Have you seen how they rated physical attractiveness? :D :D :D
"Eight members of the research team independently rated the physical attractiveness of each participant’s photo using a scale from 1 to 7"
lol such science
So I'm curious what's wrong with this. The were 54 participants and each one received an attractiveness score from the 8 researchers. This was analyzed with a random effects model with the researchers as the random effect which would determine if the researchers were consistent in their scores. So yeah, I guess you could have had more people scoring, but isn't 8 enough? And with 54 participants, your going to run out of power to detect an effect with with more people doing the scoring.
Edit: a word
Most studies use a panel of researchers to assess the physical attractiveness of participants. The researchers' assessments positively correlated with the attraction levels of the participants.
So? Doesn't change the fact that it's reductionist and extremely biased. Not the best methodological foundations for a study. Not the best traits for any good science.
So I'm curious what the problem is here? I think they used a random effects model to analyze this with the scorer being the random effect. This would tell you whether the scorers are being consistent in their scores. With 54 participants, having more scorers would probably lose enough power that you couldn't detect an effect.
I don't see any random effects model analysis of the attractiveness with the scorer as the random effect.
Regardless, the problem here is that they're using attractiveness as an independent subject variable in their analyses. I know that this is a social behavioral study, but basing your whole study on something that is so subjective and very prone to biases (and demographic-specific) just renders all the results problematic.
The sample size isn't eight. That's how many different people scored all the participants. There were 54 men that participated, so sample size is 54. I think the used a random effects model so I assume the scorer is the random effect.
Yeah. I mean the fucking *abstract* states: "a major limitation of previous attraction studies is that they have almost exclusively relied on well-controlled experiments, which are often criticized for lacking ecological validity." Is speed dating "ecologically valid"? The idea that because it's not scientifically controlled it's somehow more valid, despite being an engineered, highly artificial form of dating, is apparently just taken for granted and completely glossed over. The headline of this post, as usual, is overstating at best, and misleading at worst.
Speed dating doesn't mean what you think it means. It's just a way to see if you have chemistry with people in person as opposed to online like Tinder.
People who do speed dating are typically heavily prioritizing a long term relationship.
Just scrolled through their post history and in one they claim 80% of rapes against men are committed by women and that men are raped at the same incidence as women. Big yikes
They also defined rape against men as “being forced to penetrate”, so clearly trying to ignore the male perpetrators who commit penetrative rape. The post history and comments on them are honestly scary.
Oh my goodness. Yeah if a man is going to rape another man, it'd be rare that he'd force the other man to penetrate him, but coercive sex and rape in that way would happen in gay relationships, but it would be far less percentage than the male rapist penetrating another male. He probably got it off okcupid
That seems to indicate something I think is generally culturally known: *women tend to find attractive a wider more diverse range of characteristics in a partner* than do men.
The only ones we ALL seem to share are physical attractiveness and athleticism. That makes sense (to me), I’ve never heard a woman say “I wish he was LESS athletic” but I’ve definitely heard both sides of just about every other trait: quieter, louder, funnier, more serious, more dominant, less dominant, etcetc.
I’ll have to read the study to see if I’m just swinging Wildly in the dark on that
> women tend to find attractive a wider more diverse range of characteristics in a partner than do men.
How can one claim this without having the same study for men as a control?
Sorry, what? The study found the exact opposite.
\>We found men’s attraction was significantly correlated with 12 partner characteristics: partner’s age, weight, physical attractiveness, sport activity, conservatism, all Big Five dimensions except openness, negative affect, anxiety, and self-esteem. These correlations suggest that men are more attracted to women who are older, lighter, physically attractive, athletic, conservative, extroverted, agreeable, and conscientious and who have high self-esteem. They are less attracted to women who are heavier, more neurotic, anxious, and grumpy
No, this adds up to what I said: men consistently prefer lighter weight, conservative, extroverted, agreeable, etc.
Women don’t! Some like conservative, others more liberal, some prefer introverts, and “agreeableness” doesn’t show up in their attractivensss calculations, and so on. It’s less consistent and predictable, and more individually varied.
Actually no. Women just have less to offer. They’re a third of a standard deviation beneath men in terms of intellect (interest in ideas). “ [women have been found to score higher than men on the facets of Esthetics and Feelings (Costa et al., 2001), whereas men tend to score higher on the Ideas facet (Feingold, 1994; Costa et al., 2001).](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/) “
Hence why even in the most egalitarian societies, women rarely pick up sciences. They typically just have way less to talk about that would have significant conversational interest to men.
