I can explain it... people who are prettier get treated better, therefore they are less averse to meeting and interacting with new people, therefore they learn valuable social skills early in life and have better personalities.

if that's the case then OF COURSE a correlation would exist. This experiment would only be valid if they first rated looks, then got to converse for a while (without mentioning the look calification) and then evaluated personality. To avoid any bias, they could be presented 15 photos of applicants and then have conversations without any of the parterns being able to see each other. Actually... I'm sure someone did this study already.

It's also possible less attractive people are far less confident than more attractive folks and thus scored lower on personality because they didn't know how to hold a conversation well. I also don't really take OkCupid as some kind of law on this. But you're right

Yeah, but then they keep getting treated better even after if they didn't learn good social skills.

Ugly people who become aware of this and try to emulate confidence and charisma also fail because they still get treated worse no matter what you do.

This is why there are so few outliers in the graph

So instead of looks = personality it's just looks -> personality. That's so much better. Normieville here I come.

I agree! Not perse 'better' personalities, just more socially acceptable personalities. Imagine a short skinny guy and a tall muscular guy. Imagine walking towards both guys. You will walk with dominance and confidence towards the short skinny guy and submissive and not confident to the tall muscular guy. Not only with your posture but also with your voice. Now imagine being those guys and experiencing this all your life! They will have two totally different personalities!

Exactly.

I think "just be confident" actually has a lot of truth to it, because your behavior matters so much. But its not like you can just act suddenly act confident if you have not been treated that way your whole life.

High five 🖐

Right, they can tell your personality and social skills from a few lines of text. Keeping trying normoid

one normie tried to tell me that the correlation 'wasnt that strong' and how 'girls rating guys as higher attractiveness helps them relieve their anxiety as they dont have to then message them' (i shit you not they actually said that)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Extreme coping

Whats more is that the only outliers are all of good looks and bad personality. There is literally not a single outlier of bad looks and good personality.

Dude, normal people don't understand stats. They think outliers are the people that make up the bellcurve. Or completely disregard the rest because outliers exist.

They're retarded.

But did you ask all 3.5 billion women out yet?

What?

A common normie talking point is that there are 3.5 billion women in the world, and they're all different, so you can't judge them all based on this graph.

Obviously they don't know how statistics work.

oooh ok, thank you for the context. I get it now lol

ya lol

Megabluepillcopercel. Incel in denial

This is literally a near textbook example of 0.9+ correlation

yep, the okcupid blog also said that after 25 votes of looks/personality, 92% of them lied within +-0.5 points of each other

like come on

They RUN their lives off pseudo positivity and outliers.

There is no correlation, attractive people like attractive people, if you are ugly then you find an ugly woman, its that simple and judging by the vast majority of couples I see when im out and about, its true. Plenty of genuinely unattractive people in relationships, with their equals. Of course women wont struggle as much as men but in general, in a relationship, an ugly woman is with an ugly man.

Sure, women can get sex easier but once you have ACTUALLY HAD SEX and arent an 18 year old (hint incels, most young people dont want a relationship and all the things some of you talk about like some anime fantasy) then you generally settle for your level. It works for almost everyone I know and everyone I have ever seen, ugly people stick together and have ugly kids, and the cycle continues.

If you arent part of this cycle, looks arent the issue, its entirely you.

Wrong, ugly women date up, retard.

do you even know where the graph is from? also you are talking out of your ass

if you are ugly then you find an ugly woman, its that simple and judging by the vast majority of couples I see when im out and about, its true.

in the age where ugly girls actually believe they can get handsome men and get them

Are you medically retarded?

They don't even try, they just go after the legitimacy of the experiment. They say things like "do you even know basic statistics" in hopes that we don't and they don't actually have to explain why it's wrong

They themselves don't know shit about statistics. It's no fucking wonder that psychology and sociology are going through reproducibility crises when humanities students either are not capable or do not even bother to understand sample sizes and confidence intervals. Seriously, every fucking day I see a claims like OkCupid experiment being wrong because it did not include the entire population and some other survey being BERRY BERRY WRONG because the sample size was only 500 people, completely ignoring the rest of the paper.

What is even more amazing that there is not a SINGLE statistically significant exception to this linear regression, this data contains a shockingly low standard deviation. Literally not a single person thought that some ugly looking dude might have a good ( ≥ 4 ) personality. Not a single person thought a good looking person had a bad ( ≤ 2 ) personality.

There are a few instances where your personality score is low, even though you’re attractive.

There are NO instances where your personality score is high, but looks score is low.

I noticed this when I read the OKCupid blog for the first time. Look at how smooth the top of the curve is. Look how scattered the bottom is. It's over.

The title says "people" not women.

I would assume men and women are equally biased in rating personality and attractiveness together.

Yet, in studies by okcupid (the same people) find that women rate men more harshly than men do women. This means that much more men find the average woman attractive (and thusly thinking she has a good personality) than women would for the average man.

Yes, but while men rate 50% of women as above average, women rate 20% of men above average.

I'm not that kind of girl teehee

Aside from what the others who replied to you said...so what?

