Hacker News Reader

Comment by talldatethrow | Hacker News Reader

If you lined up 100 women, or men, it wouldn't take a genius to shuffle them into an overall attractiveness order with certain ones on the left and certain ones on the right. Most people are able to estimate someone's overall score on this scale.

I think the 'ignoring that there are discernable differences between people' thing needs to die.

View on HN

I'm sorry, but there is no universal "scale". Measures of attractiveness vary across time, between cultures, and from person to person. (And can also shift dramatically depending on how well you know someone.)

For more information, see this video essay: https://youtu.be/X53ZSxkQ3Ho

When people hand out overall scores, it's done from a more universal metric. And if not, atleast within your circle.

Being too far out of your circle is only going to lower the perceived score. So yes, if Pro Baseball player might sleep with a girl that is an 8 in the Punk Rock club world, but to him she's a 6-7 because he doesn't value that stuff.

For a guy, ease raises a girls score temporarily. For a woman, perceived value raises a score temporarily.

If you asked 100 people, literally everyone would agree Arnold Schwarzenegger is more attractive than Danny Devito. For people in the middle it's a bit more subjective but there are people that are more or less attractive.

> I think the 'ignoring that there are discernable differences between people' thing needs to die.

Maybe having a connection with someone? Does that mean anything to you?

Of course it does. But wouldn't you want to have a connection with a 7 instead of a 4?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com