Should LOOKS THEORY be Prescriptive or Descriptive (POLL)

[softlysoftly]

What was the area of research?

human nutrition
I have masters degrees in kinesiology, cell biology, and nutritional sciences

 

[DrTony]

I don’t really have a problem with results determining smv, tbh. It makes sense, depending on the economical model you’re drawing from. But there is such a thing as having high stats and low performance (relative to those stats). And it can happen in pretty much anything, be it dating life or career.

If you let the sexual market decide whether or not you have "high stats/good looks" as opposed to you making this assertion arbitrarily through theory, then you won't run into confusing chicken/egg situations and discrepancies of how your pre-conceived good/ bad stats don't agree your performance in the sexual marketplace. Let the free market decide.

 

[DelonLover1999]

If you let the sexual market decide whether or not you have "high stats/good looks" as opposed to you making this assertion arbitrarily through theory, then you won't run into confusing chicken/egg situations and discrepancies of how your pre-conceived good/ bad stats don't agree your performance in the sexual marketplace. Let the free market decide.

Sure, there are advantages to this ‘outcome’ approach, and this is one of them. But your performance is also a sum of a lot of variables, which you won’t be able to know individually. The only thing you’ll know for sure is a ‘number’ that tells you your success percentage. But that number could be different if say, you went for other types of women, in other locations, so it can vary even for the same person. It’s also not a very good predictor of attractiveness, as per a lot of studies.

It’s an entirely different thing imo, and should be treated separately from aesthetic analysis. For example, just because we can use the charts to determine a song’s ‘success’, that doesn’t mean it’s a good way to assess it as an actual piece of music.

 

[DelonLover1999]

bump

 

[PointOfNoReturn]

bump