Get fucked, Cumdumpster

[Thomas]

Out of interest, how do you think psychological studies on attraction work?

I've never thought about it. Track and trace?

[MiddleRabbit]

I've never thought about it. Track and trace?

No, common sense.

[Thomas]

Not sure what that has to do with me taking issue specifically with what SWP said (and apparently misreading a joke), but I am glad to hear it.

[Endicott]

Do psychological studies allow for an objective classification of attractiveness that everyone agrees with? Because that is the implication MR.

[MiddleRabbit]

Do psychological studies allow for an objective classification of attractiveness that everyone agrees with? Because that is the implication MR.

They get pictures of people and get panels of participants to rate them for attractiveness.  Those who get the highest ratings are used as 'attractive' stimuli, those with he lowest ratings are classed as 'unattractive'.  After that, they do things like ask a different set of participants whether they think they're also intelligent, have upstanding morals, or if they think they're guilty of burglary or swindling people, or if they'd vote for them in elections.  Things like that.

I'm not suggesting it's good or bad, only that here are thousands of studies on attractiveness and pretty much all of them depend on a kind of consensus on who is and isn't physically attractive.

[bgmnts]

Groups of six people allowed to meet as of Monday in England. Is this to save Cummings?

[Endicott]

They get pictures of people and get panels of participants to rate them for attractiveness.  Those who get the highest ratings are used as 'attractive' stimuli, those with he lowest ratings are classed as 'unattractive'.  After that, they do things like ask a different set of participants whether they think they're also intelligent, have upstanding morals and the like.

I'm not suggesting it's good or bad, only that here are thousands of studies on attractiveness and pretty much all of them depend on a kind of consensus on who is and isn't physically attractive.

Sounds reasonable. Are you contending that 'a kind of consensus' is the same as an 'objective standard'? I'm still trying to work out why you took issue with Thomas' post, you see.

[Alberon]

Groups of six people allowed to meet as of Monday in England. Is this to save Cummings?

If it is it won't work.

[Old Gold Tooth]

Groups of six people allowed to meet as of Monday in England. Is this to save Cummings?

Not sure, but Boris has clarified it's exclusively if you live outside of County Durham and are travelling into County Durham with "eyeballs which, and I cannot stress this enough, may be fucked".

[notjosh]

They get pictures of people and get panels of participants to rate them for attractiveness.  Those who get the highest ratings are used as 'attractive' stimuli, those with he lowest ratings are classed as 'unattractive'.  After that, they do things like ask a different set of participants whether they think they're also intelligent, have upstanding morals, or if they think they're guilty of burglary or swindling people, or if they'd vote for them in elections.  Things like that.

I'm not suggesting it's good or bad, only that here are thousands of studies on attractiveness and pretty much all of them depend on a kind of consensus on who is and isn't physically attractive.

Good point. If CAB starts getting all 'woke' about this then how will scientists studying fitness (the sexy kind not the athletic kind) get the vital data points they need to establish definitively whether it's time to chuck Konnie Huq on the scrapheap? Crack on SWP, this is important work.

[MiddleRabbit]

Sounds reasonable. Are you contending that 'a kind of consensus' is the same as an 'objective standard'? I'm still trying to work out why you took issue with Thomas' post, you see.

No, I'm not saying those two things are the same, although there is a very high degree of agreement cross culturally in terms of what constitutes 'being attractive'.

Maybe have a look at this, if it interests you.  It's not exactly what we're getting at, but it's fairly similar.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3013552/

[Endicott]

I will actually, this kind of thing is interesting.

What do statistical studies have to say about who any one particular individual finds attractive? I'm assuming that the variation you'd find jumping arbitrarily from one person to another, say over a random selection of 10 people, would mean you couldn't really make much more than a very general prediction.

[ajsmith2]

When was Cummings at his peak sexual attractiveness?

[notjosh]

No, I'm not saying those two things are the same, although there is a very high degree of agreement cross culturally in terms of what constitutes 'being attractive'.

Maybe have a look at this, if it interests you.  It's not exactly what we're getting at, but it's fairly similar.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3013552/

It doesn't interest me I'm afraid. My point was that I don't think that scientific methods used to establish attractiveness have anything to do with the question of whether it's in good taste to constantly be referencing women's/people's looks in discussions where it's completely irrelevant. Surely the point of the PHWOAAAR thread is to provide an appropriate outlet for these kinds of chats.

[Barry Admin]

Can you guys maybe start a separate thread about this? Thanks.

Only caught the end of the briefing there, but noticed the Belfast Newsletter guy had a cracker question about whether or not Johnson could bring himself to offer any kind of condemnation of Cummings at all.

