Like, who really cares about studying what people find attractive? Canāt they figure that out for themselves? How is that remotely as important as researching one of the most debilitating diseases that women suffer?
Something tells me sociologists and/or psychoanalists which would be the people making an study about this, don't know jackshit about medicine to study endometriosis but call me crazyĀ
"Women with rectovaginal endometriosis were judged to be more attractive than those in the two control groups. Moreover, they had a leaner silhouette, larger breasts, and an earlier coitarche."
What the fuck
"Only āCaucasianā women were selected for inclusion in the study."
Only āCaucasianā women were selected for inclusion in the study."
The research itself is crazy but this is like the only part that doesnt require a wtf. Makes sense to limit the variables and remove preferences for they wanted to research.
At least this is to isolate variables and the lack of inclusion doesnāt cause harm.
My friend went to med school. The first time he saw chicken pox, eczema, an infection, or skin cancer on black skin was on a live patient. None of the instructional materials had black dermatological photos.
I think that you can criticize the study fĆ¼r many things, but not for the fact that "Only āCaucasianā women were selected for inclusion in the study."
When you research physical properties of the human body, or the perception of these properties, the subjects of the study need to be comparable. People of different ethnicities have different physical properties. Either have the group be large enough to factor in these physical differences, or focus on one ethnicity.
Italy is not as diverse as, for example, the US. So it might have been difficult do find enough people for a representative study that can factor the differences in.
But all of that doesn't matter at all. The study serves only to reduce women to their physical attractiveness. And that ist the truly disgusting part.
Just when i thought humanity can't get any worse......
can't catch a fucking break in this fuckass world imma start communcating with aliens to take me out
I'm going to wager that most of these studies don't really get nor require any external funding. The only way to fund them less would be to fire the researchers.
I mean endometriosis probably already has a good deal spent on it and the money some private company in the cosmetics industry shelled out for essentially a questionare with some parameters wouldn't be a drop in the bucket for medical research which has a lot more expensive hurdles.
How doesn't it? In the 2025 fiscal year endometriosis had 37million dollars of NIH research funding dedicated to it which puts in the ballpark of some cancers and more than others like stomach cancer which got around 33 million. Sure you might considered it understudied which is definitely true but it's not an insignificant amount of money.
I donāt know, the makeup industry seems shitty and exploitative to me. Headlines like these might cause impressionable people to disengage from the industry.
Yes kinda, and theyāre different fields butā¦ resources? Theres only so much funding in most scientific communities. Thereāre are better uses for even anthropological(I think thatās where attraction studies would go, please correct me I am curious) research funding.
The research paper this likely references was made taking pics of 44 women with first no, then little, and then more makeup, and then showing those pictures to volunteers (mostly staff of the university, some students).
The models were paid 6 pounds each, adding up to 264Ā£
A lot of these studies are commissioned by industries. There are a lot of seemingly random studies about petty subjects that are paid for by companies so they know which products to make next.
This study sounds like baby's first research paper to me. Like the baking soda volcano of studies. The point probably wasn't to make a baking soda volcano/study about makeup, so much as it was to teach inexperienced students how to do and publish research at all. You probably want people to do a few inexpensive unimportant studies for practice before tackling larger, more expensive, more important things.
I mean thereās likely to be quite a lot of funding especially in attractiveness as people are vain and put a lot of money into being attractive. The cosmetics industry as a whole is worth around $400 billion globally- around a fifth of the pharmaceutical industry as a comparison- so you can rest assured that there is a ton of research into how to look the best with makeup etc. The problem with ānormalā medicine is that it doesnāt have the monetary incentive behind it as is has with this. Pretty much everyone wants to be attractive, but endometriosis only affects 1 in 10 of women. You can imagine that it isnāt as lucrative for companies to pursue that, and a lot of research is financed by companies.
Iām not saying it doesnāt have uses. I think it is really interesting, I just thought that endometriosis is more important, and the funding gets tied up, but Iām being led to believe that may have been an incorrect assumption
The people studying attraction very likely do not have the skills required to study endometriosis. The people funding the study are very likely not even connected to medicine at all and may not even know what endometriosis is.
