3 ms·
This reminds of the shirtless / not shirtless studies that use plainly artificial edited in muscles, no scenic background whatsoever (just a wall, not even a ba
by CameronNemo 4y ago
This reminds of the shirtless / not shirtless studies that use plainly artificial edited in muscles, no scenic background whatsoever (just a wall, not even a basic pool), and are just not generalizable to real (online) dating experiences.
Edit: This is the study. See the supplementary information section at the very bottom is you want to see the photos used.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-022-01278-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-022-01278-1
I found it via an article on theguardian.com, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/may/25/keep-your-shirt-science-perfect-online-dating-profile-picture https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/may/25/keep-yo...
- Groxx 4y agoOh wow those are bad, lol. Almost as bad as those 'shops where you can see the background bending around the inhumanly-shaped waist or butt. I have to assume the conversation between authors went something like this: > Muscles look like this, right? https://unbelievab.ly/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/photoshop.jpg https://unbelievab.ly/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/photoshop.j... > LGTM, ship it
- collegeburner 4y agolol yeah you can pretty much tell those authors hadn't ever gotten close to a girl or a gym then some pop science blog writes about it and the average "i fucking love science" fan can feel good about being doughy and out of shape bc "haha science proves it" (if it sounds like im venting its because i am, i just hate pop science and this is the latest example why)
- slavik81 4y agoYou're referring to Elizabeth, Morgan and JoAnne?
- jffry 4y agoAlso those images in that supplementary PDF are unredacted, with a separate oval superimposed over the face.