I did one of those "rate my pic" sites, I apparently have a highly-polarizing appearance.
Wild swings between 4 and 9.
Discussion
I suspect women who have trouble rating how attractive they are, simply have a highly-polarizing appearance, like that.
Yeah, nostr:npub1sr92xvmaxdmqac64d9exptc2qw9wd2pwd593jhrak0raqt4njnhq50l2qw sounds sort of weird, but it makes sense, once you consider that men tend prefer average faces.
Anything too far away from the average or the "norm" will appeal to a smaller number of men, but those men will be especially enthusiastic.
Such as with redheads.
In the beauty article, she points out that there's a statistical advantage to filling a niche like that, so long as that niche isn't oversupplied. Same effect as having high intelligence.
The most-average or midwit woman has the widest appeal, but she won't seem as scarce.
Interesting fact: Genes/grnetic heritage are most visibly expressed in the anatomy of the individual human face; bone structure, musculature, lipid and blood vessel density, nose, the hair and of course, eyes. Far more information is carried from observing the face than any other part of the body. #heritability
Yes, bodies are more strongly effected by environment. Eyes are the biggest factor, of course.
Might be why men seem to care more about facial beauty when choosing wives, than when choosing casual sex partners.
Ma'am, please, give no credence to those sites, at minimum 30% of male raters will be trolls, more the further you get from the median face.
Source: IRL knowing a few guys who patronise those sites.
Apparently, you wouldn't give me a 4.
#m=image%2Fgif&dim=220x162&blurhash=%23DG7f3RR01%25%7CP98%7BWB.7Myu6xHxZwc%23%2BJ-w%5D%24gRjB%3DKO%252m-rX-%3AaxRPxtGGs%3As%3AWVf*bcRkNaofAvxGt6NHaeS%7Dsor%5DkB%24*R%2BafS%24OE%24MX8S%23s9nOslXRSPWYsmbINxn%24&x=a5a8ee0af4588487f9f5a49520aad4baf35055ee8d59ac872abcee7c7b8d271f
If it rights your worldview, the median was a 6/7, which matches the AI rating.
There's a difference between median and range, and the more atypical she looks, the wider the range, but the median might stay the same.
Very true, but it means there are other sources of variability, and the 95% confidence band will cover most of the chart. If you posted on a Sunday with no major sporting events, for example. Or right after a female celebrity said something ridiculous and widely publicised.
Yes, but that is always the case and can be solved for statistically.
They weighted the ratings of the different men, for instance, and threw out extreme outliers, and they didn't show any rating until a certain number of men had responded.
And there's the same effect IRL.
Deleting outliers is highly controversial. I do it too, professionally, but there are good arguments that it is introducing at least as much error as it removes. (Where this lies on balance depends on one's confidence in other stages of the workflow).
You are correct that this can be ameliorated statistically if we are only reporting the mean, but mostly only by increasing the sample size.
They're doing the best they can with the resources they have...
It seems to work, seeing as how the AI matches and most of my bros were okay with the median I got. 🤷♀️
I have a few superlative features and the rest is underwhelming. That's polarizing.
The AI is trained on the SAME data, does NOT fill me with confidence!
Your bros, though, are MUCH more credible.
Probably about right in your case, then, but I wouldn't recommend anyone take anonymous troll ratings to heart!
I'm relatively confident on the AI because it correlates closely with professional/trained raters. This is their business, so they try to do a good job.
Interesting is that they're all trying to figure out how to correctly account for eyes, but no AI has done it, yet. Humans still seem better at it.
Hence the value in "bro ratings".
LOL re eyes. Human males fail at that too, that's why mascara works! Interesting that AI is failing harder. I can haz link?