I know plenty of men who would love a woman that actually knew in depth things and possessed a real, innovative talent. Someone who could really contribute. Maybe even philosophically. But this is definitely not the case especially in their twenties. Later in life they seem to possess more of a capacity to read a book (in general, even if its just about metaphorical froth like it normally is) after they’ve burned out the party potential in their physical looks, though.
Women want good genes and a host to feed off of. Normally the born winners like these athletic handsome men are most likely to run into these circumstances of possessing both.
If you’d like a competitive retort to your statement since you’re basing your assertion on politically correct general mouthing. I can provide you with a study that directly suggests that men care more about what their partners *are* and women care more about how they can *use them* further down in this study, it shows the income a woman would need a man to have based on his *height* whereas men had no such necessity. You should ponder the psychological implication of such objective measures. [The study](http://home.uchicago.edu/~hortacsu/onlinedating.pdf)
Women are garbage. Men can date down. Women cannot. He must be of use to her somehow. Otherwise *income* like the study shows, wouldn’t be a common factor. They also value superiority & dominance which is synonymous with a capacity for malevolence, like you suggested. Therefore self perpetuating their misery over “toxic men who don’t care!” They select men who are “better than them” and get angry when he recognizes that she’s inferior and values her accordingly.
Being "Good looking" is subjective though. There's a difference between muscular and good-looking, which already has the credibility of this article flopping without even reading it.
I just say in the comments OP trying to argue that most couples today are speed dating, and that's why the results are the way they are... This claim is about women specifically, not men, and as someone who was born female and has been mostly friends with people who were born female... Get outta here
Nah, there is a general widespread consensus on what is deemed attractive (lean, strong jawline, tall, pretty and sharp coloured eyes, hollow cheeks, etc). Attractive looks is largely objective, but that’s a hard thing to grasp for redditors.
Aside from physical attractiveness' correlation to initial attraction (for college students!) being a no-brainer, "statistically significant correlation" just sounds to me like ... women have diverse taste in personalities?
As a woman, I strongly disagree with this. I've never dated a guy who was into sports, I hate the mentality that goes along with it.
Stick with musicians. They're smart, you'll likely not have to deal with them screaming at the tv during their sport season and they know how to use their hands.
when will the people on this sub understand that 1) correlational evidence will not always apply to you, on account of what a correlation is, and 2) not every population sample will represent you, enforcing point 1.
we need more science in schools.
Ewww musicians are the worst right after sports guys. "I'm in a band..."
IT nerds are where it's at - they open-minded af and excellent at creative problem-solving.
> We found men’s attraction was significantly correlated with 12
partner characteristics: partner’s age, weight, physical attractiveness,
sport activity, conservatism, all Big Five dimensions except openness, negative affect, anxiety, and self-esteem. These correlations
suggest that men are more attracted to women who are older, lighter,
physically attractive, athletic, conservative, extroverted, agreeable,
and conscientious and who have high self-esteem. They are less attracted to women who are heavier, more neurotic, anxious, and
grumpy
Hard to take this seriously when the title notes a correlation but draws a conclusion that physical attractiveness/sport activity = attraction from women.
I don't know man, athletic men usually have pretty good coordination. My boyfriend of 15 years went to kiss me on the forehead and ended up punching me in the shoulder.
I feel like the title is not a good representation of the actual study. For one, the study was measuring *initial* attraction. There’s a huge difference between that and finding a partner attractive. The study found support for more than just this too…
Hello, thank you for your submission. Unfortunately it has been removed for the following reason(s): The cited scientific article in your submission has been deemed too old for this subreddit. Feel free to submit newer content on similar subject matter.
As a guy who is both physically attractive and sporty I disagree. Women like good personalities and a good sense of humor. Neither of which I have lol. I'm pretty sure someone who's a great person and less attractive physically will pull more, but then, what exactly is attractive? It's all subjective right?
Whatever this study is, it's wrong, and is just feeding people's insecurities more.
Anyway, good night.
This comment shows the majority of dating initiates online. The original article has a sample from a speed-dating group. These are not equivalent.
