Need help with a survey

I'm attracted to depressed people, but I guess that's a "group." As long as they are caring and damaged, I find them attractive. In general, as long as someone is an endearing, worthy person, they are attractive. It's pretty intangible what I think people in general are attracted to, but virtuous traits like selflessness, courage, self awareness, talents or skills in a hobby or job, and a sensitivity to the world (empathy)... when I say I'm attracted to depressed people, its more attraction to toughness and willpower than the negative aspects. I also am not attracted to people who talk too much.

I have no strong desire to look a certain way or have certain traits. My dysphoria is very tempered. I am a nurturer, and I want others to be attracted to my utility in helping others. I'd also like to be considered attractive for being intelligent or clever/creative. Some of the more elaborate things that should make me attractive are my ability to be myself or love myself, regardless of what that might mean.

Does that suffice to describe some abstract traits? I personally think attraction is very superficial, so excluding those traits seems counterintuitive.

>>8797266
>They are not related to gender at all
>They do not signal group/subculture membership.
Why not?

>>8797306
So, there's a lot of risk at running into requirement 3 (and possibly also requirement 1, though I'm less certain about that), at least with your phrasing. Some of it could maybe be rephrased, though. For example,
> I also am not attracted to people who talk too much.
could be phrased as "People who have a lot to say" to make it sound more neutral. (Or perhaps some third phrasing would be even better.)

> I personally think attraction is very superficial, so excluding those traits seems counterintuitive.

Superficial traits are allowed.

>>8797343
>They are not related to gender at all
Because then we're starting to measure AGP/AAP more directly, rather than ETLI more generally. Ideally these would all be things where trans people would not be expected to score higher UNLESS Blanchard's theory is correct.

>They do not signal group/subculture membership.
People tend to be attracted to people in the same groups/subcultures as themselves, so traits which signal group/subculture membership would also be traits that the people who are attracted to them would like to have, regardless of whether they experience ETLI or not.

>>8797356
I don't follow the not related to gender part. Please explain for somebody very stupid.

>>8797266
>which is a paraphilia where you desire to have the traits that you would otherwise find attractive in mates
As I understand it it's more like you detect yourself as a mate so obviously you're aroused by making yourself attractive to yourself

>>8797359
I don't want to directly measure autogynephilia (attraction to being a woman) or autoandrophilia (attraction to being a man), because I already have a perfectly nice measure for that. Instead, I want to measure ETLI (sexual interest in having traits that you find attractive) in more general ways, as a sort of test of Blanchard's theory. If his theory holds, then this measure should be associated with AGP/AAP, even though it's not actually measuring anything gender-related.

>>8797393
There's multiple understandings, but the point is that this scale might work.

(The main potential problem is that e.g. straight men with an ETLI who are attracted to redheads might only be attracted to being a readheaded *woman* and not a redhead in general. However, if this is the case, then it seems hard to imagine how certain other ETLIs, such as furry or BIID, would work.)

>>8797422
I got that but why is the not related to gender important for measuring ETLI without AGP/AAP?

What's the problem is someone's only attracted to red-headed or long-haired *women*?

>>8797352
Then superficial traits I'm attracted to:
-paleness
-clean shaven or well-kept beard
-strong brow
-thick eyebrows
-dark hair
-short hair
-chubby but not obese
-good teeth
-large hands
Superficial traits I'd like to have:
-I don't know
-not to dress like a slob

>>8797503
> I got that but why is the not related to gender important for measuring ETLI without AGP/AAP?
Suppose I ask about, say, whether people are attracted to breasts, and whether people would like to have breasts. Then this is well-known to be closely associated with AGP. People who are attracted to breasts tend to be men, and men who want breasts tend to be AGP. (And vice versa, AGP men tend to want breasts.) So if I include gender-related things, then I easily end up just measuring AGP/AAP.

> What's the problem is someone's only attracted to red-headed or long-haired *women*?
That's not a problem. The problem is that people might only be attracted to *being* red-headed or long-haired *women*, rather than to being red-headed or long-haired in general. If that is the case, then my ETLI measure fails, because it asks people whether they'd want to be red-headed, rather than whether they'd want to be red-headed women.

A bit off topic but Survey do you have any idea how Commie is doing?

>>8797266
OP can you explain your survery in layman's terms?

>>8797603
>So if I include gender-related things, then I easily end up just measuring AGP/AAP.
Ok I get that for breasts.

>The problem is that people might only be attracted to *being* red-headed or long-haired *women*
But someone can be attracted to long-haired women or short-haired women. If there's a correlation between wanting long/short hair and liking women with long/short hair, doesn't that still show ETLI?

>>8797618
Do their replies to my questions help?

