Male 'devil effect'
- Thread starter ardour
- Start date
Help Support Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum:
- Status
ardour
Well known loser
SofiasMami said:
Okay… my head veers inwards above my brow in a way that is noticeably unusual from certain angles. I wouldn’t call it a deformity though. I had a mild learning difficulty through childhood, I was significantly behind my peers and couldnt' cope with bullying/teasing at all. Now, as an adult, unattractive and very awkward would best describe me. Let’s just leave it there.
SofiasMami
Well-known member
I think the dynamic between men and women tilts toward men (attractive or unattractive) as more likely to be perceived as creepy or threatening by women rather that the other way round but I think that's because men are usually physically bigger than women. As for whether unattractive women are more likely to be perceived by men as rude or abrasive, that could be true but I'm not a man so I can't make that judgment. Maybe a man would have more insight on that.
You're a man - what do you think?
-Teresa
You're a man - what do you think?
-Teresa
H
HoodedMonk
Guest
Xpendable said:
It is essentially the halo effect, just studied in a specific manner.
ardour
Well known loser
HoodedMonk said:
Depends, on whether the disparity results from the good looking escaping negative judgements in ways the rest of us can't (The Halo Effect), or if unattractive men are being judged particularly harshly because of their appearance (‘Devil Effect’). One is about attraction; the other, disgust.
I'd say it's the later, but then you know I'm biased.
V
Veruca
Guest
The way I look at it...its just a study. And it has its pros and cons and we should neither invalidate it nor generalize it.
As Sci-fi pointed out, the participants were college students, so the way I look at it, the Devil Effect (thanks for explaining the difference between this and the Halo Effect, ardour) is perhaps common amongst people of this age group. And this is hardly surprising. At that age, with so much social and media pressure to look a certain way/attract the attention of the opp sex, and without the wisdom to look beyond the physical, a lot of young people are indeed superficial. Its a phase a lot of us have had to get past.
As we get older, we learn to dissociate disgust and negative feelings with physical appearances. Well, I think a lot of adults do anyway. I see people dating all kinds of people.
It feels like a lot of us, due to our bad experiences, are looking for one straight up explanation. I don't think we can say that women will always find unattractive men gross or men will always go for hot girls etc. We are complex and our experiences affect our perceptions differently. Some people will judge you based on your looks, and others won't.
And one shouldn't always assume things either. Sometimes I see posts where a guy would say that he got rejected because of his looks. How do you know it was because of your looks per say? Maybe the girl rejected you because you are a handsome son of a gun who just happened to remind her of her mental ex? And if she did do it on the basis of your looks, why worry about it so much? She happens to be one of the many who is not worth your time. Same applies for men who reject women based on looks too.
I'm not directing this at the OP or anyone in particular btw and sorry for digressing. Just thinking out loud.
As Sci-fi pointed out, the participants were college students, so the way I look at it, the Devil Effect (thanks for explaining the difference between this and the Halo Effect, ardour) is perhaps common amongst people of this age group. And this is hardly surprising. At that age, with so much social and media pressure to look a certain way/attract the attention of the opp sex, and without the wisdom to look beyond the physical, a lot of young people are indeed superficial. Its a phase a lot of us have had to get past.
As we get older, we learn to dissociate disgust and negative feelings with physical appearances. Well, I think a lot of adults do anyway. I see people dating all kinds of people.
It feels like a lot of us, due to our bad experiences, are looking for one straight up explanation. I don't think we can say that women will always find unattractive men gross or men will always go for hot girls etc. We are complex and our experiences affect our perceptions differently. Some people will judge you based on your looks, and others won't.
And one shouldn't always assume things either. Sometimes I see posts where a guy would say that he got rejected because of his looks. How do you know it was because of your looks per say? Maybe the girl rejected you because you are a handsome son of a gun who just happened to remind her of her mental ex? And if she did do it on the basis of your looks, why worry about it so much? She happens to be one of the many who is not worth your time. Same applies for men who reject women based on looks too.
I'm not directing this at the OP or anyone in particular btw and sorry for digressing. Just thinking out loud.
