Ugly People More Dangerous? Federally Funded Study Says So.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   


Link

Not only are physically unattractive teenagers likely to be stay-at-homes on prom night, they're also more likely to grow up to be criminals, say two economists who tracked the life course of young people from high school through early adulthood.

"We find that unattractive individuals commit more crime in comparison to average-looking ones, and very attractive individuals commit less crime in comparison to those who are average-looking," say Naci Mocan of the University of Colorado and Erdal Tekin of Georgia State University.

Other studies have shown that unattractive men and women are less likely to be hired, and that they earn less money than the better-looking. Such inferior circumstances may steer some to crime, Mocan and Tekin suggest.


Sounds to me like this is another in a long line of federally funded studies that are full of excrement. Not too long ago they released a study showing nobody gets raped in prison, rather, it's a process of sexual awakening.


So, what do you think ATS? Are ugly people more criminally minded? Did we just officially regress 60 or more years? Is eugenics the hot government ticket for the near future?

Man, oh man. The more things change the more they stay the same, eh?

And one final thought, did anyone think it was wierd that this survey was being conducted by economists? I think the government is cherry picking again...




posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
So lets see.

Pretty ones are more likely to have kids at 16.

Average Ones do nothing extreme?

and Ugly people are crazy?


Yeah, that sounds about right.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I think the point they're trying to make is people who are left out of normal teenage cliques and society, whether due to physical appearance or other reasons, are more likely to exhibit antisocial behaviour later in life, including commiting crimes. I can see this as a viable standpoint. Take, for instance, this quote from the study:

Other studies have shown that unattractive men and women are less likely to be hired, and that they earn less money than the better-looking. Such inferior circumstances may steer some to crime, Mocan and Tekin suggest.


It's a sad truth that in life, if you have a handsome man applying for a job, he will come across as more personable than a man with less aesthetic features. Do I agree with this? Absolutely not. Do I deny it happens? Nope.

The study you linked to also states this:

These economists found that the long-term consequences of being young and ugly were small but consistent.


So really, you answered your own question as to ugly people being more "criminally minded". No, they aren't. The consequences of appearance are "small, but consistent". So, it would seem environmental factors would play a larger role. You could argue a person's environment can be directly affected by their appearance, which I would have to agree with.

Also, I see it very fitting that economists would be following trends in society. Do you not think these economists might be interested in the financial side of people's appearance and its influence on their life decisions? Insurance, salary, job opportunities, etc. Makes sense to me.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
i think it could be right actually!!!

what makes a paedophile a paedophile? - its possible that the person had no experience with girls at school (wasn't popular), so to make up for it they are attracted to young girls/boys as an adult?

rape - i can't imagen someone with brad pitts looks would go around raping people!! - yet a person with no sexual experience might be drawn to rape.

so i think the 2 things above things can be due to a person being 'unatractive!!'

but other crimes, murder/robbery - i suppose thats upbringing!! - robbery possibly your financially broke? maybe drugs?

murder - 'animal instincts' - yes we have evolved, but we still have 'animal instincts' - just look at apes (our closest relative) - they take great pleasure in murdering their own kind.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   


I think the point they're trying to make is people who are left out of normal teenage cliques and society, whether due to physical appearance or other reasons, are more likely to exhibit antisocial behaviour later in life, including commiting crimes. I can see this as a viable standpoint.


To my mind, normal teenage cliques are largely responsible for the societal problems we're facing. This culture of ours that venerates wealth and attractiveness does a great disservice to itself, when it starts to exclude and single out individuals bucking the trend.

Yolu know as well as I do that while there may be a corrolary, it's not worth opening the door to allow for persecution of people based on their looks.

I wonder if academics and scholars are more likely to be ugly? It would be a shame if our society started eliminating ugly folks, only to find out the hard way that intelligence and innovation aren't reliant on looks.

Can you dig it?



It's a sad truth that in life, if you have a handsome man applying for a job, he will come across as more personable than a man with less aesthetic features. Do I agree with this? Absolutely not. Do I deny it happens? Nope.


I understand the allure of attractiveness being used as a benchmark of social suitability, it's been that way for THOUSANDS of years. My point is that there are things besides clique compatibility and physical attractiveness that are of great use to society.

The standard of beauty is also not universal, by any stretch of the imagination, so there's another problem presented by what passes for their methodology. I can guarantee that my perception of beauty is not in synch with societal norms. I find Paris Hilton hideous to the point of hilarity. Do you understand the problem here?

