| | What's with the low-balling?Page 3 of 5 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) | Thanks for an intelligent response.
I don't think there has to be a mathematical formula a la "e=mc2" in order to graph something.
It could be something like, "90% of the population prefers a nose between 3 and 4 centimeters wide" and similar criteria. Such as how far eyes are apart.
Which still leaves room for outliers re: the opinion of beauty.
For instance, the oddball might exist who can't stand Cindy.
And didn't Joan have a kid? Somebody must have thought she looked good. | |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 3:26:22 PM | Smith, that is exactly Subotais point about subjectivity, you will never agree because of that simple fact. My favorite look is very earthly natural, minimal make-up and almost a conservative look in some way... I would rank someone who looks like a pornstar 3, because that isn't my type, while a perky smiling geeky girl that seems grounded could be a 10 or whatever... And OP that is pondering why someone of same sex is ranking her low, I wouldn't put to much thought into it, just let it go.
EDIT: reply to msg 49
D
 | |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 3:29:42 PM | Seem`s to me if you put your mug up to be rated................,well you know the drill.
What was it that Jack Nicholson said in that movie where he was on the stand being cross-examined......"The truth,you can`t stand the truth",so you see...it`s what you want, it`s what you get.Are they truthful,who in the hell knows and why put yourself through it to begin with.I swear I don`t get it.OP....can you explain why you subject yourself to this? | |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 3:29:48 PM | | I still don't think women rate other women on looks... I think they judge them more by the image they are portraying and their personality as it appears... | |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 3:31:40 PM |
It could be something like, "90% of the population prefers a nose between 3 and 4 centimeters wide" and similar criteria.
Which still leaves room for outliers re: the opinion of beauty.
Yes, I believe this was the outcome of Leonardo's work. He concluded that symmetry was attractive and the more symmetrical the features the more likely someone would be considered attractive. I appreciate the probability argument - it has some merit.
But to return to the original argument.... there is also the variable of the number of people that vote.
Using your example... say 90% of the population do find a nose between 3-4 centimetres wide to be the perfect nose. Accordingly 10% would not.
For this to be the outcome of a vote the entire population would have to cast a vote but if, when the vote is taken, the entire 90% don't bother to weigh in and the entire 10% do weigh in then the outcome will be 100% of people think a nose between 3-4 centimetres is unattractive.
To return to the OP. It is possible that the people who participated in the "Rate Me" activity are people who don't find her attractive. That does not mean she is unattractive. Just that those who voted thought her unattractive. The ones that think she's a 10 are probably too busy threading needles or changing their oil and filter so the result is skewed.
| |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 3:39:05 PM | Aha!!
No survey in the history of mankind has ever included the entire population of the planet.
Unless you argue that the survey is too small (so random "noise" skews it), or biased in some way (say it was only conducted in saudi arabia, where standards of beauty are different), then you can't dismiss it by saying the very notion of a survey itself is flawed. | |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 3:40:07 PM | Smith: You certainly SOUND like a man with a bruised ego...
Evidently it is re-affirmed everytime someone rates you...
Sounds like fun
Of course attractiveness is subjective, you said yourself earlier... its in the eye of the beholder...
Do you seriously need mathematical values to tell you that not everyone views attractiveness the same? | |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 3:45:58 PM | >>Smith: You certainly SOUND like a man with a bruised ego...
Truly, I'm not. I think I'm average.
>>Evidently it is re-affirmed everytime someone rates you...
Actually, yes--I think that women have me at a 3.84 or something, which seems to be what the average man gets here (why it isn't a 5, I don't know. Ask the women).
>>Do you seriously need mathematical values to tell you that not everyone views attractiveness the same?
You're not paying attention. Do you know what a bell curve is? Of course different people fall in different parts of the bell curve. | |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 3:48:29 PM |
Aha!!
No survey in the history of mankind has ever included the entire population of the planet.
Which is exactly why surveys are not conclusive. There are too many variables. At best they are illustrative... at best. The more respondents the more illustrative it is and that is all one can hope for.
Unless you argue that the survey is too small (so random "noise" skews it), or biased in some way (say it was only conducted in saudi arabia, where standards of beauty are different),
Yes this is exactly what I am saying. With every survey there will be the variable that tips the balance.
then you can't dismiss it by saying the notion of a survey itself is flawed.
Did you mean it can be dismissed.... because if you meant it can't be dismissed I disagree.