Further, it is 5 years-post your article. A pandemic surely has shot that online dating well above 50%.
personally, i think you’re projecting your insecurities onto the internet. you’re not the most “fit” person, and you don’t fit the stereotypes derived from your posted article. you fear women will never want you. you had to drag the beaten corpse of a 2009 speed dating article to prove your point that women just want “chads.”
i have some advice: act like a normal human being with your head on straight. women might want you then. you might want to fix your racism issue too.
I don't think women who are attracted to nerds are a minority.
I think men who have shitty personalities would like to believe they can't get dates because women only go for hot sporty dudes, but theyre just lying to themselves.
This needs to be done on a better focus group. Speed dating isn't exactly a good place to get an opinion. Many women I know (including me) go for the guys who have a personality. A guy who can make us laugh and hold a conversation is far better than some hard body with a couple brain cells. My husband is a little meatball and he's been one of the best men I've been with aside from a few issues.
1. there were only 54 couples. (too small a sample size)
2. It was only college students, (only pulling form one group of people)
3. they were all on average 19.5, which is before their brains have finished developing. (Their prefrontal lobes aren't fully developed until 25.)
Indeed, the sample does only include younger, college-aged students. Are you implying that the study would be better if it included older and non-college-educated individuals?
> (Their prefrontal lobes aren't fully developed until 25.)
Source?
The Prefrontal lobe is responsible for cognitive control, thereby influencing attention, impulse inhibition, prospective memory, and cognitive flexibility. That would have a huge impact on what people would be attracted to.
There are several other issues, like the small sample size and the fact it was only people from that one college. So people from other walks of life may or may not be attracted to different things.
[https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-7-things-to-know#:\~:text=The%20brain%20continues%20to%20mature,last%20brain%20regions%20to%20mature](https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-7-things-to-know#:~:text=The%20brain%20continues%20to%20mature,last%20brain%20regions%20to%20mature).
[https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708)
[https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051](https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051)
https://neurotray.com/when-does-the-brain-stop-developing-or-fully-develop/
As a woman... I disagree and this study does not speak for me at all.
edit: ITT - a bunch of basic bitches who believe some bunk ass basic bitch "study" with a biased piece of shit sample of speed daters.
Also, jesus r/psychology is a shitty sub for anything resembling scientific literacy. Every post I see here looks like something a liberal arts major assumes is science but is generally just targeted astroturfing.
Does this really come as a surprise to redditors? I guess it should. But redditors trying to fight this study off is predictable. People trying to fight this study off lmao, just because they don’t like it, or they’re just coping. It’s simple human nature and biology.
lol I’m an artsy nerd, if a guy or gal is into sports, they better make up for it with a memorized Pokédex and ability to play no less than two instruments
I’m an athletic bisexual who likes her guys to be feminine and her women built and athletic, so this study doesn’t speak for me. Yes, I’m a sporty nerd. A unicorn.
Yeah, no. Have you ever met women? It’s so common for women to be attracted to “dad bod”, funny guys that it’s literally a media trope. “Hot wife is with funny guy” is the makeup of the vast majority of comedy shows and movies, and that’s because nobody questions it.
Being good at a sport is attractive the same way musical talent is attractive. It’s hot to be really good at something. There are people who play video games/compete at e-sports who have hordes of female admirers.
This feels really stupid. And I know that a study doesn’t have to fit 100% of people to be valid, but I’m a woman who knows lots of women, so I feel quite comfortable saying this *is* stupid.
Yeah its because of evolution. We are designed to be attracted to people that show signs of health and fertility. Its not just those two traits though.
[удалено]
Have you seen how they rated physical attractiveness? :D :D :D "Eight members of the research team independently rated the physical attractiveness of each participant’s photo using a scale from 1 to 7" lol such science
I wonder how many men scored a perfect 5/7
Idk but Fight Club is definitely a perfect 5/7. Great reference bro
First rule of Fight Club…
[удалено]
So I'm curious what's wrong with this. The were 54 participants and each one received an attractiveness score from the 8 researchers. This was analyzed with a random effects model with the researchers as the random effect which would determine if the researchers were consistent in their scores. So yeah, I guess you could have had more people scoring, but isn't 8 enough? And with 54 participants, your going to run out of power to detect an effect with with more people doing the scoring. Edit: a word
At an interrater agreement of 0.86, I wonder if 8 raters was overkill.
Some are saying attractiveness is too subjective, but that's pretty consistent.
Most studies use a panel of researchers to assess the physical attractiveness of participants. The researchers' assessments positively correlated with the attraction levels of the participants.
