“There's so much that contributes to our attraction to others,” explains Dr. Weekly. “There is physical appearance, of course, and factors that may be more typically preferred, such as a symmetrical face, but even these vary widely.” Another possible explanation is the simple postulate that people care about their looks, and not in the vain or insipid sense. Inherently, it’s something that is closely linked to self-esteem.The internet trope of “Hot or Not” isn’t anything new. A notable example is FaceMash, Mark Zuckerberg’s brainchild during his Harvard years (discussed at length in 2003 in the university’s newspaper ), and more recently in 2013, the “Am I Pretty?” YouTube trend , in which subjects — usually teen girls — would upload short videos asking viewers to comment on their appearance, often with some predictably insensitive results. Again, why?“This is only the most recent iteration of how unrealistic beauty ideals are perpetuated,” asserts Dr. Weekly. “Before social media, there was television and film. Before those, there were magazines and catalogues. Before those, there were...daguerreotypes? Paintings?” That’s right, before Kendall Jenner’s doe-eyed selfies gave you Insta-envy, women lusted after the milky complexions of a Renoir portrait.“When you really think about attraction — what gets your heart racing and your pupils dilated — infinitely more factors come into play [than looks],” says Dr. Weekly. “A computer algorithm is never going to be able to account for all of those individual experiences and preferences.” Granted, the point of these apps is likely just for lighthearted fun and not anything to be taken too seriously, but it’s important to note that it’s part of a deeply reductive trend of judging whether a person is pretty or not — and there’s nothing beautiful about that.