So I just read an incredibly interesting blog post and I decided to re-cap it in my blog post. This data comes from a website called OkCupid and then some of the data was analyzed by writers at Gizmodo.com. Basically what these guys have determined is that the more disagreement guys have over how attractive a girl is the more likely that are to actually message her on the dating site. Or in real life: the more controversial a girl's looks are, the more likely guys are to talk to her.
What they saw was that girls who were generally considered to be attractive according to the stats could best be described as "cute." While the girls who had two poles (some labeling the girl unattractive and the other attractive) would mean she is more likely to be called "hot." They go a lot more into detail with math and examples involving Megan Fox and Kristen Bell but I won't bore you with the details. I'll link to the article below if you want to read the whole thing.
The theory behind why this would work states that if a girl has something that makes her unattractive to some it makes the guys think that he might have a chance. So if he sees a girl who looks like she would generally be ranked highly by most guys he gets scared and thinks there will be too much competition.
The application of this for girls is that it may actually be advantageous to put pictures on Facebook that show a trait that is considered abnormal. Maybe the idealized photoshopped profile pictures actually aren't the best idea. What makes you unique may also be what makes you attractive. I think the lesson to be learned from this is just be yourself.
The Original Article