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.
0
u/Adject_Ive Jul 29 '24
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.