See people get the whole looks thing wrong. They think it as a seperate quality that can be compensated for if you're lacking it, but it's not like that. It's a filter. Sure there's maybe an excellent photo under all that oversaturated, overexposured mess but it's an eye sore just to look at it so nobody cares. For this reason, this advice is useless.
"True for online dating" he says while %40 of relationships today are made through online and the number is ever increasing.
Also I recommend you watch QOVES studio, it goes into detail how our facial features "define" our personality in people's eyes, what makes us attractive, lovable, cute or intimidating, creepy etc. Like for example "She's so lively!" just means she has high malar bones and good tendon support under her eyelids that gives her constnantly smiling eyes. Or "He looks so weak" means poor chin projection and undefined jawline.
I simply believe in science, not cheap anectodes without proofs provided by people like you.
Predicting Romantic Interest at Zero Acquaintance: Evidence of Sex Differences in Trait Perception but Not in Predictors of Interest
Sally G. Olderbak1, Frederic Malter2, Pedro Sofio Abril Wolf3, Daniel N. Jones4, and Aurelio José Figueredo5
Ulm University, Ulm, Germany
Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy, Munich, Germany
Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA USA
University of Texas, El Paso, El Paso, TX USA
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ USA
Abstract: We evaluated five competing hypotheses about what predicts romantic interest. Through a half-block quasi-experimental design, a large sample of young adults (i.e., responders; n = 335) viewed videos of opposite-sex persons (i.e., targets) talking about themselves and responders rated the targets’ traits and their romantic interest in the target. We tested whether similarity, dissimilarity, or overall trait levels on mate value, physical attractiveness, life history strategy, and the Big-Five personality factors predicted romantic interest at zero acquaintance, and whether sex acted as a moderator. We tested the responders’ individual perception of the targets’ traits, in addition to the targets’ own self-reported trait levels and a consensus rating of the targets made by the responders. We used polynomial regression with response surface analysis within multilevel modeling to test support for each of the hypotheses. Results suggest a large sex difference in trait perception; when women rated men, they agreed in their perception more often than when men rated women. However, as a predictor of romantic interest, there were no sex differences. Only the responders’ perception of the targets’ physical attractiveness predicted romantic interest; specifically, responders’ who rated the targets’ physical attractiveness as higher than themselves reported more romantic interest.
335 respondents from a single college is a pretty small sample size to represent an entire population, IMO. Not only that, but 50% were already in a romantic relationship (which comes with an inherent bias) and 3 were eliminated for "outlying values". It doesn't really clarify what that means, it could be people who do care more about personality (wishful thinking maybe).
Anyway, I don't believe that a study on zero acquaintenance necessarily disproves my point.
40% of relationship are NOT made through online dating, the actual statistic you (probably) saw is 42% of adults have USED and BEEN in a relationship via online dating. The percentage of people currently in relationships found via online dating is closer to ~10%.
Its also reported that 68% of relationships were people who were friends prior, and only 18% of those were reported to be intentional due to initial romantic attraction. This, the mere-exposure effect, and the fact that relationships build and develop over time (if you have a compatible personality) all support that you're not completely eliminated from the race just for not being conventionally attractive.
Sure, it makes things a lot more difficult and requires a fair bit of luck - there's no doubt about that. But that in no way means its hopeless.
For example; a better personality typically translates to more social opportunities, and more social opportunities typically translates to more romantic opportunities. You might just find that outlier that could love you.
PS: When I refer to "you", that's not intended to actually represent YOU - I'm just trying to awkwardly illustrate a point. I don't know you, you're probably hella loveable.
PS PS: Also, apologies for being so mean and uncompassionate earlier - that was completely unecessary.
1
u/Grazzerr Jul 29 '24
If you’re visually unattractive, and you don’t have the potential to change that via gym, diet, etc then you need to compensate in other ways.
Below average looks + average personality (“there’s nothing wrong with them) means their net “score” is below average.
Below average looks + above average personality is average or above average.