Makes sense to me. People tend to fill in the blanks in an obscured face with idealistic features. I’d say my face is about average attractiveness. But with a mask on, all you can see are my eyes...
Makes sense to me. People tend to fill in the blanks in an obscured face with idealistic features. I’d say my face is about average attractiveness. But with a mask on, all you can see are my eyes and my hair. As long as my hair’s not a mess the only signal you really get from my head is that I have blue eyes and nothing looks offensive. For all you know I’m Tom Cruise’s more attractive brother underneath the mask.
Kind of a nitpick, kind of an agreement, but I don't think people extrapolate "idealistic" features so much as average features. As it turns out, however, average/symmetrical features tend to be...
People tend to fill in the blanks in an obscured face with idealistic features.
Kind of a nitpick, kind of an agreement, but I don't think people extrapolate "idealistic" features so much as average features. As it turns out, however, average/symmetrical features tend to be attractive.
Disappointing jaw lines and facial hair Edit: Might as well throw in noses to the list. To be fair - people are in my experience way more attractive in person, in motion, than their photos would...
Disappointing jaw lines and facial hair
Edit: Might as well throw in noses to the list.
To be fair - people are in my experience way more attractive in person, in motion, than their photos would suggest. Judging attractiveness based on photos isn’t meaningful, but we like to pretend it is.
Some of the most beautiful people I know look absolutely horrid in photos. It takes talent to take good photos of someone, and while the smartphone has helped from a blurry/availability problem,...
Some of the most beautiful people I know look absolutely horrid in photos.
It takes talent to take good photos of someone, and while the smartphone has helped from a blurry/availability problem, you can't fix bad angles.
It is a jarring moment when you finally see people's full faces after over a year of just seeing them with a mask on. The article reinforces my own experience. Every time people removed their...
It is a jarring moment when you finally see people's full faces after over a year of just seeing them with a mask on. The article reinforces my own experience. Every time people removed their masks for the first time I was always surprised how little their face matched the one I had created in my mind. Everyone was less attractive.
I'm just glad no one has to smell my nasty gingivitis halitosis breath that's come from barely brushing my teeth and overall terrible hygiene over the past 2+ years. Depression is a bitch.
I'm just glad no one has to smell my nasty gingivitis halitosis breath that's come from barely brushing my teeth and overall terrible hygiene over the past 2+ years.
I've experienced this. So many times I've seen people with masks, including even like amateur porn actors online (gotta stay safe!), and I'm just like "Woah, they're so hot! Then I see them...
I've experienced this. So many times I've seen people with masks, including even like amateur porn actors online (gotta stay safe!), and I'm just like "Woah, they're so hot!
Then I see them without the mask and I'm like "Oh. They're OK I guess."
I think it's important to read the actual study, as it seems to contradict many of the comments here, and the title and claims of the article. It is both open access and easy to read. The article...
I think it's important to read the actual study, as it seems to contradict many of the comments here, and the title and claims of the article. It is both open access and easy to read.
The article seems to be presenting a view that would be beneficial to public health, were it true, and were the public to believe it. But it presents what seems to range from a one-sided and generalizing presentation of the results, to statements of results that appear to be simply wrong. In particular, consider:
The participants said those wearing a cloth mask were significantly more attractive than the ones with no masks or whose faces were partly obscured by the book.
The actual study found that those wearing cloth masks were not significantly more attractive than occluded faces:
In addition, faces in the cloth mask condition were rated as significantly more attractive than in the control condition (p < .001), but they were only non-significantly more attractive than the notebook condition (p = .123).
In fact, what the authors find interesting is that they conclude their findings suggest medical masks, in particular, appear to have an effect that is separate from occlusion, while cloth masks do not. This is the opposite, they point out, of pre-pandemic studies, where medical masks had a negative effect, while occlusion (not by cloth masks, which were not a common idea at the time) ranged from a mean-reversion to increase of attractiveness. The comparison between masks and occlusion was important to the authors, as they point it out as a limitation of previous studies during the pandemic. This difference in type of effect was the primary contribution of the paper. Yet somehow, the article both incorrectly states the findings, and does so in a way that goes against that conclusion.
