The Increasing Importance of Good Looks.

Ryan_m_b

I strongly disagree with this. The notion that a 1930's man might look at a woman and think "not attractive but she can cook!" is ludicrous as is the notion that nowadays because we have equal rights "it is just personal attractiveness left". How about how well you work together as a team? How a partner is someone who will help you through things? And don't you think your taking a very heteronormative view on this?

I don't get this at all. You seem to be suggesting that an increasing number of men cannot talk to women, not to mention your gross misportrayal of the "average woman" who sits daintily waiting for a man. Get real!

Klockan3

Since heterosexuals vastly outnumbers the others any survey would be mostly influenced by their picks. Also I didn't say that people are just out for looks today, how well you work as a team is also a part of personal attraction.

And no, I did the rational thing of looking at what is different between 1930 and 1970. A major difference is how women got out of the household, so I hypothesize that it would be the major reason for the change in peoples opinions. It is expected that as other factors diminish looks would get more important so I conclude that my hypothesis holds for that argument.

Now, can you please stop assuming that I talked in absolutes and instead understand that when people talk about statistical data they almost always talk about statistical differences. Like if I say that women are better at languages I don't mean that all women are better than all men at it but that on average they are better. The 1930's man probably didn't think like that, no, but he most likely valued cooking higher than the average modern man would.

Ryan_m_b

So everything not physical is still part of personal attraction but cooking is somehow different

You have nothing to demonstrate that your hypothesis is true. The idea that because one factor goes down others must increase in importance is unsubstantiated. Things can become a non-issue without raising the importance of anything else.

I see no reason to agree with this considering you have actually demonstrated any statistics at all.

Klockan3

The difference is that cooking was her job, in the same way as providing money was the mans job. There is nothing personal about women wanting men with lots of money and men wanting women who can take care of a home. I'd define personal attractiveness as how you feel when you are with the person.
But there got to be some reason people get together, having someone do household things was a part back then but isn't today. With that reason gone there is less reason overall to do it, so the other reasons get stronger in comparison.

Ryan_m_b

Emphasis mine, I see no reason why other things are necessarily stronger if the other factors are no longer relevant.

You haven't produced any statistical data. You are simply asserting things that you believe to be true, I have not taken what you mean to be absolute and I still disagree. You have not come up with any hypothesis to fit any data because you haven't presented any data.

Klockan3

So lets say that people like to do an activity, call it A. There are two factors to why they do this, B and C. People rate B as being of importance 8 to why they do this and C as 4. Now let say that for some reason B is no longer a factor. Would you expect people to keep C as a 4?
The OP has statistical data, I commented on that, you replied with "he notion that a 1930's man might look at a woman and think "not attractive but she can cook!" is ludicrous". How is that not an idiotic reply? We are talking about statistical data here, every statement is thus about statistical differences, hypothesized or not. And if you consider the statement "attractive but she can't cook" it isn't as ludicrous any more.

Ryan_m_b

I did not say that always other factors may become more important but that it is not necessary. For example; If I have a list of priorities and the first few are knocked off the rest may become more important. However if I have a list of things that I want the fact that I get one doesn't mean I want the others more.

And has already been discussed, the survey in question is hardly a conclusive study. I've stated that the claim is ludicrous because even if the data were conclusive your proposed claim has no evidence, it's based on your pre-conceived notions of a culture you haven't even outlined. And by the way, whilst I may have disagreed strongly with your claim I have not insulted you. I hardly think it is appropriate for you to act so rudely, on this basis expect no more replies from me

Galteeth

I think this has more to do with judging what answers people perceive as culturally acceptable then with actual changes per ce.

zoobyshoe

I agree that such polls are probably best understood as polls of what people feel it is socially acceptable to believe.

But that gives rise to the question, "Don't 'actual' changes follow changes in cultural acceptability?"

The link asserts:

After years of the media bringing our attention to looks, aren't we now paying more attention to looks? And, if we are, aren't looks, de facto, more important?

Or, are you suggesting that people are publicly giving lip support to one set of criteria while privately acting on another?

It's my perception that people are authentically attracted to other's personalities first, and that that attraction is then sent through an internal social censor for editing. A person with a personality you find exiting might end up being rejected because you'd be unable to justify them to your social circle. If everyone's internal censor is culturally set to screen for "looks" then "looks" are, suddenly, important.

shelovesmath

For some reason these relationship threads are mostly what is coming up in my RSS feed.