Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Since we like science so much, is this indicative just to the UK or is it most western nations, if not more [Details inside]?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26801points) July 17th, 2015

The talk said a lot is that it is about personality, the smile, and other such gobbledygook. I believe this experiment was done in the UK, but it shows scientifically, since we love experiments, that you can take a rather homely guy and by giving him have the appearance of money and power raises his attractiveness. If they would have told the women he made upper six figures or even upper seven figures if he would have been even more attractive than they placed him with no actual income numbers? I guess you can argue it was not in the US, Canada, etc. and women in those places would go off the smile and personality more than the appearance of his wallet being fat, is that what you would think? Would you think only women in the UK will up a guy’s desirability because he has an MBA (Massive Bank Account)? Can a guy that is hunky but broke as five church mice and as dumb as a box of rocks with eight extra stones truly best a man making 600k +, but rated 3 or less?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

46 Answers

josie's avatar

It’s the way of the world, has been forever, and well known long before the scientific method became an epistemological standard.
Any other power indicator beyond money can have the same effect.

JLeslie's avatar

They have fine studies for that in America. Men are more attractive when they have money in every study I’ve seen.

LuckyGuy's avatar

Years ago, Nobel prize winning economist Steven D. Levitt and journalist Stephen J. Dubner, studied this in their book, Freakonomics. They looked at the results of 75 to 90 million dates on major dating sites, Match . com, ok cupid, etc. They looked at all the factors and characteristics listed in the profiles and what people wanted in a date and correlated them with the success rate of the match-up. Based upon those millions of matches they discovered the number one factor for women to rate a date high was…, wait for it…. the man’s income. That was above height, weight, age, education, liking walks in the park, religion, etc.
In the other direction, men looking for women, the number one factor was… wait for it…. her body size (fit/athletic being the highest) . The woman’s income was a strong second. In fact, they were able to cross correlate the number of extra pounds a woman could “wear” per $1000 of annual income.

Recently the owners of okcupid revisited the study and found another factor taking over the lead…. non-smoking. That was more important than height, weight, religion, income, education, etc. A smoker is automatically ruled out by an overwhelming majority (60% 70%?, I forget) of people doing searches. They do not even bother to look at the other factors.
Since about 2013 a smoker is definitely swimming in a smaller dating pool.

<—Nonsmoker. And if you scrunch your eyes just right that yellow disk on his shoulder looks like a million dollar, gold Krugerrand.

keobooks's avatar

I don’t think women in the U.S. are less likely to go after cash over good looks. I don’t need a science experiment for that. Just open up any tabloid and see some 20 year old supermodel “deeply in love” with some 80 year old multimillionaire.

I don’t think it’s unique to the West either. I’ve read many books that take place in very poor Asian countries. The women in those books were willing to settle for far less, but it seems that having a tin roof and your own scooter makes a man sexier than one with a dirt roof and no bicycle.

Stinley's avatar

Like all science experiments, the results are never conclusive and definitely don’t mean that everyone does this. So don’t worry too much if you are the homey guy and are as poor as a country mouse.

I also think that the basis for attraction doesn’t have that much influence on the staying power of a relationship. Being nice will mean more in the long run than all the good looks and dollars in your wallet. And don’t even think about blaming your looks or wallet when things go wrong in a relationship – they saw past that to go out with you in the first place.

keobooks's avatar

It still doesn’t explain those dirt poor AND ugly men who have several different mothers chasing them down for child support.