Johnson let the scientists do their bit "first", then promptly ended the briefing without going back to that question in any way shape or form.

So, no, he can't. The man is a spineless cunt.

[MiddleRabbit]

I will actually, this kind of thing is interesting.

What do statistical studies have to say about who any one particular individual finds attractive? I'm assuming that the variation you'd find jumping arbitrarily from one person to another, say over a random selection of 10 people, would mean you couldn't really make much more than a very general prediction.

It's about things like facial symmetry, hips to waist ratio.  He sorts of things that can be physically measured.  .

You could quite conceivably find a lot of it a bit dubious, like the facial features that are considered attractive in women tend to be signs of youth - large eyes, small nose, full lips, and the explanation tends to be related to the potential to have a healthy baby, and to pass those characteristics onto your own children, in order for your genes to be more likely to be selected, so to speak, in future generations.  For men, it's signs of maturity: bigger noses, smaller eyes, thinner lips, which is explained in terms of being more likely to hang around and help look after babies.

*edit - Sorry Barry, I won't, but I'll shut up about it.  It might be conceivably relevant due to Cummings's comment on, "Who cares about good looks?" To the press prior to his conference.  And I immediately thought, you should because people won't think of an uggo like you favourably because you're an uggo.

[MinnieTimperley]

Groups of six people allowed to meet as of Monday in England. Is this to save Cummings?

I think it must be. The R number is 1 or dangerously close to, people will take this as carte blanche, better get your bbq quorn in bgmnts they'll be none left by tomorrow. You think VE day was bad, the floodgates are officially opened.Downside being THE INLAWS 😯😲😯  they'll be round like rats up a drainpipe

[lipsink]

Was there no Prime Ministers Questions this week?

[king_tubby]

No, they're having a recess, because why let a fucking global pandemic interfere with our archaic parliamentary timetabling.

[NoSleep]

Got to stick to those rules.

[Johnny Yesno]

It's about things like facial symmetry, hips to waist ratio.  He sorts of things that can be physically measured.  .

You could quite conceivably find a lot of it a bit dubious, like the facial features that are considered attractive in women tend to be signs of youth - large eyes, small nose, full lips, and the explanation tends to be related to the potential to have a healthy baby, and to pass those characteristics onto your own children, in order for your genes to be more likely to be selected, so to speak, in future generations.  For men, it's signs of maturity: bigger noses, smaller eyes, thinner lips, which is explained in terms of being more likely to hang around and help look after babies.

*edit - Sorry Barry, I won't, but I'll shut up about it.  It might be conceivably relevant due to Cummings's comment on, "Who cares about good looks?" To the press prior to his conference.  And I immediately thought, you should because people won't think of an uggo like you favourably because you're an uggo.

I don't want to start that thread either but I can't let this pass without saying that this is a complete load of culturally bound crap.

[BlodwynPig]

Lovely

https://youtu.be/kNJHGRM9y_I?t=627

[Buelligan]

Yes, outstanding.  Unfortunately, your link seems to kick in right at the end.  Try this one for the whole, extremely worthwhile, thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNJHGRM9y_I

[BlodwynPig]

Yes, outstanding.  Unfortunately, your link seems to kick in right at the end.  Try this one for the whole, extremely worthwhile, thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNJHGRM9y_I

it was intentional - the framing of those politicians and the words...perfect

[Buelligan]

I see, yes, still, shame to miss the rest.

[Abnormal Palm]

Sky News lad fucks on the Daily Briefing. Absolutely cunted Boz Boz and his civil servant death squad.

[non capisco]

Lovely

https://youtu.be/kNJHGRM9y_I?t=627

That, and the Peter Jukes video that referred to it you linked to earlier, are both great. Cheers for sharing.

[olliebean]

I would have thought a sensible goal would be to try to keep the R number as low as possible. After all, the higher it is, the more people die, even if it stays below 1. The government seem to think it's some kind of stupid game where the goal is to try to get it as close to 1 as they can without going over.

[EOLAN]

So the Test and Trace was effectively announced as being functioning from today to try to move the conversation on from the Cummings breach ofmhis guidelines. Now that that is going disastorously they have announced enhanced meeting numbers of 6 to distract from that.

Fear where they get by next week or am I too cynical.

[kalowski]

So the Test and Trace was effectively announced as being functioning from today to try to move the conversation on from the Cummings breach ofmhis guidelines. Now that that is going disastorously they have announced enhanced meeting numbers of 6 to distract from that.

Fear where they get by next week or am I too cynical.

Pissing in relatives' mouths allowed by Tuesday.