Unattractive people overrate their looks

[ThatOwlWoman]

Gatherers is one thing, taking down a bison with sharpened sticks is another. Different skills involved.

Yet both males and females banded together to do that. Most subsistence people, now and then, got their protein from small animals, eggs, birds. Women excelled at gathering these food sources, as well as plant foods. If it wasn't for planted-based foods, humankind wouldn't have survived.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yet both males and females banded together to do that. Most subsistence people, now and then, got their protein from small animals, eggs, birds. Women excelled at gathering these food sources, as well as plant foods. If it wasn't for planted-based foods, humankind wouldn't have survived.

I'd have to study it further. My understanding is that most women didn't accompany the men on bison hunts among Native Americans.

Agreed about plants. The lower on the food chain, the easier it is to acquire.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I'd have to study it further. My understanding is that most women didn't accompany the men on bison hunts among Native Americans.

Agreed about plants. The lower on the food chain, the easier it is to acquire.

Of course they went. Who did the butchering and dragging the animals back to camp, and then the cooking and preserving, tanning and rendering?

Popular lit and movies like to show primitive societies engaging in massive hunts and feasts, but in reality those big game occurrences were pretty uncommon. Most of our primitive ancestors -- and the few remaining primitive cultures today -- subsist on mostly plants and small animal/bird/reptile/fish proteins.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Of course they went. Who did the butchering and dragging the animals back to camp, and then the cooking and preserving, tanning and rendering?

Popular lit and movies like to show primitive societies engaging in massive hunts and feasts, but in reality those big game occurrences were pretty uncommon. Most of our primitive ancestors -- and the few remaining primitive cultures today -- subsist on mostly plants and small animal/bird/reptile/fish proteins.

That's my point; that's not the hunt.

Agreed on the smaller game and plants.

 

[Cypress]

That's my point; that's not the hunt.

Agreed on the smaller game and plants.

"Prehistoric women were successful big-game hunters, challenging beliefs about ancient gender roles"

Archeological evidence from Peru has revealed that some ancient big-game hunters were, in fact, women, challenging what science writer James Gorman wrote was "one of the most widely held tenets about ancient hunters and gatherers—that males hunted and females gathered."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2021-03-prehistoric-women-successful-big-game-hunters.amp

 

[Dutch Uncle]

"Prehistoric women were successful big-game hunters, challenging beliefs about ancient gender roles"

Archeological evidence from Peru has revealed that some ancient big-game hunters were, in fact, women, challenging what science writer James Gorman wrote was "one of the most widely held tenets about ancient hunters and gatherers—that males hunted and females gathered."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2021-03-prehistoric-women-successful-big-game-hunters.amp

In a survival situation, do whatcha need to do.

That said, while young single women might go on a hunt, I doubt many mothers would leave their young unprotected to go away for a day or three.

As the infant and child mortality stats proved, either the mother or the father would have to watch the kids.

 

[McRocket]

As usual people - read past the headlines.

First - yes, I believe that most, less-attractive people think (hope?) they are more attractive than they are.

Second - this study seems like nonsense in it's execution.

In the first study (of two)?
The total group of people who decided how attractive the subjects were?
Were two dudes.
That's it...just two guys!

Calling that a 'fair study' is beyond ridiculous.


The second study - apparently - used four women and four men to judge 'how attractive' the respondents were.
And though that is far better than the first, joke of a study.
It's still an incredibly, small number of people to come to a conclusion about ALL humans on the entire planet.

In addition.
The respondents (the people being judged) averaged (mean) 33.8 years of age.
That could be important.
If the 'judges' were all of university age?
Which - given that the second study was done at a university, is possible. If not probable.

That means you have - potentially - college-aged students, judging the looks of people, MUCH older then themselves.
Obviously, an 18 year old guy is going to be more attracted to an average 18 year old gal than an average, 40 year old gal.

The whole 'report' seems like nonsense to me.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sjop.12631

 

[Cypress]

In a survival situation, do whatcha need to do.

That said, while young single women might go on a hunt, I doubt many mothers would leave their young unprotected to go away for a day or three.

As the infant and child mortality stats proved, either the mother or the father would have to watch the kids.

