

The Mathematics Of Beauty - cube
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-mathematics-of-beauty/

======
roadnottaken
I think this analysis is way off. Given two girls with similar average
attractiveness, the one with the higher stdev (wider distribution, whatever)
is going to have more "5" votes than the girl with a low-variance average.
This is probably completely driving the trend. Guys are most-likely to message
you if they think you're a 5. So, given girls with equal average
attractiveness, the one with the wider distribution will have more 5's and get
more messages.

EDIT: After looking more-closely, their formula basically agrees with what
I've said: the number of 5's is weighted most-strongly (0.9 versus the second-
strongest of 0.5). Also their R^2 value is pathetic.

------
po
_We now have mathematical evidence that minimizing your "flaws" is the
opposite of what you should do. If you're a little chubby, play it up. If you
have a big nose, play it up. If you have a weird snaggletooth, play it up:
statistically, the guys who don't like it can only help you, and the ones who
do like it will be all the more excited._

This should be followed by an asterisk:

*As long as it doesn't bring your average rating down.

There's a big difference between playing up polarizing features and drawing
attention to flaws in general.

------
danecjensen
The thing Christian Rudder fails to point out explicitly is how man can put
this information into action. Knowing that women with tight distribution get
messaged less men should start messaging cute girls with tight distributions
to improve their chances.

~~~
rflrob
Why should he have to point out anything at all about how men can put it into
action? Presumably close to half the people who use OKC are women looking to
attract men•, so the message to them ought to be fine.

•modulo gays and lesbians, of course.

