Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(3)
The ratings of attractiveness made by the interviewers show extremely large differences in terms of how attractive they found the interviewee.
An open question is whether the BDD and control groups indeed implicitly evaluate attractiveness comparably, or whether methodological factors (e.g., the IAT design requirement of a relative comparison category for attractiveness) made it difficult to observe group differences.
However, it seems that variation in song rate only confounds measurements of sexual attractiveness made in the choice chamber, since males with a high song rate were no more attractive as extra-pair copulation partners than males with a low song rate.
Similar(57)
Sweating over attractiveness makes sense; after all, this is an object you mount on your wall at eye level.
These standards of attractiveness make me feel bad about myself.
It will certainly help him to stop obsessing about your attractiveness making him too nervous to talk to you!
(This happened in 282 of the 32,468 attractiveness ratings made).Both sexes agreed on who was good-looking and who was not, though women tended to give those at the top of the list higher marks than men did especially if the women in question were undergoing natural menstrual cycles.
Furthermore, we found no significant difference between attractiveness ratings made at high- and low-fertility phases of the menstrual cycle.
Attractiveness ratings made by these women were correlated with independent ratings of masculinity and symmetry provided by different sets of raters.
Ugliness or less-than-attractiveness, anyway has made some important headway.
Write a list of suggestions for how writers can take advantage of these elements of attractiveness in making their articles more interesting.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com