Strauss's avatar

dumb as a box of rocks with eight extra stones… I love it!

bossob's avatar

It’s well-established that good looks (either gender) and money open more doors. They provide more opportunities for achieving one’s goals. What happens beyond the initial opportunity is more dependent on substance and character.

cazzie's avatar

Social science is soft. Over generalising about a large group of people for reasons of ‘romance ’ makes me giggle. And only aids to remind me that humans are dumb shallow creatures. (And I’m so glad I’m not one )

Jaxk's avatar

Is anyone really surprised that women would find a man in an Armani suit stepping out of a Porsche more attractive than a man in an old army jacket eating out of a dumpster? We needed a scientific study to show this? Really? Or that they would think there is a difference in income? I can’t believe anyone is surprised.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Brains and personality does it for me, more than anything. I’ve had two guys come on to me, using the vast amounts of money they had to lure me in. Guess I’m not shallow enough, because since I didn’t particularly like either one of them I didn’t return their phone calls.

Maybe that was a mistake. But, I guess, I’d always know that even if we were married, I’d only be the latest It just wouldn’t really console me that I could get boatloads of money at the end of the marriage.

cazzie's avatar

And do we need a study to show that men consider body size before income or education?
@Jaxk… I am not surprised by general human stupidity.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Men consider looks=sex before anything else. Before personality, money, intelligence, anything.

Jaxk's avatar

@Dutchess_III – Remember how the test was set up. The guy is behind a glass window. You don’t get to know anything about ‘Brains or Personality’. This is merely measuring appearance and first impression. No need to be defensive.

@cazzie – Same thing appearance is all you get to judge by. If your point is that men are more shallow, again I don’t think we need a scientific study for that either

Dutchess_III's avatar

I wasn’t defensive.

So…looks are all I have to go by? Then I guess I’d check for signs in his face that he laughs often. I’d look into his eyes to see if I saw kindness or arrogance, thoughtfulness or selfishness.
I’d also check the muscles in his forearms to determine if he was physically active (never been into “soft” guys.)
These are, actually, the first things I checked out about a strange guy if he approached me. The personality issue would come in on its heels, within about 15 minutes.

My initial impressions could be way off, of course, but that’s what I’d base it on.

cazzie's avatar

@Jaxk I was referring also to the similar experiments @LuckyGuy brought up. I and can you show me where I ever said one human was more or less than the other type of human? Do you think that men are more shallow? Because that wasn’t my point.

ragingloli's avatar

Speaking of science,
scientists at the LHC (or as you call them: Devil Worshippers), have just discovered a new type of matter:
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2015/07/discovery-new-class-particles-lhc

Jaxk's avatar

@cazzie – Is this a trick question? Yeah, I think men are more shallow. Ask a hundred men whether they would rather wake up next to Halle Berry or Rosanne Barr. you may find one that says Rosanne has a better sense of humor and pick her but he’d be lying just to try and impress you.

cazzie's avatar

@Jaxk That’s nice that they would be trying to impress me…. but as far as weight class goes, I’m more on the Halle Berry side. Also…. I’m smart, so men know not to fuck with me, fast.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Boy, don’t some of them get mad, though, when it hits them that you’re smarted than them! In that case we’re labeled “bitch.”

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@Dutchess_III I really think you need to get some counseling for your issues with men. It’s also “smarter” not “smarted”

Most guys I know, including me who are smart enough to know better go for the average looking girls that have a better personality fit. We still look at the very attractive ones but are not actually interested for various reasons.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Please forgive the occasional typo, guys..

@ARE_you_kidding_me, We look at the very attractive ones, too, but are not actually interested in them, at least right away, for various reasons, one of those reasons being we have no idea what his personality is like.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@LuckyGuy In the other direction, men looking for women, the number one factor was… wait for it…. her body size (fit/athletic being the highest) . The woman’s income was a strong second. In fact, they were able to cross correlate the number of extra pounds a woman could “wear” per $1000 of annual income.
I have been saying that around these parts for quite some time, people wanted to counter those who would do that was shallow, and that it was really about personality, humor, their smile and other ways they were lying to themselves. I always contended (I did not post study or experiment results) a homely guy with a grip that could choke a T-Rex, or who had more cash than Bubba Gump Shrimp, could beat out the GQ guy still living at his mother’s house and riding a skateboard (even if not by a long margin). A woman would have to make a lot of money, I mean lots for her to be so large she commands three time zones just for her body to even have the ghost of a chance to equal a woman in a ”bikini body” even if she could barely spell “cat”, correctly.

