Sexist Female Oppression? Cleavage In The Workplace

Originally posted by Astyanax Good looks are an excellent predictor of intelligence, fitness and moral fibre. I am always wary of ugly or bland-looking people: they tend to harbour various physical and mental deficiencies, as well as resentments inspired by these defects. Our perception of them as ugly is an instinctive recognition of that

Originally posted by IR1984: Wow, just wow. I'm not terribly ugly myself so i harbour no resentment to good looking people, but to see you post this is an utter disgrace. Looks are an excellent predicator for intelligence? Maybe you should check the pop charts, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Linsay whateverhernameis, yeah smart people right there. And moral fiber? You know Ted Bundy was pretty good looking, that's some quality moral fibre.

Originally posted by Astyanax 'Moral fibre' is an old-fashioned term for courage.
It is dangerous to rely on the make-believe world of consumer media to provide you with the facts of life. Here, instead, are some papers and articles you may find interesting:
The Looks of a Winner: Beauty, Gender, and Electoral Success 2007, Social Science Research Network
Good Looks, Good Pay? 2005, Forbes magazine
Good Looks Equal Success: Attractive and Tall People Get Better Jobs and Higher Pay 2009, Suite101.com
By the way, your assumption that beautiful women are stupid is actually a form of sexist prejudice, as shown by this study: Attractiveness and Corporate Success: Different Causal Attributions for Males and Females 1985, Journal of Applied Psychology

All these papers you list prove is that more attractive people are more likely to get hired, get promoted and make more money.
These outcomes could all be directly caused by people prefering to be around more attractive people and attractive people being more persuasive. Not one of them indicates that attractive people are more intelligent, or have more moral fibre.

Your conclusions run direcly counter to my experiences living in remote country towns in which people need to all pitch in together to fight fires and help each other survive floods and storms for theese towns to survive. The very attractive people tended to skeddaddle, caring only about their own pretty skins, which soon resulted in them losing their houses and moving elsehere. The very ugly tended to refuse to help others, hunkering down on there own properties, and refuse to let anyone help them because they were afraid of being taken advantage of.

The ones who would be out there battling the elements together, and acts of great bravery were commonplace in those situations, were the everyday plain country folk. It was like watching people become giants, temporarily, and then returning to their unassuming lives afterwards.

So, Astyanax, I note you were quick enough to ask ImaginaryReality1984 for evidence of his claim.
Please show some actual evidence linking attractiveness with intelligence and courage.


reply to post by Kailassa

Do you agree that when a woman who, in her own words, has rather large breasts which she loves, refuses to hide them and wears V cut shirts because she enjoys showcasing her best assetts, is asked to cover up her cleavage, that is is oppressive, and a conspiracy against women?

Not at all. Simple courtesy demands that one follow the customs and manners of the group one finds oneself in. If cleavage is thought unbecoming, the cleft must cover up.

And what do you think of a woman who attempts to "showcase her assets" and then whines because it didn't work, saying, "I find it disgusting that some bosses overlook some females just because they show cleavage. I think that reflects the perversion of thought in the boss's own mind, personally"?

The poor girl isn't doing it right, is she? I'd call her a born loser.

Thanks for agreeing with the points I have made in reply to the O.P..

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Decent people call others immoral if they say and do immoral things.

That would be 'decent people' such as ayatollahs, Puritans and Nazis, I suppose. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

You're welcome to your feelings, but since your replies to me thus far have been long on insult and lacking in substance, there seems to be little point in continuing this conversation. You have yet to substantiate even one of the various assertions you made about looks, talent, morality, etc.

*

reply to post by Kailassa

All these papers you list prove is that more attractive people are more likely to get hired, get promoted and make more money.

Yes, and that is all I was trying to prove. Adding, of course, that I see nothing wrong in this.

These outcomes could all be directly caused by people prefering to be around more attractive people and attractive people being more persuasive. Not one of them indicates that attractive people are more intelligent, or have more moral fibre.

Here is the crux of the thing. Why is Paul thought handsome, and Peter plain?