Also, if you look at the methodology, there's no standard employed for determining who was attractive and who was not.

My single biggest problem with the 'reasearch' was the fact that the feds paid the tab for it. Why?! Why does the federal government need to commission investigations into the average criminality of ugly people?



Also, I see it very fitting that economists would be following trends in society. Do you not think these economists might be interested in the financial side of people's appearance and its influence on their life decisions? Insurance, salary, job opportunities, etc. Makes sense to me.


In abstract, it's something I can see an economist wanting to know, sure. But the federal government isn't in the habit of paying for studies simply for the erudition of the scientists involved. The government uses scientific research to direct policy, so what policy is being directed by this research?


Originally posted by st3ve_o
what makes a paedophile a paedophile? - its possible that the person had no experience with girls at school (wasn't popular), so to make up for it they are attracted to young girls/boys as an adult?


I don't know, but I suspect it has something to do with control, and a feeling of vulnerability in relationships with adults. Regardless, I've seen plenty of pedo mugshots, and the vast majority are average looking, obviously, just based on the bell curve distribution of beauty.

There are a lot of ugly criminals, no doubt. I'm just wary of any society that locks up ugly people on the assumption they might commit a crime. Or, more likely, the less severe problem of using ugliness as evidence of wrongdoing in criminal proceedings. Not a big fan of that possibility, gotta tell ya'.



rape - i can't imagen someone with brad pitts looks would go around raping people!! - yet a person with no sexual experience might be drawn to rape.


The quintissential vision of rape almost never happens. Usually it's not some hideous stranger, lurking in the alley by your building. Most often, rapes are by friends or aquaintances of the victim.

Again, plenty of serial rapists are attractive, preppy types, who make the rounds at college bars and high school parties looking for girls in possession of more alcohol than common sense.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Yolu know as well as I do that while there may be a corrolary, it's not worth opening the door to allow for persecution of people based on their looks.

I wonder if academics and scholars are more likely to be ugly? It would be a shame if our society started eliminating ugly folks, only to find out the hard way that intelligence and innovation aren't reliant on looks.


I understand the allure of attractiveness being used as a benchmark of social suitability, it's been that way for THOUSANDS of years. My point is that there are things besides clique compatibility and physical attractiveness that are of great use to society.


I think you're missing the point of the entire study. They were showing the effects of perceived ugliness on a person's psyche. No where in the study did it say what you apparently think it did: that ugly people are societally useless and should be shunned. In fact, I read it as quite the opposite. I felt it was highlighting the fact that treating people poorly can have a horrid effect on their lives, and thus we shouldn't treat people differently due to their appearance, positive or negative.


The standard of beauty is also not universal, by any stretch of the imagination, so there's another problem presented by what passes for their methodology. I can guarantee that my perception of beauty is not in synch with societal norms. I find Paris Hilton hideous to the point of hilarity. Do you understand the problem here?

Also, if you look at the methodology, there's no standard employed for determining who was attractive and who was not


I have two problems with your statements here. First of all, the study in it's entirety is not presented here, just some journalists poor rendering of the original work, so you can't really gauge the studies standards or judgements. Secondly, I think that was the whole point of the study, that is was subjective. It says they asked people to judge whether certain individuals in pictures were attractive or not. I'm assuming they probably averaged, or by some other means managed to find a mean.


My single biggest problem with the 'reasearch' was the fact that the feds paid the tab for it. Why?! Why does the federal government need to commission investigations into the average criminality of ugly people?
I actually have a colleague at the university here who studied in an American medical school for a year, and she said it is surprisingly easy to get federal funding for a project, as compared to here in Italia. I did a quick google.it search for government funded projects in America and I discovered a huge breadth of topics being funded. I don't think the government, if it's anything like here, necessarily funds things just for personal gain. They fund them so if something good comes out of it, they can slap the government seal on it and call it theirs to an extent.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I'm wondering, how did they decide which people were ugly and which people weren't? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, after all. A woman I might think is absolutely gorgeous might be merely average in the eyes of another, or vice versa. Not to mention that the standard of 'beauty' has changed over the years.

A few centuries ago, the most desirable women were pale and large, because pale and large meant that you were rich and didn't have to work for a living. (you could afford enough food to get big, and didn't get tanned while working in the fields, or wherever) Now, the hollywood 'ideal' is almost the complete opposite; tiny, skinny women under 100lbs with deep, dark tans. Beauty is completely subjective, and varies from person to person, culture to culture, and time to time.