@Stinley Like all science experiments, the results are never conclusive and definitely don’t mean that everyone does this
There are guys who are chubby chasers, who want to date and sex up ”Jobba the Hutt” women. I guess anywhere they stick it, it will disappear so if it is not exactly the right place all that blubber will act like it. But if you are going off positive results and the frequency of matches or parallel outcome, a woman loving a guy who is so broke he can’t even pay attention that looked like he hit every branch falling out of the ”ugly tree” is not getting the date much less sex no matter how bubbly his attitude is, how humorous he happens to be or his winning smile.

@keobooks It still doesn’t explain those dirt poor AND ugly men who have several different mothers chasing them down for child support.
An even uglier woman or a decent to hot ”bag ‘ho’ “ who did not care to use protection or what he looked like so long as they got high

@Jaxk I can’t believe anyone is surprised.
Some, maybe many, are just in denial.

cazzie's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central I guess anywhere they stick it, it will disappear so if it is not exactly the right place all that blubber will act like it.

says stuff like that and wonders why we think he is a bit icky sometimes.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ You can’t and did not disclaim or dispute it…

cazzie's avatar

So not my point.

LuckyGuy's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Levitt and Dubner looked at the data and found “the man’s income” was by far the most significant factor for determining if a date would be considered successful. Since men used two factors (the woman’s weight and income) L &D jokingly said men were slightly less shallow. I guess it is how one defines “shallow”.
With all the data from those millions of match-ups, they had correlation coefficients, R^2 terms, confidence limits, etc. Math and Big data is hard to ignore even if we don’t like the answers.
We know that there is a positive correlation between a man’s income and his height and education. As I was reading the study I was thinking that was the reason the high income men did better. But Levitt was way ahead of me. He had already factored out and corrected for those characteristics. That guy definitely listened in class and did his math homework.

Here’s another interesting point.. While most of us cannot easily and significantly control our income, we can control our weight. It is no coincidence that one of the first things that many people do after a breakup is lose weight and get in shape.

cazzie's avatar

Well I will admit to being shallow in the “no fatties” camp. I can’t be attracted sexually to someone I’m not attracted to sexually. Also, table manners and not dipping a finger in the butter and eating it…..ick. I’m old and picky and will end up with many cats.

LostInParadise's avatar

I don’t know if anyone has ever done a study of this, but one thing that I have noticed is that there are women who have a thing for artists of all kinds, and I am not just talking about rock stars but starving artists as well.

bossob's avatar

@LostInParadise I haven’t heard of that. Some artists are eccentric. Do you think eccentric artists could have the same appeal as bad boy rock stars?

LostInParadise's avatar

It could be. This is just a very informal observation on my part.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, some women are attracted to lost little boys. They feel they can take care of them.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@LostInParadise I don’t know if anyone has ever done a study of this, but one thing that I have noticed is that there are women who have a thing for artists of all kinds, and I am not just talking about rock stars but starving artists as well.
Ummmm…..I do have land in Florida I can sell you cheap, you can get onto it twice a day when the tide is low, but you will need a good gator gun. I know many artist and none of them have women wanting to rip their shirts off, hanging out at the back of the gallery seeking to get noticed and an invite back to the crib, or tossing their panties onto his canvas either. Myth Busters determine that ”myth”.

Dutchess_III's avatar

You only have one viewpoint of women and sex, don’t you, @Hypocrisy_Central. In your opinion, women & sex are no different than men & sex. They all act the same way, they all want the same thing (although I can tell you right now that 50% of those folks there won’t get what they’d really like to have, especially not in a one night, fuck-your brains-out stand.)

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ In your opinion, women & sex are no different than men & sex.
There is still a difference, but where there use to be a great chasm there is now just a small rut.

