It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Downsides of Being Beautiful

page: 10
27
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
It's true -- it ain't easy being drop dead gorgeous and totally awesome!



*sigh* I suppose someone has to do it though...




posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

No to be honest I know some extremely good looking people. Half my family actually. You might even have seen some of my family before.

They are nice people, with morals, zero pathology but to be honest they aren't really one of those that I would consider intelligent enough to reflect on their situation and see it for what it is.

So, NO, I don't think the things you mentioned as potential downsides (the internal conflict and guilt et al) are things that really give them pause. They are happy being successful and happy, no need to reflect on it. They've for the most part fallen upwards in life and are very obtuse and aloof as to the source of their success.

If a person is good looking AND intelligent you generally figure that out pretty quickly and give them the credit that's due for their successes. For instance. An ex co worker of mine. Smoking hot blonde, tall, great body. High paying job. Going to make Partner at a well to do firm in the entertainment industry. Has celebrities for clients. She has her job because she has razor sharp intellect. Does an amazing job. Has intense work ethic and pride in her work. There's nobody at that firm including people well above her in the pecking order I would want to work on my account if I were rich enough to require her services. She got her job not by being pretty. In this case she got it from being bad ass at her job. She coulda looked like a toad and still be where she's at. She's that good. That being said. She is the exception. And a lot rarer than good looking people would like to think.
edit on 29-12-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR

They are nice people, with morals, zero pathology but to be honest they aren't really one of those that I would consider intelligent enough to reflect on their situation and see it for what it is.

So, NO, I don't think the things you mentioned as potential downsides (the internal conflict and guilt et al) are things that really give them pause. They are happy being successful and happy, no need to reflect on it. They've for the most part fallen upwards in life and are very obtuse and aloof as to the source of their success.



That is interesting. Do you not have any handicapped individuals in the family, who make that contrast very clear for them? Forcing them to see the unfairness and how it impacts those without the same genetic benefits?

Maybe that is a big factor. As I reflect upon the very beautiful people I've known who had this sort of internal struggle, they had such a situation growing up. That may be the difference.

Or, is it possible your family simply adapted to accepting the "clueless" role, to avoid the problems of openly acknowledging their advantage as mentioned?


I think, in the case of the person you described, that there is some truth to the Dunning -Kruger effect. The more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to recognize intelligence in others. YOU may recognize it in her, but there is probably always a large number of people around her that do NOT. She has probably had to become insensitive to those who do not, and is probably seen instead like the Evil Narcissist by them. Do you think that is possible?
edit on 29-12-2015 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

Nope no immediate members of the family are handicapped.

One of them is both really good looking and extremely talented combined with very bright. SO to be fair, I'll exclude her. When she's not working somewhere she's building houses in africa and the philippines for charity.

As for the rest of the ones I was talking about. they literally are, as are many in their situations, "clueless."



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Bluesma


One of them is both really good looking and extremely talented combined with very bright. SO to be fair, I'll exclude her. When she's not working somewhere she's building houses in africa and the philippines for charity.



Makes me suspect that something along the path of her experience made her aware of her advantages compared to others.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

edit on 29-12-2015 by jacygirl because: nvmd



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: jacygirl

Can I touch your hair?



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: jacygirl

Can I touch your hair?


rofl...I deleted.
Now you just look like a stalker, hehe...



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: jacygirl

Is that a 'yes'?



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: jacygirl

Is that a 'yes'?


Knock yourself out!




posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

She's certainly smart enough but to be honest she just had a passion she was talented at, took a risk, auditioned and got the gig beating out several hundred others. Not because of looks in her case, just raw talent. She's like the black sheep of her side of the family. I've never had a conversation with her about her success, just happy for her. I have a feeling she would see the validity of my argument though since she's commented on similar regarding her siblings. Also to add, before her success she was out shadowed by her better looking siblings.
edit on 29-12-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: jacygirl

Thank you.


You may want to wash that now that I am finished.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So now you've gone and proven the reply that I wrote was true, and I deleted the darn thing!!
How ironic.


(By the way, "Stop it!!"...my face hurts from laughing!)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacygirl
So now you've gone and proven the reply that I wrote was true, and I deleted the darn thing!!
How ironic.


You should have left it, I think it made total sense.


(By the way, "Stop it!!"...my face hurts from laughing!)


Sorry, you keep lobbing me softballs.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Anaana
Similarly, you are attracted to the idea that you are persecuted because you think you are beautiful and that that threatens other people's self-esteem, they put you down to make themselves feel better? That kind of thing? The article appeals to both vanity and the need to be liked/loved/accepted. It is using those studies to manipulate you, to confirm your persecution complex...and you have let it.



