Disproof of (half of) the "Ladder Theory".
As promised, I'm going to disprove half of the popularly-known "folk psychology" (and load of crap) known as Ladder Theory. The particular half is the easy half for me--the male half, in particular. (I'm going to need a female human to help me with the other half.)
Ladder Theory states that the male human has a single scale on which he evaluates female humans. At the bottom of this scale, called a "ladder" (and hence giving the theory its name), are those females who are undesirable. Desirability increases as one goes up the ladder, and this "desirability" applies to everything about a female: desire to have friendship, romance, and sex. Thus, those females at the very top of the ladder are most desirable in all ways, and (most important for my argument), these desirability features are correlated. Perhaps not linearly, but nevertheless positively correlated.
Correlating these factors is the error. It is entirely possible to find someone physically (which I will assume I can equate with sexually) attractive, while strongly disliking that person to the point of finding her repulsive; it is also entirely possible for someone who may be physically unattractive but also a very close friend or significant other.
If I have to use the multiple-ladder setup as a model framework, I believe that males have two ladders. One of them is a scale of social/emotional attraction, and the other is a scale of sexual attraction. While placement on one scale may affect (with some minor, though positive, correlation) placement on the other scale, it is entirely and easily possible for a person to be at significantly different parts of each scale.
I can accept ladder theory saying that a male who finds a female socially/emotionally attractiveness (i.e. they "click" well) will be more likely to consider pursuing a relationship with her. However, I cannot accept ladder theory saying that a male who finds a female who clicks with him automatically wants to have sex with her (or, less specifically, finds her physically attractive). Additionally, just because he see a really hot girl doesn't mean he necessarily wants to have a relationship with her or that he does click with her at all (even if he does know her anyway).
Though I do admit that unattractiveness in non-physical ways (e.g. a very incompatible personality) may decrease perception of physical attractiveness, and the opposite as well, I think the two are rather independent assuming that the male has access to information on both (i.e. has seen her or her picture and has interacted with her socially). This cross-scale influence may vary from male to male, as does the reverse effect of physical attractiveness influencing, but it is not an effect that should be taken for granted, and especially not as part of a blanket statement of stereotype.
The male's two "ladders" can be intertwined, as noted above that people of varying degrees of physical attractiveness can also have varying degrees of social/emotional attractiveness. And of course the ideal is someone who is high on both scales. But which scale a male cares more about, when given a situation with such a trade-off, is dependent on the particular male. And for that matter, whether these TWO ladders are intertwined at all or completely separate is also a function of the particular person.
Now I just need to find a girl to help me disprove the other half.
Ladder Theory states that the male human has a single scale on which he evaluates female humans. At the bottom of this scale, called a "ladder" (and hence giving the theory its name), are those females who are undesirable. Desirability increases as one goes up the ladder, and this "desirability" applies to everything about a female: desire to have friendship, romance, and sex. Thus, those females at the very top of the ladder are most desirable in all ways, and (most important for my argument), these desirability features are correlated. Perhaps not linearly, but nevertheless positively correlated.
Correlating these factors is the error. It is entirely possible to find someone physically (which I will assume I can equate with sexually) attractive, while strongly disliking that person to the point of finding her repulsive; it is also entirely possible for someone who may be physically unattractive but also a very close friend or significant other.
If I have to use the multiple-ladder setup as a model framework, I believe that males have two ladders. One of them is a scale of social/emotional attraction, and the other is a scale of sexual attraction. While placement on one scale may affect (with some minor, though positive, correlation) placement on the other scale, it is entirely and easily possible for a person to be at significantly different parts of each scale.
I can accept ladder theory saying that a male who finds a female socially/emotionally attractiveness (i.e. they "click" well) will be more likely to consider pursuing a relationship with her. However, I cannot accept ladder theory saying that a male who finds a female who clicks with him automatically wants to have sex with her (or, less specifically, finds her physically attractive). Additionally, just because he see a really hot girl doesn't mean he necessarily wants to have a relationship with her or that he does click with her at all (even if he does know her anyway).
Though I do admit that unattractiveness in non-physical ways (e.g. a very incompatible personality) may decrease perception of physical attractiveness, and the opposite as well, I think the two are rather independent assuming that the male has access to information on both (i.e. has seen her or her picture and has interacted with her socially). This cross-scale influence may vary from male to male, as does the reverse effect of physical attractiveness influencing, but it is not an effect that should be taken for granted, and especially not as part of a blanket statement of stereotype.
The male's two "ladders" can be intertwined, as noted above that people of varying degrees of physical attractiveness can also have varying degrees of social/emotional attractiveness. And of course the ideal is someone who is high on both scales. But which scale a male cares more about, when given a situation with such a trade-off, is dependent on the particular male. And for that matter, whether these TWO ladders are intertwined at all or completely separate is also a function of the particular person.
Now I just need to find a girl to help me disprove the other half.