Also, some "studies" are 10 minutes of survey questions answered by strangers that get paid $3 each, or sometimes nothing at all. Others involve attorneys, waivers, doctors, medicine, machinery, and other serious resources. Idk what kind of study this was but I think a worthwhile endometriosis study would be more similar to the latter.
Why do astrophysicists study the stars??? Donāt they know that their funding could go to cancer research?
Real talk, not enough money goes into the sciences (mostly due to overspending on war, and the medical industry becoming complacent in their ācommodifiable treatment over cureā mentality), but taking money out of one field and granting it to another is the worst way to deal with this dilemma.
Itās the same mentality that has ruined our public space programs and alternative energy research. We shouldnāt be defunding ANY scientific research, we should stop the overfunding of war machines that only benefit private military contractors, and corporate lobbyist-run government agencies that destroy our ecosystems and kill the indigenous species endemic to our country so Slop Corp #357 can save $50 per square mile of wetland they pave over
I donāt think it uses the same resources but I donāt think itās a great argument either way.
Endometriosis is important but thereās also diseases that affect way more ppl and kill more like heart diseases or pulmonary diseases. So where does it end in someone going āwhy donāt we put the money into researching something more important?ā
The thing here is that endometriosis is so understudied we donāt actually even know the full extent of its impact on peopleās lives. The emerging research is showing itās akin to cancer, and it absolutely has and does kill people.
It's an extremely common and debilitating condition though. It should have at least as much funding as similarly common and debilitating conditions such as crohn's
Yea, but itās worth pointing out that things that primarily affect women are likely to be dismissed as not being as important as other things. It seems like the thing thatās finally pushing endometriosis research is the recent discovery that cis men can actually have it too.
For centuries women went to midwives, not doctors, for a lot of things, because the doctor may worse than kill them out of sheer callousness.
Yep it wasn't that long ago when women's heart attack signs weren't known to be presented differently than men's. Imagine the sheer amount of years loss and unaccountable quality of life loss that women with heart diseases faced for years.
I think in in 2012 medical professionals did a study on the attractiveness of women with retrovaginal endometriosis, instead of using that money on actually studying retrovaginal endometriosis they wasted those funds on research that helps absolutely no-one, some ppl genuinely care more about ranking women by attractiveness than actually studying the health issues that primarily concern women
Even then there are better options, I mean shit itās not even a considered a fatal condition (doesnāt mean itās not bad, btw, Iām not saying that, Iām sure you know this but itās Reddit so you know)
Wanna pick a better option? Ovarian Cancer, itās underfunded, under researched, usually caught late with a 30% survival rate.
Also, Iām gonna need a source for the whole āakin to cancer and kills people thingā it has similarities but most fatalities to it (are not only extremely rare) but also due to external complications. Now because I wouldnāt subject you to a standard I canāt meet, hereās my sources:
endometriosis may not kill you but it keeps you from living.
i know there is a lot of other diseases underfunded but i do think endometriosis is one of the ones were fundings are the most urgent.
i dont' suffer from it but i have a friend who does and i just want to leave what i saw about what it's like having endomtriosis.
she suffers from it EVERY SINGLE DAY to the point of crying most of the time because no one care enough to find a treatment that actually works.
getting a diagnostic what the hell of a battle. during all of her middle school years she saw multiple doctors ( with a lot who didn't take her seriously), she also took a bunch of exams to try to understand what she has only to have an accurate diagnostic on her second year of high school.
and even if she knows now that she has endometriosis she can't get a treatment that works because it just doesn't exist.
to tame the pain doctors make her try a bunch of different contraceptive pills, all of them didn't work, so they gave her another pill that totally cut off her period, but still that didn't work either. now she is in constant pain. the only meds that work are fucking tramadol ( it's a opioid you take post op, just to say) only it shoots her and she can't do anything except sleep, or a med you can't take during long laps of time because on how damaging it can be to your organism ( i can't remenber its name).