1 - I specifically said I am not beautiful. I said that at a certain point in the past, I have known that experience.
Did I feel it threatened other peoples self esteem? Yes, I believe it did, in some cases, because they expressed it honestly, like my sister did, or some of my friends.
Did I feel persecuted at times? Yes.
I also felt others were persecuted, or treated unfairly, as a result of this bias.
Persecution complex? I'll consider that. It doesn't seem accurate because I see the unfairness as sort of shared; the line between victim and victimizer is unclear. We're all victims of such built-in instincts.





Your studies and now you are supporting that perspective, that looks can be deceptive, although you seem to fail to see that.


As mentioned, obviously my point all along was that there exists a unreliable influence in most, if not all humans, which can be deceptive and unfair. No matter how many times you repeat that I said the opposite, my words are still up here to be seen.

I went looking for study results, and these are the kinds I found. The article linked was chosen for it's adundance of footnotes and reference to serious studies on markers of beauty that are common statistically.

If you wish to refute those findings, fine. They could be wrong, and I saw them because they reflect what I percieve...

But I think the usual "burden of proof" applies somewhat - if you feel these studies are falsified , or the conclusions faulty, or whatever, you could provide some evidence to the contrary. I may be wrong, but the evidence for such prejudices existing on a wide scale is very strong, it seems to me.
But then this isn't a court either, and no one is obligated to do anything, of course.




Sounding wise and being wise are two different things, you know.


Seriously??
These people have pretty good backup for their knowledge! I don't know what you really mean precisely by "wisdom" but they sure as heck are at least very educated and knowledgeable!!! What makes you suspect otherwise?
Are your credentials in this particular area so high that you consider yourself a reliable judge of them?



edit on 29-12-2015 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

Sorry but you are still misunderstanding. Science does not make something "universal". The studies that you refer to are based on subjects who qualified for the study and who represent a small proportion of their society. There is no such thing as a "universal brain". Each brain, in each individual, is uniquely configured. Certain stimuli may light up some areas in most people, but have no effect in others. Such studies seek to identify the common denominators and apply and interpret that data statistically. Statistics help predict probable or more probable outcomes, they do not determine actual reality, just an indication of what stimuli will affect most and in what way in the most commonly perceived reality. There is no such thing as "objective", not that we are capable of perceiving. Statistical analysis may be the most appropriate means of observing perceived reality but it is still flawed, and far from reflective of actuality, especially when dealing with something as wide ranging in terms of the possible spectrums of human perceptions. The variables are phenomenal, hence why subjects are selected to meet certain predetermined criteria, that in themselves are based on statistical determinates. Certain people will find certain characteristics attractive at certain times. That's all we have. It's a piece of a vast jigsaw, but it helps to target the needs of those certain people as a demographic.

It concerns me greatly that young people, those who are most susceptible and have the most malleable minds, are targeted from all directions with images that are aimed at making them feel inferior or in some way lacking, personally or materially. I feel it is important that young people are educated to understand that they are being manipulated both in terms of visual and audio stimulus, but also on an emotional level, and that that is meant to make them buy whatever it is that is being pitched to them by that means. While we are not always able to avoid intrusive stimulus, as we mature we are able to engage reason, if we have taken the trouble to develop it. A well honed sense of reason can intrude upon most impulses to counter unnecessary or inappropriate actions.

I can understand that a young person may feel that they are being penalised because they are pretty, or given a heads up for the same reason, and that that is hurtful or demeaning, but, we all have crosses to bear, and it's how, not why, we bear them that is important. Superficial people think superficial things, and we're all superficial when we're young, but thankfully, with experience comes learning, and with learning knowledge, and if we're lucky some wisdom might stick to us, and we suddenly realise that we haven't even looked in the mirror for a week, if you have no idea what you look like, or aren't thinking about what you look like, then it never crosses your mind that anyone else is. Some people are nice, some people rude, some in a world all their own, but most of them are too busy thinking their own thunks to think about what you or I look like and how our lives are affected by the way we look, unless asked to participate in a study on that very thing.




posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Anaana

You are flipping back and forth between two opposing stances repeatedly.

You claim there is no bias that happens on a wide scale, that is all my own illusion,
those that do studies that find support of that phenomenon are irrelevant and insubstantial, and lacking in wisdom,

While also claiming that certain celebrities like David Beckham (and other names I do not recognize) get their attention and acclaim because of their looks...?

Do certain traits commonly influence the way people act and think, or not? Do certain people repeatedly get an unfair advantage because of their appearance or not, in your opinion??

