Comments on: The rules of attraction: the not so golden mean

By: Sid

Sid — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:22:32 +0000

I’m on OKC, and it’s not entirely clear that ratings are based solely on looks; my impression is that men and women rate based a great deal based on profile content as well.

By: maggie lee

maggie lee — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:38:49 +0000

It seems to me the way it works is this: men have a simple set of parameters when they look at a woman’s photo:

One: will I be embarrassed to be seen with her in front of my friends? If so, too “ugly.”

Two: Will I be humiliated when she laughs at my picture because she is so beautiful she’d never want me? If so, too “stuck-up.”

If she falls somewhere in-between on the looks scale, they move on to secondary criteria.

By: Scientists are mad

Scientists are mad — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 07:23:36 +0000

This article is written and read by scietific priented people who are beauty blind . Frieda Pinto would settle as Karisma’s maid servant at best.
If you want to understand the true meaning of beautiful face take these simple natural tests :-
1. Get a 1-2 year old baby near Freida and karisma and tell both actress not to do any actions . See where the baby gets attracted to.it would be karisma
2. Ask an uneducated a not so aware and unbiased person who is more beautiful the answer would be Karisma.
The educated and politicised people would only say Freida,.

[retard comment posted for amusement -R]

By: Nandalal Rasiah

Nandalal Rasiah — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 19:11:21 +0000

ha, I have exactly the features you wrote may seem “ludicrous” on men and emphasizing them in the profile picture seems to have helped my second go-round on okc. I am now inspired to see what else, other than the brown skin, fits into a ‘good’ deviation from the mean. You have to be careful, however, given the locale–whether the people’s republic of portland or the capital of confederacy.

For how women view men, you could have had quite a bit of fun with south indian actors as the difference seems even more stark–explaining the appeal of Kamal Haasan and Rajnikanth to American peers when they’ve probably only seen the guy who played “Dr. Suresh” on ‘Heroes’

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:54:09 +0000

It’s a good thing I’m no longer in the dating market. If I were to put my particular, ahem, standard of feminine beauty in the profile, OK Cupid would reject it as inappropriate

By: pconroy

pconroy — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 21:20:45 +0000

Perahu – I would agree also

By: Perahu

Perahu — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:48:06 +0000

Freida Pinto is in my opinion much better looking than Karisma Kapoor as well.

By: pconroy

pconroy — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 19:42:32 +0000

I used be on OKCupid years ago, and didn’t like it as a serious dating site at all, better as a hookup site I think. What I liked best were the Quizzes. I also tried eHarmony and it’s a total waste of money, as they won’t match you based on your criteria, but their own. They use a gimmick, where their system compels you to share lots of information and answer lots of mutual questions, before you ever see the other person – in the hope that you then won’t run for the hills, if she’s ugly.

IMO Match.com is still the best, simply because they had first mover advantage and have a monster database, and so you can be very selective in your matching criteria.

I’m lucky in that, like Razib references, I have non-typical US standards of beauty – as I’m not an American – and so my top picks are often NOT too popular with other guys. I particularly like curvier women, and eschew skinny ones, so I used have a lot of cute women, whom typical American males find fat, that were right in my ballpark. I also have a liking for women with Mediterranean type features, which is again not always popular with US men, not to mention that Mediterranean women are more temperamental/passionate and intense, which I also like.

Using these criteria, I met online the mother of my daughter – a curvy, passionate French woman, who bore a close likeness to the Pakistani model:
1. Iman Ali
2. Iman Ali

While the mother of my son, I also met online, is somewhat like a curvier Kate Winslet.

It also meant that when I was approached by attractive skinny women online, I would always be indifferent/aloof – as they’re not really my cup of tea – and that would drive up their attraction for me, as it would make me seem more Alpha?!

By: EcoPhysioMichelle

EcoPhysioMichelle — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 03:55:41 +0000

I’m on OkCupid and I’ve never rated anyone, ever. Granted, I haven’t used it for dating in some time, but I never really used that feature. I actually wish I had a larger variety of experiences to draw from, because while I have dated a lot of people that I initially met online, only one of them was from an actual dating website (and it happens to be the guy I’m dating now). My experience is consistent with the one OkCupid describes, though. I log in, read all my messages, reply to maybe 2% of them, and that’s it.

By: Gary B

Gary B — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 03:35:05 +0000

I’m on OKC. The only women I rate are ones that I put in the 4 and 5 star ratings, and I only do that for perhaps 20% of the ones that I perceive that way – I just don’t bother for most of them. So I don’t know how that skews the statistics.

By: Douglas Knight

Douglas Knight — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 03:15:49 +0000

How good is the evidence for symmetry? For example, composite photos fail to distinguish between the symmetry hypothesis and the smooth skin hypothesis.

By: EcoPhysioMichelle

EcoPhysioMichelle — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 02:38:26 +0000

I got annoyed with the use of the word ‘fatty’ (I was a bit, um, rounder at the time) so she and I agreed to change it to Secret Internet Fake. Same idea though, everyone using the Angles is trying to hide something!

By: Razib Khan

Razib Khan — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 02:34:09 +0000

SM, SIF is great. there’s a particular friend i need to tell that to….

By: EcoPhysioMichelle

EcoPhysioMichelle — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 01:55:38 +0000

I agree with a lot of what you said here, but I don’t think that MySpace angles matter as much as you think they do. They’re like the caviar analogy you made earlier, some men are going to like it, others aren’t.

My ex had a term for girls who used excessive MySpace angles. SIF, for Secret Internet Fatty. (Classy, I know, but I didn’t date this individual for very long.) I think most people have wizened up to this method and assume that girls using these angles aren’t actually as attractive as they appear, or at least that they’re attempting to hide something.

I would love to see if this trend was repeated in lesbians, especially with respect to butch/femme dynamics. But that’s another idea for another day.

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 01:01:44 +0000

Two observations.

1. Reactions to photos aren’t necessarily entirely or mostly about physical appearance. Clothing and context convey social symbols. If your clothing, hairstyle and context show that you fit in a particular subcultural niche (e.g. tatooing millenials), this is going to win approval from niche members and disapproval from non-niche members.

2. Messages are partially a way to get more information. One reason a profile can get disparate reactions is that it has a paucity of visual information, or has information that is ambiguous (for example, because it contains a symbol, such as a rainbow, that has multiple cultural meanings). Sending a message may represent the need of viewers to get more information in order to be able to evaluate the picture satisfactorily.