OKCupid on the math behind female beauty

January 10, 2011 1:57 PM

"Fair warning: we're about to objectify women, big-time" . . . OKCupid's new data-driven blog post looks at the "mathematics behind female beauty" and come up with this surprising advice for women looking to attract men: "Take whatever you think some guys don't like—and play it up".
posted by meadowlark lime (16 comments total)

Meh.
posted by auralcoral at 2:02 PM on January 10, 2011

I love OKCupid's blog posts about the mathematics of how their site ends up working, but I really don't like how you've framed this post.
posted by flatluigi at 2:03 PM on January 10, 2011

This is so flawed, because the star system is not merely for ranking photos: It is for ranking the entire profile. Granted, some people use it to merely rank photos, but not everyone. It could be that the weirder-looking women have more interesting things to say about themselves. Gee.
posted by millipede at 2:04 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

I love OKCupid's blog posts about the mathematics of how their site ends up working, but I really don't like how you've framed this post.

If only this site had a section precisely for the fucking discussion of such concerns.
posted by enn at 2:06 PM on January 10, 2011

Did the women in those pictures tell OKCupid, "Why yes, you may use my photograph to illustrate the statistical distributions for unattractive women" ?

Or does OKCupid's TOS reserve the right to use one's pix in this manner?
posted by Joe Beese at 2:06 PM on January 10, 2011

The premise does make sense; the goal of a site like that (as the article frames this particular situation) is to "get the girl", and doing so means finding a potential mate that maximizes positives/attraction while minimizing potential competition. Ergo, look for a partner that others aren't already fighting over, but that you still find attractive. I can definitely say I've run into this particular thought pattern among colleagues previously, but it's interesting to see it potentially backed up by the hard numbers as well.
posted by Phyltre at 2:07 PM on January 10, 2011

On Megan Fox: On the far right, you have the many dudes who think she's the sexiest thing ever. On the far left, you have the small number of people who have seen her movies.

lol
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:07 PM on January 10, 2011

I'm pretty sure there's always a bit in these blog posts where they tell you that all the people pictured have given their permission Joe.

In this case, half way down:

"All the users pictured were generous and confident enough to allow us to dissect their experience on our site, and we appreciate it."

posted by pharm at 2:08 PM on January 10, 2011

Joe Beese, see this from the article:

All the users pictured were generous and confident enough to allow us to dissect their experience on our site, and we appreciate it.

posted by The Michael The at 2:08 PM on January 10, 2011

Hey, what's wrong with Garfield?
posted by benzenedream at 2:10 PM on January 10, 2011

Confident that their egos would be unbruised by being publicly identified as Not Hot? Or confident that they would be considered one of the hot ones?
posted by Joe Beese at 2:10 PM on January 10, 2011

... it was like a baby we were trying to drown had somehow grown gills. (This happens all the time in China.)

Uh ...
posted by ryanshepard at 2:11 PM on January 10, 2011

Joe Beese: It specifically says that all the women granted permisson to be used as examples in the article.
posted by flatluigi at 2:11 PM on January 10, 2011

whoops, beaten
posted by flatluigi at 2:11 PM on January 10, 2011

Confident that their egos would be unbruised by being publicly identified as Not Hot? Or confident that they would be considered one of the hot ones?

All of them were ranked equally, I believe.
posted by empath at 2:14 PM on January 10, 2011

benzenedream: "Hey, what's wrong with Garfield?"

Garfield just isn't that into you. Or me.
posted by autoclavicle at 2:15 PM on January 10, 2011