Post: #1

Article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spea...4908ee1dde

This article was posted on Reddit. One of the authors of the study posted this comment:

"Whenever we publish social science research we can reliably count on two separate comments from the public:

This is obvious and a waste of taxpayer money.

This isn't true.

I'll do my best to address each.

Is it obvious?
Kind of, yes. The point of the study was not to test whether women find strong men attractive. We already knew that (and review previous research showing it in the paper). The main point of the study was to quantify how big of an effect this was when it comes to the male body. The answer was - it's virtually the entire thing. The questions "how strong does this guy look" and "how attractive is this guy" correlated at about .85 with each other. They're almost the same question.

There were other points as well, e.g. previous researchers suggested a kind of inverted-U shape between attractiveness and strength, claiming that very strong men would be found unattractive. There is some evidence for that with pictures of body builders, but we tested a normal population and found no evidence for it at all. This is important because the authors of the inverted-U hypothesis were making claims about how evolution designed women's mate choice mechanisms to respond to men who were too strong. That is only plausible now if there were competitive bodybuilders walking around in our ancestral environment (which is highly unlikely).

There is also a more complicated story about face processing. For those who said that it is obvious that women find the strongest bodies attractive, shouldn't it also be obvious that women should find the strongest looking faces attractive? It's odd, because they don't. There's a sizeable research body showing some women like boyish faces, e.g. think Michael J. Fox or the Beetles or Justin Bieber or whoever.

"It's not true!"
It is true that women prefer very strong bodies, but of course many of the caveats people are saying here are also true. Women prefer high status men, as indicated sometimes by money, jobs, cars, houses, and so on. Women prefer certain personalities and men with common interests and accents, and on and on. This study focused very narrowly on the visual assessment mechanisms in women and how they rate male bodies (sans face). No one thinks that women only value strength; in fact there's good evidence that women are less focused on physical attractiveness than men.

I hope that helps. Keep questions coming if you have them.


Link to reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comment..._the_most/

I think anyone who has ever taken a cycle or has ever truly achieved jacked status already knew this. But for the nonbelievers, don't be afraid to bulk!

Post: #2

The study is about strength and not about being big.

It also clearly mentions that leanness and height are factors, and of course the most important is body symmetry, of which there are countless studies.

Aesthetics>size.

Post: #3

You can't get real strong without also getting big, you are arguing semantics without addressing the article or the commentary. Aesthetics do not mean strength either, and this study is saying that in general strength is most important.

Post: #4

I thought this was about dick size - a little dissapointed. I was hoping BoricuaKing and Stalin would post in it.

Post: #5

(12-14-2017 10:56 AM)Repo Wrote:  "It's not true!"
It is true that women prefer very strong bodies, but of course many of the caveats people are saying here are also true. Women prefer high status men, as indicated sometimes by money, jobs, cars, houses, and so on.

Strength is a subconscious genetic indicator of high status. It is implied status. Tell it this way. The weaker male might have status, but it only matters as long as he can protect it. You can be famous and rich, but if you get beat down by another man in front your girlfriend, she will lose attraction instantly.

Post: #6

I don't like this word choice of "strong" and "weak" because from reading the article it appears they aren't actually talking about that. Girls don't ask you what your total is, or what your Wilks score is, what your best squat is, etc.. This piece is talking about looks. There are guys at my gym way "stronger" than I am because they can lift heavier weight than me, but I'm taller and look more muscular so women would find me more attractive or "stronger" using this article's venacular.

So women like men with muscles as opposed to men without muscles. In other news water is wet. Got it.

Post: #7

All I know is I need one of these gigs where they research common sense question and answers.

"Do Fat Girls Get Less Attention In Online Dating?"

"Do Girls Like Strong Guys with Muscles?"

I solve them for 1/2 the price and in about 5 seconds each.

Post: #8

(12-15-2017 09:48 AM)General Stalin Wrote:  I don't like this word choice of "strong" and "weak" because from reading the article it appears they aren't actually talking about that. Girls don't ask you what your total is, or what your Wilks score is, what your best squat is, etc.. This piece is talking about looks. There are guys at my gym way "stronger" than I am because they can lift heavier weight than me, but I'm taller and look more muscular so women would find me more attractive or "stronger" using this article's venacular.

So women like men with muscles as opposed to men without muscles. In other news water is wet. Got it.

They actually measured the guys strength, and saw that when women ranked the guys attractiveness, they ranked them by the measured strength, suggesting that women can tell strength to a degree, even if this is subconsciencly. It would make sense that this is an evolutionary trait.

Post: #9

And people wonder why tax paying citizens roll their eyes at research grants. It's a shame because, like fake rape victims, it gives real rape victims a skeptical eye.