You wrote this back there-



Beauty is entirely subjective, has little to do with perceived attractiveness and is therefore entirely unquantifiable.



For me, attractiveness is the measure of how much an individual desires to have a closer relationship to another- it is how we determine and choose mates, and is totally subjective, varying widely amongst individuals.

Beauty is the traits like facial symmetry, youthful appearence, low waist-hip ratio (in women),
masculine facial diphormism, a V shaped torso, and facial symmetry (for men).

We can all pretty much agree on beauty, but who we'd like to have a relationship with? Who we desire personally? We'll probably all disagree on that. Attractiveness is purely subjective, beauty less so.
So we disagree on this, fine.


I don't know why the flip flopping, but I kind of get the idea that although you do agree, this is a real phenomenon, that happens daily and all over,
You feel that denying it will have the effect of making it less powerful?
If we tell young people that there is no subconscious effect of appearence upon the way they feel, think, act and choose, then it shall become so?

IF that is your position (and reason for going back and forth, agreeing with me then disagreeing) I have mentioned I disagree. I feel that denial and repression makes the denied grow in strength and power.


Here, you seem to agree with me-



While we are not always able to avoid intrusive stimulus, as we mature we are able to engage reason, if we have taken the trouble to develop it. A well honed sense of reason can intrude upon most impulses to counter unnecessary or inappropriate actions.



This was my stance completely, so yes, I am confused! How can one use their reasoning abilities, (be "mindful" as I called it) if they believe there is no reason to? There is no impulses, there is nothing to be concerned of and reason through???

I do think that refusing to acknowledge the effect of physical appearence can make one ignorant of such effects- when the waiter seats you before the three couples who came in ahead of you, you might not even see the look in his eye, and totally just assume there is some other reason you got that privelage.

You could even totally ignore the whispers and glares of those you passed up, or see them but not feel anything about them if you are a psychopath or autistic.

But then you have entered into the "clueless" catagory of people who go along merrily profitting from this effect and furthering it, as the Bassist pointed out. Why would anyone want to encourage that?



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 02:56 AM
link   

beauty less so.


Beauty is entirely subjective. There is no such thing as universally beautiful, because there is nothing that is perceived by all species as such at all points in time. Does a fish think a supermodel is beautiful? Do the blind, the moon?

Beauty. Is. Subjective. Is is a perception. You can look for common grounds within specific parameters (e.g. "These humans at this point in time find facial symmetry beautiful"), but beauty in and of itself cannot be objective.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 03:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

You can look for common grounds within specific parameters (e.g. "These humans at this point in time find facial symmetry beautiful"), but beauty in and of itself cannot be objective.


What do you mean "beauty in and of itself"??

That's like saying "goodness in and of itself", "evil in and of itself"! I have no idea what such statements mean.

These are value statements, and if we want to get philosophical, they have no inherent value. Beauty does not exist "in and of itself". (nor does ugly, good, evil....)

But we can speak of instrumental value, and it is common usage of non-philosophers in discussion to use the terms "objective" , when refering to widely shared values.
Like many will say that death is universally responded to as "bad" or repulsive amongst humans, because the majority feel that way. There are exceptions and death cannot be said to be bad "in and of itself" but the closest we can get to discussing shared perceptions is in using such terms.

The whole argument of "you create your own world and perceptions," I am fond of using too - to a limit.
There is a point at which the physical reality we share is all we can discuss with others and act upon in concert with them.

The whole push towards "don't care what others feel, it is their own problem, just concentrate on forming your own perceptions" is sometimes employed in an attempt to avoid conflict, but it also has the side effect of making people less socially conscious, less empathic, more narcissistic. Convincing everyone they are each in a bubble of their own design, can be temporarily peaceful. But I think that is not sustainable in the long term, mostly because it is false. We are organisms which have a constant interaction with the exterior and others, and in every moment there is several influences in what and who we are being.
Only my opinion.
edit on 30-12-2015 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 03:37 AM
link   

universally


because the majority


That is not what universal means, and anyone who uses it that way should feel bad. Commonly, generally, for the most part, as a lot of people think, the vast majority, these are all words and phrases you could use instead.
Saying "universally" when you actually mean "greater than 50%" is apocalyptically stupid and does a disservice to the people who are trying to understand what you wish to say.

The issue is that even among humans, there is no universal standard for beauty. The closest we can get to it is facial symmetry, but supposedly asians prefer asymmetry.


What do you mean "beauty in and of itself"??


I am using that statement to make that point, because beauty has nothing inherent to it. It is a subjective observation, it cannot be anything but a subjective observation, and as with all subjective observations there is much variance.
edit on 30/12/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join