tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28723539.post7046539997406787899..comments2023-12-28T09:07:16.216+00:00Comments on Talking pictures: How do I look?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28723539.post-74160012475008396402006-12-23T14:33:00.000+00:002006-12-23T14:33:00.000+00:00"you have a sample size thats large enough that ef...<i>"you have a sample size thats large enough that effects that might be produced by other parameters are swamped by the parameter in question. This is what this study does, they have used over 100 individuals for each test"</i><br /><br />The question is how were these 100 individuals selected... if they answered an advertisement (the most common way), there could already be a skew, especially if the ad said something about the research: people who were unsuccessful/unhappy in relationships or already had a low self-esteem may have been more likely to answer. I don't think 100 is a terribly large number, though I recognise that it's difficult to do better.<br /><br />Neither the mindhacks nor the economist article says how many volunteers there were or how many of them overestimated others' appearance... the abstract gives the number of volunteers but not the breakup in overestimation (does "consistently" mean "all of them did that"?) I couldn't access the full article either.<br /><br />About the "lake wobegon effect" thing, I think there could be a difference between rating yourself "on average" and rating yourself against specific examples. Eg, the same person may say that they look better than the average person, but worse than these specific examples. <br /><br /><i>"under certain conditions women are systematically less confident of their own knowledge than men."</i><br /><br />In mechanical things that is often true -- men will say "I can fix that" and proceed to wreck it, women won't try unless they're more than reasonably sure of themselves. In other things it's totally the other way around... There are always exceptions of course.<br /><br />Well, this discussion has morphed well beyond the scope of your post... <br /><br />BTW, Abi points out that Hitchens totally misinterpreted that study on women and humour, as did most of the media.Rahul Siddharthanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04809667965184094636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28723539.post-11135450631324383442006-12-23T07:52:00.000+00:002006-12-23T07:52:00.000+00:00"As I remember, I had several questions about the ..."As I remember, I had several questions about the sampling, beginning with: were the people concerned single / in uneasy relationships / in happy relationships?"<br /><br />I agree with you here somewhat, in that I was not entirely happy with their design. I havent read the original research either. Its locked away behind a subscription wall. <br />Nonetheless, the sort of variation you talk of is usually dealt with in 2 ways in the behavioural sciences. One is to explicitly include these different parameters in you analysis. <br /><br />The other cruder way is to hit the problem with numbers, you have a sample size thats large enough that effects that might be produced by other parameters are swamped by the parameter in question. This is what this study does, they have used over 100 individuals for each test, thats pretty respectable for a sample size. I think for the question asked their results ought to be robust.<br /><br />Their interpretations off course as you point out with the Hitchens article are always debatable. I don't think, however, that such studies are always that poor or hand-waving.<br /><br /><br />"One thing I realised late in life is that many women appear to be more self-confident than they really are... "<br />"How did they rate themselves and others in other aspects -- intelligence, independence, etc?"<br /><br />As the mind hacks point out, (2nd link in the sent abt research), in most other domains humans tend to over-estimate themselves. Which also makes the result interesting in itself. <br /><br />I don't know what its like between the genders. A friend who was doing research in this area found that under certain conditions women are systematically less confident of their own knowledge than men. I'm sure theres quite a bit of work out there....surely for a couple of blog posts :)Natasha Mhatrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11507819348864032232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28723539.post-20626519473315763122006-12-23T03:49:00.000+00:002006-12-23T03:49:00.000+00:00Yes I think I understood what you're saying and I ...Yes I think I understood what you're saying and I saw the news item about that research saying we overestimate the competition. (Though I didn't read the original research.) As I remember, I had several questions about the sampling, beginning with: were the people concerned single / in uneasy relationships / in happy relationships? How did they rate themselves and others in other aspects -- intelligence, independence, etc? Generally I'm a bit skeptical of these studies. They may show some correlation but correlation is <br />not causation.<br /><br />(EG - <A HREF="http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/01/hitchens200701?currentPage=1">Here's</A> a rather ridiculous article by Christopher Hitchens on why women aren't funny... he bases it on some research saying men evolved humour to attract women, to compensate for lack of good looks, and women don't need it because they can sit there and look pretty. He fails to see the implication, that women should be the judges of what is funny and what isn't...)<br /><br />One thing I realised late in life is that many women appear to be more self-confident than they really are... and, to me, at least, self-confidence increases their attractiveness.<br /><br />Maybe it's a subject for a blogpost of my own.Rahul Siddharthanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04809667965184094636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28723539.post-17864795742977122342006-12-22T19:15:00.000+00:002006-12-22T19:15:00.000+00:00Well, I amn't on about any specific kinds of manip...Well, I amn't on about any specific kinds of manipulation in pictures, so thinness, skin, untoned saggy bodies and faces, all of its covered. While off course certain preferences aren't as narrow as others, that isn't what I'm talking about. <br /><br />You're saying that we only attend to people that are 'better' looking. The research suggests that we're bad at judging how good our 'competition' looks and so we're thinking of ourselves as looking worse than we appear to the opposite sex. <br /><br />(Btw, both men and women show this behaviour.)<br /><br />I was just wondering about how this might be happening at a proximate mechanistic level. And then wondering whether fashion imagery further messes with this purely mechanistic process.<br /><br />I'm not really talking about whether this is good or bad and so on. Or who's to blame....really this is not a 'feminist' article in that sense. I'm just wondering about how it happens...<br /><br />The researcher who did the work I refer to suggests evolutionary reasons for this preference, which is basically that we try harder as a result of our under-estimation of ourselves, increasing our chances of getting a mate. <br /><br />I suppose at some level ads and images like that drive us with something like 'super-stimuli' getting us to try beyond the possible. Its a sort hijacking of a biological drive, if you will?Natasha Mhatrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11507819348864032232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28723539.post-3268905225879384232006-12-22T18:09:00.000+00:002006-12-22T18:09:00.000+00:00Hm. I'm not sure too many men, especially in Indi...Hm. I'm not sure too many men, especially in India, fall for the anorexic supermodel look. Moreover, this is not the only form of media/marketing assault that children and teenagers are exposed to.<br /><br />In India, I have a bigger issue with the fairness cream makers and marketers. (In fact, if one is worried about blemishes, surely dark skin is better to hide them.) <br /><br />To go back to your question on whether one glosses over flaws in others (the way they're airbrushed from photos) -- I don't think that's the issue. The issue is that, by definition, very few of us are among the best looking; most of us are in the middle, and we notice those better-looking than us, and not those worse-looking than us. It's like noticing coincidences (and attributing them to supernatural causes) and not noticing ordinary events. Of course, I'm speaking from a male perspective (and though I never considered myself good-looking, it didn't keep me awake at night), maybe it's more complex for young girls.Rahul Siddharthanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04809667965184094636noreply@blogger.com