Referendums are, by their very nature, flawed. Unless everyone is compelled to vote there will be some variable the corrupts the outcome. Using your example... if a survey is taken and only those in Saudia Arabia take part or the majority of participants are from Saudia Arabia then it may be that the standard of beauty may be rubenesque, natural, no cosmetics.
Take the survey again and this time the majority of participants are from London and the standard would be skeletal, makeup, fake nails, hair extensions etc.
Surveys are flawed. I doubt they are conclusive proof of anything. Take, for example, electorate polling. In London, if you take a poll on whether Tony Blair is doing a good job the outcome depends on the news of the day. If the news is filled with tragedy in Iraq, increased taxes, failing healthcare, poor budgeting then most people will answer he's a terrible Prime Minister. Take the same survey on a day when the public's mood is good and he may get a high approval rating.
Similarly, take the survey in a pro Labour (Democratic) area and he will get a high approval rating. Take it in a Conservative (Republican) area and he will get a low approval rating.
It is my agument that surveys do not yield results of any value. They are arbitrary.
| |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 3:48:38 PM | Smith: I don't need a bell curve to illustrate what to me is common sense...
I meant mathematical in relation to the surveys you seem to want to discuss... which just sound like noise to distract from the fact that you are sniffling about not being rated higher..
Searching for the reasons why...
Enjoy your bell curve analysis! | |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 3:53:26 PM | Erai: Please email me, I would like to continue our discussion, but I am sure it is boring most people.
Somehow, people who block those who contact others with sexual propositions have blocked me, even though I've never done that.
In case you don't get back to me: statistical samplings affect your entire life. For instance, take any drugs today? Do you think that drug was tested for safety on every person on the planet? Of course not. A large random sample was all that was needed to make it a good study.
Sassy--I am perfectly happy with my 3.84. It is about what the average man gets, and I think I am average. | |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 3:55:19 PM |
Do you seriously need mathematical values to tell you that not everyone views attractiveness the same?
Of course not. But I also know that when a perfectly pretty girl or handsome man gets a "1" rating on the rating-thingie there's more going on than the eye-of-the-beholder factor. People are being mean.
I'd never seek to have myself rated by strangers, but I sort of understand it now that I checked out the feature. Except for the (possibly) fake type photos, most of the people I saw were very young. They're seeking some kind of ego boost, of course, but that's the nature of humans at that stage in our lives. I'm surprised more people don't want to give them that little lift.
By the way, while I gave everyone a 10 just to be ornery, I didn't see a single person (well, maybe the big, studded tongue sticking out at me) that I wouldn't have honestly rated from 5 to 10 according to my personal viewpoint, anyway.
A "3"? Not a single person. A "1" is just nastiness. | |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 4:00:16 PM | ^^Ah, Dawn, the voice of reason. :)
I get lost in the mathematical minutiae, but you cut right to the chase. Love it. | |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 4:21:37 PM | I really don't understand why the subjective nature of rating is such a difficult concept to grasp.
Not only is attractiveness subjective but the value attached to the number in the rating system is, as well.
One person will class 3 as low. Another will class 3 as respectable. Everyone assigns their own value to the number system.
Person 1 may see 1 as hideously deformed, 5 as average and 10 as attractive.
Person 2 considers 1 to be average, 5 to be attractive, 10 as so beautiful you cannot look at them for longer than 2 consecutive seconds as you risk being blinded by their sheer radiance.
As such Person 1 will give a person a score of 5 and Person 2 would give a score of 1 but you will both consider that person to be attractive.
Dawn you would conclude that Person 2 is mean when, ironically, you both consider that person to be equally attractive. | |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 4:26:52 PM | Since the numbers are unitless--i.e., they don't stand for anything ("2 of what?"), you are right, you could assign any number to be average.
But that would be stupid, since it wouldn't show you the whole graph. In other words, Person 2 who calls one average, will have no place to put uglier than average people.
It is only sensible to make 5 average on a scale of 1-10. Or else you won't see the whole curve.
Oh, wait--are you saying people aren't sensible? | |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 4:41:08 PM |
only sensible to make 5 average on a scale of 1-10.
Sensible to you maybe but to the kind hearted Person 2 who thinks all God's creations have potential there would be no need to assign a number to ugly - nobody's ugly (Person 2 may possibly be a Buddhist). Person 2 starts at plain and works their way up to stunning.
