One of the problems with testing a subjective attribute is measuring it. The doctors involved in the study should not be the judges of attractiveness. That’s what I meant there.
So what alternate measurement would you be cool with? What scientific data would you get from a study where, say, whether women rated as “attractive” by a random sample of test subjects are correlated with a disease?
I would certainly say that global “perceived attractiveness” is more likely a useful metric for a social study and maybe for some evolutionary biology questions if the panel metric is validated across multiple cultures but otherwise not of much else I could think of.
So it sounds like we are in agreement after all?
- whether or not the doctor running the study finds the subjects attractive is unscientific and irrelevant.
- potentially, a scientific study involving physical attractiveness in some way could be designed, in order to answer social or evolutionary questions, but the linked study ain’t it.
- a study could also look at a physical characteristic associated with attractiveness, and study a correlation between that characteristic and a health issue; again, this study ain’t it.
Given those 3 points, all that I (and others) are saying is that the General Question in the original thread (is this quackery?) has been answered (yes); if we want to have that larger debate, we should do it in Great Debates and leave the objectifying language out of it.
The biggest problem with measuring a subjective attribute, such as attractiveness, is defining it. The problem is that subjective measures, by definition, are ones experienced by the observer as compared to objective measures which can be independently assessed (such as, feeling pain vs heart rate increase due to pain).
So, if the observers are working off an inconsistent set of definitions, it doesn’t matter how accurately the measurement tool is.
Well if it was rigorously and carefully done, the data would be the results. I don’t think it’s remotely likely, but if there was a strong correlation between “generally seen as attractive” and a disease then that would be pretty interesting. It wouldn’t be immediately useful but it might point towards future research. I am not saying this is an avenue that should be pursued, like I said I doubt it. But it can’t just be dismissed completely because it’s not like “attractiveness” is a completely unknowable phenomenon. We know hip-waist-chest ratios matter a lot, we know facial symmetry matters a lot and a couple other things. We also know attractive people are treated differently by society in general and that could have ramifications for certain mental disorders, not just the way doctors diagnose them.
Agreed on all. The item that we may still disagree on is whether asking if the study was in fact crap was misogynistic and whether the op could have been moved to a more suited forum rather than closed.
FWIW when I first scanned the thread I thought it was something about body or environmental temperatures… 
Btw, I don’t know if I’ve disagreed with those listed points. Never said anything other than “this ain’t it” about this study.
I’d be more than fine with moving it to a different forum.
Well then, reformulate your OP and hopefully take some instruction from what other people are telling you was problematical about the first one and post it in a different forum and see how it goes. You could have done that initially with almost no effort and yet you found it necessary to get out your earth moving equipment, truck it on into ATMB and built yourself a big hill to die on by starting this thread instead. Pardon me if I interpret your motive as more pique than scientific inquiry.
There seems to be an opinion from some people that getting a thread closed is tantamount to a mod warning. It shouldn’t be in most cases; often a thread goes out of control and it should be locked. Other times it’s not appropriate for the forum it’s posted in and as worded it doesn’t really fit anywhere else. So let it die and move on, or rewrite it better and start it again (maybe in a different place). But unless you’re spamming the board with inappropriate topics (in violation of mod warnings) or reposting the same topic tendentiously despite being asked to stop, it’s unlikely anyone will hold a thread closure against you.
I’ve seen a number of these ATMB discussions the last few weeks pop up from people who seem to feel that their thread needs to be reopened as a point of honor or something. Just let it go.
Echo the let it go as the subject has been covered by now with better understanding of what each was thinking and why (babale’s search for common ground appreciated and helpful), but I for one read the mod note of closure and its expansion in this thread as such that opening the same subject in other forum would have been not something to do. The subject itself was labeled as misogynistic no matter what the intent of the poster or how parsed and the instruction was that as such it was not welcome on this board.
Is that assessment now reconsidered by the mid loop?
If you can’t reformulate an OP to not sound misogynist that’s a really super good time to evaluate your burning need to discuss a topic.
The moderator’s claim was that it was formulated fine but that at its core the subject, asking if this study was quackery, was misogynistic. Given that assessment no reformulation or other forum would be acceptable.
A cautious poster would interpret such as a directive to steer clear of any discussion about appearances and health outcomes, at least if women are subjects in the study.
I could see a new thread in IMHO to discuss “studies” of questionable scientific validity, and using that study as an example. You can then ask what other recent examples are available and talk about why they are invalid, and possibly what consequences should result for the people running those studies.
And there you go–discuss shitty science if you must but do so in the context of it being shitty and why rather than trying to twist it into a pretzel that makes it less shitty.
And, pro-tip, any time you’re deciding to comment on “hotness” in general you’d better be ready with your asbestos underoos because we’re fucking sick and tired of those tired ass rubrics and the overall system of beauty compliance rituals that is the basis for our relative “hotness” levels. If you find a woman who thinks this is perfectly fine and likes it then by all means marry her and y’all can make each other happy but be aware that women in general are getting progressively more pissed off at the entire subject.
Several years ago, Aleq, I did precisely that and was warned by a moderator not to do it again. I strenuously object to the manner in which this thread was shut down. I think it’s just plain wrong for three people to repeatedly call me a misogynist and have a moderator capitulate to their fraudulent opinion. I really don’t know how to explain this any clearer.
Moving a thread to a more appropriate board is a moderator’s call, not an OP’s. My question, “Is this line of inquiry worth pursuing,” is a GQ question. Great Debate would be “It is worth pursuing, change my mind.” MPSIMS implies that either scientific rigor or endometriosis is pointless stuff. “Take it to the Pit” is StraightDope-ese for “Go fuck yourself.” I’m not inclined to move it myself, but a moderator can if he/she wants to.
I’ve gotten three types of answers to my original question:
- “No, because…”
- “In some circumstances it might, but not in this one, because…”
- “Only a misogynist would ask such a question! Mods, lock this thread!”
Guess which of the three I give no weight to?
Questions of worth are by nature value judgments, and value judgments are matters of opinion. “Is this line of inquiry worth pursuing” doesn’t have a factual answer and is not GQ material.
Opening a thread in an appropriate forum is the OP’s responsibility, as is attempting to phrase it such that its intent is clear.
No that is not a GQ question. There is no factual response to it.
It was the wrong forum and the discussions that could be riffed off the study that are appropriate for a site other than the Pit, if such was the intent, are not well communicated in either the OP or your phrasing here.