It isn't just fashion: in the old days, conventional wisdom had it that beauty was culturally determined--in the eye of the beholder. This turned out to be wrong; it was just that anthropologists had been focused on cultural differences, and that underlying a local tendency to find, say, ritual scars or a disc through the lower lip attractive, there were factors that are indeed universal determinants of beauty, common to all cultures. Among them are facial and bodily symmetry, height, relative lightness of skin and, in females, a waist: hip ratio of about 0.7.

All these attributes of beauty are what evolutionary biologists call fitness advertisements. Symmetry is a mark of good genes and good health. Height confers advantage in status contests, including violent ones; it is also a marker of good childhood nutritition and health. Waist: hip ratio is a fertility marker. Skin lightness is a bit of a poser, but it is a real determinant (in most or all cultures, no matter what the prevailing skin tone) and some explanations based on evolutionary biology have been proposed.

We see certain traits and the people who possess them as beautiful because evolution has shaped us to do so. The people we see as beautiful are the ones who tend to make good mates, because they are more likely to have good genes. They will make better babies, and their good health and relative social status make them more likely to survive long enough to raise those babies.

Understand that good looks are not an automatic predictor of these advantages; we are speaking only of likelihoods. But over the generations of evolutionary time, statistical likelihood turns into certainty.

Beautiful people are better people from nature's point of view. The thing is, nature's viewpoint is also ours. It is, literally, bred in the bone.

Your conclusions run direcly counter to my experiences living in remote country towns. The very attractive people tended to skeddaddle, caring only about their own pretty skins...

Reprehensible from a humane point of view, but clearly the best strategy from the point of view of our selfish genes. Having said so much, let me add that personal experience is not representative; and if it were, I can provide a counter-example. After the Asian tsunami of 2004, an entire devastated town was given hope, courage, leadership and organization by one of my friends who is not only very beautiful to look at in an aesthetic sense but also a magnet for members of the opposite sex. Hundreds of people owe their lives to him. But these anecdotes really prove nothing.

So, Astyanax, I note you were quick enough to ask ImaginaryReality1984 for evidence of his claim. Please show some actual evidence linking attractiveness with intelligence and courage.

With pleasure.

Beautiful People are More Intelligent, 1

Beautiful People are More Intelligent, 2

Finding studies on the link between courage and beauty is harder because not many people want to research the obvious. Heroism is clearly an attractive quality and men throughout history have been selectively bred for it. Large, strongly-built, testosterone-charged males of proven bravery are, rather obviously, attractive to females (in all species, including the human). Geoffrey Miller's The Mating Mind also contains plenty of interesting and provocative data.

The point that altruistic behaviour (the only clear evidence of courage among animals) is a fitness advertisment was first made by Amotz Zahavi as long ago as 1975. Extract from The evolutionary bases of consumption by Gad Saad; also, Altruism as a Signal: Zahavi's Alternative to Kin Selection and Reciprocity in the Journal of Avian Biology.

More generally, research shows that traits considered attractive tend to be fitness advertisements:

The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology

Some evidence that beautiful people are more socially skilful:


Beautiful is good: Evidence that the physically attractive are more socially skillful

And here is one is specially for Benevolent Heretic: All stereotypes are true

reply to post by Astyanax


All of that is true, but really only the tip of the iceburg. Why do you think better looking people are generally more successful? There looks is a factor, an advantage really that they started out with. This leads to high self worth early on, that only grows over time. A lot of how people are percieved is subconscious as well. Body language, people that see themself in a good light, give off naturally positive body language. People that don't have such a high regard for their self worth give off more negative body language.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

Decent people call others immoral if they say and do immoral things.

That would be 'decent people' such as ayatollahs, Puritans and Nazis, I suppose. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

You're welcome to your feelings, but since your replies to me thus far have been long on insult and lacking in substance, there seems to be little point in continuing this conversation. You have yet to substantiate even one of the various assertions you made about looks, talent, morality, etc.

Nice try but you can't get out of it that easily.

You have made a statement that good looking people are generally more intelligent and have moral fibre, or courage as you call it, and you have provided absolutely no evidence for this claim. All you have provided are some studies saying good looking people are more successful and all that proves is that many in society value looks over substance. They give opportunities to people who are better looking maybe but you have provided no evidence for your claim that better looks mean higher intellect.

