Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

The Cheerleader Effect


Cat

Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2013/nov/05/cheerleader-effect-group-attractive

 

 

A study published last week by scientists at the University of California, San Diego suggests that people look more attractive when seen in the presence of others than when viewed as individuals, a phenomenon known as the "cheerleader effect". But why does it happen? And what can we do with it?

Well, human beings tend to form groups. Whether it's boy bands or battalions, we gravitate towards the company of others, whatever the situation. There are exceptions of course, but by and large people are social creatures.

The California study argues that the cheerleader effect is caused by our tendency to perceive faces in a group as an amalgamated average, rather than separate individual objects, and the fact this "average group face" is more attractive to us than the faces that make it up. (Group influence also affects our perception of how attractive someone is. Studies have shown that if others think someone is attractive, we are more likely to find them attractive too, regardless of how they look.)

The effect has been noticed in pop culture: in the US sitcom How I Met Your Mother, Neil Patrick Harris's character points out a group of girls in a bar who collectively appear attractive, but on closer inspection display serious physical flaws. Likewise, the cheerleaders the effect is named for would look less appealing (and significantly weirder) if they were cheering solo, and a quick glance at any manufactured girl or boy band reveals how the enhanced attractiveness of an ensemble can be used for commercial gain.

Arguably, we could all use the effect to our advantage. If you want people to find you more attractive for some reason (if, for example, you need a good photo for an online dating profile), you may wish to become friends and be seen with people whose physical characteristics complement or "compensate for" your own. That said, it would be difficult to form lasting friendships on such shallow, self-serving grounds.

But human attention tends to focus on differences, so you wouldn't want to be too different from the group; that would only make things worse.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that I agree with this.

I think girls can look better when they are isolated. For instance I work in an environment with mostly men(car sales). So when an attractive women comes in I think we portray her to be hotter than we would if she was just of many walking around Southpark mall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd hit it.....

 

Yeah, Biscuit, your standards do get a bit more flexible as you get older.

 

you walk past an aquarium and the fish stop swimming!!!!!  is there anything you wouldn't hit?  if not....have you met Alice? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • That's my biggest concern with making him the 2C.  You split up the Aho Jarvis bromance that accounted for a lot of points.  If Jarvis excels as a C, it could help the team even more though.
    • The Saints being that high is the one that killed me. Chris Olave might not know his name at this point, Shaheed is coming off injury as well, so 31 year old Brandin Cooks might be your best WR...coming off a 260 yard season over 10 games. Kamara is Kamara, but didn't have 1,000 yards last year and is about to turn 30.  Toss in the fact that Taysom Hill may be the best QB on the team and I truly don't understand Barnwell's thoughts beside seeing the names "Olave" and "Kamara" and going yep, that sounds better than "Chuba" and "Thielen". 
    • Now now now, I wouldn't say there is no logic, but there's just not a lot of in-depth thought put into Barnwell's  "analysis." Now to be fair to him (and other national writers), pre-season team rankings are basically clickbait. And...Barnwell, himself, said that "there's a lot of projection here." He basically admits that he doesn't know how the hell things are going to turn out with our receiver group. He also said that "I find myself" more intrigued by Coker than Legette; that does not mean that he said that fans should be, or that Coker will even be better than Legette (regardless of ESPN's per-route-run stat). So, yeah, Barnwell said some things, but even he has to basically admit that he doesn't know how bad or good that our playmakers will be in 2025.  Overall, what Barnwell is basically thinking is that the Panthers have gotten worse at the offensive skill positions, and baked into that is that others have gotten better. That's the argument in July (meaning, please don't give this any more weight than it's due). I would personally be surprised (not shocked) if we end up worse than the Titans, Pats and Giants at least. Once you throw in the Bills, Giants, Jets, Steelers, and even the Chargers, I personally think there are several teams' skill groups that may end up ranked lower than ours by the end of 2025.  @kungfoodudeis one of my dudes, but like others he is over the tipping point. He's had enough. Seeing is believing. I will say this though: Barnwell's piece is less about logic than just good ol' opinion. And to be honest, he might as well be a Huddler throwing out sh¡t in the summer based upon nothing but good feels or bad feels.  Our offense as a whole (just like any other team's) is going to depend upon the play of the O-line and especially the QB. How you can even rank the skill positions without expressly baking those two things in the cake is beyond me. I would dare say that that's not even logical. 
×
×
  • Create New...