I haven’t looked at how the shapes of the distributions vary yet. The variability in standard deviations seems consistent with the phenomenon described in the OkCupid blog post, but I don’t whether the high variance distributions tend to be bell curve shaped with larger standard deviations or bimodal.
What is true is that there was no statistically significant secondary dimension of attractiveness. One would find other dimensions if there were a sufficiently large number of people at the events, but it’s unclear how large “sufficiently large” is – it could be 10 more people, or it could be 100 more people. I’ll be writing more about this later.
Undoubtedly, the homogeneity of the population studied also plays a role: if a woman with this facial adornment were at the event, and the event included some men from her culture, perceptions of her attractiveness would be extremely polarized.
Undoubtedly, the homogeneity of the population studied also plays a role: if a woman with this facial adornment were at the event, and the event included some men from her culture, perceptions of her attractiveness would be extremely polarized.
I hear this a lot, and the Mursi always used as an example.
I don’t think attraction is that malleable. Personally, I suspect that as a culture the Mursi simply don’t prioritize beauty. They have marriages which are arranged as children, with cattle as a medium of exchange. They probably don’t think about sexuality the same way at all.
Certainly my intuition based on day to day experience and observations is the same, and alleged very large cultural differences are puzzling to me and I wouldn’t be surprised if the matter were resolved in your favor.
But note that if nothing else, the example shows that cultures vary in what they consider to be obviously unattractive.
But note that if nothing else, the example shows that cultures vary in what they consider to be obviously unattractive.
That’s not necessarily true—we don’t need to look too far from our own culture to see intentional downplaying of attractiveness (modesty, “evil eye”, etc)
I was gonna write more on this topic but then decided to just go and check what the anthropologists report the Mursi themselves say concerning lip plates:
My interpretation of this is that it’s less about sheer beauty and more a way of being what in our culture we’d call “put together”. A woman who does not wear her plate during the ritual periods when being put together is necessary is perceived as what we’d call “sloppy”, and it would be associated with a lack of discipline in other areas of life. (It’s also a tribal identity marker and a way to make money from tourists, of course)
The plate definitely maps onto something which is present in our own psychology, but I’m not at all convinced that it’s attractiveness. I think you’re right that it doesn’t actively ruin attractiveness, which does indicate malleability.
(By the way, historically the anthropologists first thought it was an anti-rape measure (but the Mursi denied it), and then they thought it was a beauty mark which determined higher dowry (until it was discovered that dowry was set at birth). That second misconception is probably why it circulates on the internet as an example of divergent beauty standards. That’s not to say that it isn’t divergent beauty standards, but it’s not just that.)
Day-to-day experience and observation can give you evidence that attraction isn’t very malleable in adults. Do your experience and observation tell you anything about whether, e.g., who you end up being attracted to depends strongly on the people you see around you before age 5?
Thanks :-).
I haven’t looked at how the shapes of the distributions vary yet. The variability in standard deviations seems consistent with the phenomenon described in the OkCupid blog post, but I don’t whether the high variance distributions tend to be bell curve shaped with larger standard deviations or bimodal.
What is true is that there was no statistically significant secondary dimension of attractiveness. One would find other dimensions if there were a sufficiently large number of people at the events, but it’s unclear how large “sufficiently large” is – it could be 10 more people, or it could be 100 more people. I’ll be writing more about this later.
Undoubtedly, the homogeneity of the population studied also plays a role: if a woman with this facial adornment were at the event, and the event included some men from her culture, perceptions of her attractiveness would be extremely polarized.
I hear this a lot, and the Mursi always used as an example.
I don’t think attraction is that malleable. Personally, I suspect that as a culture the Mursi simply don’t prioritize beauty. They have marriages which are arranged as children, with cattle as a medium of exchange. They probably don’t think about sexuality the same way at all.
Certainly my intuition based on day to day experience and observations is the same, and alleged very large cultural differences are puzzling to me and I wouldn’t be surprised if the matter were resolved in your favor.
But note that if nothing else, the example shows that cultures vary in what they consider to be obviously unattractive.
That’s not necessarily true—we don’t need to look too far from our own culture to see intentional downplaying of attractiveness (modesty, “evil eye”, etc)
I was gonna write more on this topic but then decided to just go and check what the anthropologists report the Mursi themselves say concerning lip plates:
http://www.mursi.org/pdf/latosky.pdf
Even after reading, it’s still not quite clear.
My interpretation of this is that it’s less about sheer beauty and more a way of being what in our culture we’d call “put together”. A woman who does not wear her plate during the ritual periods when being put together is necessary is perceived as what we’d call “sloppy”, and it would be associated with a lack of discipline in other areas of life. (It’s also a tribal identity marker and a way to make money from tourists, of course)
The plate definitely maps onto something which is present in our own psychology, but I’m not at all convinced that it’s attractiveness. I think you’re right that it doesn’t actively ruin attractiveness, which does indicate malleability.
(By the way, historically the anthropologists first thought it was an anti-rape measure (but the Mursi denied it), and then they thought it was a beauty mark which determined higher dowry (until it was discovered that dowry was set at birth). That second misconception is probably why it circulates on the internet as an example of divergent beauty standards. That’s not to say that it isn’t divergent beauty standards, but it’s not just that.)
Day-to-day experience and observation can give you evidence that attraction isn’t very malleable in adults. Do your experience and observation tell you anything about whether, e.g., who you end up being attracted to depends strongly on the people you see around you before age 5?