I have speculated that, for women, at least, the amount of insecurity between a smoking hot woman and one who is not conventionally attractive is virtually nil. I might even argue that less attractive people have an advantage here. I’m probably a solid 6 on the average day, and I don’t obsess over my looks or body image much because I never labored under any delusion that my value might be based on that. It would be an actual waste of my time to compare myself to attractive women. I think I’m probably cuter than most people give me credit for, but maybe that’s just mirror distortion.
Sorry, that should have said “the DIFFERENCE in insecurity… Is virtually nil.” Meaning most women are just conditioned to be insecure, regardless of the consensus about their looks. I’m not claiming I’m not or never have been insecure, but it seems to occupy less of my mental space than my more attractive peers.
No, in my experience, very good looking people often know they are good looking. They may or may not be modest about it, but they know.
I think there is a self-reinforcing element. Less confident people, may on average be seen as less attractive and might avoid testing out their appeal for fear of rejection.
In my experience it seems women are more about directed attractiveness: it doesn’t matter if 10 guys ask for their number, if the one guy they liked wasn’t interested it’s all “what’s wrong with me?” Guys in that situation tend to not worry about number 11. A very pretty ex was anorexic before we met, and said it started when a guy she had a crush on said she was fat - she was 5"2" and 115 lbs. at the time, and at least 10 lbs. of that was bosom. Didn’t matter that no one else had a problem.
As far as myself - like most people, I don’t think I see myself accurately, so I tend to work from other people’s reactions. In a discussion with an old girlfriend, she asked “what do you think is wrong?” and really, nothing specific, but I don’t see anything all that great about my looks either. It’s more an absence of overt flaws which may be all that attractive really is.
Mostly, what I see is my grandfather’s face. Same jawline, hairline, head shape.
I’ve read that when people say they “don’t look good in photos,” it’s because the photos show them accurately for what they are, and shatter a rose-tinted self-image.
I think a bigger factor is we are familiar with the appearance of ourselves looking thru a mirror. This is decidedly different than a direct photo. Not that what you say can’t be relevant as well.
And according to the logic in this argument, wouldn’t a person see the photo thru the same rose-colored glasses as they do their reflection? It’s not the objective image being projected, it’s our perception of it (according to this line of thought). So why does a picture alter our rose colored glasses when a mirror doesn’t?
Gosh yes. And I don’t know why. I look mostly okay in the mirror. See a photo, and I’m pasty and a bit heavier/blockier looking. Professional photo and my coloring is better (lighting and whatever else photographers do, I guess).
Really? It’s because you are seeing a flipped-around picture of whatever it is you are looking at in a mirror.
I know that part. I don’t know why that would make so many other things so much different-looking. Like weight and coloring. Or even just which outfits flatter (which made the movie Clueless pop into mind where she did not trust mirrors, so took Polaroids).
I can’t answer specifically to the weight and coloring but if you think about it, having every feature of your face, like your eyebrows, individual eye shape, subtle nose angles, hairline, even things like facial lines and mouth shape, all subtly but decidedly looking different to the images you’ve seen basically your entire life can be surprisingly jarring. The sum total of all those relatively miniscule differences can add up to a very different image than one a person is used to. Especially the less familiar you are to those contrasting images. That’s why people who are in front of a mirror/camera* on a regular basis have less sensitivity to this phenomenon
*I know cameras don’t reflect like mirrors, I included it with mirrors because people who are regularly on camera most likely spend a greater-than-usual amount of time in front of mirrors.
Maybe part of what you’re noticing is related to the differences in lighting for pictures vs. real life images.
oops
I just realized I fucked this answer up. Lighting is about cameras, not mirrors. :smack: Hey, lack of sleep can do bad stuff. lol
IDK; I think the idea was essentially that when you see yourself in a photo, you are seeing yourself the way an outside 3rd-person sees you. Sure, some people might still see themselves in a photo the rose-tinted way, but for most people that outside perspective shatters the self-viewing-self perspective and instead makes your own self look like another person.
But the only reason it’s even an “outside perspective” is because it’s objectively different from what we (typically) see. If photos were communicating identical images to others as mirrors communicate to ourselves, there would be no (or not nearly as much as this theory posits) discrepancy between what we all see.
In a mirror, you’re always making eye contact. In a photo, you can be looking away, to the side, down, or even have your eyes closed.
Also, you usually know when you’re looking in a mirror, but a photo can be taken of you without your knowledge.
I heard the RadioLab show that ThelmaLou mentioned. One guy was manufacturing right-angle “corner-reflector” mirrors, which don’t reverse left and right. You really can see yourself “as others see you.”