There are a variety of alternative explanations, consistent with the data. The conclusion in the title is just one of many possibilities they didn't differentiate between.
It could be, for example, that guy photos do best when they stand out instead of looking like every other guy. it could be that the best guy photo would be a happy smiling guy who stands out in a different way, but when you remove everything else from the photo and the choices are standing out or being happy, both good, then standing out is better.
this is a standard practice in pseudo "science" – get some data, make up a conclusion that doesn't contradict the data, say you have evidence for your conclusion (or say something stronger), don't carefully think about everything else you could have included instead and how to pick between them.
as usual with bad "science", there is no section titled "sources of error" or similar. nor is there a section covering alternative conclusions compatible with the data. if you aren't thinking about all the ways you could be wrong, it's not really science. (and if you think about them but don't publish that part, you're not publishing science)
Comments
There are a variety of alternative explanations, consistent with the data. The conclusion in the title is just one of many possibilities they didn't differentiate between.
It could be, for example, that guy photos do best when they stand out instead of looking like every other guy. it could be that the best guy photo would be a happy smiling guy who stands out in a different way, but when you remove everything else from the photo and the choices are standing out or being happy, both good, then standing out is better.
this is a standard practice in pseudo "science" – get some data, make up a conclusion that doesn't contradict the data, say you have evidence for your conclusion (or say something stronger), don't carefully think about everything else you could have included instead and how to pick between them.
as usual with bad "science", there is no section titled "sources of error" or similar. nor is there a section covering alternative conclusions compatible with the data. if you aren't thinking about all the ways you could be wrong, it's not really science. (and if you think about them but don't publish that part, you're not publishing science)