1871 Charles Darwin noted that
in civilized life man is largely influence in the selection of his wife by external appearance. It is a
fundamental assumption of evolution-based mate selection theories that attractive physical
3
Dury, N. E, February 2000, Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, vol-93, pp-89.
4
Etcoff NL. Beauty and the beholder. Nature 1994;368:186-7.
5
Ricketts RM. The biological significance of the divine proportion and Fibonacci series. Am J Orthod 1992:81:351 -
70
6
Etcoff NL. Beauty and the beholder. Nature 1994;368:186-7.
7
Enquist M, Arack A.Selection of exaggerated male traits by female aesthetic senses. Nature 1993:361:446 - 8
features provide external clues to health and fertility status, the most important requirements for
generic success. Since mating with less fertile females can be costly in terms of lost
opportunities, males attach more importance to their partner’s appearance. In response, female
show greater intra-sexual competition to display characteristics linked with reproductive
potential-physical attractiveness, health and youth. Since ancient times, various mechanisms
have been used to increase an individual’s observed beauty. Artificial reddening of the cheeks
gives a ‘healthy glow’, whilst darkening of the lips and eye margins exaggerates normal sexual
responses, suggesting that the subject is receptive. Skin wrinkling is a sign of dermal sun
damage, indicating aging and hence decreased fertility; formulated creams and surgery aimed to
deceive by restoring a youthful appearance. These adaptations are intended to enhance image
perception by a prospective mate. Other features such as good muscle tone, lustrous hair and
behavioral indicators of youth may also be involved in the initial stage of sexual selection.8

On the other hand, females can increase their reproductive success by choosing a high status
male who commands resources and can provide material security for her offspring.
Consequently, rivalry to attract women focuses on acquiring and displaying such assets, as
constantly demonstrated by young men. Longitudinal data suggest that physically attracted
women tend to marry men of high occupational position. In this to say that, for some at least
‘beauty is only wallet deep?’9

BEAUTY IS ALTOGATHER IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

As these physical features have evolved to express beauty, a similar development must have
occurred simultaneously in areas of sensory recognition to provide the driving force for sexual
selection. After all, the perception of beauty requires two complementary processes to express
and appreciate its presence. But to what extent does the beholder determine its presence?
Judgment of facial attractiveness is thought to be an instinctive phenomenon. Babies as young as
three month have a marked preference for attractive faces, as defined by adult preferences. This

8
Dury, N. E, February 2000, Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, vol-93, pp-90.
9
Buss DM. The evolution of human intersexual competition: tactics of mate attraction. J Pers Soc Psycho
1988;54:616-28.
suggests an innate ability of humans to appreciate the facial form and balance. Cross-cultural
studies have shown that the basis for determining beauty is consistent is irrespective of the ethnic
origin of either participant. However, some secular have been proposed by comparisons between
sixteenth century’s nude paintings and present-day fashion models.10

Beauty can be defined biologically as something that the visual processing segment of the
nervous system finds attractive. Ganglion cells in the retina are arranged in overlapping
concentric circles, linked by inhibitory pathways. At least border between darkness and light,
these cells becomes highly stimulated, resulting in an intense excitatory signal to the brain while
inhibiting neighboring cells. Through this arrangement, the visual cortex is particularly sensitive
to contrast, which it perceives as an attractive stimulus. This forms the visual objective for
artificial enhancement of the eye with cosmetics: increasing the intensity of the dark-light
boundary excites the retina of the observer. Such adaptations are possible because beauty is
essentially a visual phenomenon and is therefore exposed to the influences of optical illusion.
However, there is more to beauty then meets the eye. The observation of true beauty arouses an
emotional level of pleasure that is perceived not in the cognitive neo-cortex but deep within the
subconscious limbic system. Such an arrangement has developed in response to the pressures
that have shapes the brain throughout its evolution. An attractive woman who ‘turns heads’
clearly provokes an instinctive response by stimulating primitive reflexes in the beholder. 11

