= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on Let them eat cake: Interpersonal Problems vs Tasks - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (568)
Your theory doesn't seem to stand up to the data, here and here. It seems it's women that underestimate male attractiveness. Men's judgments are almost symmetrical. Data is from Okcupid surveys.
(obvious confounds: people that use okcupid may not be representative of the population generally, both for the raters and ratees.)
I'm not sure "underestimate" is the right description here; my opinion (as an androphile) is that the male attractiveness distribution is heavily skewed, basically in the way that women think it is, if the 1-5 scale measures the underlying strength of attraction rather than quintiles. (3s, 4s, and 5s all fall in the top quintile of male attractiveness, but it seems that there are much larger gradations there than there are in the top quintile of female attractiveness.)
And for the underlying question of access to sex, the message distribution is more important, but isn't scaled correctly for comparisons between the two.
I'm not an androphile myself, but that's my impression too, for various reasons (see e.g. the paragraph starting with “Similarly” in this post).