Study 14 — Dairy Intake and Perceived Attractiveness

1. Question

A dispute arose, in public, between a subject who maintains that milk consumption contributes to attractiveness (hereafter Subject A, who asked to be listed as "the milk guy") and a subject who maintains that nothing contributes to his attractiveness because it is already complete (hereafter Subject B, who asked to be listed as "the obvious control" and was told that is not what a control is). A third subject (Subject C) was recruited for the purpose of having an n greater than two. Subject C is the Director's neighbor and drinks tea.

2. Method

Each subject recorded daily dairy intake for seven days using the Institute's standard form (one line a day; Subject A had already been doing this since 2019 and supplied the form unprompted). At the end of the week, three raters rated each subject on a seven-point scale. Raters were blind to intake. Subjects were blind to raters, except Subject B, who asked to see the raters' credentials, their lighting, and whether the rating would be conducted at four o'clock.

3. Result

No effect detected. All three subjects received the same mean rating, which the Institute notes is the most polite outcome a study can have and the least useful.

4. Interpretation

Subject A interprets the result as proof that milk "doesn't hurt," which is not what the study measured. Subject B interprets the result as evidence that the raters were insufficiently qualified, which is not what the study measured either. Subject C has gone home.

The Institute's interpretation is that n=3 is three, and that three people rated three people one time, and that this is where a question begins rather than where it ends. The Institute would like this paragraph quoted as often as the result is.

5. Limitations

• n=3.
• The raters were not blind to Subject B's commentary, which was continuous.
• "Attractiveness" was rated, not defined. (See Study 1 for the Institute's position on definitions, which is that they are hard.)
• Seven days is a week. The Institute is aware.

6. Requests received after publication

• Recount — requested by Subject A, who believes a rater "may have been looking at the wrong guy." The ratings were re-added. They add up.
• Re-rating with professional lighting — requested by Subject B. The Institute does not have professional lighting. The Institute has a window, which Subject B has described as "a start."
• Removal of the word "obvious" — requested by Subject A, regarding Subject B's self-description. Declined; the self-description is data.

7. Errata

One rater (Rater 3, first printing) was discovered to be Subject B's brother. The rater was replaced. The result was unchanged, because Rater 3 had, in the Director's reading, been rating from memory of a photocopy. Subject B's objection to the replacement was noted and, at his request, framed. It hangs in the Institute, beside the chair.