>>8797550
Not to be overly critical, but:

>-paleness
This *might* work. While there are things about this that kinda goes against the requirements (women are slightly paler; paleness is often seen as attractive), it only does so very slightly, so it seems acceptable.

>-clean shaven or well-kept beard
This runs against requirement 1.

>-strong brow
This also goes against requirement 1, I believe?

>-thick eyebrows
This would go against requirement 1, but as far as I know there's a fashion trend or something right now where thick eyebrows are seen as good in women? So maybe it could work...

>-dark hair
That should work.

>-short hair
Long hair is explicitly given as an example of something that goes against requirement 1, so short hair also goes against this. :P

>-chubby but not obese
Chubby was explicitly forbidden because fat interacts with sex (e.g. fat deposits are sexually dimorphic).

>-good teeth
You're describing it with the word "good", so it definitely runs against requirement 3.

>-large hands
This goes against requirement 1.

>>8797613
We, uh, had a disagreement. I'd like to befriend her again, but it's unclear how.

>>8797618
I'm asking people what they find attractive and what they'd like to be like. Then I see how similar these things are. The theory is that trans people should have greater similarity between what they find attractive and what they'd like to be like.

>>8797635
>But someone can be attracted to long-haired women or short-haired women. If there's a correlation between wanting long/short hair and liking women with long/short hair, doesn't that still show ETLI?
It does, but the fact that attraction to long hair is associated with attraction to women and that attraction to short hair is associated with attraction to men would complicate the statistics a lot. I could maybe make it work by controlling for all sorts of factors, but I'd rather not.

>>8797636
I have no preferences. even if my first real love made me like everyone who resembles her but then I had crushes on people who looked completely different with different personalities

and I just want to be myself but female version, I don't imagine myself being a short chubby blonde when Im tall and skinny brunette

but wanting to have the features you find attractive in others is absolutely normal so there is no point in this approach

>>8797783
> I have no preferences. even if my first real love made me like everyone who resembles her but then I had crushes on people who looked completely different with different personalities
> and I just want to be myself but female version, I don't imagine myself being a short chubby blonde when Im tall and skinny brunette
I'd almost certainly bet that at the very least you have preferences that violate some of the three rules, and you also likely have other preferences. Though even if you don't have preferences, it doesn't need to be your preferences that we're using to construct the scale. If you have examples of preferences that other people have, then that should work too.

>but wanting to have the features you find attractive in others is absolutely normal so there is no point in this approach
Well, small degrees of A*P might be normal too, so that doesn't prevent correlations.

>>8797643
How does it complicate it? Just see the correlation between attraction to each.

I always fancied blond or ginger, tall, long legged women. (irony - I'm tall, hair blonde with red strikes and have nice legs and I am agp)

>>8797636
>We, uh, had a disagreement
About what?

>>8797829
I think you're not quite getting what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to build a profile over the sorts of traits the person finds attractive, a profile over the sorts of traits they desire to have, then compare those profiles for similarity. The amount of similarity then functions as a measure of the person's ETLI.

Then I'm going to use this ETLI measure for all sorts of things. For example, it'd be a nice confirmation of Blanchard's theory if this measure correlates with A*P, and it'd be interesting to compare trans people to cis people on this scale.

If I include gender-related things in my ETLI measure, then this pollutes it by directly adding some elements of A*P into it, which means that it's just going to be trivially true that it correlates with A*P, and that trans people score higher.

I could probably do some complex statistics to adjust for this, but I'd rather not.

>>8797841
I don't want to make all sorts of drama out of this.

>>8797864
I thought it would be like this:

>likes long hair and likes women with long hair
>likes short hair and likes women with short hair
If these match then that's AGP and ETLI. If they don't match then that's not ETLI even if there's still AGP.

Am I missing something obvious?

>>8798496
The problem is that I'm more likely to get "likes women with long hair" from gynephiles, and this could give results which *looks* like the ETLI explanation holds when combined with AGP, as AGPs are then more likely to report wanting long hair. That is, these questions cannot distinguish between "AGP caused by some weird thing entirely different from what Blanchard proposed" and "AGP caused by what Blanchard proposed".

>>8797266
you're just trying to compartmentalize and label people instead of work up a profile of how we're all individually effected by genetics and nature.

get fucked your survey's are shit 99% of the time i've seen.

>>8797636
okay. Well I find lots of things attractive.
>What I'd like to be like, or what I aim for
Short, small-framed, big hips, thicc thighs, small flat boobs, cute butt.
Paleish-yellow tinted skin with very pink lips/boipuss,
skinny, very pointy, petite aryan nose.
Petite pouty lips,
huge almond eyes,
small chin.
Big poofy, layered and feathered, emo hair. Ideally I like mine reddish-brown. Short-medium length. (Girlyboi length)
High pitch 13-year old boyish voice.

