Pablo_Stafforini comments on How subjective is attractiveness? - Less Wrong

23 Post author: JonahSinick 13 January 2015 12:04AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (38)

CC Licenced

Comments (38)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Pablo_Stafforini 13 January 2015 10:09:05AM * 7 points [-]

Interesting post!

Christian Rudder from OkTrends (OkCupid's blog) found that the shape of the distribution of male attractiveness ratings varied significantly across female ratees. Did you observe a similar phenomenon?

Comment author: Jacobian 14 January 2015 05:45:04AM * 3 points [-]

Let me be an Excel sidekick among statistical analysis heroes.

I saw the OKCupid stuff as well, I ran a quick test in Excel to see if the variance in attractiveness contributes to the decision to meet beyond the attractiveness mean. Here's what I got doing regression, with apologies for the hideous formatting:

 ......... Coefficients ..Standard Error ..t Stat ..P-value
Intercept -0.569931558 0.042946471 -13.27074239 4.65749E-35
avg_attr 0.156634411 0.005238302 29.90175402 2.6299E-117
attr_std 0.028596624 0.012485497 2.290387431 0.022377128

The dependent variable is match percent (percent of people who decided they want to date the ratee), avg attr is the mean and attr std the standard deviation of the physical attractiveness ratings. attr std is not the attractiveness to STDs ;-)

As we can see, the coefficient for attractiveness deviation is significantishly positive. It actually has a small negative correlation with match and a larger negative correlation with attractiveness. This means that there is more consensus on the attractiveness of prettier people. Holding attractiveness constant, variance, which is visible for a single rater as an "unusual look", increases the chances that people will want to date you. Put some flowers in your hair!

Comment author: JonahSinick 13 January 2015 10:11:43PM * 2 points [-]

Thanks :-).

I haven't looked at how the shapes of the distributions vary yet. The variability in standard deviations seems consistent with the phenomenon described in the OkCupid blog post, but I don't whether the high variance distributions tend to be bell curve shaped with larger standard deviations or bimodal.

What is true is that there was no statistically significant secondary dimension of attractiveness. One would find other dimensions if there were a sufficiently large number of people at the events, but it's unclear how large "sufficiently large" is – it could be 10 more people, or it could be 100 more people. I'll be writing more about this later.

Undoubtedly, the homogeneity of the population studied also plays a role: if a woman with this facial adornment were at the event, and the event included some men from her culture, perceptions of her attractiveness would be extremely polarized.

Comment author: someonewrongonthenet 14 January 2015 02:51:35AM * -1 points [-]

Undoubtedly, the homogeneity of the population studied also plays a role: if a woman with this facial adornment were at the event, and the event included some men from her culture, perceptions of her attractiveness would be extremely polarized.

I hear this a lot, and the Mursi always used as an example.

I don't think attraction is that malleable. Personally, I suspect that as a culture the Mursi simply don't prioritize beauty. They have marriages which are arranged as children, with cattle as a medium of exchange. They probably don't think about sexuality the same way at all.

Comment author: JonahSinick 14 January 2015 05:51:31AM 0 points [-]

I don't think attraction is that malleable.

Certainly my intuition based on day to day experience and observations is the same, and alleged very large cultural differences are puzzling to me and I wouldn't be surprised if the matter were resolved in your favor.

But note that if nothing else, the example shows that cultures vary in what they consider to be obviously unattractive.

Comment author: someonewrongonthenet 16 January 2015 07:46:19AM * 2 points [-]

But note that if nothing else, the example shows that cultures vary in what they consider to be obviously unattractive.

That's not necessarily true - we don't need to look too far from our own culture to see intentional downplaying of attractiveness (modesty, "evil eye", etc)

I was gonna write more on this topic but then decided to just go and check what the anthropologists report the Mursi themselves say concerning lip plates:

http://www.mursi.org/pdf/latosky.pdf

Even after reading, it's still not quite clear.

My interpretation of this is that it's less about sheer beauty and more a way of being what in our culture we'd call "put together". A woman who does not wear her plate during the ritual periods when being put together is necessary is perceived as what we'd call "sloppy", and it would be associated with a lack of discipline in other areas of life. (It's also a tribal identity marker and a way to make money from tourists, of course)

The plate definitely maps onto something which is present in our own psychology, but I'm not at all convinced that it's attractiveness. I think you're right that it doesn't actively ruin attractiveness, which does indicate malleability.