Appearance does not just arouse emotions in other; condition such as acme vulgarize can detract
from facial image particularly in the mind of the subject. Self-perception is an important factor
affecting an individual’s psyche; confidence in one’s own appearance provides the necessary
stability for social interaction whilst, during depressing episodes, low self-esteem distorts
judgment of mien, worth and ability. 12

The face is used for both communication and the display of beauty- separates functions that may
have distinct neuroanatomical path-ways. Some facial characteristics are asymmetrical and are
10
Ricketts RM. The biological significance of the divine proportion and Fibonacci series. Am J Orthod 1992:81:351-
71.
11
Dury, N. E, February 2000, Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, vol-93, pp-91
12
Dury, N. E, February 2000, Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, vol-93, pp-91
associated with hemispheric specialization. The right cerebral hemisphere is dominant in facial
recognition and identification, whilst the left is associated with the perception and production of
the language. However, the degree of labor division differs between the sexes; men are more
functionally lateralized for visuo-spatial skills, women for language. All faces are asymmetrical
when viewed as split-face images; that is, left-left and right-right composites of the same face
appear different. With this technique, the left side of the face has been found to be more
expressive that the right in both sexes. Beauty, however, has been shown to be more pronounced
on the right side of women’s faces, with no differences in men. Lateralizing of facial expressions
on the left, to be perceived by the left hemisphere of the observer, allows beauty to be
emphasized on the right side of the face and perceived by a male’s right hemisphere. Segregation
of expression and beauty may be related to competing evolutionary pressures- sex-related
differences in hemispheric specialization evolving in parallel to facial asymmetry, to optimize
the signals between face and brain. Indeed, the findings in no such mechanisms for
characterizing beauty is present in females confirms that beauty is a male-driven emotions based
in evolutionary neuropsychology, rather than a purely social concept.13

Our Judgment: BEAUTY THAT IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER IS

NO LONGER ONLY SKIN-DEEP

Let us make some dogmatic remarks about beauty and subjectivity.  We can discuss them in
more detail on the air tomorrow. There is such a thing as beauty that is only skin-deep.  It is the
beauty of appearance, what we call "looking good."  It has little to do with personality, character,
wit or morality, and that is because anything that applies to how things look is not a reliable
guide to many of their other qualities. 

The beauty of appearance -- what we can judge, say, by looking at a photograph of a face -- is
something that psychologists have been investigating a lot recently.  In general, they show
people photographs of faces and ask them to rank them in terms of their beauty.  Since these are
digital photographs, it is possible to combine them into composite photographs.  What seems to

13
Dury, N. E, February 2000, Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, vol-93, pp-92
be the case is (1) the larger the composite photograph (the more features of individual faces it
combines) the more people are likely to consider it beautiful and (2) there is remarkable
agreement, both within and between different cultures, about which faces are more beautiful than
which.

Several hypotheses have been offered to account for these phenomena, and it seems agreed that
they have something to do with the likelihood of reproductive success.  The more features a face
combines, the more average it is.  Now it is very counterintuitive to say that the average is what
strikes us as beautiful (since the people or works of art we find beautiful usually stand out
against their background), but it turns out that average members of groups are less likely to be
subject to external evolutionary pressures and more likely to be healthy and survive in the long
run.  (That may suggest that even beauty that is skin-deep shows something about the nature of
the person it characterizes.) But the fact that there is significant agreement about such judgments
(as well as the fact that it is explained in terms of evolutionary success) suggests, in turn, that
BEAUTY THAT IS ONLY SKIN-DEEP IS NOT SIMPLY IN THE EYE OF THE
BEHOLDER.

Now, not only are these psychological results counterintuitive -- they also contradict another
aspect of everyday experience.  Most people in the known universe have, at some time or other,
loved someone and most people in the known universe have, at some time or other, been loved
by someone, though that is not always, unfortunately, the same person.  But the point is (here we
are being very dogmatic) that it is impossible to love someone or something that you do not find
beautiful.  And so, since most people in the world are not, by the evolutionary standards above
(or even by the standards applicable to supermodels, male and female) beautiful, either most
people in the world are deceived all the time or there is more to beauty, so to speak, than meets
the eye.

