justinjsw

Looks are subjective. Going by the TL sell rate it's hard to argue that most people do not like the looks of it. The MDX is a strong seller even though it's pushing it's fourth yr.

Acura will be defined to a certain extend by the failure or success of the so-called flagship RL. So fingers are crossed. Acura has new inventory due out right after the release of the RL and different versions of the current lineup due out in the span of 24 months. To catch Lexus that will be VERY tough but to be able to regain some of its former glory of yrs passed should not be too diffcult.

bdt980

Are You Kidding Me?

pending

I'm totally serious.

bdt980, it seems you're one of those aesthetically-challenged people I was referring to.

Why don't we make this simple? If you like something, doesn't that mean you should be able to dissect it, break it into its constituent pieces, and analyze each of those pieces and finally, at the end, bring the pieces together and analyze the whole?

So can you do that for the TL to establish that you have a good reason and eye for liking the TL?

pending

You're not the only one. I agree with you.

The Accord looks good from almost all angles, except for the grille area, which is a minor offense.

Jesus, the damn car looks great in overall proportion, great from the side profile, great with the BMW 5-series/Dodge Ram raised hood side lines, and DAMN great from the rear.

I truly believe some of the people here have either underdeveloped senses of aesthetics or messed up eyes or visual cortices or are slow to adjust but paradoxically always jumping on the next trendy bandwagon (eventually, right?) or grew up on American butcher styling.

tsx-mdxman

GTFOH. The current Accord is butt ugly. You are either trying to be funny or you're on medication. In fact, none of your observations on the status of Honda/Acura ring true. Keep your day job, guy.

phile

Seriously, especially the comment about the rear.

bdt980

Yes i can break it down and analyze the pieces as well as the whole. As an electronic engineer you have to.

You dont know what your talking about, and as for aesthetically-challenged people, you may be reffering to yourself. If you like it, you like. In my opinion it could be a little better and next time watch your mouth

pending

Actually, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

Just as I've gotten a ton of things right over the years, I have this one right as well.

There are all kinds of litmus tests that I've acquired over the years that I use as simple, quick tests of anything from intelligence to character to aesthetics. Obviously, aesthetics is domain specific so one may be high on aesthetics on, say, furniture but not cars.

I use the Accord issue as a quick litmus test. I also include the TL as part of the litmus test. The two combined can be used to "elicit" what we in the field call a double dissociation. If the Accord is obviously a strong design except only to be met by an affectatious idiot or what I like to call an educated dumbass who can't get out from under- indeed doesn't even realize- his American-bred aesthetics, that is suggestive but not conclusive. If in addition, we take an obviously butchered design like the TL (which is just a faux European attempt at an American butcher design, isn't it?) and find glowing marks given by the same people who denounce the Accord design, then we have a winner!!! Such a winner should be earmarked for the next Darwin Awards but, in the interim, should immediately get a vasectomy to protect the gene pool.

tsx-mdx madman, phile, and bdt, yer dumb.

tsx-mdx madman, I think you left out one "O."

pending

bdt, I think it is you who needs to watch your mouth.

I didn't attack you or anyone personally. I merely used a euphemism: aesthetically challenged. I could have immediately used the phrase "educated dumbass," as I justifiably did after you attacked me.

You fail the litmus test but I'd still like to read what you have to say about EACH styling element of the Accord and exactly what is weak about it. It would strengthen your position if you can bring up other cars to compare/contrast, and of course in doing so, bring up a recent or not-so-recent history of the developmental pathway of such elements as taillight design in various cars.

kiteboy

Hey! Is that you, Chris Bangle?

phile

No, you don't know what you're talking about. "Aestheticism is domain specific"...you moron, aestheticism is purely subjective - in everything, whether it's cars or furnitures. What is beautiful to one person may not be beautiful to another person, regardless of whether you're talking about cars or furnitures. That's aestheticism. What you're trying to describe are connoisseurs, people whose professional careers, as well as hobbies, depend on their knowledge of certain topics. And other people's sense of aestheticism is not a topic for which one can be a connoisseur of.

You reek of pedantry.

pending

Phile, apparently you don't know what "domain specific" means.