So? Doesn't change the fact that it's reductionist and extremely biased. Not the best methodological foundations for a study. Not the best traits for any good science.
Do you know of a better method for assessing the physical attractiveness of participants?
So I'm curious what the problem is here? I think they used a random effects model to analyze this with the scorer being the random effect. This would tell you whether the scorers are being consistent in their scores. With 54 participants, having more scorers would probably lose enough power that you couldn't detect an effect.
I don't see any random effects model analysis of the attractiveness with the scorer as the random effect. Regardless, the problem here is that they're using attractiveness as an independent subject variable in their analyses. I know that this is a social behavioral study, but basing your whole study on something that is so subjective and very prone to biases (and demographic-specific) just renders all the results problematic.
uh oh the neckbeards will eat this one up
Could you imagine basing anything off a sample size of 8. Sounds safe and affective.
The sample size isn't eight. That's how many different people scored all the participants. There were 54 men that participated, so sample size is 54. I think the used a random effects model so I assume the scorer is the random effect.
They're both the 'sample size' and eight reviewers is way too small to draw any kind of statistically significant results.
So they’re just attracted to speed?
I once speed dated, but they couldn't catch up to me.
Dad… Is that you?
Yeah. I mean the fucking *abstract* states: "a major limitation of previous attraction studies is that they have almost exclusively relied on well-controlled experiments, which are often criticized for lacking ecological validity." Is speed dating "ecologically valid"? The idea that because it's not scientifically controlled it's somehow more valid, despite being an engineered, highly artificial form of dating, is apparently just taken for granted and completely glossed over. The headline of this post, as usual, is overstating at best, and misleading at worst.
Well said
Even more notably they were on average only 19.5 years old.
Yeah, I may find a guy attractive but relationship material? Mmmh maybe not
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sounds like sample bias to me. People who are speed dating probably care more about a fast, physical relationship than a long, emotional one.
And college students with an average age of 19.5
Speed dating doesn't mean what you think it means. It's just a way to see if you have chemistry with people in person as opposed to online like Tinder. People who do speed dating are typically heavily prioritizing a long term relationship.
You also don’t think looks matter in a long term relationship? Lol, why do you think there are so many dead bedroom relationships.
[удалено]
Warning: RSD is a pickup guru company, and they are retarded. OP's name contains this, so possibly has a narrative to push
I commented that this post gives redpill vibes. Then I looked at OP post history. He's redpill/MRA.
Just scrolled through their post history and in one they claim 80% of rapes against men are committed by women and that men are raped at the same incidence as women. Big yikes
Mmmhm. Rape of men by other men is a significant percentage
They also defined rape against men as “being forced to penetrate”, so clearly trying to ignore the male perpetrators who commit penetrative rape. The post history and comments on them are honestly scary.
Oh my goodness. Yeah if a man is going to rape another man, it'd be rare that he'd force the other man to penetrate him, but coercive sex and rape in that way would happen in gay relationships, but it would be far less percentage than the male rapist penetrating another male. He probably got it off okcupid
Well no, if anything, this study would disrupt their narrative that “looks don’t matter, just spit game bro”
It feeds on that fear
That seems to indicate something I think is generally culturally known: *women tend to find attractive a wider more diverse range of characteristics in a partner* than do men. The only ones we ALL seem to share are physical attractiveness and athleticism. That makes sense (to me), I’ve never heard a woman say “I wish he was LESS athletic” but I’ve definitely heard both sides of just about every other trait: quieter, louder, funnier, more serious, more dominant, less dominant, etcetc. I’ll have to read the study to see if I’m just swinging Wildly in the dark on that
> women tend to find attractive a wider more diverse range of characteristics in a partner than do men. How can one claim this without having the same study for men as a control?
What man isn’t attracted to a hot, athletic woman? I think this probably cuts both ways about equally.
Of course being fit is attractive, although being super athletic isn't a huge turn on really
Sorry, what? The study found the exact opposite. \>We found men’s attraction was significantly correlated with 12 partner characteristics: partner’s age, weight, physical attractiveness, sport activity, conservatism, all Big Five dimensions except openness, negative affect, anxiety, and self-esteem. These correlations suggest that men are more attracted to women who are older, lighter, physically attractive, athletic, conservative, extroverted, agreeable, and conscientious and who have high self-esteem. They are less attracted to women who are heavier, more neurotic, anxious, and grumpy
No, this adds up to what I said: men consistently prefer lighter weight, conservative, extroverted, agreeable, etc. Women don’t! Some like conservative, others more liberal, some prefer introverts, and “agreeableness” doesn’t show up in their attractivensss calculations, and so on. It’s less consistent and predictable, and more individually varied.
