But what comes first - the perception that the image is easy to process or the ability to process the image for easy perception?
I don't know. And I think that's going to be a hard one to puzzle out, except perhaps using comparative animal studies.
My only attempt at an answer is that it could be defined mathematically. That is there is some objective quality to ease of processing. The more symmetries exist the greater the potential for ease of processing. It all depends on the nature of the perceptual organ of course as to what characteristics would be picked up and assessed.
These two tendencies would be enough for natural selection to favor organisms finding average individuals to be attractive.
The problem is when that same tendency is seen outside of mating selection choice. If every choice tends for averageness, for example look of car or taste of chili, then that makes it harder to discuss that tendency being tied to potential mate selection benefits.
If averages seem to be preferred regardless of topic, and averages are connected to ease of processing regardless of topic, then the more likely explanation is beings tend to prefer things that are easy to process regardless of a specific benefit.
My own personal opinion, is that that would make sense as it would relate to familiarity and so comfort. If something takes longer to process it may stay in the "potential danger" category longer. That would seem to have an evolutionary advantage in not trusting the unknown, which could kill you.
The images could be easy to process because they are compared against an averaged template eh? The more similar {A} is to {ideal beauty} the easier it is to process.
Its possible, but I thought it was suggested the study used simple dot arrangements as well. Its hard to have an ideal dot arrangement. In any case you are right and it would be important to use objects which are not familiar to subjects and so have no preconceived notions of attractiveness.
Ease of processing does not explain the different markings on very similar species, from rather insignificant white lines in some throats to marks that are only displayed during {mating\courtship} displays.
This is true, though its hard to say what any animal's cues are. Perhaps something that does not jump out to us, jumps out to another animal. Thus where we see something more chaotic, they see something more symmetric as only the symmetric elements are prominent.
I agree it'll be interesting to see where this research goes.
Though my gf is going to a dutch university many of her neuro and cog books are in english and I'm finding brain processing quite fascinating.
Edited by holmes, : little here and there
holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
™ Version 4.2