If I ever engaged in this rating nonsense (which is highly unlikely) there's very little chance I'd give a 10 as, for me, 10 would be absolute perfection in every single way and unless Aphrodite has abandoned Mount Olympus for POF I don't think there's much chance of perfection. Yet, I suspect there are some that would happily give out 10s.
| |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 4:50:57 PM | ^^Ok, I grant you that point. But most people believe that beautiful and ugly both exist, and to them it would only make sense to have a rating scale that would encompass both.
I still wish you would email me.
Yes, to show the whole graph, there should either be no 1's and 10's, or at most one of each. Otherwise, information will be missing. | |
|
| |
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 5:02:04 PM | Deprive them? I don't get it. What would talking to me deprive them of?
You've actually given me a good debate.
I would enjoy being friends with you, I think.
Edit, to below: So--the feeling isn't mutual? | |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 5:05:23 PM | They would no longer be able to follow the debate as it will be concluded in private. That's like not screening the last 10 minutes of a film. If our postings were a thread hijack then I would readily take it to messaging but it is a continuation of the original topic and others should be allowed to continue to join in if they wish or to observe the debate unfolding....
Edit: About the good debate and being friends? Of course it's mutual and thank you for saying so. I will message you to open up the line of contact so that you can message me in future..... :-) | |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 5:13:58 PM | >>They would no longer be able to follow the debate as it will be concluded in private.
You really think they care? I think we lost them a long time ago...
We're two of a kind, and not like most others... | |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 5:18:52 PM | I really don't understand why the subjective nature of rating is such a difficult concept to grasp.
Oh, no, it's not that. I understand what you're saying, and would cede the point if we were in a big room full of intellectuals (even though I'd have had to sneak in via the kitchen door, to be honest) discussing the NATURE OF BEAUTY. But we're talking about the POF rating system, and common sense tells me the game's afoot when people push the little button.
If I ever engaged in this rating nonsense (which is highly unlikely) there's very little chance I'd give a 10 as, for me, 10 would be absolute perfection in every single way.
Lord, no wonder people tell me I have "low" standards. I see 10s everywhere, on here and in real life. It's distracting, to tell the truth.
Edit: Ooops! Didn't mean to intrude! Ha! | |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 5:27:46 PM |
You really think they care? I think we lost them a long time ago...
Yes I do. I've just read a few messages from people who have been following this debate. I'm frequently messaged by people who read my posts on the forums and comment on them. I don't mean that to sound conceited, I only raise it because there are people who read rather than post (which is fair enough, not everyone has a point to make but they enjoy reading the viewpoints of others).
I see 10s everywhere, on here and in real life. It's distracting, to tell the truth.
I bet it is. If I saw a 10 (by my standards) I think I would be rendered physically and mentally incapable until they moved out of my line of vision.
 | |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 5:54:21 PM | >>Yes I do. I've just read a few messages from people who have been following this debate.
Call me conceited, but I bet the finer points were lost on most of them.
I think our debate was a draw.
Which impresses the hell out of me, BTW.
| |
|
| What's with the low-balling?
Posted: 2/10/2007 6:08:00 PM |
but I bet the finer points were lost on most of them
I don't think so. Some people don't have the time or inclination to engage in lengthy debates online. That doesn't mean they're incapable of doing so.
I think our debate was a draw.
Really? 'Cause I think I won hands down!!
and it's not over yet as I just noticed an edit in one of your posts...
In case you don't get back to me: statistical samplings affect your entire life. For instance, take any drugs today? Do you think that drug was tested for safety on every person on the planet? Of course not. A large random sample was all that was needed to make it a good study.
Of course the drug wasn't tested on everybody on the planet. That would be impractical but that doesn't necessarily mean that the study was good. It's just accepted as being better than nothing.
This happens all the time.... for example, speed limits. Drive at 30mph and you're likely to injure anyone you hit. Drive at 60mph and you are likely to kill anyone you hit. Drive at 2mph and there is a significantly reduced potential for harm.... why then do we not have speed limits of 2mph? Because it's impractical. In setting such a speed limit the benefit is diminished greatly... you may as well walk.
The same with drug testing. Setting a requirement of testing the drug on every single person to quantify it's potential for harm/efficacy is impossible. Set such a standard and no drugs company would ever get approval so a lesser standard is accepted. Is it foolproof? No!
So, in conclusion, whilst statistical sampling may affect my entire life it doesn't mean I agree with it. I have no choice but to live with it and the existence of statistical sampling doesn't mean it is a perfect system, just the best one that is also practical. It is accepted that there will be a margin of error built in to any conclusions drawn from random sampling. | |
|
Home
login 