Live data from Hacker News

You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think

scientificamerican.com

31–40 of 79 posts

Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think

#31
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you assume a normal distribution, it is statistically impossible for more than 50% of people to consider themselves above the mean on a given metric. However, if the distribution is severely negatively skewed (i.e., the "bulge" of the distribution is moved to the left and there are many outliers below the mean) then more than 50% could be above the mean because the outliers on the left end of the distribution drag the mean down significantly.

Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think

#32
perhaps this is an evolutionary advantage for humans to perceive themselves as good at things they do even if they are average or worse. It provides motivation, confidence, and enhances risk appetite. All necessarily attributes for a long term adaptive species.

Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think

#33
With what populations have the studies been conducted?

First, if all the participants have been American, this is likely not applicable across the earth. I have lived in both Asia and the US, I'd say that on average Americans express significantly more self-confidence than those in Asia (whose customs tend to value humility and self-deprecation. And they tend to do so, at least to other people.).

Second, if the populations have mostly been students at universities like Chicago and Virginia. They are far from average people. Youths could be more optimistic. Those in good universities might have been exposed to the good sides of things much more than most people. Their academic success could stem from their optimistic outlook and vice versa. And so on...

Psychology needs to diversify from studying Americans, esp. students in good American colleges.

Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think

#34
"It would be a big relief if we all suddenly realized, like Christian Andersen’s ugly duckling, that we are in fact beautiful."

This is a tongue in cheek comment in the article but it's all to common to read comments that "each one of us is special", etc. This, of course, cannot be; however, it is a common fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon#The_Lake_Wobegon_...)

Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think

#35
And, yet, it is overwhelmingly to your advantage to believe that you are attractive. Confidence counts for more than actual physical beauty.

This study provides an interesting example of a situation where it is in your rational interest to hold irrational beliefs.

Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think

#36
post #18

I've always had a poor self image, so according to the article I must be really ugly.

Ditto. When I was watching The Matrix and everybody's "residual self image" in the Matrix was super cool, I thought: "If I entered the Matrix I would probably be in jeans and an ugly t-shirt"

Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think

#37
When I was young, a lot of other people thought I was "beautiful." It had a lot of downside to it. My looks have mellowed with age and I generally have fewer problems and I am generally happier. I really cannot parse out how much of that positive change (edit: I mean being more comfortable with how I look and how people react to me) is due to mellower looks and how much due to behavioral or other changes. And I still get weird feedback, like people guessing I am a lot younger than I really am.

I have never figured out how to get some kind of objective measure of just how "attractive" I am. Unfortunately, this article isn't adding anything useful to my keen interest in understanding such things.

Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think

#38
post #13

My 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 a commercial not an experiment... you don't need to look for experimental errors in commercials. They're all lies. In fact, it would be criminal for them not to lie, since company-enhancing lies are good for the bottom line, and corporations who don't work to maximize the profit of their shareholders are breaking the law.
Post reply on HN