Let me try to help you. Fifty years ago, personality psychologists thought you could just make up a paper-and-pencil test with a bunch of questions or statements and at the end tally everything up to get ONE score, and that this ONE score would tell if you have high or low self-concept, high or low self-esteem, or high or low intelligence.

More recently, researchers have broken the tests down into different categories or domains and found that a single person can have low self-concept with peer relationships (one domain) but high self-concept in the classroom (another domain), that you can't just use one combined number to gauge these constructs.

A woman is probably more likely to have a high level of aesthetics with dresses but low with cars, which would explain why a lot of hot women buy the new Camry Solara.

You get what I'm saying?

And don't get mad at me. I'm giving my two cents, just like all you guys. I have nothing against you. And I stand by what I say about the Accord and TL, respectively. You'll see in a few years when people come around.

This is yet another thing where I (and others) saw it pretty much from the beginning. I don't need an adjustment period, at least not anymore. I'm pretty trained on this stuff now such that it just flows. Just as the '92 Honda Civic hatchback with the retro wedge led to industry-wide copying for over 10 years (indeed that car still looks modern today and cars like the current Matrix continue to borrow from it), the current Accord is really a landmark design. Its exterior shape and elements (if not the taillights) will be copied for years to come. It appears that even the '05-'06 Mercedes S-Class has borrowed the Accord's silhouette, something that I've commented on and can be clearly seen from the pic on the other thread.

jlukja

Only if the goal is to look like a fat-ass.

pending

This is kind of fun except for the bashing.

I have an idea that might be fun. I'm going to pare it down so we can focus on one element at a time. This is how science works best.

So how about if y'all come up with a list of TAILLIGHTS that you think look GOOD and BAD, respectively.

A cursory list for me might begin with:

Good taillights: RSX, TSX, Accord (oh don't piss me off), HSC, Tiburon, RX8, 3-series, G35 coupe, etc

Bad taillights: TL, S2000, G35 sedan, Altima (POS), IS300, etc.

phile

Startle, let me explain something to you.

Everything that you just wrote...it applies to everything but aestheticism. Why? Because aestheticism is subjective. You will never be able to quantify it, you will never be able to split it into this domain or that domain. It's just somebody's opinion of whether or not they think the design works. You're throwing all this psychology BS at me when it's clearly obvious you don't even understand the material yourself.

And I love how you advise people not to get mad at you after you call them dumb. Asshole.

tsx-mdxman

Ha ha. Got the thesaurus out for this one, eh? Wow! And I gather you recently completed a psych class of some sort. I am impressed. Seriously though, do you understand any of that BS you wrote? You are either a moron or you're insane. Which is it?

pending

Hey, it's better to be accused of being a pedant than an idiot or pedophile.

Ok, I think I see what you're saying now. You're saying that regardless of domain specificity, one can't categorize or even rate aesthetics because it's purely subjective.

First, then how come you rate me? So you've contradicted yourself, right?

Second, aesthetics CAN be rated. This one is going to be tough but I'll try my best to illustrate.

In the domain of beauty, people often argue about cultural differences and cultural bias. They talk about some Polynesians prefer really fat women. However, the Polynesian preference may actually be cultural, not genetic. Cultural differences is a huge confound; what we want is any semblance of a biological, genetic preference. An extreme obvious example is that human males prefer two round breasts and not those from a female chimp. Or that a human male gets crazy when he sees a human female from the rear but hurls when he sees a female chimp in estrus.

It's precisely these BASIC genetically wired circuits for preference that we're after. And cognitive psychologists have devised a method. The question of is there a universal beauty INDEPENDENT of culture can be addressed using this method. In the area of female beauty, present a ton of pics of females from a ton of cultures to men from a ton of cultures. A simple or not so simple matrix scoring system can then get at a rating, not just a general rating BUT a very very fine-tuned elaboration of any minute feature the experimenter wants to examine, e.g., the various aspects of the nose. An idealized beautiful nose can then be drawn BY A COMPUTER.

So what I've just done is show that even universal human beauty independent of culture exists (something that many of you would assert does not) and can be examined.

