The outlines of the performance theory seem good, and it feels introspectively correct as well. But if happiness is a high-status marker, why is it unattractive to women?
I took a look at the paper, and in particular the sample image they include:

My first impression was a lot more attraction to the female 'pride' picture than any of the other female images - while pride in females was found to be highly unattractive. Now I want to determine whether my preferences differ from some norm or whether this picture is an unusual case.
I do allow that much of my preference may have been determined simply due to the combination of hideously unflattering t-shirts and arms being up in the air compensating for that and actually making breasts evident. If giving all the people ghostly shirts was supposed to be some clever attempt to isolate the influence of clothing then it seems somewhat shortsighted. (Mind you if males were consistently not attracted to the 'pride' female despite it being the only one with apparent breasts then that is just all the more significant!)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Let's think in consequentialist terms here. You obviously put forth a lot of useful effort, thanks for that! But realistically, it seems plausible that the material is not being presented in a way that is maximally accessible, and your post could potentially be even more awesome than it already is!
I'm not suggesting you change anything at this point, just pointing stuff out.
^ But, that can be said of too many things. I don't find it meaningful.
e.g. 'It's plausible that Harry Potter has not been written in the best possible way.'
Of course it's plausible, but the consideration of its plausibility does not contribute to making better-informed decisions. It contributes no useful information!