(By the way, historically the anthropologists first thought it was an anti-rape measure (but the Mursi denied it), and then they thought it was a beauty mark which determined higher dowry (until it was discovered that dowry was set at birth). That second misconception is probably why it circulates on the internet as an example of divergent beauty standards. That's not to say that it isn't divergent beauty standards, but it's not just that.)

Comment author: gjm 14 January 2015 11:26:53AM 1 point [-]

Day-to-day experience and observation can give you evidence that attraction isn't very malleable in adults. Do your experience and observation tell you anything about whether, e.g., who you end up being attracted to depends strongly on the people you see around you before age 5?

Comment author: G-Max comment score below threshold [+] (19 children)

Comment author: Nornagest 14 January 2015 05:48:54PM * 5 points [-]

People who don't like the subcultural signals she's throwing out.

The OKCupid ratings aren't supposed to be some kind of objective measure of beauty; they're supposed to capture the rater's subjective impression of how much they'd like to get to know the person in the photo. That means they end up depending on a lot of things other than raw physical attractiveness.

A while back, lukeprog wrote on low-variance and high-variance strategies in the dating market. His examples were a guy in business casual and a guy in full goth regalia, but something similar's going on here.

Comment author: G-Max comment score below threshold [+] (16 children)

Comment author: Nornagest 14 January 2015 09:10:53PM * 3 points [-]

I haven't used OKCupid in a couple of years, but when I did, there were two paths to giving someone a star rating. You could look at their regular profile, usually including several pictures and a couple screens of text, and click a control at the top to rate it; or you could enter a quick matching system that'd show you up to three pictures and an abbreviated version of their profile text. (There were a lot of jokes about how no one reads the text, but I got the impression that most people at least skimmed it.) There was also a "My Best Face" feature that did look at individual pictures, but that used an up/down rating system rather than the star ratings, and context here suggests that we're talking about profiles. Not that any of that matters here, since everything I said in the grandparent depends only on the photos.

If you can't see subcultural signaling in the picture on the right, I don't know what to tell you. She's fairly clearly urban rather than rural, and at least middle-class but probably not upper-; she's communicating a specific type of sexuality; and she's likely into the alternative fashion scene in some way; there are other things she's saying but those are the most obvious ones. You could call it "hipster", but that's less kind and more general than what I have in mind. The picture on the left is far less culturally marked, although I could probably venture a couple of good guesses.

(Not my downvote, by the way.)

Comment author: G-Max comment score below threshold [+] (7 children)

Comment author: Kindly 15 January 2015 02:50:04AM 4 points [-]

Whether or not the subcultural signals are there or not, the only thing that matters if you want an explanation of the "1"s is whether many people would think that the subcultural signals are there. And I think that we've established that enough people not only think so, but don't understand why you can't see them.

Comment author: G-Max 15 January 2015 03:05:57AM 0 points [-]

Alright, since you've given the only remotely rational response, I'll pass the ball on to you. Would you be interested in making guesses about me based on my own OKC pictures, and then learning how right or wrong your guesses are?

Comment author: Jiro 15 January 2015 09:36:29AM * 3 points [-]

If you don't comprehend signals, it's quite possible that everyone else is signalling (and thus signalling can be determined from their pictures) but you are not (and thus it can't be determined from yours). So looking at your own pictures isn't going to demonstrate anything useful.

Comment author: Kindly 15 January 2015 02:21:22PM 0 points [-]

I would prefer not to.

Comment author: Nornagest 15 January 2015 01:09:32AM * 4 points [-]

There's nothing there that can prove anything I've mentioned, but there's quite a bit to suggest it. Sure, it's theoretically possible that I could be totally wrong; signals like this give evidence, not hard data. But I'd still bet at long odds that I've got most of it right.

Particularly in this context. We're talking about pictures heading a dating site profile, not random photos dug out of someone's sock drawer; now, people do vary in their ability to control the impression they give, but within that scope people on a dating site are going to have clear goals that they'll tailor their profiles toward. Clothes, setting, body language, and photography all carry information that gets used to attract those they want to attract, and to deter those they don't. And very little about that photo looks accidental to me.

Comment author: G-Max comment score below threshold [+] (5 children)

Comment author: CCC 15 January 2015 10:16:56AM 3 points [-]

There is quite a bit of information.

There is the earring; there is the facial expression, the pose, the bright, harsh artificial lighting, the flower in the hair.