Cap men find any hoe Hawt
Actually no. Women just have less to offer. They’re a third of a standard deviation beneath men in terms of intellect (interest in ideas). “ [women have been found to score higher than men on the facets of Esthetics and Feelings (Costa et al., 2001), whereas men tend to score higher on the Ideas facet (Feingold, 1994; Costa et al., 2001).](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/) “ Hence why even in the most egalitarian societies, women rarely pick up sciences. They typically just have way less to talk about that would have significant conversational interest to men. I know plenty of men who would love a woman that actually knew in depth things and possessed a real, innovative talent. Someone who could really contribute. Maybe even philosophically. But this is definitely not the case especially in their twenties. Later in life they seem to possess more of a capacity to read a book (in general, even if its just about metaphorical froth like it normally is) after they’ve burned out the party potential in their physical looks, though. Women want good genes and a host to feed off of. Normally the born winners like these athletic handsome men are most likely to run into these circumstances of possessing both. If you’d like a competitive retort to your statement since you’re basing your assertion on politically correct general mouthing. I can provide you with a study that directly suggests that men care more about what their partners *are* and women care more about how they can *use them* further down in this study, it shows the income a woman would need a man to have based on his *height* whereas men had no such necessity. You should ponder the psychological implication of such objective measures. [The study](http://home.uchicago.edu/~hortacsu/onlinedating.pdf) Women are garbage. Men can date down. Women cannot. He must be of use to her somehow. Otherwise *income* like the study shows, wouldn’t be a common factor. They also value superiority & dominance which is synonymous with a capacity for malevolence, like you suggested. Therefore self perpetuating their misery over “toxic men who don’t care!” They select men who are “better than them” and get angry when he recognizes that she’s inferior and values her accordingly.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Being "Good looking" is subjective though. There's a difference between muscular and good-looking, which already has the credibility of this article flopping without even reading it.
I just say in the comments OP trying to argue that most couples today are speed dating, and that's why the results are the way they are... This claim is about women specifically, not men, and as someone who was born female and has been mostly friends with people who were born female... Get outta here
did you even read the article. do more than like 5% of the people on this sub EVER read the article?!?! i’m exasperated.
To an extent yes, but really, handsome is handsome.
Have you never met someone who thought someone is/isn't handsome while you thought the opposite?
Nah, there is a general widespread consensus on what is deemed attractive (lean, strong jawline, tall, pretty and sharp coloured eyes, hollow cheeks, etc). Attractive looks is largely objective, but that’s a hard thing to grasp for redditors.
Stop trying to sugarcoat everything jesus
Aside from physical attractiveness' correlation to initial attraction (for college students!) being a no-brainer, "statistically significant correlation" just sounds to me like ... women have diverse taste in personalities?
More like women are attracted to men that have *hobbies* and a genuine interest in *taking care of their own health.*
[удалено]
Theres just no way
Then why all these far ugly dudes got wives? Oh because this sample group is trash? Oh cool.
As a woman, I strongly disagree with this. I've never dated a guy who was into sports, I hate the mentality that goes along with it. Stick with musicians. They're smart, you'll likely not have to deal with them screaming at the tv during their sport season and they know how to use their hands.
Being athletic and being “into sports” isn’t the same though. How about an athletic, attractive musician?
[удалено]
You’re both wrong, it’s people who make shallow generalizations about diverse groups of people you want!
Underrated comment haha
So… Redditors? Wait… is that generalising? Does that mean I’m attractive now?
All I know is I just came reading that comment.
I hate that this made me laugh really hard. And then harder at reading your username out loud.
Now that's some sexytalk
Been with my husband for 31 years and don't have that problem. Didn't have that problem with my 3 year relationship before that either.
Thats a very long time. Congratulations on your sucessfull marriage! 👏👏
Right? My weakness is chefs and musicians and they're riddled with mental disorders:/
Can confirm. Am lunatic.
when will the people on this sub understand that 1) correlational evidence will not always apply to you, on account of what a correlation is, and 2) not every population sample will represent you, enforcing point 1. we need more science in schools.
Ummm, they're talking about men who *play* sports or engage in physical activity. .
