 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:38 pm  |
A Texas professor, promoting his new book, wrote an article for the New York Times on the correlation between attractiveness and profesional success -- http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/opinion/sunday/ugly-you-may-have-a-case.html
There are all kinds of fascinating tidbits. For example:
"...one study showed that an American worker who was among the bottom one-seventh in looks, as assessed by randomly chosen observers, earned 10 to 15 percent less per year than a similar worker whose looks were assessed in the top one-third — a lifetime difference, in a typical case, of about $230,000."
A handful of states, including mine, have laws about discriminating against people because of their appearance, but the cases seem to focus more on obesity (you can't fire an exercise instructor just because she's overweight) or hairstyles (ditto to a flight attendant with cornrows). If you're just a basic Ugly Betty, you've got no recourse.
I'm posting this because the article corroborates my own observations. Can you envision a future in which ugly becomes a legally protected class? |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:57 pm |
| 130 views, and no comments? Looks as though ugly is the last remaining taboo topic! |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Sep 01, 2011 11:04 am |
Crazy stuff.
One question - who decides what is beautiful and not so much? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Sep 01, 2011 11:50 am |
| Barefootgirl wrote: |
One question - who decides what is beautiful and not so much? |
Exactly. The benchmark for beauty has changed and will continue to change across time, across miles and across cultures.
In different times and places, fat women, skinny women, women with small bums, women with large and round bums, blondes, brunettes, beauty spots (moles), tiny snub noses, long "noble" noses - all of these have been classed as beautiful, though many of these features contradict the others. What we think of being beautiful here and now will likely not remain so.
Myself, I find perfection to be somewhat bland; for me, it's the little individual differences which can make someone visually attractive. Who on earth wants to be a perfect clone of everyone else? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:06 pm |
It may be possible that such law is indeed passed, in theory (crazier laws in place already), but for me it would take lots of serious research to accept it as something legit. I, for one, have never believed that beauty/attractiveness truly is 'in the eye of the beholder', nor am I a believer of "universal" beauty, because the way I've seen it in my life is that a person either is judged (*this* word) attractive by society around them or isn't. True, some individuals do not agree with that and say they don't find this or that person beautiful, yet they still can't deny that those persons they dislike are still attractive rather than ugly, when evaluated impartially, regardless of their personal preference. Putting it differently, it's rather rare that someone puts a person generally regarded as attractive by majority into 'ugly' category. It's more often that someone just doesn't like that particular person or their looks, but don't exactly regard them as ugly. So I think it's very possible to objectively evaluate a person's looks and put them in a category.
Do I think it's really necessary? Not really. Reason for that might rather simple, around half or more of the people I would classify as 'odiously ugly' are hardcore drug addicts, alcoholics and certain groups that choose to live against the grain. Frankly: Do I want a crack smoking skin head to get money from government?  Then again, it's probably not those people which the professor has in mind, more like (and putting it bluntly) persons with great facial asymmetries, wrong waist-to-hip or leg-to-body ratio, uneven skin tone, abnormal hair growth patterns and so on. I'm not sure what's his criteria for ugliness.
From a liberalist viewpoint, I'd say think that those born truly ugly could use the legal protection. However, I'm no humanist. There is a reason why people are drawn to more attractive and wholesome individuals. There are enough distortions to that already.
There is also the dilemma Prof. Hamermesh also mentions, if we give to the ugly, the money has to come from somewhere or has to be diverted from somewhere, there are no magical cornucopias of money. |
_________________
Do what all good pragmatists do. Compromise. |
|
|
|
|
Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:23 pm |
I think our society is moving towards good grooming and style being what we consider beautiful. I think in the professional world you can judge on those things. A person who takes time to be fit and pull a good look together and make themselves the best they can be... is impressive.
Barbara Streisand... Sarah Jessica Parker ..two women who are not "pretty" but pretty awesome! and beautiful for being talented and physically their very best and beyond. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:50 pm |
| Beauty isn't all cultural. There was at least one study using babies. The babies responded more favorably to the beautiful people. Just work with what you've got or pay someone to make you look better. You can't force anyone to find you attractive. |
|
|
|
|
 |
Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:42 pm |
The clearest example of beauty-oriented bias in my life occurred when I got my MBA.
There were two members of my 300+ class -- one male, one female -- who got far more job offers than anyone else. By conventional standards, both were very attractive, and one still works part-time as a model. It was universally agreed among my classmates (some of whom were stunned by the inequities of the job market) that neither was particularly outstanding in any way. Nor have they been the most successful professionally, but short-term, they cleaned up!
Among the women of my era (20+ years out of school), the ones who have been most successful of their own accord are typically women who would be judged relatively unattractive (I could not call them "ugly" as their energy and intelligence shine through, but they certainly don't have conventional good looks.) However, the best looking women have generally managed to find husbands who were hugely successful. So if money is your metric (as it is with the professor) their above average looks paid off.