Real science research is a great luxury of a wealthy nation. F̶a̶k̶e̶ Social science research is largely a luxurious waste of a wealthy nation's resources and gives real science research a bad name. It's not that they're always bad research with confounding variables. It's that a lot of them are bad research. Which is fine, but the conclusions that people draw are as if it was a real science study.

How about we limit funding - and I mean really limit - to hard sciences, including but not limited to:
Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Pharmacology, Physiology, Anatomy, etc, etc



Actually, I'm already going back on that a bit, since hard science study is what leads to big pharma drugs being the sole answer to our problems (limiting to one variable, one molecule).

I didn't mean to sidetrack the thread, but perhaps that's the discussion. The pluses and minuses of hard science studies (quantitative changes due to one variable) vs soft science studies (qualitative changes due to potentially multiple variables).

Realologist, I'd be curious your thoughts.

Post: #10

The problem with social science studies is the ones that would actually discover something or be able to create a new method for treatment for a mental illness would NEVER pass an ethics board to be tested. That's why all the great psychological research (ie. Little Albert, Stanford Prison, Milgram) happened around 1960's.

Imagine a study where the put a suicidal person in a controlled life or death situation and their instincts caused them to fight to save their life. Then you could immediately have a counseling session to have them process it and see if suicidal thoughts continue, increase, decrease or the same.

Post: #11

(12-15-2017 10:11 AM)realologist Wrote:  All I know is I need one of these gigs where they research common sense question and answers.

"Do Fat Girls Get Less Attention In Online Dating?"

"Do Girls Like Strong Guys with Muscles?"

I solve them for 1/2 the price and in about 5 seconds each.

Attractive people are attractive... Unattractive people are not. Got it.

Post: #12

Obviously the test methodology is flawed. If you’re strong you’re simply bigger. Bet you none of the women would be able to differentiate between a midline bodybuilder and a power lifter, each, taken to the extreme look comical at best. Bottom line: hypertrophied males win, regardless of the way they became that way.

Post: #13

^^^Strong Username to Thread Title Ratio

Post: #14

Absolutely none of us need to worry about being too big. It's not going to happen.

Post: #15

(12-15-2017 03:26 PM)Steelex Wrote:  Absolutely none of us need to worry about being too big. It's not going to happen.

I agree. The reason I posted this thread is there are still people out there who think that a thinner more "aesthetic" look is more attractive to women than a stronger, jacked frame. It is obvious to most of us who lift that this is not the case, but not to everyone.

Post: #16

This theory is further confirmed by the adventures of our favorite leftists.

I Can't Stop Thinking About This Picture Of Amazon's CEO

This chick can't even rationalize it in any way. She clearly likes the new Bezos, but it goes against her leftist programming that tells her about the wonders of soyboys. Her hamster went apeshit and committed suicide.

Post: #17

(12-24-2017 05:16 PM)MOVSM Wrote:  This theory is further confirmed by the adventures of our favorite leftists.

I Can't Stop Thinking About This Picture Of Amazon's CEO

This chick can't even rationalize it in any way. She clearly likes the new Bezos, but it goes against her leftist programming that tells her about the wonders of soyboys. Her hamster went apeshit and committed suicide.

Damn Bezos really glo'd up. This is should be a great example to those that constantly complain about their looks. This is the difference muscles + good fitting clothes makes. You can't be someone else but you can be the best version of yourself. We're getting our bodies RIGHT in 2018 fellas!

Post: #18

Bezos is definitely optimizing his looks now given that he's short and bald.

But let's not kid ourselves. He could have stayed 130lbs with a combover and most women in America would have eagerly shacked up with him.

Post: #19

(12-25-2017 12:52 PM)Teep Wrote:  Bezos is definitely optimizing his looks now given that he's short and bald.

But let's not kid ourselves. He could have stayed 130lbs with a combover and most women in America would have eagerly shacked up with him.

And then they would cheat on him with the pool boy.

Now Bezos is looking like he could one-hand choke the pool boy, so she'd think twice.

Post: #20

(12-16-2017 02:17 PM)Repo Wrote:  The reason I posted this thread is there are still people out there who think that a thinner more "aesthetic" look is more attractive to women than a stronger, jacked frame. It is obvious to most of us who lift that this is not the case, but not to everyone.

The average guy seriously looks like shit. A 'thinner, more aesthetic' look would be a huge step up and probably easier/faster to achieve than 'jacked'. You have to walk before you can run.

At the gym last week I counted a dozen guys in the locker room. Every single one was overweight (two were obese). None were jacked/fat, just fat.