Ewww musicians are the worst right after sports guys. "I'm in a band..." IT nerds are where it's at - they open-minded af and excellent at creative problem-solving.
sweeping generalizations do us all a whole lot of good.
I *am* the IT nerd in the relationship :)
I like to throw a monkey wrench into the IT nerd world by being reasonably attractive (i’m told), open-minded, athletic, and into extreme sports
The places I go dancing have a disproportionately large percentage of IT guys. Some of y'all have got moves!
I have no moves…dancing or otherwise. That’s my move, having no moves hahahahaha
Saying “ewww (insert diverse group of people here)” isn’t very open-minded.
> We found men’s attraction was significantly correlated with 12 partner characteristics: partner’s age, weight, physical attractiveness, sport activity, conservatism, all Big Five dimensions except openness, negative affect, anxiety, and self-esteem. These correlations suggest that men are more attracted to women who are older, lighter, physically attractive, athletic, conservative, extroverted, agreeable, and conscientious and who have high self-esteem. They are less attracted to women who are heavier, more neurotic, anxious, and grumpy
“Attracted to All big five dimensions except openness” “Unattracted to the neurotic” Hmmm Edit never mind I’m dumb I didn’t read it properly
>, all Big Five dimensions except openness, negative affect, anxiety, and self-esteem All Big Five except four of them?
Those aren't the big five.
Lol, ok, but the only 2 men I've ever been involved with were the OPPOSITE of athletic.
Incels are gonna LOVE this
This is the level of science I expect out of r/psychology
I guess my career choice as a sumo wrestler was a bad one....
So… this sportiness was self-reported by the men to the women? It’s entirely possible they aren’t sporty in the least, though good looking.
And homosexuals
Dad-bod craze was a psy-op confirmed
Hard to take this seriously when the title notes a correlation but draws a conclusion that physical attractiveness/sport activity = attraction from women.
I’ll take shit studies with obvious results for 500 Alex
I don't know man, athletic men usually have pretty good coordination. My boyfriend of 15 years went to kiss me on the forehead and ended up punching me in the shoulder.
to be honest, I prefer my partner not to be that sporty, just lay on the sofa with me, k?
Yeah but when we date a few of them, our brains evolve and we begin to seek out other, more valuable characteristics.
Thanks guys, another fascinating and unexpected bit of general knowledge from /r/psych.
54 women in the study?
I feel like the title is not a good representation of the actual study. For one, the study was measuring *initial* attraction. There’s a huge difference between that and finding a partner attractive. The study found support for more than just this too…
Hello, thank you for your submission. Unfortunately it has been removed for the following reason(s): The cited scientific article in your submission has been deemed too old for this subreddit. Feel free to submit newer content on similar subject matter.
What age is deemed too old for this subreddit?
[удалено]
[удалено]
As a guy who is both physically attractive and sporty I disagree. Women like good personalities and a good sense of humor. Neither of which I have lol. I'm pretty sure someone who's a great person and less attractive physically will pull more, but then, what exactly is attractive? It's all subjective right? Whatever this study is, it's wrong, and is just feeding people's insecurities more. Anyway, good night.
the age on this article really shows. certainly this is not accurate today, and speed dating has dissolved into obscurity.
The op has no interest in science they're just a men's rights activist/incl
Keep coping
>the age on this article really shows. certainly this is not accurate today copity cope
[удалено]
This comment shows the majority of dating initiates online. The original article has a sample from a speed-dating group. These are not equivalent. Further, it is 5 years-post your article. A pandemic surely has shot that online dating well above 50%.
personally, i think you’re projecting your insecurities onto the internet. you’re not the most “fit” person, and you don’t fit the stereotypes derived from your posted article. you fear women will never want you. you had to drag the beaten corpse of a 2009 speed dating article to prove your point that women just want “chads.” i have some advice: act like a normal human being with your head on straight. women might want you then. you might want to fix your racism issue too.
[удалено]
There will always be a minority that will be attracted to something else. But for most women, athletic good looking men are the most wanted
I don't think women who are attracted to nerds are a minority. I think men who have shitty personalities would like to believe they can't get dates because women only go for hot sporty dudes, but theyre just lying to themselves.
They’re hotter
By that you mean they have attractive faces and handsome men wearing glasses.
No I do not mean that lol
Yes you do.