My unscientific, anecdotal asessment. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:15 am |
| Hermosa wrote: |
The clearest example of beauty-oriented bias in my life occurred when I got my MBA.
There were two members of my 300+ class -- one male, one female -- who got far more job offers than anyone else. By conventional standards, both were very attractive, and one still works part-time as a model. It was universally agreed among my classmates (some of whom were stunned by the inequities of the job market) that neither was particularly outstanding in any way. Nor have they been the most successful professionally, but short-term, they cleaned up!
Among the women of my era (20+ years out of school), the ones who have been most successful of their own accord are typically women who would be judged relatively unattractive (I could not call them "ugly" as their energy and intelligence shine through, but they certainly don't have conventional good looks.) However, the best looking women have generally managed to find husbands who were hugely successful. So if money is your metric (as it is with the professor) their above average looks paid off.
My unscientific, anecdotal asessment. |
I suspect that you've pretty accurately summed up today's reality, Hermosa.
The important thing to note is, whilst those regarded by most people as being particularly attractive may succeed on a disproportionate and inequitable level initially, they're usually unlikely to continue to succeed in that post if they turn out to be incompetent. (Although I'm sure that some do, just because their employers prefer some pretty scenery.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:09 am |
Good looks can be a crutch, they open doors but won't keep you there. That is why if you have a good looking child you have to make sure they don't use that to get by or to get what they want.
My sister has a very good looking son who was the heart throb of high school..even older girls wanted to date him. He'd go to four proms a year! He now struggles to make anything of his life. He's three years out of high school. He can't get his act together as real life kicks in. His below average grades and lazy work ethic plague him as the more "average" guys are almost through college and have bright futures. Strumming his guitar and going to outdoor concerts are no longer so cool to the girls now who want to go on a date with a guy who is working and has a life plan.
I'd have to say...in his case... his good looks have cost him a lot. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:38 pm |
| Doesn’t matter who you are or what you do, there is ALWAYS going to be someone younger and “prettier”. Maybe not today, or next week, but it won’t take long. If your career is based solely on your looks, it’s going to have a pretty short shelf life. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:41 am |
For every "beautiful" woman out there, there's a man cheating on her.
Beauty is no protection against the realities of life.
I say control what you can control in terms of your looks, protect your health but focus on your soul - in the end, the soul is all that matters - oh and love too.
bfg |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Sep 03, 2011 4:27 pm |
I think we have all heard the age-old sayings about beauty -- and I also believe that our moods greatly affect our attractiveness in general.
But I started this threead in hopes of someone commenting on the thesis: do more attractive people, on the whole (ignoring the occasional deadbeat outlier) have better job opportunities and more promotions? This research resonated with me becaues I have observed it so many times (I used the MBA example because in that situation you would argue that people were the same in terms of their qualifications, so any differences in marketability were linked to other factors.)
The flip side of this research (again based on personal experience) is that in some settings, beauty is a handicap. The big name management consulting firms (eg McKinsey, Bain) and top investment banks seemed to prefer women that were not particularly good looking (not ugly, but not pretty). Some of those taboos against hiring attractive women have diminished since I graduated, but the level of attractiveness remains a factor, one way or the other. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:54 am |
Yes, more attractive people tend to get more opportunities in life, whether they have substance for it or just the looks, is a different matter. There are quite a bit studies on the subject starting from the 70s that show the "consequences" of being beautiful. More people attractive also get higher salaries and more bonuses, earlier promotions etc. perhaps it's the halo effect (beautiful is good) or some other bias. Research also shows that more attractive people tend to have more self confidence and better communications skills. Not in each case, of course. People who possessed physical attractiveness AND intelligence AND positive core self-evaluation had higher income compared to individuals who had just the looks, for example.
There are of course negative things as well. For example, a very interesting bit: a woman is perceived as a threat by another woman who sees herself as less attractive compared to the first woman. Same goes for men as well. People who are either less attractive or think of themselves as less attractive tend to give a more attractive member of same sex a hard time. This behavior is incredibly common as observed by Maria Agthe. It's partial explanation as to why people label good looking women slut or other labels implying loose or negative behavior, and why good looking men are labeled homosexuals or lazy and other non-flattering things. Also gender based is another behavior, same sex members tend to judge more attractive people as less talented, while opposite gender members will judge the same person as more talented according to Rosemarie Anderson.
So in a job interview an attractive man will be judged as talentless pretty boy by another man. Same man will thought to be qualified for the job if the decision maker is a woman.
If some girl is beautiful and wants to ruin every chance at getting a job she best apply someplace where the boss is an unattractive insecure woman who also thinks of self as ugly.
For best chances she better look for a boss who is male, single and self confident. Why single? Because people in relationships tend to ignore attractive members of opposite sex, according to an evolutionary model proposed by Jon Maner.
As for attractive woman and certain jobs, I found this article: physorg (dot) com/news200318394.html |
_________________
Do what all good pragmatists do. Compromise. |
|
|
|
| Tue Apr 01, 2025 6:42 pm |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
|
