How do I test this hypothesis?

Any study that takes subjective analysis is not very valid

Hypothesis need to be validated by a definitive metric, your professors will laugh at you when you introduce your taste in women as the metric for beauty

Also, I did a study on who gave the best blowjobs, black people, Asian people, white people, and your mom.
In a double blind randomized trial, 5 men in their 20s that were heterosexual chose your mom as the best fellatio

File: 1476755323901.png (1MB, 1188x1736px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1188x1736px

>>8419435
>Not very valid

Wew lad, take a look at a social science journal sometime. Just because it's not valid doesn't mean it can't be published.

Anyway OP, in principle this shouldn't be that hard. You'd need to get a fairly large and "random" sample of couples and each subject agree to undergo a "hotness" test. For example, you could have each participant rate the attractiveness of some or all of the other participants of the opposite gender (in private and anonymously, of course) and then take the average.

Then figure out what you mean by "ugly" and "attractive" (maybe ugly is less than average-1.5*StdDev and attractiveness more than average+1.5*StdDev) and see how many of each couple there are in your sample.

You'll also need to figure out how to get a p-value less than .05, which means you'll need to come up with a competing Null Hypothesis under which the result is unlikely. A reasonable null hypothesis might be something like Correlation(male attractiveness, female attractiveness)>r where r is a parameter of your choosing. If r=1 so that attractiveness is perfectly correlated in each couple, then assuming that any couple at has a discrepancy in attractiveness, this will yield a p-value of 0. Experiment with your data and see if you can choose a "plausible" value for r (say r=.5) while still keeping the p-value below .05. If you can't do this, then keep collecting more data and stop as soon as the p-value gets sufficiently small.

Good Luck!

>>8419466
I'm sure this isn't the first time anyone has studied something where a variable is how attractive the subject is. Maybe a clear, quantitative, measurable definition of attractiveness already exists in the literature. Physicists here, so I wouldn't know where to find that.

>>8419478
There are websites that purport to tell you how attractive you are based on a picture, although I'd tend to think they're not very transparent about their methodology. An old-fashioned "Hot or Not" voting scheme has the advantage of being easy to explain and reproduce. Plus, I'd think this would be more effective at measuring perceived hotness relative to the local population (which is what really matters for the experiment) rather than some impersonal Platonic ideal of hotness.

Basic pick up- Girls want rapport first, and they snowball a relationship from there.

If a girl is searching for a partner but every single guy attempts to start with seduction, she will reject them all. Then an ugly guy comes along, already accepting his partnerless fate, and establishes rapport first and in small steps a relationship is setup. After the girl gains more attention because of the "why him" she will find him more *unique* and crave more attention.

Guys mostly jump straight for seduction (last stage) so looks play a big factor as they present an instantaneous evaluation of a sexual partner.

If 2 guys are both looking for looks-first, and are homo = gay.
If 2 guys are both looking for looks-first and are hetero = straight but whats your workout routine like?

tl;dr
Guys=Sex?
Girls=Hi?

You cant test it, but you can observe it in society.

>>8419466
Naw mate, never looked at a social science journal

He can poll the entire world, use a fancy logit system and pull statistical analysis that means what exactly?

I'm confused on how OP would account for the several hundred potential variables that would go into this.

OP.... your best bet would be to not make this a scientific study, but simply a poll from random young adults on campus

>>8419491
>If 2 guys are both looking for looks-first, and are homo = gay.
>If 2 guys are both looking for looks-first and are hetero = straight but whats your workout routine like?

what did you mean by this

>>8419510
Guys look for a partner by evaluating their physical appearances first, and concluding the rest of their personalities based off of the aesthetic evaluation. If a girl is "attractive" in your opinion, then she must be smart, creative, whatever qualities you expect to be attractive. Guys couldnt care less about the rapport and talking, they just want that verbal reinforcement of their aesthetic judgement. If it's remotely close, she definitely meant what I was thinking, now I do whatever necessary for the sex. Guys that become aware/hyperaware of this logic begin to assume that girls must want the exact same thing from guys, so guys will try to "look their best" so they can do less talking and more sex. Homosexual guys will be more aware of this because "If i'm a guy, and I think like this." then assumingly "He's a guy, he must think the same." So a gay guy will chose another aesthetic gay guy because they display an identifier of common interest aka both value aesthetics.

If you are straight male, you still have this sort of people-scanning-procedure, subconsciously or not. If you see another male that seems to care about aesthetics, the idea of being friends isn't far at all, and it may even be recommended. This is because a "wolf pack" of all aesthetic guys will increase the chances of becoming associated with females later for the other guys "in the pack". An example would be, a group of 4 good looking guys, one of them is adored by women so he hangs out with a bunch of women alot. He probably can't bang them all at the same time, so whatever women don't get picked by that guy fall into the hands of the friends, the other 3 guys that hang out with him. As the remaining girls found the first guy attractive, and that guy is friends with these 3 guys, they must have good qualities as well, giving the 3 guys much easier chances to skip through rapport with the girls.

Straight Guys search for alliances. Gay guys close the alliance after 1 member and quit

>>8419427
Men are more likely to assess women on the basis of personal, physical attributes.

Women are more likely to assess men on the basis of social consensus, such as prestige or popularity.

>>8419427
This has already been studied and yes men value looks more than women do. To exactly what extent idk, maybe you could research that if it meets ur fancy
-psych major

>>8419612

Physical characteristics can also manifest themselves through social consensus. If all of her friends like grunge rockers, then she likes grunge rockers. Pick a more directly physical trait if you'd like.

There's also the issue of power. Women do like men who are more powerful, and looks that convey power (height and lateral bulk)

>>8419427
Its obviously just due to the market

>All gay guys are attractive
>All lesbians are unattractive

Problem solved

>>8419427
Lrn2hypothesis-test fgt pls
also experimental design
and forget about cross-species study,
leave that to the comparative genomicists

Margot Robbie and Matt Shatt on SNL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBcG5tOURuM

>>8419427
You could test this hypothesis by creating character profiles of various people, along with pictures and a brief description of what they do for a living, hobbies, etc

Then just ask people to rate how attractive they find the various people, or how likely they'd be to go on a date with them.

Even better, get them to meet in person, at a speed dating place or whatever.

>>8419427
>How do I test this
You could start by checking the null hypothesis that there are more ugly dudes than ugly women

>>8419427
you repeatedly activate the magical powers of confirmation bias until you are so convinced that you will go on an autistic rant about it in every single discussion.