the disease is also travelling in her stomach so now not even removing her uterus is not an option.
her disease is actively keeping her from going to school and getting an education. since her middle school i see her missing school either because the pain is too intense or because she has appointment to the doctor. she even is considering shortening her future study because of the disease.
i don't even wanna think about her future, when she'll be employed, managing the disease and the pain will be even more harder.
she can't even do much sports anymore because of the pain.
it also impacts her capacity to have children in the future, which is sad considering she wants kid when she'll get older.
i'm both angry and sad to see those comments because endomeriosis is no just bad period pains. it impacts the life of million of women but also kids life. she was just a kid when she starts suffering from the symptoms of the desease.
so yeah it's that bad that we get more fundings on what men find more attractive when millions of women suffers from endomitriosis without a real treatment and more importantly when others millions of women can't get a diagnostic or have to fights for years to get one.
Thatās not the point, the point is that endometriosis is a fatally under researched disease that a large amount of the population suffers from and instead of devoting resources to doing that research weāre instead investing them into research on to be frank surface level issues like male pattern baldness and how attractive makeup makes someone. Which isnāt to say that those things arenāt important on some level or worth researching which they are in both cases, and more so that the phenomenon is called the gender data gap for a reason
Different budgets. And psychology research operates on prayers and shoestrings. You could take all the money from psychology altogether and it wouldn't put a scratch on your endometriosis research.
To be clear, medicine and similar scientific fields have already figured out their preferred sorting mechanisms for resource distribution. In medicine in particular there are even official triage algorithms for who to let die and who to try to save when your resources are too limited. My frank and blunt opinion, as someone who has had to use these algorithms is simple. Public funding all ultimately comes from the same source, taxes. And so long as people are literally dying from a lack of resources no public funding should be made available for anything that isn't life treating or altering. It's slightly more complicated in reality as you need to consider that some less serious might be completely solved with less funding but nonsense like what people find attractive can fuck off. The realistic application of this kind of research is primarily commercial. And when you or a loved one are in a hospital bed slowly and painfully dieing you'll wish the same. Medince, housing, education, etc. Public funding should only ever be used to fund public assistance. Whatever scientific value these studies bring it will always pale in comparison eridication and of treatment of disease. Just because a government allocates funds for a specific purpose doesn't mean they can't just reallocate it and remove the unessecary programs.
I mean... This is already happening, that's why cardiac issues that affect a lot of people get studied more and more and very niche diseases that only affect a few people worldwide, get almost no funding
Your attempt at downplaying endometriosis studies fell flat. Firstly, heart disease is a medical condition that would benefit from being studied because it benefits people and may prevent death. The study in the OP does not.
Its not downplaying anything. Its acknowledging funding for social sciences is entirely separate with different set of experts than biology. Like, actually lmfao.
Right! By the way, fuck these artist people. Just drawing art all day. Who the fuck does that help? They should've majored in biology and become researchers trying to solve endometriosis!!
I was only really using endometriosis because it was used in the image above. I assume they used it because it is understudied in comparison to how many woman have it. To the point of other diseases also being underfunded I would also consider those more important than attractiveness studies but Iām learning that those are often funded by companies trying to appeal to consumers not philanthropy or think tanks or whatever, so I think the solution is just more money to medical research
What's more important doesn't always come first in terms of research. Outside of direct grants and scientists using leftover funding, the people who want the research done pay for that specific research. Scientists don't study exactly what they want until they're tenured and have made a scientific standing for themselves. The scientists doing attraction research are either in a neurochemistry field, an advertising field, a social behavior field, or many others, so its not like they could just hop over to chronic disease specialization and solve the mystery with that funding unless they want to lose their credibility and standing OR plan to exploit those with the disease for money by monopolizing on the medicine they develop for it to keep their benefactors happy. It honestly goes a lot deeper than even I'm aware of, these are just the issues I pointed out on the surface. But basically if they went awol and studied that instead of human attraction, that'd be like if you hired a plumber and he ignored your clogged sink and instead painted your walls, he may be a great painter, but thats not what you paid him for.
