OceanGirl Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 I came across this excellent article today. http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-mathematics-of-beauty/ It basically says that women with less conventional good looks do better than run-of-the mill cute when it comes to getting messages on the dating site. If few men think that that you are a 10 but a few think you are completely ugly (say a zero) you will do much better than if all men think you are a 7. Anyway they explain it a lot better in the article.
northern_sky Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 yeah I saw this. I think they made a few faulty conclusions, though. The main one that I disagree with is that you should play up your ugliness to attract more guys or try to draw attention to an unattractive feature you have. I don't believe that's what's going on here. Notice the girls they selected who polarize guys have things that make them stand out that are neutral features that may apply to a nice market, like being Asian or having tattoos. That's what a girl should play up if she wants more responses: wear funky glasses, show off her charmingly gapped front teeth. But a feature that is pretty universally unattractive like a fat ass isn't going to have the same effect.
carhill Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Here's my math. It's in the eyes. #2 for me. I failed calculus so YMMV.
northern_sky Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 yeah I saw this. I think they made a few faulty conclusions, though. The main one that I disagree with is that you should play up your ugliness to attract more guys or try to draw attention to an unattractive feature you have. I don't believe that's what's going on here. Notice the girls they selected who polarize guys have things that make them stand out that are neutral features that may apply to a nice market, like being Asian or having tattoos. That's what a girl should play up if she wants more responses: wear funky glasses, show off her charmingly gapped front teeth. But a feature that is pretty universally unattractive like a fat ass isn't going to have the same effect. *niche market
Author OceanGirl Posted January 11, 2011 Author Posted January 11, 2011 yeah I saw this. I think they made a few faulty conclusions, though. The main one that I disagree with is that you should play up your ugliness to attract more guys or try to draw attention to an unattractive feature you have. I don't believe that's what's going on here. Notice the girls they selected who polarize guys have things that make them stand out that are neutral features that may apply to a nice market, like being Asian or having tattoos. That's what a girl should play up if she wants more responses: wear funky glasses, show off her charmingly gapped front teeth. But a feature that is pretty universally unattractive like a fat ass isn't going to have the same effect. I thought the same thing reading their last paragraph - playing up your chubbiness or a big nose is not going to get you more messages. But I thought that their overall analysis is interesting.
northern_sky Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Another thing I wonder about is the guys who give the 1 ratings to the controversial women. That Asian girl for example is obviously attractive, anyone will recognize that even if she isn't your personal cup of tea. My hypothesis is these guys recognize that those women are attractive, but give her a lower rating for some other reason: bitterness, whatever. That would explain why they still message her. What I'm saying is giving her a 1 is so extreme that it almost suggests that they actually like her. As they say love and hate are closer than love and indifference. While the guys who think she's a 5 or 6 are being honest in their mehness.
NoLongerSad Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 I think the study is a totally bogus, made up one for the purpose of marketing, to reassure insecure women on OK cupid, who might not think that they're attractive enough, that at least some portion of males will find them attractive. The rest of it is sheer nonsense. No one can honestly say how attractive they find a woman just by looking at her face. Sure, if she's facially very ugly that's one thing. But in the vast mid range, where most of the population actually is found, it's a mixed bag. A great ass can make up for a lot of flaws.
Art_Critic Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Mathematics of female beauty The angle of the dangle is equal to the mass of the ass when the heat of the meat is constant. Of course when the lights are on of course...
Author OceanGirl Posted January 11, 2011 Author Posted January 11, 2011 I think the study is a totally bogus, made up one for the purpose of marketing, to reassure insecure women on OK cupid, who might not think that they're attractive enough, that at least some portion of males will find them attractive. The rest of it is sheer nonsense. No one can honestly say how attractive they find a woman just by looking at her face. Sure, if she's facially very ugly that's one thing. But in the vast mid range, where most of the population actually is found, it's a mixed bag. A great ass can make up for a lot of flaws. Uh there are many women that post their full body shots or half body shots. So it's not like this is just based on their faces. Not everyone is going to use face pics - they just used those few girls as an example.
zengirl Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Another thing I wonder about is the guys who give the 1 ratings to the controversial women. That Asian girl for example is obviously attractive, anyone will recognize that even if she isn't your personal cup of tea. My hypothesis is these guys recognize that those women are attractive, but give her a lower rating for some other reason: bitterness, whatever. That would explain why they still message her. What I'm saying is giving her a 1 is so extreme that it almost suggests that they actually like her. As they say love and hate are closer than love and indifference. While the guys who think she's a 5 or 6 are being honest in their mehness. For the Asian girl, it really could've been her ethnic features, which aren't everyone's thing. As a rather pretty half-Asian girl, I can tell you that my Asian features aren't everybody's cuppa. Some guys might look at me and not get why the other guys think I'm hot. Totally happened before. I think there's something to having a more striking/unusual beauty that might create a strong reaction, either way. Though that's not to say statistics ever tell the whole story.
northern_sky Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 For the Asian girl, it really could've been her ethnic features, which aren't everyone's thing. As a rather pretty half-Asian girl, I can tell you that my Asian features aren't everybody's cuppa. Some guys might look at me and not get why the other guys think I'm hot. Totally happened before. I think there's something to having a more striking/unusual beauty that might create a strong reaction, either way. Though that's not to say statistics ever tell the whole story. Right but even if they're not personally taken with her Asian-ness, I am sure they can for the most part recognize that she is "objectively" attractive and higher than a one. I just think there's more going on that meets the eye with these guys who give the controversial girls really low scores.
