Looks Matter and Game matter quantified.

eduardkoopman

eduardkoopman

Fire
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Posts
22,856
Reputation
28,645
Looks matter r in popularity in speed date setting: 0.52

Game matter in mating success. r = 0.411

JPractCardiovascSci_2018_4_2_116_240962_t10.jpg


sources:


* Game definition in studiy was very all encompassing. Including: skills in reading others state, intentions; ability to lie about ones own intention just so to score, hiding your flaws, showiing good stuff, being social, etc..
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Yerico7, Lars, Deleted member 6403 and 3 others
Interesting. I think they still underestimate looks though. I would say it's easily 80% for men.
 
  • +1
Reactions: TheAnomaly, Yerico7, Mongrelcel and 2 others
How did they quantify looks tho?
Did they rate them somehow? On what basis?
 
Interesting. I think they still underestimate looks though. I would say it's easily 80% for men.
Looks matter 100% when you are ugly, I think.

from average ranges and upwards, they claim in studies usually (range of 0.5 -> 0.7). meaning "Moderate correlation".
I think in studies, they foten struggle a bit with controlling for attractiveness in looks, in other factors (looks halo a person percieved "personality") causing some effect of the looks factor to be viewed as less correlated a bit.

Game.
In this study. The used tho most brought multi-facet defintion of "game". Not just 1 factor (like confidence). But all kinds of factors and skills, and traits combined. AND STILL; it was behind on looks.
since it had r = 0.411
Which means: "low correlation".
 
  • +1
Reactions: metagross
How did they quantify looks tho?
Did they rate them somehow? On what basis?
Facial attractiveness ratings

Video capturing software was used to obtain digital pictures of participants’ faces from the pre-event video recordings.
Size was standardized to identical interpupilar distance.
Thirty heterosexual opposite-sex raters of similar age (15 for younger participants, 15 for older participants) judged the attractiveness of each picture on a scale from 1 (not attractive at all) to 7 (very attractive).
Interrater reliabilities were satisfactory (a>.88) such that the ratings could be aggregated across the raters
 
  • +1
Reactions: Mongrelcel
Facial attractiveness ratings

Video capturing software was used to obtain digital pictures of participants’ faces from the pre-event video recordings.
Size was standardized to identical interpupilar distance.
Thirty heterosexual opposite-sex raters of similar age (15 for younger participants, 15 for older participants) judged the attractiveness of each picture on a scale from 1 (not attractive at all) to 7 (very attractive).
Interrater reliabilities were satisfactory (a>.88) such that the ratings could be aggregated across the raters
they should have been rated by PSL experts
 
  • JFL
Reactions: lepo2317 and eduardkoopman
they should have been rated by PSL experts
to be honest.
Normies, on average, in mass. rate better than PSL guys.

PSL guys, tend to favour extreme features, and go to far off the factor of "avargeness".

Like you have some PSL people, whom can't understand why Chico or Biebers were GigaChads.
Both these dudes, score Giga high on factor averageness.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Philtrumcel and Soalian
to be honest.
Normies, on average, in mass. rate better than PSL guys.

PSL guys, tend to favour extreme features, and go to far off the factor of "avargeness".

Like you have some PSL people, whom can't understand why Chico or Biebers were GigaChads.
Both these dudes, score Giga high on factor averageness.
I want to be a statistical outlier.
 
to be honest.
Normies, on average, in mass. rate better than PSL guys.

PSL guys, tend to favour extreme features, and go to far off the factor of "avargeness".

Like you have some PSL people, whom can't understand why Chico or Biebers were GigaChads.
Both these dudes, score Giga high on factor averageness.
Great take
 
  • +1
Reactions: Soalian
for the ordinary-looking man, the game will always be important
 
scoring very high on the factor averageness; is being a statistical outlier.
Yes precisely, that's what I'm not actually, high in averageness, too many failos.
 

Similar threads

Zenis
Replies
89
Views
12K
mbi876
mbi876
dreamcake1mo
Replies
56
Views
15K
Joshrc
Joshrc
D
Replies
27
Views
3K
Deleted member 86409
D

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top