Filed under: Uncategorized
That Depends On What The Definition of Not Is
by Jeff Goldberg
Being a regular guy, I enjoy reading articles about economics. Fortunately for me, the media (and I use that term in its full ambiguity) indulges my desires, and seems to love — perhaps surprisingly — writing articles about economics. But what the media loves even more than writing articles about economics is writing incorrect articles about economics.
Not quite as sexy as Greenspan, but we love him anyway!
And today I am going to debunk an article about economics unlike any previous article about economics has ever been debunked.
Check out Condé Nast Portfolio’s report on new “attractiveness” research.
The article is titled “You’re Not Attractive” and it starts out by stating: “And neither is your girlfriend, but in order to stomach the prospect of a long-term relationship, you delude yourself into believing she’s better looking than she really is.”
Why is it not Condé Nast‘s Portfolio?
I actually crafted a long-winded post describing why I thought the article’s opening sentence misinterpreted the actual study data, but I was, of course, quoting the study data as reported in the article. So I did something that no one else apparently did: I read the study.
Here is the thesis statement from the abstract of the study (the abstract!!! That’s the first paragraph!):
“Our analysis of data from the popular website HOTorNOT.com suggests that this is not the case: less attractive people do not delude themselves into thinking that their dates are more physically attractive than others perceive them to be.”
Did anyone notice anything odd? And I’m not talking about the use of HOTorNOT.com as a data source. I’m cool with that.
Admittedly, I used to spend a lot of time on HOTorNOT trying to give unattractive people better self-esteem by clicking on 10, though I think the possibility of my past behavior skewing with the results is low.
Lee Bollinger is the president of Columbia University, the school where this study took place. He is rated a 9.8 on HOTorNOT.com.
Let me repeat that thesis statement, highlighting the critical words:
“Our analysis of data from the popular website HOTorNOT.com suggests that this is not the case: less attractive people DO NOT DELUDE themselves into thinking that their dates are more physically attractive than others perceive them to be.”
To be very clear about this: Portfolio has published an article about this research, claiming the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the research has revealed.
I don’t quite blame the magazine for trying to interpret the study in an interesting way, since this study is not revealing any new information. It’s simply a confirmation of conventional wisdom. To sum it up:
a) People agree about what constitutes physical attractiveness.
b) Physically attractive people care more about physical attractiveness in a partner.
c) Less physically attractive people care less about physical attractiveness in a partner.
To quote my seventh-grade self: “No duh.”
But this article chooses to spin the study in a way that is rude towards less physically attractive people. It is not just incorrect in its rudeness, it is lying in order to make ugly people seem even more pathetic. Why would anyone do this? Do not ugly people suffer enough? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
Has television taught us nothing? Unattractive men never settle for unattractive women!
To turn the ugly-bashing further on its head, what the research (and the article–unintentionally, perhaps) actually states is that the more physically attractive you are, the more shallow you are. Unattractive people care both about attractiveness and other factors. Attractive people don’t care about anything but attractiveness.
That’s pretty harsh to attractive people like myself.
Jeff and his lovely bride-to-be, not sure how he wrangled that one
One final note: It’s possible that the author of the Portfolio article misinterpreted the research because of the odd appearance of two “NOT”s in the abstract’s thesis statement. Maybe he thought it meant the research did NOT reveal that ugly people do NOT delude themselves. But that’s ridiculous, especially if you’ve read more than one sentence in the report.
One final, final note: For complete accuracy, I need to point out that the word “NOT” actually appears three times in the thesis statement. Can you find the third occurrence?
Jeff Goldberg is the senior contributor to This Recording. He lives in Manhattan.
“Abel” — The National (mp3)
“Cold Light” — The Yeah Yeah Yeahs (mp3)
“Crash Diet” — Guns ‘N ‘Roses (mp3)
PREVIOUSLY ON THIS RECORDING
We couldn’t resist these bands.
Molly gives you a facial full of images.
I love waking up to your laugh.
Yeah, I could see myself marinating a chicken in that.
3 Comments so far
Leave a comment
What I would give for one fucking show with a hachet face funny mom with a hot guy husband. ONE.
Comment by Molly Lambert December 1, 2007 @ 8:46 am[...] Jeff revealed a liar. [...]
Pingback by In Which We Instruct You To Read These Books Immediately, Or, Failing That, To Buy Them And Let Them Languish On Your Bookshelf « This Recording December 11, 2007 @ 4:13 pm[...] you see in those annoying movies that are always on IFC and Fagdance. Movies with titles like Thinkin’ ‘Bout Being Sad and Zoe Gets a Latte and 2 Bedrooms, 1 Bath and a Whole Bunch of Cock-fucks Running Their [...]
Pingback by In Which Our Favorites Pick Their Favorites « This Recording January 2, 2008 @ 10:40 am