We must be careful here, for the easy way out is to say that there is such a thing as "inner" or
"psychological" beauty, to be contrasted with the beauty of appearance.  But that is only easy,
and nothing else -- in particular, it is not true.  For even if you love someone on account of their
character or wit or whatever, these features will manifest themselves in the appearance of the
person in question: you will literally perceive them in their face, their posture, their voice and
their behavior.  That is, a person you love will not appear to you as they do to others who don't
love them or as they appear to you when you are indifferent to them.

Such beauty is, unlike good looks of the sort psychologists investigate, very controversial, which
is why we keep asking ourselves what our friends see in the people they love, but whom we can't
stand. The sense in which there is more to beauty than meets the eye is not that it is "inner," but
that it is not likely to meet many eyes.  That is, beauty, generally considered, is a product of love
and not, in general, its ante cent cause.  That's what locates it in the eye of the beholder.   BUT
BEAUTY THAT IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER IS NO LONGER ONLY SKIN-DEEP.

It is this beauty that we find philosophically interesting and important.  It applies equally to
people and things, particularly works of art.  It certainly is valuable, although we are not sure its
value is intrinsic, as Ken suggests (it may be -- we really are not sure).  But its value, along with
the value of all the "aesthetic" features that are associated with it, is very different from the moral
values that seem to have acquired a monopoly over human life in philosophy and public
discourse.   Moral values, broadly speaking, depend on the similarities and connections that
require us to treat each other impartially, fairly and equally.  The values associated with beauty,
by contrast, depend on the differences between various human beings and give preference to
individuality, autonomy and personal style.

THE SAYING THAT BEAUTY IS BUT SKIN-DEEP IS BUT A SKIN-DEEP

SAYING

In conclusion, beauty is a universal phenomenon, present across many species and all ages.
Indeed, the outward reflection of beauty reaches anatomically deeper than bone and evolutionary
beyond the genes. Throughout the higher animal kingdom, reproductive division of labor
between the sexes has led to a greater success through role specialization. Beauty is a
consequence of this process, exploited to demonstrate fecundity and attract a suitable partner. In
human beings, it has become a principally concept of favorable female appearance, not through
social conventions but via evolution. As a marker of female reproductive potential, it incites
deep-stated emotional responses; the possession of an inherent drive to seek beautiful, ideally
proportioned mates ensures that sexual selection exerts control over the gene pool.14 This is by
no means to say that females cannot experience beauty. The humanities are often described in
such terms, a piece of or a work of art. However, to draw the present evidence to its natural
conclusion, women do not innately possesses the same allure to the female form as do men.

Innate beauty is true and we are ready to accept this truth but beauty is far from being only skin
deep, also beauty appears to be an indicators of genetic and developmental health, and therefore
of mate quality; beauty is a “health certification.” More attractive people are healthier, have
greater physical fitness, live longer, and have fewer lower back pain problems (although some
scientists dispute these findings). Bilateral symmetry measures beauty so accurately that there is
now a computer program that can calculate someone’s facial symmetry from a scanned
photograph of a face (by measuring the sizes of and distances between various facial parts) and
assign a single score for physical attractiveness, which correlates highly with scores assigned by
human judges. A computer program can also digitally average human faces. Beauty therefore is
an objective and quantifiable attribute of individuals, like height or weight, both of which were
more or less “in the eye of the beholder” before the invention of the yardstick and the scale.

But as ‘the snake’ put it: ‘I’m tired of all this nonsense about beauty being only skin-deep. That’s
deep enough. What do you want-an adorable pancreas?’15

14
Jefferson Y. Skeletal Types: Key to unraveling the mystery of facial beauty and its biological significance. J Gen
Orthod 1996;7:7-25
15
Kerr J. The Snake has all the lines. In: Augarde T, ed. Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1991:120