It is not up to me to provide a study that states there is no correlation between looks and intelligence because i have not made the positive claim, you have made a claim and so you need to provide the proof. Either give a study that shows a direct link between looks and IQ or looks and exams scores or admit you have no evidence for your claim.

Moral fibre or courage is not more present in good looking people, if it were then we would have the most beautiful people in the army and police services, but that doesn't seem to be the case does it.

Originally posted by Astyanax
And here is one is specially for Benevolent Heretic: All stereotypes are true

I'm well aware that there is truth in stereotypes. That's where they come from. From your link:

The danger lies in applying the empirical generalizations to individual cases, which may or may not be exceptions.

...which you did in your post.

AND

For some reason that I cannot quite fathom, all the stereotypes that have been shown to be false so far have to do with people’s physical appearances.

reply to post by Astyanax


You know you have mentioned stereotypes being true and yet the general stereotype in society is that the ugly kids at school are the more intelligent ones, therefore by your arguments then this stereotype must have truth to it. However the study you linked says the stereotype is that beautiful people are more intelligent, i'm not sure what world those people are living in but i've never heard anyone utter that stereotype.

Furthermore the test they used to measure IQ is a bad one for this kind of study and i'm confused as to why they used it. The test is the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and while it can be useful it is a poor measure of logical intelligence that is used in everyday situations or academic ability. The test is about verbal dexterity and attractive people tend to be more sociable, therefore it would make sense they are better with their verbal processing. Consider a person with incredible logical processing abilities who is shy, withdrawn and awkward. This type of person would not do well on that type of test but they are still incredibly intelligent.

This all points to a very poorly designed study.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


WOW!!!! Two poorly designed studies in the same thread. Who would have figured. I certainly hope people can understand the very basic concept of the prover proves what the thinker thinks. Most of these studies set out to "prove" something, and they cherry pick the evidence. If one is going to be biased, as is human nature, one can at least make an effort to be less biased and have a more honest, more expansive scientific study that is well aware of the inherent biases of the originators. But lying is too effective. We have come to disdain rule through fear and rigid control yet we have embraced self-interested deception to put a web over society. I am not part of that "we." I honesty hoped that we as a collective were better than a mere magnet that flips when one polarity is out of fashion. But, you know the saying, "individuals are smart. Groups are stupid."

reply to post by GoalPoster


You are only seeing half a picture. If cleavage is a tool used to entrance men (and a big IF attached), then that is a method of female dominance. It may be or may not have developed in part as a result of male dominance, but it is still at least a type of display of female dominance.

Ooh, This is Fun!


reply to post by TKDRL

As stated in my post above yours, the real question is why certain people are perceived as good-looking. Where does that come from and why? I say it comes from evolution, specifically from something known as sexual selection.

*

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

It is not up to me to provide a study that states there is no correlation between looks and intelligence

I did not ask you for one. I am asking for evidence of your claim, in this post, that 'an ugly manager can be as effective as a good looking manager.' You haven't provided any yet – all you've contributed to the discussion is a lot of huff and puff.

*

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

From your link:

The danger lies in applying the empirical generalizations to individual cases, which may or may not be exceptions.

...which you did in your post.

Did I? In which post? Can you show me?

For some reason that I cannot quite fathom, all the stereotypes that have been shown to be false so far have to do with people’s physical appearances.

Well spotted. The author is speaking about generalizations along the lines of 'people with receding chins are indecisive' or 'blondes have more fun.' The usual nonsense, in other words, and not at all what we are discussing here. The only specific attributes of appearance I have named are symmetry, height, skin lightness and waist: hip ratio in women. If you want to dispute that these are universal factors in the perception of a human being as physically attractive, go ahead and try; the science is pretty well established.

The proposition that all human beings are created equal is mere cant, except in one crucial sense: we are all equally human. That common humanity, not some putative, fictitious equality of status or potential, is the true basis of the liberal project. As one liberal to another, I urge you to reflect on this.

*

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Furthermore the test they used to measure IQ is a bad one for this kind of study and i'm confused as to why they used it.

Aha! Substance – of a kind – at last.

Here's a description of the test. Could you explain why you think it is 'a bad one for this kind of study'?

As for why this test was used, I think the size and depth of the study explains the choice quite well. It isn't some fly-by-night research project, you know.

