Free-Floating Hostility

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Posted by Anonymous at 7:32 AM | Permanent Link to this Post


Who Won? The Feature Stays Edition

Regular FFH readers will notice a delay in WW? this week. We have been kicking around the fate of our only regular feature and, despite its relative unpopularity, have decided to keep it. Here are the reasons: 1. I like it, so it's fun to do. 2. Commenting on frivolity in the Sunday Times is a good way to connect with our largely NYC-based readership. 3. I think its important for publications, blogs included, to have regular features that readers know to look for. 4. I like that WW? allows me to maintain a hostile pose to traditional conceptions of marriage while continuing to enjoy my own.

17 April 2005
Gay Couples with Clear Winner: 0 of 1
Ties: 1
Disputed Results: 0
Straight Couples with Clear Winner: 7 of 10
Men: 6
Women: 1
Ties: 2
Disputed Results: 1

Year to Date
Gay Couples with Clear Winner: 4 of 7
Ties: 3
Disputed Results: 0
Straight Couples with Clear Winner: 95 of 113
Men: 62
Women: 33
Ties: 10
Disputed Results: 8

2 Comment(s):

  •   Posted by Blogger BrooklynDodger at April 22, 2005 5:52 PM | Permanent Link to this Comment

    • BrooklynDodger, despite a previous spanking for missing the point of WW, returns to methodological questions. For those among the FFH staff who have committed to biostatistics, these questions may have increased interest.

    The overwhelming dominance of men over women in terms of the contest, apparently meaning the women are more attractive to the raters, questions what it means to "win."

    First, one must address selection bias: who submits the photos? [likely the F or the F's parents]. Hypothetically, they don't care so much about how the M looks, more about how the F or self looks.

    Second, BrooklynDodger would argue for normalization as a measure of winning: an F below median for F's might be more esthetically pleasing in picture than an M above median. Would that be a win or a loss for the F? [or M?].

  •   Posted by Blogger Anna at April 24, 2005 6:49 PM | Permanent Link to this Comment

    • Your criticism only applies if you believe the point of WW? is to objectively determine which member of a couple is more attractive. Our goals are more modest; we are satisfied with limiting our investigation to who looks more attractive in Times wedding photos selected entirely on bias. You might even go so far as to say that this studies what FFH's standards for winningness.

Post a Comment