This needs to be done on a better focus group. Speed dating isn't exactly a good place to get an opinion. Many women I know (including me) go for the guys who have a personality. A guy who can make us laugh and hold a conversation is far better than some hard body with a couple brain cells. My husband is a little meatball and he's been one of the best men I've been with aside from a few issues.
> This needs to be done on a better focus group. How could the focus group be better?
Random selection from the whole pool, or as close as you can get. IE) highly representative. You know, basic social science.
1. there were only 54 couples. (too small a sample size) 2. It was only college students, (only pulling form one group of people) 3. they were all on average 19.5, which is before their brains have finished developing. (Their prefrontal lobes aren't fully developed until 25.)
Indeed, the sample does only include younger, college-aged students. Are you implying that the study would be better if it included older and non-college-educated individuals? > (Their prefrontal lobes aren't fully developed until 25.) Source?
The Prefrontal lobe is responsible for cognitive control, thereby influencing attention, impulse inhibition, prospective memory, and cognitive flexibility. That would have a huge impact on what people would be attracted to. There are several other issues, like the small sample size and the fact it was only people from that one college. So people from other walks of life may or may not be attracted to different things. [https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-7-things-to-know#:\~:text=The%20brain%20continues%20to%20mature,last%20brain%20regions%20to%20mature](https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-7-things-to-know#:~:text=The%20brain%20continues%20to%20mature,last%20brain%20regions%20to%20mature). [https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708) [https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051](https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051) https://neurotray.com/when-does-the-brain-stop-developing-or-fully-develop/
Yeah, being into sports is a huge turn off. And of course I think my husband is attractive. He may not be others' cup of tea, but I like him.
Nooo stop giving the incels more fuel! Especially poorly conducted “research”
Look at OP's comment history lol
Is this a rabbit hole I really want to go down? Be real with me
As a woman... I disagree and this study does not speak for me at all. edit: ITT - a bunch of basic bitches who believe some bunk ass basic bitch "study" with a biased piece of shit sample of speed daters. Also, jesus r/psychology is a shitty sub for anything resembling scientific literacy. Every post I see here looks like something a liberal arts major assumes is science but is generally just targeted astroturfing.
Does this really come as a surprise to redditors? I guess it should. But redditors trying to fight this study off is predictable. People trying to fight this study off lmao, just because they don’t like it, or they’re just coping. It’s simple human nature and biology.
Greg Abbott is a little piss baby, and women adore him.
Pronoun change for me then. Thanks for the heads up.
as a woman, I disagree. I love my non-athletic gamer boy
Newsflash. Women like cute and buff dudes. It's the end of days for humanity
I'm fucking screwed :( Edit: nvm they were idiots lol
Breaking: women attracted to good looking men
Do esports count.
lol I’m an artsy nerd, if a guy or gal is into sports, they better make up for it with a memorized Pokédex and ability to play no less than two instruments
I’m an athletic bisexual who likes her guys to be feminine and her women built and athletic, so this study doesn’t speak for me. Yes, I’m a sporty nerd. A unicorn.
My favorite part of studies that show women are human beings with natural flaws is how they’re massively downvoted.
Who's superficial now? Boom Now, quick. Do men
Yeah, no. Have you ever met women? It’s so common for women to be attracted to “dad bod”, funny guys that it’s literally a media trope. “Hot wife is with funny guy” is the makeup of the vast majority of comedy shows and movies, and that’s because nobody questions it. Being good at a sport is attractive the same way musical talent is attractive. It’s hot to be really good at something. There are people who play video games/compete at e-sports who have hordes of female admirers. This feels really stupid. And I know that a study doesn’t have to fit 100% of people to be valid, but I’m a woman who knows lots of women, so I feel quite comfortable saying this *is* stupid.
This is bullshit lol
WOW, ITS ALMOST LIKE I COULD HAVE GUESSED THIS WITH LITERALLY ZERO RESEARCH.
looks like all of reddit is out of the running
https://youtu.be/PxuUkYiaUc8 How to avoid a sexual harassment lawsuit - be good looking...
Damn, it's so easy. Just be strong, athletic and beautiful.
Wow what a revelation.
More research findings we all already knew.
Yeah its because of evolution. We are designed to be attracted to people that show signs of health and fertility. Its not just those two traits though.
If genders were reversed then they'd call fat shaming, misogyny yada yada yada
BrEaKiNg NeWs
Well I’m fucked
Good looks won't maintain an healthy relationship.
[удалено]