But – as you keep saying – nice try.

*

reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment

WOW!!!! Two poorly designed studies in the same thread.

Which studies are you referring to, exactly? Could you explain in what way they are poorly designed?

Presumably you're an expert on the subject, since only an expert would be able to comment on study design. If you're not, please don't bother to answer.

reply to post by Astyanax


How very mature of you, resorting to ad hominem attacks. Imaginary reality explained his study. It was quite simple. A picture vocabulary test was used as a measure of intelligence. This is not even a full spectrum IQ test. As flawed as many rightfully consider IQ tests to be, at least use one that tests a wide range of "intelligences." And regarding the study cited by the OP, I have already explained the stupidity and pop nature of it in another post. The only evidence stated was that half of managers would sometimes overlook women for possible advancement due to excess cleavage. What the other managers' perspectives happened to be was not even stated. As I said earlier, this half could have been more likely to promote cleavage-addled women or merely been neutral. We do not know. If it was a simple binary study, asking whether prominently displayed cleavage would be helpful or hurtful for a potential promotion, then we have a tie people. Both studies were obviously clearly flawed. Or at least the Daily or whatever other British tabloid reporting this fluff piece (not going to go back and check, as I read the article) chose to omit parts of the study, making their presentation flawed. You know better. Or if you don't, you are certainly smart enough to figure it out. And spare me the pseudo-intellectual nonsense. Don't try to look smart. Be smart. Anybody with an ounce of mathematical sense who actually read the article cited can see that what I say has merit. This is not even up for opinion it is so cut and dry.

BTW, only my reasoning should count, but I have Calculus 1-3, differential equations, discrete math, probability and statistics, linear algebra, engineering physics sequence, chemistry and organic chemistry, etc. under my belt. Did well in them too. I hope I offered the troll a tasty meal.

reply to post by Astyanax


Someone is sounding more like a Nazi Eugenicist than they probably intend, and for some reason this old saying comes to mind, although obviously not of a scientific nature, it sums up my thoughts to to an extent, "Why did God makes puppies so cute? Because they aren't very smart".

reply to post by Astyanax


So instead of dealing with anything i have said you continue to attack me, isn't this what you accused me of doing? Sorry but your utter lack of reply to the very valid points i have raised in my last two posts shows you are floundering. Furthermore you ask for me to provide evidence and yet you haven't done so for your own views, the one study you provided can easily be discounted and i explained why it should be discounted, something which you again haven't addressed.

An ugly manager can be as effective as a good looking one, there won't be any studies for that because no one studies it but it's basic logical deduction. A manager depending on his/her job has various things to do. Organise personnel, assign tasks, monitor income and outgoings, order stock etc. None of these things are affected by how one looks, indeed many of these tasks can be accomplished working from home, something many managers do and therefore my point does hold up quite well.

I have given very good reasons why looks don't affect a managers abilities, it is now up to you to provide some argument as to why looks make someone a more effective manager.


As for why the test is unfair, well i explained that in my earlier post and the link you provided explaining the test is a website selling it, hardly an unbiased source. But to go over it again.

The test relies on verbal ability, good looking people are often exposed to more social situations involving a greater range of people and so they often develop a better understanding of how to use language in a social situation and therefore would tend to score higher on that test. The test however is not a good measure of sheer logical processing, the kind useful in academic and research roles, or should i say roles that require the most intelligence. Neither is it a good test of spatial reasoning, mathematical reasoning, creative ability etc etc.

Basically the test seems to be a good one for social IQ but not much else. If this test were good for judging general intelligence then MENSA would be using it for their adult candidates, but they don't seem to, they use several other, more accurate and better designed tests. So i'm sorry but the study is a failure for judging general intelligence, but excellent for judging social intelligence.

I just thought i'd go and check the Noble prize website, you may want to do the same. Looking at the winners they're all rather average looking, some are good looking and some are rather ugly. This basically reflects society as a whole and makes plenty of sense.

Finally i want to quote something you put on your post because i think it shows your intentions.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Ooh, This is Fun!

Now we all enjoy a debate but putting this in the post, at the top, in bold suggests you are simply here to troll, and i know you will say i am just attacking you here but i'll cal a spade a spade and a troll a troll.

