If this is a reply to SmartAleq’s post, your point is completely irrelevant.
I was hoping a medical professional or two could give some insights, and I suspect they are likelier to read GQ than the Pit.
There seem to be a correlation between people who decide to run a study where “hotness” is a major factor, and people who do shitty science. Case in point, this study, where, among other things, The median (interquartile range) […] breast-to-underbreast ratio [was] 1.15 (1.12–1.20), 1.14 (1.10–1.17), and 1.15 (1.11–1.18) becomes “women in the afflicted group had larger breasts than in the two control groups.”
I wouldn’t trust these guys to run a study on whether parachutes can prevent deaths from falling out of an airplane.
Breast size is actually something they claim to have gotten statistically significant differences for, so why the report the median, which shows the groups basically the same instead is beyond me. Other than attractiveness they show a lot of non-findings, even for the correlations that is supposed to be the motivation for the study in the first place, like BMI.
When I think of “hot woman”, I think of a woman who has been enhanced physically to resemble a specific phenotype. Make-up, professionally styled hair, done-up nails and toes, breast implants, etc. That’s not to say there aren’t naturally “hawt” women. But most women over a certain age that get that descriptor aren’t the type to just stroll into a doctor’s office looking any kind of way. They put a lot of effort into maintaining their looks.
So my first thought is there could be something environmental that “hot” women are disproportionately exposed to.
But my second thought is that good-looking people in general are more likely to have their health concerns taken seriously. Ugly-looking people are more likely to have their health complaints dismissed as a somatic illness or hypochondria.
Thank you. Just what I was going to say.
It’s quackery and a misuse of resources. Here is a model of how this study happened:
-
Some previous work show relationships between factors such as body shape and BMI and endometriosis.
-
Some doctor in Italy, living up to every stereotype for doctors and Italians goes “Hey, people have remarked that some of these factors correlated with conventional attractiveness, how about we test for beauty?”
-
Their study don’t show the motivating correlations with body shape and BMI, but it does for their subjective test, and that’s what they should about.
How it could have gone, and here I’m speculating more:
-
Some previous work show relationships between factors such as body shape and BMI and endometriosis, but have issues with confounding.
-
The doctor decides to use his share of the world’s research funds to do a study minimizing likely confounders. (The actual study seem to do that. As far as I can tell the women came in for other reasons and were diagnosed as part of the study.)
-
The study confirmed the null hypothesis, supporting that the correlation with body shape/BMI etc. is due to confounding.
That’s what the actual scientists with expertise in relevant fields are in uproar on twitter about. (My epidemiologist wife was quoted in the Daily Mail Online as one of two tweets from “other experts in the field”.)
I used to read I Fucking Love Science but they went downhill and their signal to noise ratio got so bad that I gave up on them.
Unless they’ve recently improved immensely, i wouldn’t give much credence to anything they publish unless it’s backed up by more credible sources.
That seems like an absolute bullshit “study”.
I bet a fair number of doctors just eyeball it. Regardless, I hadn’t ready the article yet and had assumed some “journalist” had substituted some BMI/Hip:Waist ratio measurements for “hotness” but now I see these Italian doctors actually rated “attractiveness”. Yeh, that’s fucked up.
This is a stupid post and by stupid, I mean it is a drooling moron of a post. A post so stupid that we should kill it with fire lest it pass on it’s defective genes/memes to the general population of posts.The stupidness of this post is so stunningly stupid that we may have to re-define the term stupid to include this post as an example.
Hotness is almost all cultural. In the 90s “heroin chic“ was considered hot for some reason. Compare that to 300? or so years earlier and look up the term Rubenesque…Where is that magic waist to hip ratio between the two of those examples?. At one point the Venus of Willendorf was considered the epitome of sexiness. Compare her “waist to hip ratio” to say, Marilyn Monroe’s.
:rolleyes:
I’d have been more ok with it if it had been something observed in the course of another study. For example, if the researchers had set out to investigate if there was a link between certain hormone levels and endometriosis, and happened to notice that as far as their eyes were concerned, a strong correlation between attractiveness and endometriosis. That’s something unexpected and possibly worthy of more investigation.
It could signify something- I don’t know what, but I’d think it would be the starting point for another study- not about the correlation between attractiveness and endometriosis, but rather as a starting point to hypothesize why that might be- different hormones, different diets, exposure to more of something, or whatever.
But it sounds like these Italian researchers actually did set out to examine that correlation specifically. Which is absurd- what possible utility does that have? It’s not predictive, it’s extremely subjective, and it doesn’t really get to WHY that correlation exists, which is where the real science involved would be explored.
What these studies measure are male reactions to certain images, nothing about the images themselves.
It reminds me of a joke, stolen from here.
A man goes to a psychiatrist. To start things off, the psychiatrist suggests they start with a Rorschach Test. He holds up the first picture and asks the man what he sees.
“A man and a woman making love in a park,” the man replies.
The psychiatrist holds up the second picture and asks the man what he sees.
“A man and a woman making love in a boat.”
He holds up the third picture.
“A man and a woman making love at the beach.”
This goes on for the rest of the set of pictures; the man says he sees a man and a woman making love in every one of the pictures. At the end of the test, the psychiatrist looks over his notes and says, “It looks like you have a preoccupation with sex.”
And the man replies, “Well, you’re the one with the dirty pictures.”
These are kinda wrong headed objections. Certain physical characteristics and body types can indicate greater risk to certain diseases. That can be handy even before we know why that is. Doctors can home in on more likely diagnoses quicker. Studies that find such correlations can provide direction for future more nitty gritty research.
The problem is that this is too subjective. It’s not useful for a doctor to wonder “hmm, would an Italian doctor find this woman attractive? Yeah, probably. Better test for endometriosis.”
There is also this old MadTV skit.
This is the first red flag.*
Not only is there zero clinical utility to such a “study”, it relies heavily on subjective judgmental factors rather than objective quantifiable data and its publication makes you wonder who was asleep at the switch when it came to peer review.
It’s the sort of thing I’d expect from the journal of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, only worse.
*no doubt there is good medical science being done in Italy, but there’s also the Ramazzini Foundation, the surgeon who got in trouble over tracheal transplants, the guy who came up with “liberation” therapy for M.S…the list goes on.
If a doctor is eyeballing it and uses it as a diagnostic tool, it’s a stupid move. But at least there is something objective behind it.
This hotness categorization goes way beyond that for stupidness, though.
Exactly. Anyone who thinks that there might be some way to objectively measure “hotness” is just moronic beyond belief. Why is this thread still open?
But it’s not really a diagnostic tool, it’s a risk factor to consider. If I’m over 50, I’m more likely to get prostate cancer but my age isn’t really a “diagnostic tool”. Same with if I carry more fat in my stomach than my ass is a risk factor for heart issues.
Note: while there are fairly well-established risk factors for endometriosis, low BMI (body mass index) is not widely accepted as one of them.
“The problematic nature of epidemiologic research into endometriosis is evidenced by the contradictory data reported. These inconsistencies may be related to the varying definition among investigators as well as the wide spectrum of symptoms and pathologic findings. In some studies the cases and controls are not comparable. Also, studies with low statistical power, poorly defined study populations, and inadequate adjustment for confounders have led to confusing results.”
https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(04)00216-X/fulltext
The authors of that study did not add lack of informed consent and jackassery on the part of the “investigators” to the list of problematic factors, but they might well have.
I’m not sure why you’re splitting nits here.
The point is that it’s has an objective measurement underlying the risk factor and it’s not a subjective and culturally influenced qualitative judgement.