What Women Want (Somewhat RR)
Rockadelic
Out Digging 13,993 Posts
Last night on the Discovery Channel I was watching this show about what attracts the opposite sex. In one part they took a photo of a generic looking dude and at the bottom of the photo listed a generic job with an average annual salary.They then asked the women to rate his LOOKS based on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being best.The average of the survey had him at a "5".Then they took the same photo and listed his occupation as "Record Executive" at $325K a year.He amazingly became a "9".I'm certain that this doesn't represent ALL women and I also recognize that many men are just as shallow....but still.....it was an interesting study.
Comments
Ask a superficial question, you???ll get superficial answers.
b/w
The (not-so) interesting assumption that tends to follow these types of ???research??? is that women find guys with money more attractive because they want their way paid, gifts and the good life - gold-diggers. Not too many folks consider the less shallow and more boring, practical reasons for some women being into the second guy over the first; that people associate high-paying, high-level jobs with things like intelligence (sexy!), ambition and hard-work (hot!) and self-reliance (dreamy!).
Hell, throw in the glamour of the entertainment business and I???m sure you???d find manly men who would give the guy a 9.5!
I wonder how much the responses would have changed, if at all, if his executive job was sports-related.
But since I'm in Tokyo right now and not down the street from you it becomes a 9.5
And dun worry... No burn... YET!!!
xo
although most of these kinds of jobs are due to nepotism and not intelligence, ambition, hard work and self-reliance.
My insight into the feminine psyche is keen.
i am off to go meet my super hot record label owner boyfriend for lunch at balthazar followed by shopping and private pilates. peace
It is in Arkansas!!!
"Who cares? Now get me a sammich, dammit."
Reynaldo's private mindgarden summed up in one short sentence...
How is it unscientific? Social psychologists run these kind of experiments all the time, many of them following rigorous methodologies. You may think the conclusions are suspect but there's nothing to indicate that the actual experiment with a substandard scientific process.
I'm saying. The ran the same experiment after altering one variable. Sounds scientific enough to me. Of course, you're dealing with human reactions and emotions and stuff which is dicey, but that doesn't mean the experiment is unsound.
Men don't care what women do. Woman of custodial arts to woman record producer hovers within 1 pt of the same score.
Superficiality in the sense of interpersonal attraction, however, is a genetic survival instinct according to evolutionary theory. From teh Wikipedia:
Indeed.....
With the men they had them look at various "shapes" of women.
The women with the smallest waist and biggest hips were considered the most attractive.
Makes sense. Child-birthing hips = survival of the species.
There's nothing to indicate that the process was particularly scientific either. Do we know what the sample size is? What the margin of error is? Where the sample population came from?
perfect survey for soulstrut because I bet it has something to do with shoes