Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've read that article before (though your link appears to be broken) and that's actually not what it said.
Looks like they took down the article. Must have been too much of an inconvenient truth. I had read it a while back and I seem to recall that's exactly what it said
Pretty sure that the conclusion reached was that while women would rate photos (with no other input or clues whatsoever) in such a way that 80% of men would be "below average attractiveness" ...when we are given more clues to work with, we start rating more men at a better level of desirability. And it more makes the point that women do not tend to make partner choices based solely on looks. I cannot remotely imagine consenting to sex, a date, let alone a relationship, based on a visual assessment and nothing else.
And even though I know that looks are a broader spectrum of what's acceptable for me personally, if I had to rate photos, I'd be thinking of some "objective" concept of what "good looking" is supposed to be. That data set would not be indicative of my willingness or unwillingness to date those men. In other words, I could rate a guy from a pic alone as below average in looks, but if we sat down and talked for ten minutes and I liked him, I might totally and enthusiastically date him.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,974,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthisle
Looks like they took down the article. Must have been too much of an inconvenient truth. I had read it a while back and I seem to recall that's exactly what it said
Nope, it wasn't rating people as less or more attractive, it was rating photos of people as showing people as more or less good looking based on those photos alone. And only a small subset of the general population people, those on OKC.
As a guy, if I only had some pics alone, I doubt I would select those percentages any differently. When using something like tinder where I rarely have any information to work with I'm swiping less easily on 75% of the photos.
I've read that article before (though your link appears to be broken) and that's actually not what it said.
The internet sad sacks cling to that OK Cupid blog because it provides exactly the kind of confirmation bias (or at least the title does) that they love to wallow in.
I've read that article before (though your link appears to be broken) and that's actually not what it said.
I read it too, and I came away thinking it did say that women on OKcupid found 80% of the men on OKcupid below average. Interestingly, this article seems to have disappeared, although I found it using wayback. Current links are all dead, though. Kind of Ministry of Truth ish.
Nope, it wasn't rating people as less or more attractive, it was rating photos of people as showing people as more or less good looking based on those photos alone. And only a small subset of the general population people, those on OKC.
As a guy, if I only had some pics alone, I doubt I would select those percentages any differently. When using something like tinder where I rarely have any information to work with I'm swiping less easily on 75% of the photos.
That's how online dating works now, it's based on appearance. The major players have all moved on to "swipe" based browsing. OKCupid specifically made it so that you can no longer message someone unless that person has swiped right on your picture.
The idea that "things other than looks matter" is a red herring. Looks are the gatekeeper. The bottom line is that women think 80% of men are below average in physical attractiveness
The idea that "things other than looks matter" is a red herring. Looks are the gatekeeper. The bottom line is that women think 80% of men are below average in physical attractiveness
And didn't the data also show that women were going out with these men, even if they didn't think they were the most physically attractive? All it proved was that looks weren't a top priority for women when deciding compatitbility.
And didn't the data also show that women were going out with these men, even if they didn't think they were the most physically attractive? All it proved was that looks weren't a top priority for women.
I don't remember... It would be great if they didn't decide to take down the article
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,974,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthisle
That's how online dating works now, it's based on appearance. The major players have all moved on to "swipe" based browsing. OKCupid specifically made it so that you can no longer message someone unless that person has swiped right on your picture.
The idea that "things other than looks matter" is a red herring. Looks are the gatekeeper. The bottom line is that women think 80% of men are below average in physical attractiveness
No, it isn't really based on appearance. With OKC how I, and most people I know use it, is based on matching percentages and what people write in their profile. I sort by matching % and go through each of the profiles that are about 90%. Swipe apps, which are a different animal, are more likely to start with appearance.
You're having a small subset of the population, rating photos of a small subset of a population. This small subset of the population, rating another small subset of the population, is rating them on physical looks only as they can ascertain from self selected photographs (which is decidedly different from rating someone on appearance as well).
That is VERY VERY different from the entire population of women thinking that 80% of the entire population of men is below average in attractiveness. Very different. The study (article really) does NOT say this, at all. It is NOT at all logical to make this leap from the data they presented. It's sloppy thinking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
