= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Why humans suck: Ratings of personality conditioned on looks, profile, and reported match - 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)
Comments (20)
It is true that members of subcultures, such as goth girls, will have a far higher variance in perceived attractiveness. However, this is a fairly small percentage of the population. Furthermore, aspects such as facial symmetry are universally perceived as attractive, so even if you don't like goth girls you can probably judge if one is more attractive than another.
Most of the example in the OKCupid article weren't Goth girls. One was a girl who put a flower into her hair. The next girl has a round face.
More generally there are guys who find a 1,80 meter tall girl more attractive than one that's 1,60 as nowadays models are usually very tall and set the ideal of beauty for some people. Other guys prefer smaller woman.
A lot of my own cultural conditioning doesn't come from watching TV but from dancing Salsa. As a result I think I will judge muscle tonus as more important than the average guy.
Different guys also care differently about factors such as weight or skin color.
The issue isn't whether looks are objective (clearly they aren't,) but whether judgments of looks are more correlated among the userbase than those of personality.
(Actually, the degree to which personality is correlated is probably the more interesting question here (granting that interestingness isn't particularly objective either.) Robin Hanson has pointed to some studies that suggest that "compatibility" isn't really a thing and some people are just easier to get along with than others - the study in question IIRC didn't take selection effects into account, but it remains an interesting hypothesis.)