TPL

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Next they'll go back to studying the lumps on a persons head to see what kind of person a person is.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I really think you missed the point of this study, TPL. The economists aren't classifying people. They are showing a trend. This trend could probably be attributed to antisocial behaviour triggered by poor social treatment by others at a young, formative age. They are in no way branding all less attractive people as criminals.

DragonDemesne: I think it said in the article that they had several people give their opinions on photos of each subject. I suppose they tried to get a wide variety of opinions. Of course, without seeing the actual study, I can't vouch for that.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
ROFL..... Ugly equals Dangerous.... well all men knew that any way...rofl....a danger in case you had to chew your arm off in the morning.....ROFL...

Sure explains why England had such an almighty empire and won two world wars!! We might be an ugly nation, but we fight like B#######!!
See that red lad? that t' Empire the sun never sets on.... Yep we were an ugly mob in the 1800's... alot of areas in the UK still are..

All in all a jokey kind of sense can be seen in this mans words!!



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   
GOOD GRIEF!!!!!!!!!

Up the aryan nation.

And what about all the studies that say good looking people are most likely to get away with their crimes? Cuz they're cute and charming?

All this targetting of useless eaters is out of control - and way beyond scary.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Aaaand all rational discussion ends with the previous post. I believe Soficrow may have just envoked Godwin's Law: en.wikipedia.org...'s_law

~MFP



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

Sounds to me like this is another in a long line of federally funded studies that are full of excrement. Not too long ago they released a study showing nobody gets raped in prison, rather, it's a process of sexual awakening.







It's all in the spin. Although there are some who would have us believe BS is somehow "rational."




posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Godwin's law doesn't apply here, nobody mentioned Nazis specifically.


Kissinger wasn't a Nazi, was he?


Well okay, now Godwin's is applicable.

Damnit.




posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Well, gee, I vote we just waste a few million dollars and build ourselves one of those underground labyrinths like the ancient greeks, or was it romans had.....then we can just throw all those ugly criminals into the pit!!

something tells me in a few centuries, the people living underground will be the ones having the society worth living in.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
It just amazes me how everyone is making judgement calls about this study without actually reading it or the article summarizing it...

No where does it say conclusively that ugly people are criminals, no where does it say we should ostracise them, no where does it say to judge people's personalities by their appearance.

All it says is that the effect of one's appearance on the way they are treated may lead to antisocial behaviour. I mean, come on people, READ THE STUDY before you go off on people calling ugly people criminals.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I got thru the title, and through the first paragraph.....seems to be saying that ugly people are more prone to end up in mug shots and grow up to be criminals to me....

I mean, it's right there, in just about those words...

It amazes me just how this country can waste money they don't have on so many stupid things!!

so, now that we all know that ugly people are more prone to crime.....umm...can anyone come up with any use whatsoever for this knowledge....outside of targeting ugly people as criminals?



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
...The girls all get prettier at closing time,
They all begin to look like movie stars......

May I suggest this as a danger deterrent?





Seriously, ugly can go to the bone, but to say those people are dangerous!
I know a whole family of "plain"
looking people who happen to be very nice. I just wouldnt marry one of them. Sorry.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   

I got thru the title, and through the first paragraph.....seems to be saying that ugly people are more prone to end up in mug shots and grow up to be criminals to me....

I mean, it's right there, in just about those words...


My point exactly, you got read the title and the first paragraph, ironically, the same paragraph in which the journalist "paraphrases" the study so it will sound dramatic and controversial, a very common journalistic technique. If you read on, you will see the economists explain it through social environment, not appearance, and admit it is a "small but consistent" effect.

What I don't get, Dawnstar, is how you, and a few other Americans apparently, will complani about your government wasting money on this research or that research, but will not even take the time to read more tham, as you said "the title and the first paragraph".

~MFP



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
the rest of the article just seems to make up excuses at to why "ugly people" are more prone to crime.......

they don't get the good jobs....ect.....

ummmm....ya, sure.....
it must be some sort of defect in ugly people's character, right... they can't take not having the best jobs as well as their better looking counterparts and must resort to crime???

so, just what good use can we gain from the knowledge that this study provides??

ps, if you want my opinion, maybe the "ugly" people are just smart enough not to waste their money on a bunch of superficial beauty products filled with carcinogens!!!

ugly poor girls become criminals....pretty poor girls become prostitutes....

wonder how much the gov't would give me to research that one!





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join