Live data from Hacker News

You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think

scientificamerican.com

11–20 of 79 posts

Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think

#11
This all might be explained by one factor: the amount of detail in the image. Well, that and the fact that most people seem to think that smooth featureless faces are more attractive. If you're familiar with your own face over time, you'll tend to overlook details since they change. If you meet someone just once, you might remember more specific features.

Also, something odd between these two studies: in one, people think they are more attractive than other people do, and in the other it's the opposite. This could be explained by people glossing over details when they describe a new face to someone else, while their own brain still has an image of the details that they would recognize later.

Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think

#12

> 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…

Technically, "average" is not a precise term, and can also be used to refer to the median or the mode. In a situation like attractiveness, the median and mean are likely to be approximately equal, so the distinction isn't very important.

Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think

#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.

Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think

#14
post #11

This all might be explained by one factor: the amount of detail in the image. Well, that and the fact that most people seem to think that smooth featureless faces are more attractive. If you're familiar with your own face over time, you'll tend to overlook details since they change. If you meet someone just once, you might remember more specific features. Also, something odd between these two studies: in one, people…

The Dove commercial is hardly a 'study,' I'm quite sure they determined the outcome before filming.

Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think

#15
I 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 rating by others, simply by yourself. So if you really wanted to make a statement about people actually being more or less beautiful than they themselves think they are, you would need a way for someone to assess themselves as if they were a stranger. I know a few times when I looked at a mirror and didn't immediately process that it was a mirror, I saw myself "objectively". I wonder if there's some way you could incorporate that phenomenon into a study. I would also suggest amnesia patients who have forgotten what they look like but 1) I don't know if that happens 2) people with amnesia can still remember things in a certain way (like how to play the piano), so I don't know if that would affect their own rating as well.

People studies are hard because there are just so many factors that affect the results, and it's not always intuitive what affects what. Really, most of these studies only directly support exactly what they tested, in this case: people choose the most attractive version of themselves when presented with different variations.

Re: You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think

#16
post #10

> 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…

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.
Post reply on HN