Therefore i won't reply again, which i'm sure you'll take advantage of, but i've done enough to debunk that rather awful study so i'm happy, have fun

reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment

How very mature of you, resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Can you point out where in this thread I attacked anyone, using ad hominem arguments or other means? Use the Quote function, or simply cut and paste the relevant text into your own post, within inverted commas.

Imaginary reality explained his study.

Actually, it was I, not he, who quoted the study.

A picture vocabulary test was used as a measure of intelligence. This is not even a full spectrum IQ test.

The test in question purpotes to measure IQ, and those who specialize in these matters accept that it does. Since I am not an expert in intelligence testing, that suffices for me. What is a 'full spectrum IQ test'? A Google search for that text string brings up no meaningful results, so perhaps you should explain.

As flawed as many rightfully consider IQ tests to be, at least use one that tests a wide range of "intelligences."

All IQ tests determine IQ, which is a proxy for intelligence. The methodology used in a particular instance is neither here nor there. If you know of any better way of assessing intelligence than an IQ test, perhaps you should get in touch with the relevant academic authorities. IQ testing is controversial, and they would be only too pleased to hear of a better way to test intelligence.

And regarding the study cited by the OP, I have already explained the stupidity and pop nature of it in another post.

This has nothing to do with what we are discussing. The OP cited a survey of five or six journalists. That is not a study, and it bears no resemblance to the serious, peer-reviewed work I cited.

BTW, only my reasoning should count, but I have Calculus 1-3, differential equations, discrete math, probability and statistics, linear algebra, engineering physics sequence, chemistry and organic chemistry, etc. under my belt. Did well in them too.

That's nice.

I hope I offered the troll a tasty meal.

Yes, I'm still picking bits of you from between my teeth.

*

reply to post by bigrex

Someone is sounding more like a Nazi Eugenicist than they probably intend.

Goodness, do you mean me? What was it I said that sounded Nazi, or eugenical, to you? Could you quote the exact sentence, paragraph or post, please? And can you explain why you think it sounds like that?

"Why did God makes puppies so cute? Because they aren't very smart."

Small mammals didn't evolve to be cute because they're stupid, but because--being weak and helpless--they offer such an obvious temptation to their adult kin.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Moreover, good looks are an excellent predictor of intelligence, fitness and moral fibre. I am always wary of ugly or bland-looking people: they tend to harbour various physical and mental deficiencies, as well as resentments inspired by these defects. Our perception of them as ugly is an instinctive recognition of that.

That kind of belief demonstrates needless discrimination against a populace and by nature would be just a step away from wishing to eliminate the "deficient" who in actuality are just normal people. Not that I am a particular fan of the current Pope, I still agree with this article where he warned against "a new type of eugenics based on perfection and physical beauty"

in.reuters.com...

If there were such a high percentage of physically attractive people that were more intelligent than most of their peers, one would think more scientists would be physically beautiful. Personally, I doubt the "beautiful" people in Hollywood could have been brain surgeons and rocket scientists. I doubt they could have fulfilled that calling in life.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Ugliness

So instead of dealing with anything i have said you continue to attack me, isn't this what you accused me of doing?

I have not attacked you, IR1984. If you believe otherwise, quote the words you regard as an attack on you.

It was you who attacked me--specifically, you impugned my morals, thus my honour. That is the worst possible insult one person can offer another. Still--as I said--I forgive you.

Sorry but your utter lack of reply to the very valid points i have raised in my last two posts shows you are floundering.

My last post specifically addresses the matter of your last post--your attempt to quarrel with the methodology of the study I quoted. Your comment about stereotypes was not relevant to the discussion; I put that particular link in simply to poke fun at Benevolent Heretic, who complained earlier on that I was stereotyping people. Yes, you are right, good-looking people--especially women--are often stereotyped as stupid. But that has no bearing on my discussion with you, which is about whether the opposite is true or not. You're getting things confused.

Your post before that one asked me to provide evidence for my claim. I had already done so in my reply to Kailassa, and saw no reason to do so again. I assume we are both reading the same internet page, and what is on it is as plain to you as it is to me.

In fact, I have dealt in detail with every substantial assertion you have made.