The second message I want to illustrate is much tougher. It's kind of like the intricate interaction between environment and genes that causes so many scientists confusion to the point where they say it is impossible to peel the two apart. With football or soccer or basketball, a game is arbitrarily created with a set of rules that gives a basic form and structure, that gives motion to something that has yet to be reified. Next you throw human beings into the game or basic structure and you find that they create all kinds of things that were not expected or pre-thought out. So within structure, there is flexibility but the flexibility has to be created and given time to do so. However, without the initial structure, that creative flexibility would not have come out quite that way. In fact, if we change the structure or change some of the rules, you can bet the creative fruition will be different.

This is what some evolutionists argue when talking about genetic convergence. e.g., given the rules/laws in our physical universe, all sorts of divergent life forms separately evolved eyes, that eyes would have evolved (given the physical laws) no matter what.

We got a fricken thing on 4 wheels. It got some doors. It need some fricking eyes (headlights). It needs something to power it and that source of power has to be placed on it. It need butt lights for others to be able to see us. I can not find any place to put breasts on it; therefore it does not have any breasts.

Given the basic rules, there is no doubt the human brain has some basic circuits that can apply "universal" human preference that results in designs that are same yet different.

If this weren't true, then how come we have a bunch of humanities academic disciplines? What would that mean for the entire gamut of Humanities? Accordingly, how is a professor able to VALIDLY assign grades to a literature expository writing assignment? See my point?

I will accept concessions and apologizes in the public room. No need for private messages. I will not, however, accept brown-nosing.

pending

Phile, I'm not gay but as you now know without a doubt, you my bitch.

Hey I don't enjoy embarrassing you. So you can choose to stop or prolong your torture.

You know my mind is for real now.

provench

Wow ... I think I am glad I studied something more concrete like mathematics ...

Back to the novel show down



P.S. Did this thread have a topic a few pages back?

phile

First, I didn't rate you. I flat out called you an asshole...how am I exactly contradicting myself?

Secondly, aestheticism is a person's sense or perception of beauty. It is purely subjective. What you are describing is simply a survey, nothing less, nothing more, of what people think is and is not attractive. You're not rating aestheticism, you're quantifying the results of what people think is attractive - you're not quantifying their sense of aestheticism.

If someone says he doesn't think the Accord is attractive, how can you possibly rate his sense of aestheticism, just as you were trying to rate ours? You didn't categorize our opinions into categories like these studies do (like/dislike), you flat out said that your opinion was right and ours was wrong. Again, how is that quantifiable?

You really have no idea what you're blabbering about. I can tell you know nothing about psychology other than the reports that you've been assigned to read for your class. Care to explain the circuitry in the brain that "recognizes" beauty, other than harping about studies that deal with them? I didn't think so.

P.S. - A professor can grade a paper based upon the topic that was assigned. The student's opinion is neither right nor wrong, he's solely graded on how he arrives at his final conclusion, i.e. how he incorporates the assigned reading, his train of thoughts, whether there were any erroneous conclusions, etc.

When you're talking about the design of a car - who's doing the final decision making of whether the correct answer is "Yes, the Accord looks good" or "No, it's ugly"? The best you can do is exactly what those studies did - look at the number of people who say yes/no, quantify them, draw graphs, come up with some conclusion based on the results. You have not rated anyone's sense of aesthicism. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would not have used this analogy - it's clearly not what you were trying to highlight, which is impossible to begin with because you are wrong when you say that someone's sense of aestheticism can be rated.

Plain and simple: If you can gauge someone's sense of aesthicism, you can accurately predict how he/she will react to every subsequent picture you show him/her, from an Aztek to an Accord. And until someone out there is able to do that, no one's sense of aesthicism has been rated. You talk about that report with the woman assembled from various inputs? OK, if they were able to gauge those men's sense of aesthicism, if they were shown another picture, this time with subtle changes to the female figure, can those researchers accurately predict how those men will react? Until they can, they have done nothing more than compiled a list of what those men think is a beautiful woman, created an image that satisfied that list and called it a day.

phile

Hey Startle, it's better to let people think you're an idiot rather than opening your mouth to prove how correct they were.

justinjsw

Ok enough of this BS. Get the posts back on topic.

provench

Actually - I am gonna be a bit more abrupt on this one ... you guys are personally attacking and barely much else.

It's just not tolerated ... this thread is closed ... and all involved in the "name calling" you have been warned.