Author OceanGirl Posted January 11, 2011 Author Posted January 11, 2011 I also think that OKC has huge amount of data available to them. With numbers that large, I can't imagine that the analysis is driven by alternative looking tattooed/pierced girls (I believe that they are in the minority and not substantial enough to drive the strong evidence they have reached about the discrepancy in number of messages). They have also adjusted for a number of significant other variables that could have skewed the results. My only real critic is that their title is overblown. It should have been "Mathematics of getting more messages on the dating site" but that's far less catchy....
Author OceanGirl Posted January 11, 2011 Author Posted January 11, 2011 Right but even if they're not personally taken with her Asian-ness, I am sure they can for the most part recognize that she is "objectively" attractive and higher than a one. I just think there's more going on that meets the eye with these guys who give the controversial girls really low scores. I think this is true for the minority of guys, not the majority.
Surrealist Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Haha when I first saw the thread title I was thinking this was going to be something along the lines of some mathematical equation that explains women and was reminded of images such as these: http://www.funnyfreak.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/women-vs-men-at-shopping.jpg http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/eBaumBlows/MenVsWomen.png The major reason why i would never bother with contacting or rating a so called very good looking woman on a dating site is that i would figure the account is fake, and I speak from experience. They are usually fake accounts looking to get your email or messenger and try to convince you to hand over your credit card details. Yeah right as if I'm going to do that.
Author OceanGirl Posted January 11, 2011 Author Posted January 11, 2011 In general, I feel like many OKC analysis are not as statistically sound as they could be. It seems like they only employ computer programmers who dabble in statistics on the side rather than real statisticians.
northern_sky Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 In general, I feel like many OKC analysis are not as statistically sound as they could be. It seems like they only employ computer programmers who dabble in statistics on the side rather than real statisticians. Yeah, I agree. Some of their analyses wouldn't have even flown in my stats 201 class. But I guess it's all for fun.
quietGuy13 Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 I think in some Sex science show in some science channel, they said that usually Symmetrical faces are more attractive.
Author OceanGirl Posted January 11, 2011 Author Posted January 11, 2011 Ha NS I looked at their jobs section, their head office is in NYC and they are always looking for new people to join their team. I may send them my resume just for fun
Sanman Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 They have too many variables unaccounted for in these data mining projects that OKC attempts, but it is interesting. I certainly agree that the premise is plausible. If five out of ten men think you are hot, those five men will contact you. If seven out of ten think you are cute, maybe three to four will contact you. In the end, you are who you are and none of this accounts for anything more than how full your inbox is.
northern_sky Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Ha NS I looked at their jobs section, their head office is in NYC and they are always looking for new people to join their team. I may send them my resume just for fun do it!!! That would be an awesome job. They are probably low on women too and could use another perspective.
Ariadne Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 I came across this excellent article today. http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-mathematics-of-beauty/ Saw the article but they drew all the wrong conclusions (as always). The reason those pictures were attractive is because you can see clearly the eyes which are connecting to the camera, and the pictures have a certain "softness" to them which is attractive. The second girl (that didn't get many messages) is in the shade, you can't see her face or eyes in detail, and someone else's hand in on her shoulder.
BobSacamento Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Now I was never really awesome when it came to statistics. The one thing that I could grab from this was that OKCupid is full of uggos. Therefore if your universe is 90% uggos then the majority of messages will be going to uggos. ...what am I missing here? I'll wait for the resident nerd to interject.
lovelydemon Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 What I don't get is why when I get email on OKC that me and so and so rated each other favorably the guys rarely make a contact. That's so messed up! Why give somebody high ratings and then never contact them even knowing that the other person likes your profile too?
Stockalone Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) Another thing I wonder about is the guys who give the 1 ratings to the controversial women. That Asian girl for example is obviously attractive, anyone will recognize that even if she isn't your personal cup of tea. My hypothesis is these guys recognize that those women are attractive, but give her a lower rating for some other reason: bitterness, whatever. That would explain why they still message her. What I'm saying is giving her a 1 is so extreme that it almost suggests that they actually like her. As they say love and hate are closer than love and indifference. While the guys who think she's a 5 or 6 are being honest in their mehness. Right but even if they're not personally taken with her Asian-ness, I am sure they can for the most part recognize that she is "objectively" attractive and higher than a one. I just think there's more going on that meets the eye with these guys who give the controversial girls really low scores. I think the ratings make sense. Based on the OKC pictures, I'd always go for the "conventionally" cute girl. I'd give them all a high rating (say a 4). The controversial girls, however, aren't really appealing IMO. So, I would obviously give them a lower score (say a 2). They aren't ugly, but really not my cup of tea. I am not going to rate them higher just because I might know a couple of guys who would probably be attracted to them. Besides, if all men had the same taste, there would only be one (the objective beauty), but people like different things, so the women will have different ratings. And as far as the number of messages are concerned: I think the cute girls don't get as many responses because they don't get enough ratings of 5. I don't buy the idea that guys think those women are too attractive so there is too much competition. When online dating, I think guys swing for the fence. The needed effort and most likely the chances of success appear to be the same for a woman you think is a 4 as well as the ones who are a 5. So I think many guys will only go after what they view as a 5. The women with high ratings of 3 or 4s could simply fall through the cracks because of that. And if at the same time, the controversial women are another guy's 5, he obviously is more likely to go after them. If a woman is someone's type (for whatever reason), most guys I know will absolutely give it a shot and not waste the opportunity. A woman who is "only" attractive (without that certain je-ne-sais-quoi) doesn't create the same sense of urgency. Edited January 11, 2011 by Stockalone
Recommended Posts