I think we don't know very much about Paleolithic humans and much more research and evidence is needed.

The requirements of motherhood obviously place an additional burden on the females of the genus hominidae.

I also suspect that gender, economic, and social stratification became more pronounced after the advent of cultivated agriculture and the development of sedentary societies. In most predator species on the planet, the female has to actively hunt just like the male.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Here you go, an example of big, permed hair.

I love the warpaint.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think we don't know very much about Paleolithic humans and much more research and evidence is needed.

The requirements of motherhood obviously place an additional burden on the females of the genus hominidae.

I also suspect that gender, economic, and social stratification became more pronounced after the advent of cultivated agriculture and the development of sedentary societies. In most predator species on the planet, the female has to actively hunt just like the male.

Agreed more research is needed, but there's a lot of data on primitive human societies since we've had them well into the 20th century. Human beings haven't changed anatomically for about 300,000 years and mentally for around 30,000 years.

In short, there's not much new under the Sun when it comes to the basic Mark I model of Homo sapiens sapiens. LOL

From the infant mortality link: https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past

The fertility rate was commonly higher than 6 children per woman on average, as we discuss here. A fertility rate of 4 children per woman would imply a doubling of the population size each generation; a rate of 6 children per woman would imply a tripling from one generation to the next. But instead population barely increased: From 10,000 BCE to 1700 the world population grew by only 0.04% annually. A high number of births without a rapid increase of the population can only be explained by one sad reality: a high share of children died before they could have had children themselves.

Agreed that cultivated agriculture gave rise to cities and specialization among humans in society. However, that only covers the previous 10,000 years, not the entire 300,000.....as far as we know.

Given human nature and the timespan, I think there's plenty of time for the rise and fall of civilizations but that's not backed up by any evidence. As far as we know, humans lived in foraging and hunting tribal societies with an average of a 0.04% growth rate due to infant and child mortality. Small game and fish would be their primary source of protein, supplemented with foraged berries, nuts and other plants.

Due to the basic anatomical nature of human beings, the division of labor within a tribe would primarily see the young to older males on the hunt or warring. Younger, single females could do the same but mothers would most likely be tending camp.

 

[Life is Golden]

As usual people - read past the headlines.

First - yes, I believe that most, less-attractive people think (hope?) they are more attractive than they are.

Second - this study seems like nonsense in it's execution.

In the first study (of two)?
The total group of people who decided how attractive the subjects were?
Were two dudes.
That's it...just two guys!

Calling that a 'fair study' is beyond ridiculous.


The second study - apparently - used four women and four men to judge 'how attractive' the respondents were.
And though that is far better than the first, joke of a study.
It's still an incredibly, small number of people to come to a conclusion about ALL humans on the entire planet.

In addition.
The respondents (the people being judged) averaged (mean) 33.8 years of age.
That could be important.
If the 'judges' were all of university age?
Which - given that the second study was done at a university, is possible. If not probable.

That means you have - potentially - college-aged students, judging the looks of people, MUCH older then themselves.
Obviously, an 18 year old guy is going to be more attracted to an average 18 year old gal than an average, 40 year old gal.

The whole 'report' seems like nonsense to me.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sjop.12631

Thanks for that info. Makes a lot more sense now.

 

[Cypress]

Second - this study seems like nonsense in it's execution.

In the first study (of two)?
The total group of people who decided how attractive the subjects were?

Were two dudes.
That's it...just two guys!

The paper states it summarizes a compilation of six different studies

Study One: 191 people
Study Two: 163 people
Study Three: 235 people
Study Four: 271 people
Study Five: 214 people
Study Six: 106 people

For a total of 1,180 people participating in the studies summarized in this paper.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sjop.12631

 

[Dutch Uncle]

....

The whole 'report' seems like nonsense to me.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sjop.12631

Thanks for the link, son. You epitomize this statement from your link:

This basic finding that the incompetent overestimate their abilities – termed the Dunning-Kruger effect – has been replicated in dozens of studies (for a review, Dunning, 2011)...

...Overall, there is overwhelming evidence that incompetent people fail to recognize their own incompetence.

You claimed to have a college education but always ran from your field of study. Why? Is it embarrassing?

