Well, it is the example of two-place word EY used, but I do think that there’s a non-totally-arbitrary way to normalize it that makes it make sense to compare Sexiness(Admirer1, Entity1) with Sexiness(Admirer2, Entity2) even when Admirer1 != Admirer2. Think about how many straight men would be motivated to pursue the 70th-percentile straight woman, and how many straight women would be motivated to pursue the 70th-percentile straight man, for any given value of “motivated”.
Even by asking Admirer1 and Admirer2 to rate Entity1 and Entity2′s attractiveness respectively on a 0-to-5 scale you get the results mentioned in the article I’ve edited my comment to link to.
(You should probably link the OkCupid study, or whatever you’re using as the basis of this statement, which otherwise comes off as… contentious, to those who aren’t familiar with the research.)
That’s not the only piece of evidence I was thinking about, but it’s the only one that is neither just anecdotal nor likely to completely mind-kill the discussion, so… Edited it in.
Yes. On the other hand, a greater fraction of women than of men are good-looking. (See this.)
Being good-looking is an absolute thing? I always assumed it meant something like “top 20%”.
Well, it is the example of two-place word EY used, but I do think that there’s a non-totally-arbitrary way to normalize it that makes it make sense to compare Sexiness(Admirer1, Entity1) with Sexiness(Admirer2, Entity2) even when Admirer1 != Admirer2. Think about how many straight men would be motivated to pursue the 70th-percentile straight woman, and how many straight women would be motivated to pursue the 70th-percentile straight man, for any given value of “motivated”.
Even by asking Admirer1 and Admirer2 to rate Entity1 and Entity2′s attractiveness respectively on a 0-to-5 scale you get the results mentioned in the article I’ve edited my comment to link to.
I would argue your statement in the grandparent was misleading since it made it seem like this was a property of the Entities and not the Admirers.
Is “gold is expensive” a property of gold, or of the market? If the latter, is “gold is expensive” misleading because it sounds like the former?
That is actually a popular way to be confused about economics: thinking “gold is expensive” is a property of gold.
(You should probably link the OkCupid study, or whatever you’re using as the basis of this statement, which otherwise comes off as… contentious, to those who aren’t familiar with the research.)
That’s not the only piece of evidence I was thinking about, but it’s the only one that is neither just anecdotal nor likely to completely mind-kill the discussion, so… Edited it in.