Man, this stuff is unreal sometimes
.
For a quick overview, this study sought to look at how looks affect decision-making in relative long-term. A lot of such lookism studies look at non-repeated short-term choices, so the researchers behind this one wanted to see whether those effects persist for longer (which they do.) In this study, people went through 50-100 trials where they had to choose a "financial partner" out of four presented faces. Two faces were chosen for being "attractive", two for being "unattractive" (the reason for why I'm putting those words in parentheses will quickly become apparent), with one of each pair being a beneficial long-term choice, if with short-term losses and the other a negative one, if with short-term gains.
And then, the situation described in the title happened. After the studies (two studies were done right after each other) were finished, it became clear that people preferred attractive financial assistants so much that the "attractive" one who caused the participants long-term loss was chosen as much (in study 2) or more (in study 1) as the one who was "unattractive", but brought the participants long-term gains. Of course, there was no such situation with the attractive and good one and the unattrative and bad one. People participating in this study understood who was a good choice for them, finance-wise, they just couldn't help themselves wanting to give a chance to the "attractive" guy even if he was bad for their finances.
So, how do you imagine that those faces looked like? How much must have the "attractive" ones mogged for the one who consistently put his clients into financial loss to be chosen as often as the "ugly" one who helped them? Are you imagining some O'Pry/Eggy difference?
Nah, this were the faces:
Just look at how tiny the differences between them are. Just look at it. Overall, the "unattractive" faces have somewhat smaller and deeper set eyes than the "attractive" ones, especially D, along with slightly larger midfaces and blunter jaws, but overall, when you look at those four guys, mostly they just seem like some random normies taken from the street. If guys like this were posted here, I can easily imagine the people here rating them the same, if not rating B and D higher than the "attractive" ones, and D especially I can imagine being rated as a Chad or Chadlite here.
That's how tiny the differences between them are when you look at them. And yet, those tiny differences were still more than enough for C to be chosen as often, if not more than B, despite him being a bad choice and the participants very much knew that after the first few dozen trials.
It really can't be understated how much it really is just milimetres of bone. Just think about what this means for us IRL, where 90% of us look worse than the two "unattractive" guys there and have to compete and interact daily with guys who look better than the two "attractive" ones there.
.For a quick overview, this study sought to look at how looks affect decision-making in relative long-term. A lot of such lookism studies look at non-repeated short-term choices, so the researchers behind this one wanted to see whether those effects persist for longer (which they do.) In this study, people went through 50-100 trials where they had to choose a "financial partner" out of four presented faces. Two faces were chosen for being "attractive", two for being "unattractive" (the reason for why I'm putting those words in parentheses will quickly become apparent), with one of each pair being a beneficial long-term choice, if with short-term losses and the other a negative one, if with short-term gains.
And then, the situation described in the title happened. After the studies (two studies were done right after each other) were finished, it became clear that people preferred attractive financial assistants so much that the "attractive" one who caused the participants long-term loss was chosen as much (in study 2) or more (in study 1) as the one who was "unattractive", but brought the participants long-term gains. Of course, there was no such situation with the attractive and good one and the unattrative and bad one. People participating in this study understood who was a good choice for them, finance-wise, they just couldn't help themselves wanting to give a chance to the "attractive" guy even if he was bad for their finances.
So, how do you imagine that those faces looked like? How much must have the "attractive" ones mogged for the one who consistently put his clients into financial loss to be chosen as often as the "ugly" one who helped them? Are you imagining some O'Pry/Eggy difference?
Nah, this were the faces:
Just look at how tiny the differences between them are
. Just look at it. Overall, the "unattractive" faces have somewhat smaller and deeper set eyes than the "attractive" ones, especially D, along with slightly larger midfaces and blunter jaws, but overall, when you look at those four guys, mostly they just seem like some random normies taken from the street. If guys like this were posted here, I can easily imagine the people here rating them the same, if not rating B and D higher than the "attractive" ones, and D especially I can imagine being rated as a Chad or Chadlite here.That's how tiny the differences between them are when you look at them. And yet, those tiny differences were still more than enough for C to be chosen as often, if not more than B, despite him being a bad choice and the participants very much knew that after the first few dozen trials.
It really can't be understated how much it really is just milimetres of bone
. Just think about what this means for us IRL, where 90% of us look worse than the two "unattractive" guys there and have to compete and interact daily with guys who look better than the two "attractive" ones there.@based_meme @DarkStar @Regenerator @Mecoja @Incline @Stupid Clown @Sewer Sloth @Sergeant Kelly @Flagellum_Dei @To koniec @reveries @VideoGameCoper @veryrare @LeFrenchCel @PersonalityChad @OutcompetedByRoomba @GeckoBus @Lazyandtalentless @weaselbomber @ItsovERfucks @Grodd @anandkoala @Epedaphic @KING NOTHING @lazy_gamer_423 @Eremetic