Nobody here says men aren't shallow. We're saying that women are at least every bit as shallow, despite people lying about this.

It's our looks, not our personality. Women only care about looks.

it was shown that both men and women both consider looks = personality.

however, women are much more unreasonable in their perception of attraction than men. if you plotted how men rated women on a graph, it would resemble a standard distribution. (very few women were very ugly, some women were ugly, most women were average, some women were above average, and very few women were very attractive)

whereas women ratings were much more unreasonable (some men are very ugly, most men are ugly, some men are average, very few men were attractive, and even fewer were very attractive)

men and women do not perceive attractiveness the same way.

You are completely right why are you getting downvoted?

Ironically this looks like a blood stain I'd leave after seeing this sorta shit

Source?

OkCupid

Eh. I don't think it's quite that meaningful.

On Okcupid, if I saw a dimwitted superbabe, I wouldn't bother rating 1/5, I would just skip her.

But fwiw, my okcupid days were a thousand billion times more profitable then going out to a bar and hitting on random strangers, because I had a brilliant profile and brilliant messages. Of course most girls still ignored me because of my height, but not as many.

So did u fuck any of those?

Yeah, I married one. Not saying it's awesome, but in those days anyway you could read through profiles, and only one or two in a hundred was interesting, for both guys and girls. So you could basically connect that way. Usually not sex or kissing, but sometimes. Obviously doesn't apply to 98% of people so you're not going to see it clearly in the statistics, even if they weren't biased by selection.

Just grow 5 inches bro.

No one cares about personality, this is a fact of life. Everything depends on nothing but looks.

Blaqpill in a nutshell

For one that chart doesn't indicate which dimension is the cause and which one is the effect XD

You'd get the same chart if people rated folks with better personalities as more attractive. Seriously, correlation charts are reversible as they simply record the intersection that a data point lies on between two dimensions.

Guys seriously, stop beating yourself up over your looks. It'll free up more time (and thus more chances) to meet someone that might like you.

If u arent sub5

[removed]

So even if our bodies are decent we'll still have to settle for a landwhale. Nice.

[removed]

I don't judge face which is out of one's control. I do however, judge fatty fatty boom boom.

Face is out of control? Does plastic surgery not exist in your part of the world? We can all change ourselves drastically, in a multitude of ways, but most of us recognize that we're valuable beyond simple appearance. I 'unno about you, but people tend to celebrate my presence because I make 'em happy, can help them with problems, offer them guidance or interesting competition, and share stories of the cool things in the world. Not because I can lift stuff or look good in a tanktop.

So all those years of lifting and insane gym regiment for people and they should settle for women who don't respect their bodies at all? Do you know that you're technically suggesting that we perpetuate the problem, right? Because that's huge dating down.

Again, no one ever said that anyone has to date anyone. I'm saying don't be a douche about someone else's appearance if you're expecting people to cut slack on your own. If you won't give a shot that someone else could make you happy even if you don't immediately find them attractive, yet expect the same for yourself, that's hypocrisy.

You've got a 50/50 shot. In your heart of hearts, which do you think it is?

Why is it 50/50? A correlation between two variables doesn't mean that there's an underlying causal relationship that's restricted to those two variables.

Source: Ice-cream and Shark Attacks are correlated. One does not cause the other - https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation

I'm a "traditionally hideous" guy (5'7", B-cup manboobs, obese, visibly swollen liver, psoriasis on my hands that looks like open sores, and full body acne). I'm also a human cognition researcher. Based on my own success with dating/hooking up (after years of learning how) and what I know about how beliefs form/change, I would take a stab in the dark and say that if there's causation here it's bi-directional, and mediated heavily by social factors (i.e. likely to be unique to dating sites where information is limited to 500 characters, a picture, and no chance to assess the potential partner's major histocompatibility complex).

When the experiment is properly designed, as this one was, that's not an issue. Dependent and independent variables and all that jazz.

Either smoking cigarettes causes cancer or predisposition to cancer causes people to smoke.

Experiments require interventions, whereas correlation studies only discuss the relationship in value frequency between two variables. I only see the relationship between two variables here, and no discussion of different experimental conditions. What makes you certain this was an experiment, and what assurance do you have that it was properly designed?

Watch this video.

There is a dating show called “Dating in the dark” in which, as the name implies, people go blind dates in total darkness. The women in the show really like the guys’ personalities and even kiss them during their dates, but reject the men after the face reveal.

There’s also something called halo effect. Look it up. So it’s more likely that women think that good looking guys have better personalities than that women perceive people with good personalities as good looking.

So looking up halo effect, I find the definition "the tendency for an impression created in one area to influence opinion in another area." Where in that does it specify that looks primarily determine the assessment of personality? It simply identifies that one feature (looks/personality), affects the assessment of another feature (looks/personality).

Also cute video, but I've never dated under such conditions or ever met anyone that has. Does dating in your part of the world happen on TV with girls that have never seen or spoken to you prior? I've been rejected by chicks like that dozens of times, but always before a meal and always after they've had a good look at me. And those dozens of rejections have always been worth the handful of girls who ended up dating me long term.

