I think it's pretty safe to assume that there's a specific set of facial and bodily features that all members of the opposite sex find attractive (let's call it A).
The Black pill assumption seems to be that nothing else but the combination of this set of feature is relevant for finding a sexual partner.
However, I think most blackpill studies on sexual attraction are actually being fooled by this feature (A) because they only look at aggregate data.
Let me give you a toy example, assume we have a total of 6 males and we ask 3 women to rate them from 0 to 5.
Let's assume that the participants can be ranked on a total of 3 features:
The previously mentioned "generic" attractiveness (A) Their "taste" in a particular genre of fashion (F) And, their skill at playing music (M)
Women 1 cares about A and F. Women 2 cares about A and M. Women 3 cares only about A.
Let's assume that our 6 participants have the following scores (For the sake of making this easy, let's assume that scores are capped at 3 and we can simply add them up):
-
- A = 3; F = 0; M = 2
-
- A = 3; F = 2; M = 0
-
- A = 2; F = 0; M = 3
-
- A = 2; F = 0; M = 0
-
- A = 1; F = 3; M = 0
-
- A = 1; F = 0; M = 3
They will get the following rankings (going from women 1 to 3):
- 1: 3, 5, 3 (avg of 3.6)
- 2: 5, 3, 3 (avg of 3.6)
- 3: 2, 5, 2 (avg of 3)
- 4: 2, 2, 2 (avg of 2)
- 5: 4, 1, 1 (avg of 2)
- 6: 1, 4, 1 (avg of 2)
Aggregating all the data in this graph tells us that having a higher A is the only highly relevant value for having higher score. So appearance (in aggregate, is all that matters). This seems to be the approach that most black pill studies seem to take (or, I should stay, studies that bps loves to cite).
However, looking at the individual scores, we can actually see that:
a) Some high scores were achieved based on other traits by ugly looking individuals b) Some decently looking individuals, which we'd expect to perform better than ugly looking individuals, would actually have far harder time having sex with any of them women (since all of their ratings were quite low, despite the aggregate being equal to the uglier subjects, which are undesirable to most women, but quite desirable for one).
Now, this is just a simple example to illustrate this effect, rather than using statistical Jargon. But, what's essentially happening with all studies that look for how people chose a mate, is that they get confounded by physical attractivness when they aggregate the data. Physical attractivness is no doubt important, and it's likely that 99.99% of women WILL care about it. Whilst any other feature be it blue eyes or skill in X or voice or knowledge or passion in a particular subject will get lost if the population is aggregated.
Again, my aim here is not to say that the "core" features of BP (that is to say looks and, to some extent status and wealth) aren't extremely important. They are. But, if all the studies that are being conducted are done on homogenous populations and only the aggregate results are analized, it might be tempting to say that these immutable (or hard to change) traits are ALL that matter, when in reality, other just-as-important traits get confounded by them when the data is aggregated.
I wonder if there are any studies that have addressed this issue in any way. Also, for any complaints or clarification about this "theory" please leave a comment, I'll be glad to answer.
I know this is not in the "spirit" of BPS, but as a statistician looking through the subreddit I couldn't help but try and start a discussion around this subject. It seems like a highly important aspect that you guys are glancing over.
(Also, sorry for the grammar and formatting, I'm on my phone, if this post doesn't get removed I'll edit it once I reach my laptop).
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]elf_knife_love[S] -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link