I can understand the desire to promote mask wearing (though I don't know why people in some countries continue to support or accept the wearing of medical and cloth masks when respirators are now widely available). But that should certainly not extend to misreporting results, and should not need to extend to overselling or overgeneralizing them. This type of well-intentioned misrepresentation has not only been dismaying to see throughout the pandemic, but has, I think, done real harm over the longer term in creating targets for attacks that can instill a general sense of doubt. It is devastating to see that, gradually, reason and the perception of science and medicine seem to be being deeply harmed by the pandemic, and seem to be gradually losing. I worry that the lasting effects of that damage may well end up being worse than the already horrific direct human cost of the pandemic. But we shouldn't fight this with misrepresentation. It isn't right, and it doesn't work.
Makes sense to me. People tend to fill in the blanks in an obscured face with idealistic features. I’d say my face is about average attractiveness. But with a mask on, all you can see are my eyes and my hair. As long as my hair’s not a mess the only signal you really get from my head is that I have blue eyes and nothing looks offensive. For all you know I’m Tom Cruise’s more attractive brother underneath the mask.
Kind of a nitpick, kind of an agreement, but I don't think people extrapolate "idealistic" features so much as average features. As it turns out, however, average/symmetrical features tend to be attractive.
This just makes me wonder: do most people have really disappointing looking mouths?
Disappointing jaw lines and facial hair
Edit: Might as well throw in noses to the list.
To be fair - people are in my experience way more attractive in person, in motion, than their photos would suggest. Judging attractiveness based on photos isn’t meaningful, but we like to pretend it is.
Some of the most beautiful people I know look absolutely horrid in photos.
It takes talent to take good photos of someone, and while the smartphone has helped from a blurry/availability problem, you can't fix bad angles.
It is a jarring moment when you finally see people's full faces after over a year of just seeing them with a mask on. The article reinforces my own experience. Every time people removed their masks for the first time I was always surprised how little their face matched the one I had created in my mind. Everyone was less attractive.
I'm all for it, whatever gets people to wear fucking masks...
I'm just glad no one has to smell my nasty gingivitis halitosis breath that's come from barely brushing my teeth and overall terrible hygiene over the past 2+ years.
Depression is a bitch.
I'll drink to that, comrade
I've experienced this. So many times I've seen people with masks, including even like amateur porn actors online (gotta stay safe!), and I'm just like "Woah, they're so hot!
Then I see them without the mask and I'm like "Oh. They're OK I guess."
I think it's important to read the actual study, as it seems to contradict many of the comments here, and the title and claims of the article. It is both open access and easy to read.
The article seems to be presenting a view that would be beneficial to public health, were it true, and were the public to believe it. But it presents what seems to range from a one-sided and generalizing presentation of the results, to statements of results that appear to be simply wrong. In particular, consider:
The actual study found that those wearing cloth masks were not significantly more attractive than occluded faces:
In fact, what the authors find interesting is that they conclude their findings suggest medical masks, in particular, appear to have an effect that is separate from occlusion, while cloth masks do not. This is the opposite, they point out, of pre-pandemic studies, where medical masks had a negative effect, while occlusion (not by cloth masks, which were not a common idea at the time) ranged from a mean-reversion to increase of attractiveness. The comparison between masks and occlusion was important to the authors, as they point it out as a limitation of previous studies during the pandemic. This difference in type of effect was the primary contribution of the paper. Yet somehow, the article both incorrectly states the findings, and does so in a way that goes against that conclusion.
I can understand the desire to promote mask wearing (though I don't know why people in some countries continue to support or accept the wearing of medical and cloth masks when respirators are now widely available). But that should certainly not extend to misreporting results, and should not need to extend to overselling or overgeneralizing them. This type of well-intentioned misrepresentation has not only been dismaying to see throughout the pandemic, but has, I think, done real harm over the longer term in creating targets for attacks that can instill a general sense of doubt. It is devastating to see that, gradually, reason and the perception of science and medicine seem to be being deeply harmed by the pandemic, and seem to be gradually losing. I worry that the lasting effects of that damage may well end up being worse than the already horrific direct human cost of the pandemic. But we shouldn't fight this with misrepresentation. It isn't right, and it doesn't work.
Because caring about others is sexy.