Reference subreddit for "objective" rating of attractiveness: https://old.reddit.com/r/truerateme/

Let's start by assuming that it is possible to rate someone's attractiveness objectively.

  1. In the sidebar, TrueRateMe claims that attractiveness measures should follow a normal distribution. Counterpoint 1a. There is no evidence that attractiveness measures should follow a normal distribution. Rather, there is convincing scientific evidence that various psychometric measures do NOT follow a normal distribution. Source: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-unicorn%2C-the-normal-curve%2C-and-other-improbable-Micceri/2903180261ee0d99a27cfe85cde9cf4af74923c6 Counterpoint 1b. The rating guide (https://i.imgur.com/56dJoqz.jpg) proceeds to bind the distribution between 0.5 and 9.5. A normal distribution is, in fact, not bound between two arbitrary values. This alone demonstrates that TrueRateMe don't actually know what they are talking about. Counterpoint 1c. Normal distributions are used to describe how far away from the sample mean a given value is. Without knowing what the mean attractiveness actually is, all TrueRateMe ratings amount to saying "this person is more / less attractive than the mean". Describing people on an below average - average - above average scale says nothing about the ugly - ehhh - beautiful scale when the mean is unknown. Unlike what TrueRateMe believe, "below average" can still be "attractive". Counterpoint 1d. In the aforementioned guide, TrueRateMe went out of their way to sample both people photographed using flattering lighting and make up and people suffering from medical conditions and posing for mugshots. Hardly an "objective" scheme when looking to rate people relative to the mean for the general population.

  2. TrueRateMe cite scientific studies that demonstrate that human attractiveness can be rated "objectively". Counter point 2a. 4 of the scientific papers linked in the sidebar ("The Biology of Facial Beauty", "An Objective System for Measuring Facial Attractiveness", "Evaluation of Facial Beauty Using Anthropometric Proportions", "Facial Attractiveness Assessment using Illustrated Questionnairers") explicitly acknowledge their limitations and that subjective assessments of attractiveness play a key role and are difficult to measure. Counterpoint 2b. 2 of the resources linked ("The Beauty Equation" and "Objective Aspects of Beauty") are not scientific papers at all and are therefore prone to misrepresenting the findings of the papers that they cite. Counterpoint 2c. Science is not dogma, particularly social sciences. At best, social sciences are a "current best guess" of what is actually going on, not the "final, objective truth" like TrueRateMe claim.

Bonus round: many of the examples in the aforementioned rating guide use heavy make up and/or photoshop. What is being rated here, exactly? Someone's "objective" attractiveness or their make up / photoshop skills?

Now let's relax the previous assumption that attractiveness can be rated objectively. Turns out that people are attracted to a wide range of things that fall outside of TrueRateMe's rating scheme. Some of those things do not even exist outside of the realm of fiction. Examples include: dragons, aliens, demonic entities. On the far end of the spectrum we have people over at NonCredibleDefense who are attracted to fighter jets. This alone means that we can safely discard the idea that it is possible to asses what people find attractive through "biotruths".

Let's sum things up.

  1. Rating attractiveness beyond "attractive / not attractive" is inherently futile.
  2. As an extension, looksmatching as a concept beyond the simple idea that "people who find each other attractive want to go on dates with each other" is just as moot as rating people on appearance.
  3. If you don't find your S.O. to be the most beautiful person on Earth, you're doing something wrong.