Beauty

An ugly manager can be as effective as a good looking one, there won't be any studies for that because no one studies it but it's basic logical deduction.

So your claim is based on nothing but your own thoughts. Thank you for admitting it.

A manager depending on his/her job has various things to do. Organise personnel, assign tasks, monitor income and outgoings, order stock etc. None of these things are affected by how one looks...

Really? The tasks I have copied in boldface above are highly dependent on social skills. Now what was it you said earlier about good-looking people and social skills?

Would you like some evidence that good-looking people are more widely believed, trusted and obeyed than ugly ones? This is actually an area in which I can claim some expertise, because the communications business is my business. Here are a few samples from a mountain of research proving my point, and disproving yours:

Source credibility as a function of communicator physical attractiveness1983, Journal of Business Research. Directly relevant to your talk of managers above.

What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. 1991, Psychological Bulletin. Meta-analysis arguing that, while the 'beautiful is good' effect exists, it isn't quite as overwhelming as some researchers make it out to be. I include it to show you just how widely accepted the 'beautiful is perceived as good' thesis is in psychology--so widely that even a study aiming to question its dominance starts by admitting it is real.

Does Attractiveness Drive Sales Results?

Mind you, these studies really are about perceived competence, not actual ability. For studies that show a direct link between beauty and intelligence, as well as other positive traits, see my reply to Kailassa above.

Truth

Finally i want to quote something you put on your post because i think it shows your intentions.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Ooh, This is Fun!

Now we all enjoy a debate but putting this in the post, at the top, in bold suggests you are simply here to troll.

Take it as you will.

On the whole, IR1984, I rather like you. I appreciate the tolerance and open-mindedness you often display on ATS (though not, it seems, towards me ) and I enjoy your sense of humour. Indeed, I often find myself agreeing with you, as I did in the earlier part of this thread when you were telling undo not to be so silly. So it pains me to discover that, when the chips are down, you are as quick as any crank or hate-monger to attack those whose opinions differ from yours, and to sling accusations of trolling around. Use your head, man--would a mere troll bother to fill out his posts with no less than fifteen links?

I'm trying to raise a little consciousness here. Sorry if it's rough schooling, but that is the way I was taught, and how I teach in turn. If decent people don't accept the truths of science and learn ways to deal with them, the field is left open for the racists, the eugenicists, the hate-mongers, the Nazis and all the other people I'm accused of being on this thread.

reply to post by Astyanax


I wasn't going to reply but i think there has been a deep misunderstanding which has caused you upset, so i do need to sort that out.

If i decide that you are lacking morals then that simply means i disagree with you on what you believe, it isn't an insult although it can be taken as such if you're overly sensitive. There are many who think my morals are not good enough, lots of religious people for example would certainly not agree with me and yet i don't get all angry and upset over it and take such deep offense as yourself. I never meant to insult, you just took it as one. I've had people on ATS tell me that my views on sex for example are deeply immoral but i've never even gotten mildly annoyed because of that. It's a discussion forum, people are going to question such things.

As for intelligence i have shown the study you profferred is rather flawed as a judge of general intelligence. As for moral fibre, well if you want to talk offense saying that beutiful people have more moral fibre is going to deeply offend everyone who isn't beautiful and that's about 80% of the people on Earth. I've worked at some charities and generally speaking they're full of average looking people, are you saying these people have less moral fibre than beuatiful people? Seriously? What nonsense.

Please don't label me as a hate monger, you took something as an insult that wouldn't have offended most people and trying to label me as such is a way of not dealing with what i say. Simple fact is that intelligence is not linked to looks, social ability may be and so i won't argue that, i simply mean general intelligence and most notably academic achievment.

If beautiful people have more courage then why isn't the army full of them? Why is the police full of mostly average looking people, same goes for the fire service. These are things you will struggle to answer. Even great heroes in modern times are often average looking people. Every year there is a TV show in the UK where people are given awards for heroism and they are usually peopel you wouldn't look twice at.

