Scientifically Proven (?) Theory On Looks promoted by Aaron Sleazy

[I_Dare]

http://www.seductionmyth.com/reality_check/her-type/

Take a look. I think it's a very interesting theory to discuss. The author says it's been scientifically proven.

Sleazy talks about it on his blog. I don't like the guy but I can't really contradict the theory... except by saying that I don't see similarities in many couples. But the author of the blog says it's very subtle and women pick up on it unconsciously.

[Jani]

It's true, but useless.

It doesn't changes a thing about seduction.
If a girl has no personality, I don't care how big her boobs are (or that she has the same face).
The fact is also that humans see patterns in everything. We even see a face on Stonehenge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/474977.stm
If it wasn't their face, it would be that their freckles are on the same place

And for every couple with face similarities, I can give you a dozen with no similarities.

EVEN if it's true, who cares?! Placing the responsibility outside your control is never a good thing.

[The Notorious PhD]

I_Dare, I just want to caution you not to pay too much heed to the looks stuff. I don't know you, but if you're like me, the beginning part of this journey is hard enough already. You don't want to be reading all this stuff proclaiming the importance of looks and all that. You will find yourself very discouraged very easily and start blaming your lack of success on looks, when in fact, they matter far less than you think.

Again, this might not be you, but such a thing is common.

Next, let me just give you a primer on academic research:

1. Psychometric studies (i.e. research regarding people's perceptions/beliefs about things) are notoriously difficult to design well. In fact, much of that literature is faulty, but because most research doesn't get reproduced, the errors go unnoticed. Just because something came from a scientific journal doesn't mean it's true, especially in social science.

For example, a few years ago, a study was published in a premier journal claiming to find evidence of precognition (ability to see into the future). The authors were highly-respected researchers at Cornell (one of America's best universities), and involved more than a 1000 subjects in nine studies. The scope of this research is astonishing; most psychometric research is based on single studies with less than 100 people.

So they publish results claiming it's possible to see into the future. Amazing, right?

Except that subsequent attempts at replicating their research fell flat. The only reason we know this research was crap is because the result was eye-catching enough to induce others to test it further.

Now imagine if it were some garden-variety research about, say, how dominant you are perceived as based on nostril size (I just made that up).

Even if the study were crap, nobody really cares enough to replicate it. So it gets published in the fancy-sounding Annals of Nasal Sciences, and some blogger now has "proof" that larger nostrils are perceived as more dominant. So now a bunch of hapless internet virgins lament and curse god for giving them a nostril size too small.

Or worse yet, go out flaring their nostrils in an attempt to seduce women.

Not productive.

So take claims of scientific proof with a grain of salt. See the Cornell thing here:

2. The importance of "effect size" and "generalizability". The result from a specific study may end-up being bullet-proof, but you have to ask: (1) practically speaking, how much do they matter? (2) to what extent can they be applied outside of the restrictive environment the study was performed in?

Take Sleazy's example: The study was performed in a lab setting somewhere. Do you ever feel more/less nervous in a doctor's office? Who's to say that the effect in the study isn't merely an artifact of the study subjects acting abnormally around a bunch of researchers? Keep that in mind when you read research articles.

As for effect size, let me put it this way: In the 2008 Olympics, much fuss was made about the type of swimming trunk worn by the swimmers, which had been optimized to give as little fluid resistance as possible. Now do you think that the swimming trunk drove Phelps' win? Maybe it accounted for like 1% of increased his speed (which matters at the very highest levels of competition). But largely, Phelps's training, body type, and other factors drove his results. Similarly, raw genetics-based looks do account for something. Just how much, we don't know, though anecdotally, it seems very small.

3. Scientific theories cannot be "proven", only falsified. The studies referenced prove, if anything, the following: "It is not true that looks don't matter". The distinction is subtle, but important.

I hope the above points inform whatever debate you engage in on this forum about this theory.

But I should tell you that talking to girls is way more fun.

[Trickster]

Spoken like a true academic, NPhD. Well done.

I believe there are also a number of studies that link smell and the pheromones we emit to sexual attraction. Does that mean it's determinant of our success? Absolutely not. I can think a girl smells awesome and looks awesome, but if she has the personality of a barstool or is a total and complete bitch, I'm not into it.

[Jack Sparrow]

That's a load of BS.

Evolutionarily speaking it does not make sense that people seek to mate someone of similar features. I am sure Notorious PhD will tell you when you cross breed similar genes you are more likely for 2 negative recessive genes to express its phenotype. For those who did not study genetic, it means negative traits that may have been hidden is expressed when 2 people of similar genetics mate with each other. This is why you have so many retards and weirdos when cousins in breed.

Another argument is how old are these couples when you compare their pictures. My parents don't look anything alike in their wedding pictures, but after eating the same food, exposing to the same enthronement for 40 years, they actually look quite a bit like each other. Ask any grown up children and they will tell you their parents look more and more like each other.

The study lack 2 vital premise.

1- It's an observation of effect (that some couples look like each other), but no proof of causality exist.

2 - A more plausible argument exist that people seek out mates of significantly different genes to minimize future genetic disorder.

There are so much crap research studies on the internet it's unbelievable. For that matter, there are so much crap research in the scientific journal. The only proof it's in the pudding - does the research help people. If you think this study help you get more hot girls, believe it. If it doesn't, then it's crap.

[crazyhorse]

so many people keep misunderstanding that website. A reading comprehension course could really do wonders for people.

There are two different things that you need to take into account. These are a) beauty & b) looks.

Beauty is everything that's clasesically attractive: facial symmetry, shoulder-waist ratio, jawline, height, facial features. You know that kind of stuff.

Looks are her gut-level response to your levels of beauty or you being a good genetic match for her. Helen Fisher talks about this in "Why him Why her". You'll be amazed at what you'll get ouf of that book.

So when they mention looks on that website, a lot of people will get confused.

They are also talking from a purely one-night stand perspective. For relationships that's a totally different thing.

I do however agree with notoriousPhD that I_Dare shouldn't be focused so much on that stuff.

You guys attack these theories way to quickly just because you think "oh no another theory about looks, LIMITING BELIEF". Read up on "why him why her" by Helen Fisher, it will help you explain a lot about why you're attracted to certain people.

[I_Dare]

I noticed that's the only thing that forum is good at, making guys insecure. Many of the members seem psychotic. I'll stay away from it for sure.

Can't get that book. Don't have money. I spent my last "pennies" on Models.

[Mark]

Oh look, another looks thread.... yawn.

There's a lot of scientific evidence that correlates certain physical features to attraction. This should not come as any surprise to anyone with a brain. There are dozen of other factors that are correlated with attraction as well though, so physical features are certainly not the end-all-be-all.

Not sure why we're still talking about looks after all of this time:
http://postmasculine.com/do-looks-matter

[I_Dare]

Mark, this is not exactly about looks in general...it's about a specific thing.