Pretty Bad Science

I have to figure out how to block all the content from LiveScience.com from showing up on my compter, because every time I read one of their impossibly stupid stories I have to refrain from arming myself and slaughtering every one of their writers and contributors.

On the target range this week, writer Jeanna Bryner and researcher James McNulty.

The suggestion is that women looking for long term happiness in marriage may want to find a guy "a notch below them in the looks category". You see, men place great value on beauty, whereas women are more interested in having a supportive husband, so that generalization is enough for this research, and real science be damned until they find that relationships where the wife is better looking than her husband are more positive and supportive than other match-ups.

How absolutely scientific.

Of course, researchers admit that looks are subjective, but similarly silly studies show there are some universal standards, including large eyes, "baby face" features, symmetric faces, so-called average faces, and specific waist-hip ratios in men versus women. First, who wouldn't find a symetrical face attractive. Anything out of balance is some Picasso-esque deformity. Plus the typical male-female waist-hip ratio they're talknig about is purely that a man has a larger waist and lesser hips than is his women - take a minute and picture the opposite to recognize the oddity of that in reverse. Wondering what a large-eyed, average baby face looks like? Every anime character ever. Subjectivity indeed for attractiveness.

What else? Past research has shown that individuals with comparable good looks are attracted to each other and once they hook up they report greater relationship satisfaction. Case closed? No, there are interweb articles to write and money to be wasted on research! Those new couples may show that absolute beauty is important in the earliest stages of couple-hood (clearly because you see somebody's attractiveness far before you are attracted to their personality or behavior), applying it to marriage is how they figured they'd rankle some eyebrows.

They assessed 82 couples who had married within the previous six months and had been together for nearly three years prior to tying the knot. Participants were on average in their early to mid-20s. Researchers videotaped as each spouse discussed with their partner a personal problem for 10 minutes. The tapes were analyzed for whether partners were supportive of spouses' issues, which included goals to eat healthier, to land a new job and to exercise more often.

"A negative husband would've said, 'This is your problem, you deal with it, versus 'Hey, I'm here for you; what do you want me to do?; how can I help you?'". Okay, so some husbands are dicks and some are not.

Then, a group of trained "coders" rated the facial attractiveness of each spouse on a scale from 1 to 10, with the perfect 10 representing the ultimate babe. Trained coders? Wow, you can't get more scientific than trained coders! Trained in determining attractiveness? How can you train somebody in something subjective? How about art coding to determine what's the best art? Or how about music? Oh, maybe they're more subjective than looks...or less scientific. They determined about a third of the couples had a more attractive wife, a third a more attractive husband and the remaining partners showed matching looks.

Overall, wives and husbands behaved more positively when the woman was better looking. In couples with more attractive husbands, both partners were less supportive of one another. McNulty suggests wives mirror, in some ways, the level of support they get from husbands. "The husband who's less physically attractive than his wife is getting something more than maybe he can expect to get. He's getting something better than he's providing at that level. So he's going to work hard to maintain that relationship". Huh?

What is that something? Her good looks translate into support? According to this moron, yes.

Men who are more attractive than their partners would theoretically have access to partners who are more attractive than their current spouses, he said. The "grass could be greener" mentality could make these men less satisfied and less committed to maintain the marriage.

Oh. So. Wrong.

So to recap, "science" shows physical attractiveness of husbands is not as important to women, and wives are looking for supportive husbands. Unbelieveable.

To some very substancial degree, every person gets the most attactive person they can acquire, whether it's through their looks, wealth, personality, status, and intelligence. And beyond looks, the other things vary in importance and development. That's why less attractive girls tend to be more interesting and have better personalities - they had to develop them to compete with hot girls who rest on their looks alone. Anybody other than me recall the "ugly wife" song from the 60's?

If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife
So from my personal point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you.

And that's a little science from 40 years ago...