Anyway i said my previous reply was my last one but then i realised there has just been a deep misunderstanding, i never meant to insult you, i don't even see what i said as insulting when i look at it again because people have different moral codes that will clash, you need to learn not to take things so personally.

reply to post by bigrex

Originally posted by Astyanax
I am always wary of ugly or bland-looking people: they tend to harbour various physical and mental deficiencies, as well as resentments inspired by these defects. Our perception of them as ugly is an instinctive recognition of that.

Originally posted by bigrex
That kind of belief demonstrates needless discrimination against a populace and by nature would be just a step away from wishing to eliminate the "deficient" who in actuality are just normal people.

No, it doesn't. I was speaking of how I respond to others in an interpersonal context. It is far from needless; if we don't come to some judgement regarding the people we meet and interact with, we are asking for trouble. And my standards are not baseless, either: they are founded on my personal experience, as well as (more recently) the science I've learnt. And I am a million miles away from wishing to eliminate anyone. Are you calling me a potential mass-murderer?

Not that I am a particular fan of the current Pope, I still agree with this article where he warned against "a new type of eugenics based on perfection and physical beauty"

Straw man. There is and can be no such eugenics.

Benevolent Heretic, the lady who likes Alsatian dog avatars, will bear me out when I say that the beauty of Alsatians comes at a price--specifically, a tendency to weak hindquarters and hind legs that can make it difficult for them to walk and run, and sometimes to reproduce. That's what happens when you apply eugenics (selective breeding) to animal populations.

You want eugenics? The royal families of Europe practised selective breeding for generations. You never heard any popes complaining. The results of such breeding were often beautiful, not to mention intelligent, brave, magnanimous, etc.--but every so often, they ended up with someone who looked like this chap. Or with haemophilia.

If there were such a high percentage of physically attractive people that were more intelligent than most of their peers, one would think more scientists would be physically beautiful. Personally, I doubt the "beautiful" people in Hollywood could have been brain surgeons and rocket scientists. I doubt they could have fulfilled that calling in life.

Scientists (contrary to the stereotype you are tacitly perpetuating) are not especially ugly. The beautiful people of Hollywood are selected for their looks, which makes nonsense of any demographic argument based on them, but all the same I imagine it takes above-average intelligence to survive in that particular jungle. We are talking about a statistically significant correlation, not a one-to-one correspondence.

Anyway, the studies have been conducted, the results have been verified by peer review, and I'm afraid that's that. Reality doesn't care for our opinions.

Originally posted by Astyanax


Anyway, the studies have been conducted, the results have been verified by peer review, and I'm afraid that's that. Reality doesn't care for our opinions.

No you linked a study that basically dealt with social intelligence and not general intelligence. Again i ask you why is it that MENSA doesn't use the test the researchers did? The reason is that it is a narrow definition of intelligence dealing mostly with verbal ability.

Your lack of understanding about the study says a bias is in play, please provide some study using looks and a general IQ score, if you can then i'll happily concede the point.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Please don't label me as a hate monger.

I did not.

Simple fact is that intelligence is not linked to looks

The research shows otherwise.

If beautiful people have more courage then why isn't the army full of them?

Officers tend to be good-looking, espcially if they come from families with a military tradition. Are you seriously proposing this as an argument? Don't you know that one of the classic types of male beauty is the 'soldierly'? In olden times, military commanders (aka aristocrats) were bred for martial prowess, and the best warriors set the standard for male good looks. Don't forget this argument is based in sexual selection: it is traits that signal high status and reproductive success which come to be thought attractive in the first place.

Ordinary ranks are just average folk, with average bravery and average looks.

Why is the police full of mostly average looking people.

Please. Police forces are full of ugly people. Surely no-one with decent opportunities in life would become a policeman?

same goes for the fire service.

I know only two firemen. One is Dutch and the other is an American, from Montana. Both are hunks.

Every year there is a TV show in the UK where people are given awards for heroism and they are usually peopel you wouldn't look twice at.

TV shows of that kind are dedicated to fostering the illusion that losers, too, can win. But notice that the people in TV commercials are all good-looking. That does not happen by accident.

These are things you will struggle to answer.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

No you linked a study that basically dealt with social intelligence and not general intelligence.

No, the test rated IQ, not 'social intelligence'. You are flogging a dead horse, I'm afraid.

Your lack of understanding about the study says a bias is in play

Can you not conduct an argument without getting personal?