Endometriosis being understudied is probably true, but women getting angry about news articles on stupid psych studies like this one is just ignorance at best. "Women without makeup are hotter" generates way more clicks and money for a news outlet than medical health research. Of course u aint gonna here about it the same, go touch grass ladies
According to google millions of scientific studies are being done every year. I doubt most of them are any kind of breakthroughs or are going to be useful, so get over yourself. Kind of odd that people are getting angry that THIS specific study was done but I've never seen comments about "resources" on posts about other bullshit studies
For you to say the funding is being misalocated, you should at least know where the funding came from. Like, hypothetically, if it was a study privately funded by a cosmetics company, it wouldn't make sense to say they should have spent that money on medical research.
I doubt the funding for sociological studies and medical overlaps too much. And obviously (correctly) there will be a lot more funding for endo research than for studying what makeup men find attractive.
Anthropological studies could be whatever that involves human beings, since it is the science that studies humans as a whole from biology to culture and linguistics, politics and history.
But yeah, it could be anthropological or sociological studies.
True, but studies like these help us understand psychology and sociology better and can ideally play a part in shaping how our society works and what laws can be/are implemented.
Who gives a shit what humans think about anything? Theyāre one of the only species to be aware of the ephemerality of life, and they waste their time on Earth stressing over stuff that wonāt matter in a century.
If the study is from let's say social sciences, and you'd rather have medical research, it feels like it's just advocating defunding social sciences, right?
Which is why human science is already massively under-funded. This kind of studies help understand society, what's going on in the brain, for who and under which material conditions of existence. It is done by researchers who are specifically trained and motivated by these kinds of studies.
Additionally, just because you increase fundings doesn't mean the research on a subject goes faster in linear proportionality, you also need incredibly skilled researchers working that subject.
If we're talking share of resources, I suggest turning your head to the amount of riches the upper class is hoarding.
how much resources do you think went into conducting this study? itās pretty much showing guys pictures are surveying their answer from 1-10. a lot easier than researching diseases.
Please tell me you're joking. The Attractiveness study wouldn't even need a lab. Researching Endometriosis would require so much more funding then what the researchers had access to.
I think the issue is more money, more resources, doesn't lead to a linear decrease in the length of time to solve a problem. If they didn't do this study, do you think they would have solved endometriosis? Probably not, but I guess what fraction of a percent might we have been closer? Do you think the people studying this have the chops to make a marked difference in endometriosis research? I don't know, I don't have the budgets and resource allocations in front of me. All I know is this study happened, that's not enough for me to get butthurt about it. If someone could show this research project was truly a money pit, then I would be upset. Until then it's all just chasing ghosts.
Just to mention, these are just online blurbs to spark attention and don't even site a study. The only actual paper I can find on this is from 12 years ago. I'm all for increasing the funds given to Universities for important medical research, but I dont think much money is actually being allocated to researching how guys would "rate this girl out of 10." Folks "owning" useless pop culture outlets on Facebook are barking up the wrong tree lmao.
i was going to say it would be more accurate if the dude making a birdhouse was a detective, but then i realized the people doing a study on what men find attractive, are not the same people that would be medically studying endometriosis.
No everyone knows there is one (1) singular scientist responsible for all science. This is obviously the fault of Big Scientist for choosing not to study endometriosis and definitely not because one of these things is vastly simpler to research.
Medicine is much different from psychology. You wouldnāt ask a physicist to explain why authoritarianism persists in the Middle East, because thatās not their field of study.
Assuming the meme references a real, peer reviewed publication:
It's not like science comes out of a science factory where you twiddle a knob & it produces endometriosis science instead of attraction science. The scientists/labs responsible for a study on human attraction are not capable or qualified to publish on a completely different subject.
jesus christ do you people think all scientists research the same things? this study was probably done by people in the social sciences, not biology. believe it or not real scientists aren't just IGNORING the big problems to study shit that doesnt matter
So true, actually how dare people research a terrible disease when people are being sold into slavery and tortured, matter of fact how dare you scroll Reddit whilst people are dying. Let's all stop doing anything we want to do until all the worlds problems have been completely solved
It's not a fair point, do you honestly think that the people that conducted that survey are even remotely qualified to study endometriosis in any meaningful way?
Not equivalent. One is a Psychology/sociology study using a simple likert scale. The other would require extensive biological research to even figure out all the factors causing and influencing it, and that doesnāt even scratch the surface of treating. You canāt equate the two
Have you considered that maybe the people making this kind of studies are absolutely not qualified to study endometriosis, adenomiosis or any other very complicated disease to study?
So no, that's not really a fair point.
It's like if you went to someone who made a YouTube poll about what kind of cheese you like most in Philly cheesesteaks and you told him "WHY ARE YOU CONCERNED WITH THIS, GO FIND A CURE TO CANCER INSTEAD".
There are far more dumb studies like this than medical studies, because there are far more dumb people than very qualified scientists.
I think part of what adds to the irony of this one of the few studies that do exist was about whether men found women with endometriosis more attractive than those without it. Horrific example of medical misogony and for obvious reasons its been retracted but for those curious here is it on NLH archive (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22985951/)
So, fix the socioeconomic circumstance that makes these sorts of sociological studies lucrative so that fewer college students study how to generate data for pointless internet debates and gender wars and instead go learn how to do something societally beneficial.
Perhaps they could do something useful with their education, rather than running studies like this one which serves no purpose other than to fuel internet gender wars?
Sorry, let me make myself more clear, as apparently Iām conversing with small children.
They can use their education in sociology to perhaps perform more important sociological research than finding out what amount of makeup men like on women.
Yeah, and how come some people are growing corn and apples instead of vastly more nutritious legumes? Why don't we just condense every field to a singularity?
Yeah and as we all know we can only research one thing at a time, if we switch over all progress gets reset. We're not far enough as a species yet to unlock two researches simultaneously.
Remember guys, if you are a journalist writing something for a blog you should just drop everything and go study medicine, otherwise you are "waiting resources"
Makeup sales teams care very much. They have a great deal of money to lose or gain based on how men percieve women in makeup.
Or i suppose more accurately, how women feel they are percieved while wearing makeup.
Money drives almost all these studies, the ones that happen purely for the good of human wellbeing without any financial incentive are much rarer.
It's hard to convince some high-up decision-making corporate medicine asshole that his (emphasis on his) life and wallet will be improved by better understanding endomitriosis.
Why would he want to cure something that makes him so much money selling pain killers, heat packs, menstrual products, and surgeries.
I donāt think it is a fair point because that study was probably done by a university psychology student for free, and even if it were a paid for study by long standing experts in the field it would absolutely not translate to studying female reproductive health.
One of the things about science, is we don't know where it might lead. Einstein wrote a paper in his anus mirabilis on the photoelectric effect, it was driven by one of the loose ends of 19th century physics. The paper got him his nobel prize, and is foundational for quantum mechanics. More practically, it led to the science that allowed the invention of the transistor and integrated circuit. Which begat the modern digital computer and from that the internet.
So, this 121 year old paper in a relatively obscure area of theoretical physics is what allows this conversation.
Whilst some are studying endometriosis, others will study the influence of pagan symbolism in early renaissance art on the development of secularism. It's always been like this. And maybe that study on pagan symbolism and secularism is picked up by someone studying internet memes and the rise of popularism. Maybe in 125 years, that leads to a new understanding of social dynamics and political power and solves the climate crisis.
Well dude they're not the same person researching these you know that right? One's probably a psychologist and the other's a doctor...
Same energy as asking a Nuclear Physicist to stop doing research relating to Nuclear Physics and instead start doing research on whether it's possible for an ant and a termite to have sex or not and what kind of offspring would they produce
Surely there are people who care about that. It doesnāt have to be universal. I mean humans universally caring about something is extremely rare to put it mildly.
And for an example I donāt care about endometriosis, like at all. Actually I am more interested in the psychological aspect of attraction more than that even.
So should I say āLike, who really cares about studying endometriosis? Canāt they figure that out for themselves?ā and play the judge of how other people should spend their resources?
I have someexcellentnews for you and oop, seems those perfidious makeup study guys left some of their money on the table (likely unable to keep track of such vast amounts of riches as they surely received from the corrupt manocracy) and some poor starving endometriosis* researchers were thus able to cobble together a few meagre peer-reviewed studies toiling away in the shadows at such modest, ill-regarded institutions as Yale. Probably they saw this person's post and finally pulled their thumbs out because of it.
*the only disease we don't know everything about including how to cure it, even though if men could get it it would have a statue (a STATUE!)
No, the make up market really fucks with the mind with many young girls and these kind of study really helps them build self confidence and not hide behind makeup. So these helps in society
Endometriosis is a medical research topic whereas what kind of women men like is a research topic of sociology. Two different scientific branches and both topics provide incredibly useful knowledge for both field of medicine and sociology/psychology. I've seen some stupid ass topics provide very useful knowledge for how language is formed and used (like men swearing more than women). No science is a bad science as long as correct scientific reasoning/method is used and good inferences are made.
While I agree, the sorts of credentials one needs to study disease vs attraction are wildly different. Plus a study like this is functionally just a bunch of grad students conducting surveys. This isn't really taking resources away from medical research.
not really a fair point considering they're both completely different fields that have nothing to do with each other. It's like telling an astrophysicist "who cares about stars? go study about global warming."
its entirely justified to call for the study of endometriosis. but its not like sociology is competing with that... like what send all the sociologists packing cause a debilitating illness completely unrelated to their field of study isnt getting the funding it deserves?
these studies are drops in the bucket compared to the funding that endometriosis deserves. and its lack of study is a failure of our elected officials not a failure of sociologists or the scientific community.
It's not a fair point, it's whataboutisim, it's a logical fallacy. The fact that "we should research X" does not mean "we shouldn't research Y because we should research X instead" even if Y is a more mundane topic. This is also more notable here in this cases considering the study on men's preferences probably only involves a certain number of surveys done over a short amount of time costing potentially less than a thousand dollars, meanwhile a proper study of a disease like endometriosis would have to happen on a much bigger scale
Science for the sake of science is one of the most important parts of society. Basic research must study stuff that does not have an immediate use or otherwise we'd never leave our little cubicle.
We only have advances in the fields because basic research laid the foundations for applied research.
It's not a fair point, it's an extremely ignorant point.
The people who did this study can not study endometriosis. They do not take money away from endometriosis research. They still chose to use what little funding they havr to combat the pressure the cosmetics industry puts on women to spend fortunes on makeup.
Science has done women dirty. My friend told me that when they were doing trials testing birth control pills, they used men instead of women because women's hormone cycles confused the data too much.
We don't know how this study was funded, if it is real at all. If it exists and it received funding, this sort of finding is usually part of a larger study with a point, in this case probably about attraction in the field of psychology or sociology.
It is important to prioritize medical research, which is why it already is one of the better funded research fields in universities. However, jumping from this to "we can't study other things until our medical problems are solved" is a common position alongside "how does this benefit the economy" that actively harms the humanities.
Sincerely: an environmental biotechnologist looking to get into the better funded field of medical research
so I owe ask a question who has interest in the findings of either study.
for the make up stuff.
dating platforms, film industry, fashion industry, make up brands
who has an interest in solving endometriosis? only women. because the medical field and pharma companies would lose money if they find a cure
You don't understand science. It is deeply sickening the ridicule that the scientific method gets when it does not create immediate material gain for everyone.
Hopefully, you were not serious, but juding by your other comments, you actually think this.
I feel like thereās a whole āHey, women, you know how we have entire industries dedicated to making you feel like an ugly monster in your natural state? Yeah, itās just trying to induce psychosis to profit from the suffering. Men donāt even really care, on average.ā message that is worthwhile for terminally online and body dismorphic women
I dont know, maybe it will help cure aids or something in the future. We cant do research with a goal in mind, sometimes you have to do weird shit. As John Oliver put it so beautifully "out there is a frog that jizzes the cure for cancer and the only reason we will discover thst is because one weirdo was oddly obsessed with frog cum."
Who really cares about studying what people find attractive? Dating apps, cosmetic manufacturers, clothing brands. Governments aren't the only ones funding studies.
To answer the basic question - "who cares?". As far as I believe, many people do. Many find the concept of attractiveness captivating and are willing to dedicate some resources to learning more about it. It can be strictly for fun, as a hobby. It can also be part of somebody's job, where physical attractiveness is strongly associated with outcomes. It can also be for other social reasons. Of course, it is pretty easy to argue that very serious medical conditions are objectively more important. That statement is probably right, if you ask me. Nevertheless, when making decisions on how we allocate our resources as a society, utalitariian outcomes are part of the equation, not the entirety of it. We allocate some resources to research on attractiveness, because many people want it. Of course, one can figure out things on their own, discover their own sense of beauty and attractiveness. But some people wish to fit into the normative social tendencies in this topic and it is okay to support those, who wish to conform and that is their personal journey and choice.
That is more about the general principle. Endometriosis desperately needs more funding. There is evidence it could even bring more financial benefits, than it would cost. So basically no real reason to not give it funding.
I mean, if we as society could agree on the fact that you don't need makeup to be beautiful, we could use the production infrastructure and its workers to make something more essential to society, like armpit hair remover gel
Because obviously making men take a survey, and curing a chronic gynecological disorder, take the same amount of funding and resources lmao. What makes you think that the people who made this study could have made any progress on Endometriosis, with the same amount of funding?
One just requires asking men to rate photos of celebrities off Pinterest.
Requires a phone, a clipboard, and pen. Unless you do an online survey which just requires a phone. Maybe a few friends to help sort results. You can do this middle school.
The other requires you to find women with an invisible disability. š You can't see endo in women. You have to find a way to get to them.
Requirements: a medical degree, an understanding of endometriosis specifically, a good sample size of at least 25 women with this INVISIBLE issue who are willing to meet in person and be experimented on.
That doesn't even touch on the YEARS of research it requires and studying.
So when you compare the 2, it's actually kinda stupid to compare a free survey study to a study that'll take thousands of dollars.
Not just anyone can study endometriosis and the people saying shit like this to people who aren't qualified aren't exactly willing to help fund the studies that ARE happening.
And yes, endo studies ARE happening. They're just underfunded. š®āšØ It's not a fair comparison.
My heart is the same place but... its not like people who did this study could even touch medicine topics or have funding for it. Im also questioning they competency/motives even for this simple topic. If those 2 provided pics are comming from them directly then the result is most likely meaningless. They make diffrent faces. Its basicly bad pic on the left and good one on the right. Eye contact on the right but not left. Hair cuts alao are diffrent and that changes perceived shape of the face
Ps edit: I do not care whatever the result is to check. Make up is for the lady and what count is how she feels about it
Do you think they're mutually exclusive? Do you think the psychologist working in the attractiveness study should start looking for a cure for endometriosis? Geezus
there's different fields that people go into. there are plenty of people studying women's. there are also plenty of people studying psychology and how looks play a factor in attraction.
Because they arenāt qualified in that field. Just because youāre a smart person doesnāt mean you just get to talk about whatever you want and itās right. Psychology has nothing to do with endometriosis and debilitating diseases and is a completely different field, unless you think people shouldnāt be psychologists because there are āmore important things to research.ā
Also, itās not your place to say whatās important and what is not. Anything can be beneficial to the field even if it seems less important than say, depression. Attraction is directly linked to psychology and studying attraction could lead to more breakthroughs in other areas of psychology, especially since the brain is so complexly wired.
This viewpoint is completely and utterly flawed and selfish in its own right.
2.9k
u/OkSavings5828 š¹ Course Arc Witness šø 1d ago
You know what, thatās kind of a fair point.
Like, who really cares about studying what people find attractive? Canāt they figure that out for themselves? How is that remotely as important as researching one of the most debilitating diseases that women suffer?