VanillaCreme
Well-known member
I could agree with that, Veruca, although I know I don't associate negative feelings with looks. I couldn't care less how someone physically looks. But with something like this, there's way too many variables to determine something like that. Because who is to say that studies and researches like this are true for everyone? And that's my point. That's why I say I just can't believe in things like this. It's a copout, to say the least, because it's easy to blame certain things. "Oh, I can't get a girlfriend/boyfriend! I must be ugly!" Okay, fine, anyone can think that if they want, but it's not true for everyone. There's just too many variables to define studies like this as true for everyone.
Despicable Me
Well-known member
I think you are missing the point of scientific studies.VanillaCreme said:
No one is trying to say these things are true for everyone, especially not the researchers. They do these studies to identify facts that are true on a social level. In other words it is intentionally generalized.
Think of it like 'average height'. Obviously not everyone is the same height and an average does not even mean 'most people' are that height (that would be a 'mean', not an average). An average is a generalized statement, a calculation from the overall total.
If you will, it is an abstraction of the individual. It no longer represents only the individuals, it represents a higher concept than that.
And that is essentially what scientific studies do. They find those averages, or the mean, or whatever else. They generalize the individual and find something which is more 'generally true' than not.
I wish people were more critical of studies they agree on. The fact like someone like Obama can keep bringing the already debunked Pay Gap to his political agenda proves the study is only "relevant" when it says something we already believe.
VanillaCreme
Well-known member
Despicable Me said:
To me, there is no point. There's absolutely no point in studies like this. It's just people wasting time trying to gather statistics that don't matter. Things like average height are, again, too varied. In one country, the average height might be 5'8, and on the other side of the world in some other country, the average might be 6'1. It's just way too varied.
VanillaCreme said:
You seem to believe people carry this studies specifically to compare people in some kind of "Discriminatory Darwinism". Statistics are a vital part of science to understand patterns and answer questions regarding the origins of certain phenomenons in life. We wouldn't know how certain medicines work if we didn't know what percentage of people react positively to them. There's people who are allergic to penicillin, doesn't mean that gathering the statistics for the ones who were not allergic was "a waste of time". Just because there are exceptions it means that we cannot generalize.
TheRealCallie
Princess Pink Love
There are around 20 MILLION college students in America alone.....so to take 170 women out of those 20 million students isn't all that great of a study, IMO....
You're comparing a study done with college aged kids to studies done on medical research which involves more than just one small tiny percentage of the population? Really? Okay, lets compare apples to oranges and how they are the same. 
ardour
Well known loser
VanillaCreme said:
Researching social phenomena is useful. It can influence public policy, and encourages discussion and awareness. Examples: racial stereotyping in the media or police profiling, which has been studied at length. (BTW that’s a far more serious issue than ugly guys complaining about unfair treatment.) You don’t have to agree with the author's conclusions, methodology, agenda etc. but dismissing the entire social science discipline sounds ignorant.
TheRealCallie said:
Sci-Fi said:You're comparing a study done with college aged kids to studies done on medical research which involves more than just one small tiny percentage of the population? Really? Okay, lets compare apples to oranges and how they are the same.
No. I was not comparing both studies, I was trying to illustrate the importance of statistics in the scientific method. Again, I'm not saying the college study is valid, I'm merely saying that you can't just discard science results because they make generalizations.
ardour said:
I'm not convinced of this. I think it is easy to see the 'truth' in it if you are relating to the underdog, so to speak. Are we crossing lines with love and justice?
Not to mention the study was based on the opinion of the most indecisive, ever-changing minded age group.
VanillaCreme
Well-known member
Xpendable said:
Dude, medical research is completely different than studying to find out who likes an ugly face or not. I'm not saying research in general is useless. Read what I actually say before commenting just to disagree with me.
VanillaCreme
Well-known member
Xpendable said:
And that was my response to you. What does my response have anything to do with your previous responses? I think you just want to disagree and argue with people.
Scientific study? This is nowhere near being a scientific study, not when it involves a tiny portion of, in this case, female college students. Plus, who were these 170 women? Who says the people who did this "study" didn't target a specific group of women, knowing exactly what kind of results they would get to further their so called study.
- Status
