>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>
Yes I read the research where they were able to show in computer morphing
studies that what was most attractive was the more average the face became- ex
a nose not too little and not too big. Also sometimes one flaw(break the
symmetry) such as a birthmark accentuates the averageness to be more
attractive.
It is kind of funny that the most beautiful is the most average.
Hey all,
> This is a little proof I did when trying to convince a few of my friends
>that quality exists independently of subjects. It was targeted at 22 year
>olds so as part of my proof I used the website hotornot.com. Also they are
>all engineers so there's some stats jargon in there as well. The website
>basically shows you photos at random and you rate them for hotness. The
>thing I found most interesting was that the administer said in the faq that
>the score doesn't change after 30-50 votes. I found it rather odd and
>thought "this must be a mistake" until I took quality as reality into
>consideration, then it made sense.
>
>Anyway, here's my semi-scientific proof that beauty isn't just in the eye of
>the beholder:
>
>An analysis through two worldviews with regard to the generally considered
>subjective realm of hotness. And comparison to the Hot or Not data.
>
>We'll examine two possibilities in this analysis. Hotness is purely
>subjective, or hotness is independent of subject, but is measured by
>subjects.
>
>Hypothesis 1) Hotness is purely subjective.
> Expected distribution: none. Essentially random. There is no predictable
>patterns in pure subjectivity. Each person has an entirely different view
>of what is hot. Since the scale is from one to ten, the statistical mean
>will be 5.5, a meaningless number though because every photo will have a
>statistical mean of 5.5. Random distribution may cause variances, but the
>more the votes, the closer the score will be to 5.5
>
>Hypothesis 2) Hotness is independent of subject, but is measured by
>subjects.
> Expected distribution: Normal distribution with a statistical mean close to
>the true value. Random variances will occur associated with the inaccuracy
>of the measuring equipment (subjects, the integer rating system), but as the
>number of votes increases, the closer the measured value will be to the true
>value. In this case, subjectivity determines the VARIANCE, not the MEAN.
>
> Now which seems more like the real data from the Hot or Not website?
>Obviously the first hypothesis doesn't agree with the empirical data,
>everybody definitely isn't a 5.5. And, as the site owner said, the value
>rarely changes after 30-50 votes, this would indicate that although there is
>a variance as is associated with any Normal distribution, there is a true
>mean. 30-50 votes being required for 1 decimal point accuracy indicates a
>large variance, but because the votes are only integer values and there is
>no universal hotness scale that is generally agreed upon, that would be
>expected.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:41 BST