Role of attractiveness

A person’s attractiveness has also been found to produce a halo effect. Attractiveness provides a valuable aspect of the halo effect to consider because of its multifaceted nature; attractiveness may be influenced by several specific traits.[18] These perceptions of attractiveness may affect judgments tied to personality traits. Physical attributes contribute to perceptions of attractiveness (e.g., weight, hair, eye color). For example, someone who is perceived as attractive, due in part to physical traits, may be more likely to be perceived as kind or intelligent. The role of attractiveness in producing the halo effect has been illustrated through a number of studies. Recent research, for example, has revealed that attractiveness may affect perceptions tied to life success and personality.[19] In this study, attractiveness was correlated with weight, indicating that attractiveness itself may be influenced by various specific traits. Included in the personality variables were trustworthiness and friendliness.[18] People perceived as being more attractive were more likely to be perceived as trustworthy and friendly. What this suggests is that perceptions of attractiveness may influence a variety of other traits, which supports the concept of the halo effect.

Read the rest on personality, too.

I've been rejected by chicks like that dozens of times, but always before a meal and always after they've had a good look at me. And those dozens of rejections have always been worth the handful of girls who ended up dating me long term.

That’s cool. Let’s assume the first girl you’ve asked out went on a date with you and maybe even became your gf. When you break up you know know your upper limit is going on dates and getting a gf. Now you may ask out 10 girls who all reject you but you write it off as bad luck and continue approaching girls because like I said you know that your upper limit is getting a gf. Now imagine a guy who asks out 100s of girls and gets nowhere. He gets demotivated because he thinks that a friendship is his upper limit. I hope that you understand what I’m trying to explain.

Not really, as it seems like you're saying that limits should only be estimated from experience. First words, first kisses, flight and graduations are all events that are never personally experienced prior to their occurrence. It seems toxic to assume that dating is the exception. After all, everyone was without a significant other until they found them.

As for your quote from the unlinked wikipedia article, you'll note that the two studies mentioned used physical attractiveness as the independent variable and personality as the response variable. This study instead used personality as the independent variable and physical attractiveness as the response variable, and found that people who were more honest and kinder were rated as more physically attractive https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071129145852.htm

It's also worth noting that attraction is not the same thing as physical attraction, that's why the link included in the wikipedia article for the term attraction includes a link to intrapersonal attraction (separate from physical attractiveness).

Not really, as it seems like you're saying that limits should only be estimated from experience. First words, first kisses, flight and graduations are all events that are never personally experienced prior to their occurrence. It seems toxic to assume that dating is the exception. After all, everyone was without a significant other until they found them.

It’s sounds as if you were saying that you can fly a plane without ever having flown one just because other people have done it. When you attempt to fly a plane several times and fail it’s fair to conclude that you can’t fly a plane.

Wow, that's a lot of words that were not in my original message that you've attributed to me. But to address your unrelated message and bring it back to the intention of mine, recognize that modern human flight was unprecedented until Joseph-Michael and Jacques-Ètienne Montgolfier. Until then, no one had flown (and had it written down), not even the duo themselves. Same with any current pilot, they never flew until they did. Even the ones that were bad at it at first. Even the ones that had to iterate over many, many failed designs before they got airborne.

And of course, most people that fly in the modern day aren't pilots. They're passengers that also never flew until they did.

When you attempt to fly a plane several times and fail, it's fair to conclude that you should seek a teacher, a better teacher, or just do what the vast majority of fliers do and hop on a flight. If you're really desperate, the requirements for hot-air balloons are relatively lax. With the sheer variety of ways to get into the air, it seems insane to conclude that you will never fly in any form just because you started out bad at piloting a plane.

People on dating sites are shallow? /s

I should start quoting dating sites as reliable sources for my statistical data. That would go well.

Cope

My best guess? The effects of lookism are amplified when the rater has very little basis on which to form an opinion about personality (e.g. an OkCupid bio).

Also worth mentioning that the causation you're all assuming could run in the opposite direction. There's evidence to that effect, too.

I can explain it. Genetics doesn't just affect your looks dumb ass. Genes affect everything.

But yeah you're disgusting not because you are ugly but because you are a genetic defect. Go buy an escort and don't curse a child with your defective beta genes

I'm not really much of a normie but I can try.

OKCupid and other online dating sites are inherently shallow places to find dates. You can't judge someone's personality off of some bullshit bio they probably wrote when they were drunk, so all they're really rating is looks, with an added variable of "did that make me laugh". If you had people judge looks and personality after meeting in a speed date type scenario you'd probably have vastly different results. Still somewhat correlated because to many people looks are important, but far far less correlation than seen here.

[removed]

Not really, as it seems like you're saying that limits should only be estimated from experience. First words, first kisses, flight and graduations are all events that are never personally experienced prior to their occurrence. It seems toxic to assume that dating is the exception. After all, everyone was without a significant other until they found them.

It’s sounds as if you were saying that you can fly a plane without ever having flown one just because other people have done it. When you attempt to fly a plane several times and fail it’s fair to conclude that you can’t fly a plane.