That's what I like to look like, and there isn't a single thing there that isn't already me. I'm very comfortable with my body image. I don't get upset about things I can't change. Like my adam's apple, it's really small and cute- I like it.

>What I find attractive
Tall, broad shoulders, big arms, veins in arms, wide chest, hairy chest, hairy arms, stubble,
cute fine facial features, something with a similar ethnicity to me- skinny pointy nose, pointy chin. But with a beard.


WOW OP, so fucking similar. What the fuck did I do wrong? Should I have wrote down what I like in GIRLS? because I don't like to date girls.

>>8797266
Sometimes I get confused about which personality traits I want myself and which I want my partner to have. It's like I know the pairing I want but not which way around. Hope that helps.

btw, what did you think of your last survey re: AGP going away?

>>8797356
How are you planning to test if the traits they list are genuinely attractive to them?

Doesn't A*P normally cause confusion where you might think A*P arousal is a sign of attraction? (and viceversa)

I don't think measuring attraction on a larger scale with A*P is possible at all desu

>>8800608
That makes sense. Sounds similar to meta-attraction.

>>8800613
You mean where the reddit mods removed it? Annoying. Or are you talking about something else?

>>8800805
>How are you planning to test if the traits they list are genuinely attractive to them?
I'm not. :V

>Doesn't A*P normally cause confusion where you might think A*P arousal is a sign of attraction? (and viceversa)
Possibly. Though I think it's less of a problem for people who aren't very A*P, which is the main group I'm measuring.

>I don't think measuring attraction on a larger scale with A*P is possible at all desu
Maybe you're right, but I'd need to try to find out.

>>8800812
I mean the one here about if you still had AGP after a year
What was the deal with your removed survey?

>>8800819
Did it get removed? I thought it just didn't have enough activity to stay on the board?

>>8800821
rrrrrgh I meant the reddit thread you just spoke of!
The first question is about the 4chan thread (which you can still find in the archive if you need to)

>>8800812
>Sounds similar to meta-attraction.
Actually I don't it it so much with guys. The confusion is mainly or perhaps entirely when I think of two girls and can't tell which one I want to be.

>>8797266
ok why is long hair and chubby out if they aren't related to gender? wouldn't they be perfect examples?

i dont understand what you're even trying to do

you want physical traits that are not sexually dymorphic? or just completely gender neutral with not even a mild association with gender (in which case chubby would still work?)

>>8800835
I got plenty of responses to the 4chan survey, the main annoyance is that nobody wrote any of the additional details that I requested.

>>8800864
It might be that it's caused by the same mechanism as meta-attraction, though? Like, we might think of meta-attraction as applying ETLI to a desire to have a male/female dynamic, reversing the interest in the dynamic so one is also interested in being the woman in it. If you then have some other preference for a dynamic then applying ETLI to that might reverse it similarly. Maybe.

>>8800881
Long hair is related to gender in the sense that women tend to have longer hair. Even if this is to a large degree cultural (though AFAIK not completely cultural - IIRC estrogen actually lets your hair grow longer), it is still related and might still cause problems.

Chubby is out because fat is sexually dimorphic - chubby men are chubby in different ways than chubby women are.

I want traits which are neither sexually dimorphic nor exhibit gendered differences in their attractiveness.

>>8800902
>I got plenty of responses to the 4chan survey, the main annoyance is that nobody wrote any of the additional details that I requested.
I mean, what do you make of the responses?

>>8800902
Wouldn't that leave you with mostly stuff like hair/eye/skin color (which has the same issue as subculture ie. people preferring members of their race)

Also don't cis people have a preference towards people resembling their parents? That would fuck with the results too

Are you planning to ever redo the surveys/gather additional responses? I missed all of them
I'd like to at least know what the questions are

>>8800902
>If you then have some other preference for a dynamic then applying ETLI to that might reverse it similarly. Maybe.
That makes sense and it feels really weird to not have an AGP and a non-AGP side to the dynamic. Maybe that's why it's so confusing, because both sides work with AGP.

>>8800917
Nevermind I noticed you have full results on the blog

>>8800904
Nothing, because I didn't get any detailed replies. :V

>>8800917
> Wouldn't that leave you with mostly stuff like hair/eye/skin color (which has the same issue as subculture ie. people preferring members of their race)
Yes, that is the problem. Pic is the list of traits I've got collected. A lot of them are kinda on the edge wrt. the requirements, but it's the best I've got.

> Also don't cis people have a preference towards people resembling their parents? That would fuck with the results too
How so?

> Are you planning to ever redo the surveys/gather additional responses? I missed all of them
> I'd like to at least know what the questions are
I don't do most of my surveys on /tttt/ and I'd prefer not creating additional bias towards trans respondents.

>>8800967
I hope you're able to get the answers you want