surely this must be right?
cos the golden ratio applied to the human face shows how good looking they are. it is thus possible to have a mark out of 10 for each face. it is this that subconsciously determines what faces we think are attractive.
so if you see a face as ugly, it means 'ugly in relation to yourself', thus they must think you are better looking
The idea of beauty as other posters have suggested is entirely subjective and hence your question is meaningless as there is no universal definition of beauty or ugly that is true all or the time.
Beauty is something quite different to sexual attractiveness.
Hell no, although I see where you're coming from by looking at it as a chain.. Ugliest person - slightly less ugly - only a litle ugly - average - stunning etc. If there was a way of measuring beauty quantitively then yes, your hypothesis would be correct. But there isn't.
As everyone has pointed out it's entirely subjective. (Although I believe there is a common trend that people find health attractive.. which makes sense as technically we should have evolved to be attracted to healthy mates.)
It's what's in the inside that counts. You can have a man/woman with a very attractive face, but they do and say ugly things, they are in my book considered to be ugly. But you can have a ugly person with beautiful actions, what they look like is no longer important and their real beauty comes out. Thats beauty!
Attractiveness is perceptual so actually they may think your a minger and that they are doing you a favour xx
This would explain all those dogs that have wanted a bit of the monkey recently...