Is this true or this is a stupid question?

  • Thread starter flyingpig
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Stupid
In summary, the first thing that attracts people to others is their looks. For men and women, looks are the main factor in attraction. However, there is a 'threshold' factor for men and women, respectively, and beyond which the person is considered more attractive.
  • #1
flyingpig
2,579
1
Do many men just look for looks in women first and then see if they have anything else in common? Is it the same for women?

What about YOU?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Most more like it. Although I think half the time most guys don't care if they have anything in common with the girl, unless that "in common" involves kinky outfits and whips. hawt.
 
  • #3
The first thing that anyone who isn't visually impaired will notice about anyone else is the way they look. It is the initial thing that attracts us to people.
 
  • #4
As a female, I can tell you what you get if your online dating site does not have a photo.

Crickets.
 
  • #5
Picture's worth 1,000 words.
 
  • #6
I, as a female, think that looks play a small role, but mostly it's the personality and connection I have with the man that means the most.
 
  • #7
So what exactly is "connection"?
 
  • #8
A spark, the it factor
 
  • #9
The "it factor"? I can see we're just going to go in circles here.
 
  • #10
Topher925 said:
The "it factor"? I can see we're just going to go in circles here.

That could be a sign that there is a connection.
 
  • #11
First if they love dogs and then looks :biggrin:.
 
  • #12
I think looks is more than external appearance.

If I saw a woman with the body of a model but couldn't walk straight, or her hands would shake while talking, she wouldn't really "look" good to me and maybe most men.

If I saw a woman with the body of a model and her every move was as elegant as a dancer's and when she started to talk she would talk about conspiracy theories or something completely crazy like alien abductions or about trivial things like the next top model/some soap opera, she would not "look" good to me either and maybe most (I want to believe) men.

So "good looks" is not only external beauty, but a combination of factors, namely physical appearance, movement and immediate character traits. These are also the first things to be noticed by people and it should go for both men and women. At first, this is the only information you have about someone.
 
  • #13
Constantinos said:
If I saw a woman with the body of a model but couldn't walk straight, or her hands would shake while talking, she wouldn't really "look" good to me and maybe most men.

If I saw a woman with the body of a model and her every move was as elegant as a dancer's and when she started to talk she would talk about conspiracy theories or something completely crazy like alien abductions or about trivial things like the next top model/some soap opera, she would not "look" good to me either and maybe most (I want to believe) men.

QUOTE]

I would wonder if the first lady would need a ride home from the bar.
I would ask the second lady if she could introduce me to the first lady.
 
  • #14
I say attraction has to be there, however it is not everything. If you see an attractive woman and find out that she has a hobby or does something that is also in your interest obviously one would be tempted to talk to her and get to know her more.
 
  • #15
If we're talking about attraction, it's usually about [itex]\frac{GMm}{r^2}[/itex].
 
  • #16
jhae2.718 said:
If we're talking about attraction, it's usually about [itex]\frac{GMm}{r^2}[/itex].

Are you attracted to massive women?
 
  • #17
Hint: all my posts to this subforum are me being a smart-***.
 
  • #18
KingNothing said:
Are you attracted to massive women?

He would actually be more repelled by massive women, since he forget the negative sign.
 
  • #19
Oh you guys...
 
  • #20
ahsanxr said:
He would actually be more repelled by massive women, since he forget the negative sign.

:rofl:
 
  • #21
A guy (or gal) who wants to see a pic of a girl (or guy) does not automatically mean that looks is all they're interested in, or even the primary thing.

There is a 'threshold' factor : "I don't need a woman who is gorgeous, but she does have to reach an acceptable threshold, or I simply won't be interested in finding out what she's like." Or more simply: "What am I about to get myself into?"

Consider an analogy with job resumes: any manager who has ever reviewed a pile of resumes for a job applicant has found typos and ruled that person out. Typos are a way of winnowing the pile and increasing your chances of landing a winner. Would you say that a manager who used this strategy is only interested in an applicant with excellent diction? Would you say that excellent diction is even the manager's primary interest? Would you accuse this manager of being shallow in his decision process?
 
  • #22
It kinda depends. For me, I'll only aggressively pursue a relationship if they're physically attractive, and wait until later to see if we're compatible. But, sometimes, after getting to know a girl pretty well, if we have exceptionally compatible personalities, it's almost as if they start to seem more physically attractive than they originally did. That said, one can usually tell a lot about a girls personality just through observation. All that I've ever been interested in, I've had a class with. It's hard not to get a good idea of what someone is like when you spend 1.5 hours with them everyday.

I'm sure there's a limit to the personality's effect on perceived attractiveness. If they're just plain nasty, I'm sure personality wouldn't change much.
 
  • #23
KingNothing said:
Are you attracted to massive women?

Hey, it's better than being attracted to massless women.
 

1. Is it possible to determine if a statement is true or false without conducting experiments?

No, the only way to determine the truth or falsehood of a statement is through experimentation and evidence-based analysis. Without this, there is no objective way to distinguish between what is true and what is not.

2. Can a statement be both true and false at the same time?

No, a statement cannot be both true and false simultaneously. The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.

3. How do scientists ensure that their research findings are true?

Scientists use the scientific method, which involves rigorous experimentation, peer review, and replication of results to ensure the validity and reliability of their findings. This process helps to reduce bias and errors and increases the likelihood of obtaining accurate results.

4. Is it possible for a statement to be considered true today, but false tomorrow?

Yes, scientific knowledge is constantly evolving and changing. What may be considered true today may be proven false tomorrow as new evidence and research emerges. This is why the scientific method involves continuous testing and refinement of hypotheses.

5. Can we ever be 100% certain that a statement is true?

No, scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to change. Although scientific theories and laws have been extensively tested and confirmed, there is always a possibility that new evidence or discoveries may challenge or disprove them. Therefore, absolute certainty is not achievable in science.

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
604
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
53
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
455
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
9K
Replies
3
Views
729
Back
Top