tell me about it
found the video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpaOjMXyJGk
You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think
21–30 of 79 posts
Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think
#22With Google Plus' new photo enhancement features I fear people will become a bit further disconnected from reality. Neat tech for sure though
At least until Google Glass catches up
Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think
#23My immediate reaction was that the problem with the commercial was the artist's bias. He knew what the commercial was supposed to be. He knew whether he was drawing from a self-description or a description by a third-party. So, naturally, he drew more attractive pictures when a third-party was describing the person.
It's hard to believe these completely.
Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think
#24This is such an oversimplification of self-enhancement and a great example of confirmation bias.
Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think
#25I've always had a poor self image, so according to the article I must be really ugly.
Same here...
Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think
#26> Most people believe that they are above average, a statistical impossibility It's perfectly possible for the majority to be above the mean. If most people believed to be above the median, that would be a statistical impossibility. I think there is another reason for people to believe their results in some areas are better than those of others: because of their own world view. A teacher who focusses on controlling t…
And, the article went right on to talk about the median, in fact :)
> Most people believe that they are above average, a statistical impossibility. The above average effects, as they are called, are common. For example, 93 percent of drivers rate themselves as better than the median driver.
Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your stats are true when outliers massively move a mean.. but that wouldn't be the case in a distribution like this one... I don't think. I mean it's more appropriate to imagine a normal distribution here with the mean equal to the median because the measurement is totally subjective anyway.
Theres a huge difference between something being statistically impossible, and something being statisticly impossible, assuming it is a normal distribution.
Might just be tired but I don't get this...care to explain?
Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think
#28I don't think this study supports the article's headline. That headline, more explicitly stated is: "[Society rates you as] less beautiful than you [do]". Why? Someone's physical beauty is a property that depends on what everyone thinks. You could say "beauty to a certain group" or "beauty to yourself", but to just use the term "beauty" by itself implies "beauty as society sees it". But in the study, there is no rati…
I disagree. Sure, "beauty" isn't a very robustly-defined term, but the headline is reasonable. The most important point is that people's views of themselves are objectively wrong, because the identify modified images of themselves. Conversely, people can reliably pick the correct image of others. Finally, this depictions differ in that the self-image has characteristics society deems attractive, for our purposes, "beauty". I don't think beauty is quite the best term, but I wouldn't call it wrong.
Also, I think your proposed study would undermine the whole point of this study, since someone who didn't realize they were looking at themselves wouldn't have the cognitive impetus to distort reality.
edit: I just realized I may have been missing part of your argument. Would you be more satisfied if the title were "You are less beautiful than you _say_ you are"? This study itself doesn't offer any real evidence that people actually believe they look like the picture they say they look like. However, the other cognitive studies linked in this article, including some other similar studies I've read about, make me think it's extremely likely.
Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think
#29My immediate reaction was that the problem with the commercial was the artist's bias. He knew what the commercial was supposed to be. He knew whether he was drawing from a self-description or a description by a third-party. So, naturally, he drew more attractive pictures when a third-party was describing the person.
That was my reaction, too. The idea seemed ridiculous from a scientific perspective (although it may be very good advertising).
Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think
#30I've always had a poor self image, so according to the article I must be really ugly.
[deleted]