Let me consider the earring. The earring suggests both a pierced ear and sufficient disposable income to spend on the earring (and on the original piercing itself). The earring is large enough that it is designed to be noticed, to be seen; which implies that it is there to carry a message. It would be troublesome worn near live animals, small babies, or certain types of industrial machinery (or anything else that is likely to grab and pull); implying that she considers it unlikely that she is going to run into any of those in the near future. It also implies that she expects it to be seen; that is, she expects there to be enough people (probably strangers) around to see it. This requirement is, of course, fulfilled by the fact that the photo is going on a dating website; however, few people will purchase an earring for merely a single occasion. It is likely that the earring was purchased with the anticipation that it would be worn on multiple occasions, which in turn implies that the wearer of the earring would be seen by many strangers on multiple occasions. This implies an urban, rather than a rural, earring-wearer, as urban people are seen by strangers more regularly. (It doesn't prove urbanity, but it's enough evidence to update in the direction of urbanity).

It's probable that someone else can tell more from the earring, but that's what I see in it. (I haven't mentioned what else I see in that picture, because I am deliberately concentrating on a single signal for demonstrative purposes).

Comment author: Nornagest 15 January 2015 03:39:14AM * 1 point [-]

Do you believe that the print on a graphic T-shirt carries information? Or, say, smiling? Because that's what we're dealing with here: a set of generally understood markers that you can wear or signify through your behavior or its context. Just because you don't see or, presumably, participate in it doesn't mean that it can't be a viable channel for others.

I'm not especially keen on taking you up on your earlier offer, because it would be too easy to select unrepresentative photos. But imagine that some third party dug up... oh, let's say a hundred photos like these, of men of similar age and ethnicity. I'll bet at almost any odds that observers with typical neurology and relevant cultural experience could look at those photos and use them to gauge the subjects' social class, place of residence, musical taste, hobbies, and dozens of other things at rates better than chance. Much better, if they're good at it.

Comment author: Wes_W 15 January 2015 08:02:23AM * 0 points [-]

THERE. ARE. NO. SIGNALS.

That doesn't matter. Raters only have to think there are signals, and this subthread is an existence proof of such belief.

That said, the preponderance of "1" ratings AND the excessively high number of messages received suggests to me that there is in fact something weird going on. Dishonest rating would be one reasonable hypothesis, among several.

Comment author: Aiyen 15 January 2015 03:13:24AM 0 points [-]

It looks like a signal to me. Maybe we're misinterpreting, but if so, we have multiple people making the same mistake.

Comment author: G-Max 15 January 2015 04:21:10AM -1 points [-]

Given the politicians we have in office, I'd say that "multiple people making the same mistake" is a fairly common phenomenon :)

But please, explain exactly what information you think she's conveying and why you think that this is the most probable explanation for... whatever you think you're seeing.

Comment author: Vaniver 15 January 2015 01:31:48AM 1 point [-]

Silly neurotypicals... always overestimating their own mind-reading abilities :/

Yes, proper estimates look like this:

There's some dishonest rating going on here.

As for the signals, I will confirm: you are bad at reading these sorts of signals. (The most obvious one is the sexuality signal, which is determined by her pose leaning forward and the placement of her hand.)

Comment author: G-Max comment score below threshold [+] (0 children)

Comment author: CCC 15 January 2015 10:29:11AM * 0 points [-]

Silly neurotypicals... always overestimating their own mind-reading abilities :/

Being neurotypical allows an interesting strategy; a neurotypical person can look at someone else, and ask themselves "under what circumstances would I, or someone like me, adopt that facial expression, adopt that posture, wear those clothes?" The answer to this question then becomes the first approximation for the answer to the question "what are that person's circumstances?"

Of course, it only works if the other person is also neurotypical; but, since most people are (hence the 'typical') that is usually a fairly minor downside. Using this on non-neurotypical people can lead to entertainingly wrong conclusions. (It also helps a lot if both people are from the same culture).

Comment author: Aiyen 15 January 2015 03:11:11AM 0 points [-]

Or you're typical-minding? I'd give her a 4, but that doesn't mean that anyone and everyone is going to feel the same way. In my experience at least, perceptions of attractiveness are higher varience than most other preferences-and "no accounting for taste" is a proverb for a reason.

Pablo_Stafforini comments on How subjective is attractiveness? - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (38)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (38)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login