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

    • Ideally Bryce and the other starters should get at least a full quarter and an argument could be made for 2 full quarters given how they've played early in the season the last few years.
    • A rookie that has never played a snap and a proven 1000K NFL WR are not going to be viewed the same in these type rankings.  And calling draft picks, lotto picks, isn't some new quip I just invented.  take the big 3 Hubbard, AT, insert whatever 3rd Panther you want vs Kamara, Hill, Olave.  Most football folks outside of Carolina are picking the Saints there IMO.    
    • You didn’t really address the point, just like you ignored the point about the RBs initially, and saying “they are all lotto picks” is just a really silly reduction because you could say that about literally any player rookie or vet every snap, every game, every year. It is well known that different positions have different hit rates, and I would argue different types of prospects within position groups as well, and that hit rates change the further down in the draft you go. Everybody knows QB is different and that, for example, first round OL have a really high success rate. Using your lotto ticket analogy…again…you are saying a lotto ticket with a 1 in 100 chance of hitting is the exact same thing as a lotto ticket with a 1 in 2 chance of hitting (this is an example, don’t take these odds literally). The point was he is no more of a lotto ticket than the 31yr old receiver coming off a major knee injury, and in my opinion he is better odds with a higher potential “jackpot”. Saying one player is an “lotto ticket” while another isn’t is just not sound logic. You have no idea who will break out, regress, get injured, etc. There are safer bets than others, that’s all. I don’t think Diggs is a safe bet and even if he was, weighing him over all of the Panthers WRs plus 2 1k rushers is just dumb. You can disagree if you want. The list is stupid.
×
×
  • Create New...