"Measurable symmetry accounts for less than 1% of the variance in the attractiveness of women's faces and less than 3% of the variance of the attractiveness of men's faces"
When dividing up variance among various components, I would think that you have to be pretty careful, especially if some variables are even mildly correlated.... I would like to know the other variables measured.
"I see the same thing in health economics"
Robin, in regards to health economics, I still can't believe how quickly you dismiss other explanations brought up on this blog. You seem completely unable to deeply examine the evidence, and instead fall victim to some of the biases you accuse others of having.
Interesting, especially as applied to arguably more important areas like health economics. It would be nice for someone to take a comprehensive look at cultural myth/wish fulfillment as it corrupts the scientific (and popularization of scientific discovery) process.
My first reaction is to agree with ditching the 0.05 p-value cutoff. I'm kind of shocked that scientists don't notice decreasing effect size with increasing sample size - it's indication #1 that the initial result is at least partly publication bias or something similar. Notably, though, symmetry is important in many animals so it's reasonable to expect a substantial effect in humans.
A side issue might be that the effect size of symmetry will decrease if the faces vary more in other aspects of attractiveness. Humans care a lot about age, race, weight, and body fashion, and those are hard to standardize.
Similar conclusion has been found in physics during the last 10 years. We no longer think that gauge symmetries are fundamental or irrevocably beautiful and attractive; they are a redunancy of a description. (Click e.g. my name and search for gauge symmetry.) In the analogy with the face, having the left 1/2 identical to the right 1/2 is just a waste of space.
"Measurable symmetry accounts for less than 1% of the variance in the attractiveness of women's faces and less than 3% of the variance of the attractiveness of men's faces"
When dividing up variance among various components, I would think that you have to be pretty careful, especially if some variables are even mildly correlated.... I would like to know the other variables measured.
"I see the same thing in health economics"
Robin, in regards to health economics, I still can't believe how quickly you dismiss other explanations brought up on this blog. You seem completely unable to deeply examine the evidence, and instead fall victim to some of the biases you accuse others of having.
Interesting, especially as applied to arguably more important areas like health economics. It would be nice for someone to take a comprehensive look at cultural myth/wish fulfillment as it corrupts the scientific (and popularization of scientific discovery) process.
My first reaction is to agree with ditching the 0.05 p-value cutoff. I'm kind of shocked that scientists don't notice decreasing effect size with increasing sample size - it's indication #1 that the initial result is at least partly publication bias or something similar. Notably, though, symmetry is important in many animals so it's reasonable to expect a substantial effect in humans.
A side issue might be that the effect size of symmetry will decrease if the faces vary more in other aspects of attractiveness. Humans care a lot about age, race, weight, and body fashion, and those are hard to standardize.
Similar conclusion has been found in physics during the last 10 years. We no longer think that gauge symmetries are fundamental or irrevocably beautiful and attractive; they are a redunancy of a description. (Click e.g. my name and search for gauge symmetry.) In the analogy with the face, having the left 1/2 identical to the right 1/2 is just a waste of space.
Chatty Apes is down and has been down for some time.