No, it isn’t. “Hot” doesn’t mean jack shit, scientifically. You could argue that it means “low BMI, angular cheekbones, narrow hips…” blah blah blah. Those are all fine things to test INDIVIDUALLY. But the way we do science is, we set up two groups. The groups are as similar as possible aside from one difference. This is how we check whether that one difference is correlated with whatever we are testing or not. (This is an oversimplification of course, but you get the point).
So when you test whether gender dimorphism in facial features affects health, you’re testing a very specific thing. When you’re testing whether being “hot” is correlated with health issues, you’re acting like “hotness” is an objective fact. This is objectification.
ECG is a little confusing there. The claim doesn’t come from IFLScience, it comes from a different study. IFLScience criticizes the original study; and when Horatio criticizes IFLScience, he does so by calling them “judge-y.” I don’t think HH is criticizing the study; rather, he appears to be criticizing the critique of the study.
If the intent of the op was to potentially defend the specific study then I rescind my critique.
I’ll add in that HH’s wanting a doctor’s thoughts is silly. Critical thinking is critical thinking. No medical degree required to see the problems of that study.
It is very reasonable to ask if superficial characteristics (including holistic ones like “perceived attractiveness”) are correlated with any outcomes. And such questions can be stupid ones poorly framed done in offensive and unethical manners. The first part does not excuse the second, and the second does not invalidate the first.
That’s basically what I was trying to say in the thread. People were acting like studying a link between superficial traits and disease was inherently unscientific.
Bearing in mind that the OP’s question in the now-closed thread was whether the alleged link was “worth pursuing” (obvious answer: no) and whether closure of this thread was any great loss to the board (it wasn’t):
Is there a larger question about whether “scientific” studies claiming something offensive to racial/ethnic/religious groups or a particular gender should be off-limits for board discussion?
I realize that misogyny is a hot-button issue here and moderators are less tolerant now of opinions that may be driving away female participants.
In general, is it wiser to 1) promptly shut down such discussions on grounds of offensiveness to a particular group, or 2) unless there is overt trolling involved, allow Dopers to shoot down bad science with good evidence and application of critical thinking skills?
Cite? Seriously – can you actually quote a post where somebody did This? Because all I saw was, people pointing out that THIS study is flawed, and that “Hot” is not a valid scientific term to test on; but testing specific features that are associated with attractiveness WOULD be fine.
Post #4 is saying, ““hotness” is bullshit, studying a real individual scientific property like estrogen level is what should have been done instead”. It is NOT saying that “studying a link between a superficial trait and disease is inherently unscientific”, it’s saying that “hot” is a vaguely defined term that’s useless from a scientific point of view.
Same with post #10. A study measuring a link between obesity (a specific medical diagnosis) and disease is valid; a study measuring the link between whether or not a doctor finds you “chunky” and illness is not valid science, it’s quackery
The Italian doctors, unsurprisingly, didn’t use ths word “hotness”. They also were only guessing that the estrogen might be the underlying factor. That HMS comment is directly saying that linking superficial traits to disease is wrong. Can’t interpret it any othsr way.
To address your edit: no, the comment’s saying a vague collection of subjective traits, like “hotness”, is not a valid way to do a study. The problem is not that “hotness” is superficial. It’s that it doesn’t mean anything. We are looking for a causal link. Can you propose a causal link between how attractive an Italian doctor finds you and disease? Of course not, because that’s ridiculous. Can you propose a causal link between the shape of your cheekbones and disease? Definitely!
Now, here’s where it gets a little tricky. Can you propose a causal link between the shape of your cheekbones and how attractive Italian doctors find you? Yes, yes you certainly can. But you don’t get to use the transitive property here and say “hotness = cheekbones and cheekbones = disease, ergo, hotness = disease”. The problem is that science isn’t showing you an equals sign; it’s showing you a correlation, which you can use to try and prove that it would be so unlikely for this correlation to occur by chance alone that we conclude a causal relationship is occuring. But you can ONLY do that when you test just one variable at a time.
Let’s say you’re looking for a link between facial bone structure and heart disease. You categorize your test subjects based on the way their jaw bones are shaped and test for a correlation between that and heart disease. But what if your control group consisted of a random sample of subjects with Jaw Types A, B, and C, while your study group consisted of people with Jaw Type A only – but also, every single person in your study group was morbidly obese. Your conclusion wouldn’t be a very good one, would it?
Well, that’s the point we are making. “Hotness” isn’t a valid, objective characteristic that’s scientifically testable.
Meh. The word is offensive but “perceived as sexually attractive” (or not) is something that can be quantified. Subjective ratings can still be the subject of study. And again there could be a few contexts in which it could be a meaningful and appropriate metric. Of course many in which it would not.
You’re right, and as others have noted, a study to see if, for example, attractive women are more likely to be diagnosed because doctors are more likely to take their symptoms seriously WOULD be a valuable study. But that’s not what the OP linked, or what the OP was talking about. If a thread about a study like that was opened, we could weigh it on its own merits. If it was phrased respectfully and tactfully, I think ijt would be an interesting thread. But defending that hypothetical thread doesn’t do anything to change THIS thread, and THIS thread was rightly closed, IMHO.
What you are saying is that it can only be used in a social study, ie how doctors react to attractive patients. I don’t think DSeid intended to limit it that way.
By definition, any study that uses a subjective metric like “attractiveness” is going to be problematic. The only way around that is to measure something real instead – so not “hotness” but people’s reaction to said hotness. You said it yourself in the original thread: