Another important thing to
notice is that the study finds a correlation but no data about causality (I remind people of this merely because it
is good science, crucial, and professional to do so, by all accepted standards of science.). This means that we know
"things tend to hang together" in attractiveness, but we don't know why. Countless constructs relevant to
attraction hang together. We know some hormone levels (testosterone and estrogen, primarily) in general correlate
with some physical dimensions relevant to physical attraction but have no such data on most aspects of attraction,
on possible third causes of both, or on possible multiple causes. Some aspects of attaction are counter-intuitive as
well. There is still a dearth of good research on attraction that would be acceptable to psychologists; and their
standards are much higher scientifically than for, say, general biology, due to the complexity of human beings, our
high demands for knowledge of them; the difficulty of translating lab results to real life, and the fact that we are
studying ourselves. For example, it would be nice and simple to just proclaim that our attractiveness as men is
totally determined by our testosterone levels, or even mostly. But we "unfortunately" (for those who believe they
need simplistic, black and white explanations of everything) can't say that. Still, this is an important and
noteworthy study.
Having said all this, the authors' conclusion that smell tends to reveal some information
about general attractiveness seems responsible to the data, and is not a statement about causality.
It is also
interesting to note that sample size problems, though always important to note, are notoriously overestimated
in the human sciences. Statistical methods, when properly employed, compensate for sample size.
Bookmarks