best part about this study is a) scientists predicted wrong, b) they had good reason to explain result, c) the intro was A+ learned a ton: https://drakula.app/post/b26235a1-8511-4f0f-8898-303d791855df?invite=rQJthq

/ted | exploring the onchain frontier | surfing @ venice, ca | eating @ gjusta / gjelina

i wonder how this would compare to men when running same experiment

so the scientists intended to conduct a second study that included men, but couldn't because there is too much variance in attractiveness ratings for the male faces from the database they used.

they did hypothesize (study linked below) that for men physical strength would be more relevant to how they respond to social exclusion bc that seems to be more important for intrasex status than attractiveness.

random aside: in a study in which attractive men excluded women, women tended to then be meaner to unattractive men as a result... woof.

i like crypto and hockey…writing at https://paragraph.xyz/@nfa and /mfers and /predictionmkts

so the scientists intended to conduct a second study that included men, but couldn't because there is too much variance in attractiveness ratings for the male faces from the database they used.

they did hypothesize (study linked below) that for men physical strength would be more relevant to how they respond to social exclusion bc that seems to be more important for intrasex status than attractiveness.

random aside: in a study in which attractive men excluded women, women tended to then be meaner to unattractive men as a result... woof.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-65833-4