Recently, I have come across certain types of content on social media. For example, videos such as Morgan Ugoagwu’s “Six Signs You’re a Chopped Woman,” which has been viewed 1.5 million times, or videos where people rate others’ appearances out of ten—critical content that defines what is considered attractive and what is not. Such content can cause especially young individuals to feel inadequate. To prevent this, I believe it is helpful to understand where beauty, aesthetics, and attractiveness truly originate.
The perception of aesthetic stimuli is shaped not merely by individual taste but by specific neurobiological processes. Neuroimaging studies have shown significant activation in brain regions associated with the reward system—particularly the ventral striatum and the orbitofrontal cortex—when individuals view faces they evaluate as “attractive.” These findings suggest that the perception of beauty relies less on a purely cognitive judgment and more on a reward-based processing mechanism. Aesthetic stimuli activate the dopaminergic system, generating positive emotions and enabling beauty to become a learned reinforcer (neuroaesthetics, American Psychological Association).
This neurobiological sensitivity, when combined with the intense and curated visual exposure present in social media environments, leads to perceptual distortion. Filtered and “aestheticized” faces continuously stimulate the brain’s reward system through similar visual features; consequently, certain proportions and facial types become encoded as the “norm.” Algorithms that repeatedly present high-engagement content further reinforce these aesthetic templates, making them more permanent. As a result, individuals begin comparing their own appearance to these artificial standards, and this comparison process negatively affects self-worth and body image. Indeed, epidemiological studies indicate significant associations between heavy social media use and body dissatisfaction, anxiety, and low self-esteem (Royal Society for Public Health; Status of Mind).
This process can also be explained through the neuroscientific concepts of habituation and neuroplasticity. The brain becomes less responsive to frequently repeated stimuli over time, while simultaneously strengthening the neural pathways associated with those stimuli. Continuous exposure to similar aesthetic features on social media increases sensitivity toward specific facial proportions and body types, while raising the risk of evaluating appearances outside these patterns as less attractive. Over time, even the smallest deviation from these internalized standards can appear exaggerated. Thus, aesthetic perception shifts from being flexible and individualized to being confined within a narrowed frame of reference shaped by the reward system.
Moreover, it is important to note that these aesthetic perceptions influence not only how we evaluate people but also our lifestyles. When our lives do not appear as aesthetically pleasing as they do on social media, even our dining tables, meals, or homes can become sources of discomfort. Consequently, we feel compelled to exert considerable effort to align ourselves and our surroundings with these standards, and yet any moment that fails to meet these aesthetic expectations may still cause dissatisfaction.
In this context, digital aesthetic exposure should be understood not merely as a matter of individual preference, but as a structural psychological factor that influences the brain’s learning and reward systems. Therefore, the “reality” constructed by these perceptions must be critically questioned.