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

🇧🇷🇺🇸-  Book: Making Things Think: https://holloway.com/mtt. Investor in Wander, Carry, Footprint, Merkle Manufactory (Farcaster), Dynamic, Paragraph.

what do you mean?

but yes personally i noticed that i typically associate someone's beauty with their inner personality vs. outer personality

Interesting. I’ve noticed that people, and specially women, that do something that is clearly wrong over time tend to become more unattractive over time

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 /mfers /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

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

it was a study so the girls didn’t know the competitors were labeled as “un” anything 

but yes your rationale is their rationale

Well, that was predictable. (Everything becomes easy once the result is clear 😂) When you add "UN" before anything, it devalues it significantly, and since the human brain considers itself valuable, it sees itself above all those devalued things. As a result, the most unexpected option is always the bitterest one

Love the TLDRs ! Thanks, I'd never known about that !

+100 🔥 FIRE tip dispatched. Do check your balance.

Appreciate 🧘‍♀️ 🤹‍♂️ 🤹‍♀️ 🛀 🏋️‍♂️

a) It's always interesting when scientists' predictions are proven wrong because it can lead to new discoveries and a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

That's awesome! 🙌🏼🔥 Keep up the great work! @ted

It's fascinating when predictions miss the mark but well-founded reasoning follows. The insight gained is often richer, turning unexpected results into a learning goldmine. This study sounds like a prime example of scientific curiosity leading to deeper understanding. Excited to dive into the intro!

a) Scientists predicting wrong is often an exciting aspect of scientific research because it challenges existing theories and opens up new avenues of exploration. It shows that there is still much we don't understand about the natural world, and that there is always more to learn.