~ archived since 2018 ~

Scientific study: Being honest actually increases attractiveness. It's also attractive to be intelligent and independent (both together).

HomeWasGood

October 14, 2016

5 upvotes

/r/seduction

http://intelli-gent.org/2016/10/04/increasing-attractiveness-honesty/

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Scientific study: Being honest actually increases attractiveness. It's also attractive to be intelligent and independent (both together).
Author	HomeWasGood
Upvotes	5
Comments	12
Date	October 14, 2016 2:45 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/seduction
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/57gpcl/scientific_study_being_honest_actually_increases/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/seduction/scientific-study-being-honest-actually-increases.1413978 https://theredarchive.com/post/1413978

Comments

[–]IWriteForGroupies 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]HomeWasGood[S] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]IWriteForGroupies -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]HomeWasGood[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

That's an interesting theory and there is some merit to it. It's true that there is some selection bias when choosing psychology students as research subjects. You can find an interesting study about that here if you're interested in the science.

That having been said, there are reasons to think that this isn't disqualifying for this particular study. First, studies like this don't use psychology majors exclusively, but students in psychology courses like psych 101. Virtually every university I know of requires psych 101 for most degrees. Therefore you're not getting a picture of psychology students, but college students. This is still a fraction of the bigger picture, but it describes mostly single, young people in the age range of around 20 years old. This is pretty close to the target for most romantic endeavors right? You're not looking to date elderly men, babies, teenagers, or married people right?

So while there is some sampling bias I don't think it should cause us to discard the sample out of hand.

[–]HomeWasGood[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm seeing that in the original study, it says the participants were "psychology students." I've done behavioral research at two universities and in both, this means students in undergraduate psychology courses and not necessarily psychology majors. But I think it's possible that it really does mean psychology majors. But also consider that psychology is a popular degree and the vast majority of psychology students don't actually go on to practice psychology or work in a psychology-related field (IIRC most go into sales or other business). I've taught psych undergrads and from my own experience, most treat it like a 'general studies' major.

So again, I think you have a valid point but it's not enough to say the study is worthless. Just that it is SOME evidence that deserves replication and expansion.

[–]IWriteForGroupies -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

First, studies like this don't use psychology majors exclusively, but students in psychology courses like psych 101.

I remember my Psych 101 class. Now I have a good idea of the sample that was used.

This is still a fraction of the bigger picture, but it describes mostly single, young people in the age range of around 20 years old.

The sample is still horrible. If they could have found people who were not in college and measured them too, it would have been better.

This is pretty close to the target for most romantic endeavors right?

This is definitely wrong. Most relationships start in middle school and high school. The average age of sex in some countries are 16. Then if you think about it more than half of marriages end in divorce, so that mean that a lot of people start over maybe in their 30's or 40's. I would say that a better target would be between 16 and 45 if I had to guess.

sampling bias

I would like to say that the whole point of science is to eliminate opinion and focus on the facts. This is the reason that a lot of people don't like psychology. It often studies things that cannot be studied. I have a soft spot for Behaviorism.

I don't think it should cause us to discard the sample out of hand.

This is where I believe you are going against science. If the experiment is faulty, the results are faulty and using a theory to study a theory will get you nowhere.

[–]HomeWasGood[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This goes more into the philosophy of science, but a scientist will absolutely not discard a study just because it's judged to be weak, or non-generalizable to a general population. That represents a black-or-white kind of thinking that doesn't belong in science. Instead, weak evidence is simply that: weak evidence. It's not equivalent to NO evidence, neither it is strong evidence. It occupies an intermediate position.

The study in question represents a certain slice of the population, so it can be said to apply just fine to that slice of the population. There's no reason to say that because it doesn't represent the entire population, it should end up in a trash can. If a person wants to date a psychology student then it seems pretty dang applicable to me. So interpreting the applicability and strength of the science requires nuance and finesse, and thinking in such black or white terms would get science nowhere.

Scientists also don't discard every study with flaws, because every study is flawed, even in the most hardcore STEM fields. Every scientific journal article will have a section discussing the limitations of the study in question, and will encourage other researchers to continue the research to see if it can be replicated.

But we can agree to disagree on this.

[–]IWriteForGroupies 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I will stop giving you trouble. I actually believe that you are a behaviorist and scientist. You remind me of a professor I had. The funny thing is I am a psychology major with five more classes to graduation.

I am a huge fan of monism and dualism. This actually affect my thinking when it comes to psychology.

I will admit weak evidence is evidence.

That represents a black-or-white kind of thinking that doesn't belong in science.

I have a bad habit of binary thinking.

The study in question represents a certain slice of the population, so it can be said to apply just fine

This is true.

So interpreting the applicability and strength of the science requires nuance and finesse, and thinking in such black or white terms would get science nowhere.

I have always viewed science as black and white. I have always thought their goal was to eliminate opinions. I could be wrong but you are right because creativity and gray area thinking is needed for process.

But we can agree to disagree on this.

Actually you are the expert and I am the student. You have enlightened me.

[–]HomeWasGood[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]leprogrammist 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]paulusmagintie 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mogonk 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link