Even if it was Finger-painting or basket-weaving, I'm certain you have learned something.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The paper states it summarizes a compilation of six different studies

Study One: 191 people
Study Two: 163 people
Study Three: 235 people
Study Four: 271 people
Study Five: 214 people
Study Six: 106 people

For a total of 1,180 people participating in the studies summarized in this paper.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sjop.12631

McRicket seeks to disavow the entire concept due to a single flaw he perceives in a single study. Notice how he cherry-picked the statement, then neglected to post the data:

While participants responded to the questionnaire, their objective attractiveness was unobtrusively assessed by two male experimenters who were standing in front of the participants while they were filling out the questionnaire. The experimenters independently judged how physically attractive they perceived the respondent, on a scale from 1 (not at all attractive) to 9 (very attractive). Experimenter ratings were significantly correlated, r(191) = 0.59, p < 0.001, and were thus averaged. In this study and the following studies, raters and participants were unacquainted and raters were unaware of how participants judged themselves.

Results
Subjective and objective attractiveness ratings were not significantly correlated, r(191) = 0.13, p = 0.067. Participants perceived themselves to be more attractive (M = 6.03, SD = 1.08) compared to how they were perceived by the experimenters (M = 5.44, SD = 1.44), t(190) = 4.82, p < 0.001.

I suspect it's because he doesn't understand it in a display of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. LOL

 

[McRocket]

The paper states it summarizes a compilation of six different studies

Study One: 191 people
Study Two: 163 people
Study Three: 235 people
Study Four: 271 people
Study Five: 214 people
Study Six: 106 people

For a total of 1,180 people participating in the studies summarized in this paper.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sjop.12631

My mistake - I did not see the other four.
But it changed little.


The first study - 2 dudes did all the judging.
The second study was 8 people - but I described why this methodology was highly flawed.

The rest?

The third study - only 2 females judged all the participant’s.
The fourth study - only 2 females judged all the participant’s.
The fifth study - only 2 females judged all the participant’s.
The sixth study - 106 people judged each other. But it was not stated if they did so in private or in front of the others. The latter would obviously alter their responses.

You cannot have such tiny numbers of judges to perform such an INCREDIBLY, subjective task.
And seriously expect the experiment to be worthwhile.

The study(s) were a joke.
They tell us virtually nothing as the methodology used was INCREDIBLY flawed.

You don't agree?
Fine.


We are done here, for now.

Good day.

 

[Cypress]

The sixth study - 106 people judged each other. But it was not stated if they did so in private or in front of the others.


We are done here, for now.

Good day.

106 people is a lot more than the two people you claimed in your previous post..


The reason these researchers assessed six independent studies is because they said they recognized limitations in individual stand alone studies

 

[Life is Golden]

You cannot have such tiny, numbers of judges to perform such an INCREDIBLY, subjective task.
And seriously expect the experiment to be worthwhile.

The study(s) were a joke.
They tell us virtually nothing as the methodology used was INCREDIBLY flawed.

You don't agree?
Fine.


We are done here, for now.

Good day.

Excellent point.

 

[Cypress]

It wasn't just "two" judges as a cursory review of the paper demostrates

Collectively,
122 judges,
1,180 participants,
and six independent research studies

was obviously sufficient for a peer reviewed journal to ascertain the data in the paper was collectively robust enough to publish

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Excellent point.

McRicket overlooked both the data of that particular study plus all the other studies confirming the same conclusions.

To reiterate; Beauty is in the eye of the beholder meaning that it's highly subjective. It's also relative to the culture in which a person is raised.

That said, most human beings want to fit in with their society. No one wants to be seen as evil, ugly or bad. No fascist leader thought they were evil; they truly believed what they were doing was the best for their people...and themselves. Ergo, it makes sense that less attractive people, less-than-average IQ people, criminal people and others would think they are average. It's a natural desire to fit in with their society.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Collectively,
122 judges,
1,180 participants,
and six independent research studies

was obviously sufficient for a peer reviewed journal to ascertain the data in the paper was collectively robust enough to publish

Agreed on the data. The bigger question is "Why?" I think it goes beyond the Dunning-Kruger Effect even though I agree that plays a part.