Dutchess_III's avatar

The “chasm” you speak of has only been closed a bit by society acknowledging that it is no more evil for women to have sex than it is for men (although some throw backs can’t quite get that through their heads.)

Women always have, and always will, have different criteria for having sex than men do. That hasn’t changed.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ Women always have, and always will, have different criteria for having sex than men do.
Such as what, the batteries ran out, instead of a diamond ring they want a bowl of black tar hash or a dime bag? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

cazzie's avatar

Right… we are such Jezabels. @Hypocrisy_Central sounds just like Caleb from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. You really don’t understand women at all, do you? And because of that, you hate women. You are coated with some sort of misogynist goo that repels women. It isn’t because you are ‘homely’ or not rich enough. It’s just you.

You talk about the phrase, ‘why buy the cow if you can get the millk for free’. Well, I have another one that we women say about men. Why buy the whole pig just to get a little sausage.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ And because of that, you hate women.
Please do not mistake me for some other men on this site, they are the ones who do not like women. That last statement was in part sarcastic. I did not have to be rich, there is a woman for every man as there is a man for every women, even those who could be a relative of Jabba the Hutt. I think it would be settling for the sausage because the whole pig would take off as soon as his belly was full. There is nothing wrong with my, but I am after quality over quantity.

cazzie's avatar

You misunderstand what I meant by my pig scenario. We do not care if the pig takes off. We don’t need it. We don’t want it. There is nothing wrong if a woman chooses to have some sausage and then calls the pig a cab. It’s been called Women’s Liberation for a reason.

Dutchess_III's avatar

OK, @Hypocrisy_Central:
Why do men have sex? What does he get out of it?
Why do women have sex? What does she get out of it?

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ Why do men have sex? What does he get out of it?
In general (not that it is indicative of every man) it is a way to achieve orgasm without having to use their own hand or devices. If they are lucky they do not even have to learn her name or see her face in the bed the next morning. If they are somewhat lucky they can get the orgasm and have their shirts washed and pressed with dinner on the table when they come home. Richard Fish: “The only question you have to ask yourself about sex with is Glenn, ‘is it good for you’.” Ally McBeal. In general women are just the means to an end. If she is considered hot, he can even pump himself up and believe he is better than all the other males who were not good enough to have access to dip their wick in her honey pot.

Why do women have sex? What does she get out of it?
I have no ideal, it at one time generally was a litmus test that the guy loved her. These days it could be anything, to feel she is sexy, to get favors, because she can bypass BOB and not be seen as a hussy, These days it seems so much a free for all it could be anything.

Dutchess_III's avatar

You got men right. Tell me…do you think they be as interested in sex if 95% of the time they didn’t orgasm, especially in one night stands?

As for women….you nailed it when you said you had no idea, although you have insisted in the past that women want to have sex because he’s good looking and has a great body. You’re right. You have no idea.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ You got men right. Tell me…do you think they be as interested in sex if 95% of the time they didn’t orgasm, especially in one night stands?
In general, if men did not see women as a conduit to the orgasm I reckon most would have little to do with women in the 1st place. Take sex out of the equation and what do men and women really have in common, in general?

As for women….you nailed it when you said you had no idea, although you have insisted in the past that women want to have sex because he’s good looking and has a great body.
It is, it just might be a layer of an overall desire; society says she can get her jollies off with something other than BOB (Battery Operated Boyfriend) so she seeks a hunky guy to take its place. Some women do because he will gift her with a pair of Louie Vuitton’s, or a night’s worth of meth. Some do it to prove to themselves they are attractive enough to be touched…I don’t know every reason for every woman. From observation, I know what the hook is for some women.

Dutchess_III's avatar

What do they have in common? Well, it depends on the individuals. Company, like interests, etc.

I agree that some women will use sex to get favors, even if they don’t like the guy. That should tell you that sex really isn’t as important to women as it is to men. It’s just a job, yawn.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther