Born ugly, doomed? (article)

[utohskettiohs]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/If-youre-born-ugly-are-you-doomed-for-life/2005/05/05/1115092621691.html

 

This is an article that I can say matches my experience. Sometimes it's simply a matter of how you look. Now, I'm 100% certain that I've got what it takes and that I'm not the kind of person that comes around very often, but that's usually not taken into account and looks are the deal breaker for most.

 

I've personally gotten terrible treatment from adults as a child because of the way I look, but of course, this applies to the whole dating and attractiveness thing as well. Two examples that I can give are being singled out and treated badly by an adult woman, being told that you are a 'bad kid'.... when a good-looking kid is standing right next to you that gets told deep down he's a good kid, when he did drugs, broke into people's houses and cars, got into fights, wasn't very smart and actually smelled too. Another would be having girls go for guys that are simply lying cheating rotten idiots over someone much better. There's no logic in any of it. I know that attraction is biological, but I still think it's taken to an extreme and that it really doesn't give anyone the right to be like that.

 

For anyone that can relate to this, I just wanted to say that sometimes you've actually got a legitimate complaint and there's no reason for anyone to call you a whiner or a baby for thinking about these things. A lot don't understand (or, care) that it's a LOT harder for unattractive people to get by in life and we've got to work much harder to get where we're going. The advice that I can give is to wait it out and hope someone better comes along. You'll learn in the end that those kinds of people aren't worth it and that you didn't want someone like that anyway

[burning 4 revenge]

If anyone should know people get ahead based on their looks its Maureen Dowd

[sugar_and_spice]

For anyone that can relate to this, I just wanted to say that sometimes you've actually got a legitimate complaint and there's no reason for anyone to call you a whiner or a baby for thinking about these things. A lot don't understand (or, care) that it's a LOT harder for unattractive people to get by in life and we've got to work much harder to get where we're going. The advice that I can give is to wait it out and hope someone better comes along. You'll learn in the end that those kinds of people aren't worth it and that you didn't want someone like that anyway

Although I'm not exactly ugly, just average, I do agree with this.

Life is certainly easier for good looking people, just have to deal with that.

[purgatori]

There you have it, another reason life isn't fair. Being a (probationary) psychologist, I have read numerous research papers exploring the social dimensions of physical attractiveness; positive attributions, preferential treatment, etc. are all well established phenomena. Personally, I don't care that much, and I just go with it: I know that I regard attractive women, and even to some extent, men, (at least those *I* consider to be attractive) more favourably than people I consider unattractive. I don't try to fight it, because I know that personality and other qualities that are not necessarily observable on the surface are not, in fact, any less 'superficial', as they are just as much a product of genetic and environmental interactions as physical beauty, and subject to just the same kind of random/chance distribution.

 

What annoys me is that when it comes to the dating/mating 'game', the appraisal of male attractiveness by both men and women typically runs completely counter to my appraisal. Not only does this result in people describing beefed-up prison-chich meatheads as 'hot', but it also spells doom for me. I don't consider myself especially attractive, but I do think I look better than Brad Penny, Jason Stratham, or any of these other thuggish-looking colossi that seem to occupy the apex of the male standard of beauty for reasons that I will never be able to fathom. David Tenant, Jaye Davison, or that dude from Tokio Hotel are guys whom I would consider good--looking, and it is largely because their features/physique approximate the female standard or expression of beauty, which is the only type I recognize. Granted, if I was as good-looking as these guys, even though their looks run in the same sort of feminine direction that mine do, I probably wouldn't struggle too much to capture the attention of even extremely attractive women, but since that's not the case, I'm screwed -- or not screwed, as the case may be

[agentsmith]

Other than when it comes to dating, I don't think looks can get you far(especially when it comes to the workplace), if you're talentless or don't have brains.

[shadowplay]

If anyone should know people get ahead based on their looks its Maureen Dowd

 

Word. What a hack.

[hoping2heal]

Other than when it comes to dating, I don't think looks can get you far(especially when it comes to the workplace), if you're talentless or don't have brains.

 

The attractive person will skate by longer than the non-attractive person when both have the same level of lacking in skill and talent.

 

If two people are equally qualified for a position; it is highly likely the more attractive person will get the job.

 

We are more likely to believe attractive people are innocent than unattractive people.

 

That said; the people you list as both attractive and unattractive still ALL run on the attractive scale looks wise. When I say unattractive I mean very bland, non attractive people. People that universally would be disregarded as unattractive. THe people you listed as both attracted and non attractive; are more so regarded as universally good looking and therefore what you are talking about is preference, not really attractive vs. non attractive or "ugly"

[dnm]

yes, the article is spot on

[Peitho]

The article assumes that there is a universal scale of attractiveness.

 

Since something like that doesn’t exist, what this article states are not facts, just someone’s opinions

[Eve]

On a superficial level the article is probably right. However, I would say that 'attractiveness' is subjective, based mainly on whatever crowd a person choses to move within moreso than any quality a person actually possesses.

 

So yes, I would take it that we are talking about preferences. Interesting though..

 

Take care,

Eve xx

[purgatori]

The article assumes that there is a universal scale of attractiveness.

 

Since something like that doesn’t exist, what this article states are not facts, just someone’s opinions

 

Incorrect. Although humans do indeed display some degree of idiosyncratic tendencies when it comes to evaluating potential mates, there is still a remarkably high degree of consensus between individuals when it comes to determining what qualities go into constituting greater or lesser 'mate value.' Even in the domain of appearance, there are certain universally prized features, such as symettry, for example. I haven't read the article in question, because I have no need to: there is already a robust body of scientific research on human mating preferences, with which I am reasonably conversant. I suggest that you consult this research before writing off such notions as merely being 'someone's opinions.'

[Malenfant]

i think life is easier long-term for the avergage looking person.

 

Either extreme end of the scale brings its problems, basically because people make assumptions about you.

[thirdgirl]

Yes, sometimes attractive people face prejudice, too.

[gypsy_nicky]

There you have it, another reason life isn't fair. Being a (probationary) psychologist, I have read numerous research papers exploring the social dimensions of physical attractiveness; positive attributions, preferential treatment, etc. are all well established phenomena. Personally, I don't care that much, and I just go with it: I know that I regard attractive women, and even to some extent, men, (at least those *I* consider to be attractive) more favourably than people I consider unattractive. I don't try to fight it, because I know that personality and other qualities that are not necessarily observable on the surface are not, in fact, any less 'superficial', as they are just as much a product of genetic and environmental interactions as physical beauty, and subject to just the same kind of random/chance distribution.

 

What annoys me is that when it comes to the dating/mating 'game', the appraisal of male attractiveness by both men and women typically runs completely counter to my appraisal. Not only does this result in people describing beefed-up prison-chich meatheads as 'hot', but it also spells doom for me. I don't consider myself especially attractive, but I do think I look better than Brad Penny, Jason Stratham, or any of these other thuggish-looking colossi that seem to occupy the apex of the male standard of beauty for reasons that I will never be able to fathom. David Tenant, Jaye Davison, or that dude from Tokio Hotel are guys whom I would consider good--looking, and it is largely because their features/physique approximate the female standard or expression of beauty, which is the only type I recognize. Granted, if I was as good-looking as these guys, even though their looks run in the same sort of feminine direction that mine do, I probably wouldn't struggle too much to capture the attention of even extremely attractive women, but since that's not the case, I'm screwed -- or not screwed, as the case may be

 

if you are a psychology major, then you would know that psychology is not an exact science. It theorizes and helps to explain social phenomena.

 

Also the men you described are not universally attractive. They're not particularly attractive to the opposite sex.

[gypsy_nicky]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/If-youre-born-ugly-are-you-doomed-for-life/2005/05/05/1115092621691.html

 

This is an article that I can say matches my experience. Sometimes it's simply a matter of how you look. Now, I'm 100% certain that I've got what it takes and that I'm not the kind of person that comes around very often, but that's usually not taken into account and looks are the deal breaker for most.

 

I've personally gotten terrible treatment from adults as a child because of the way I look, but of course, this applies to the whole dating and attractiveness thing as well. Two examples that I can give are being singled out and treated badly by an adult woman, being told that you are a 'bad kid'.... when a good-looking kid is standing right next to you that gets told deep down he's a good kid, when he did drugs, broke into people's houses and cars, got into fights, wasn't very smart and actually smelled too. Another would be having girls go for guys that are simply lying cheating rotten idiots over someone much better. There's no logic in any of it. I know that attraction is biological, but I still think it's taken to an extreme and that it really doesn't give anyone the right to be like that.

 

For anyone that can relate to this, I just wanted to say that sometimes you've actually got a legitimate complaint and there's no reason for anyone to call you a whiner or a baby for thinking about these things. A lot don't understand (or, care) that it's a LOT harder for unattractive people to get by in life and we've got to work much harder to get where we're going. The advice that I can give is to wait it out and hope someone better comes along. You'll learn in the end that those kinds of people aren't worth it and that you didn't want someone like that anyway

 

a lot of people are by far average looking.

[gypsy_nicky]

Peitho and purgatori are both correct.

 

Peitho is correct because it is written by someone with an opinion, who clearly is not trained in academia to explain social phenomena. But, you are incorrect to state that universal attractiveness doe not exist. There is no universal scale but universal traits that go hand in hand with attractiveness.

 

Purgatori is correct by stating there is 'universal' attractiveness. However you are flawed into believing all social/psychological research is foolproof. It's not.

[Eve]

if you are a psychology major, then you would know that psychology is not an exact science. It theorizes and helps to explain social phenomena.

 

Also the men you described are not universally attractive. They're not particularly attractive to the opposite sex.

 

Precisely!

 

I do try and find humour in things. The following will only make sense if the article has been digested though..

 

Woman goes to the Doctors, 'I have been having problems with Jordan my son. He wont do as he is told in the supermarket'. Doctor looks at the child, 'Well Mam, the problem is that your child is ugly. In looking at the notes in front of me, your husband is also ugly. You are not that bad looking though by my estimations but this will need to be confirmed by a Psychologist at a later time. Now leave. I have nothing more to say on this matter'

 

No wonder people who study the hard sciences scoff at the social sciences! Some subjects for Masters Degrees should be classed as a waste of money!

 

Take care,

Eve xx

[purgatori]

if you are a psychology major, then you would know that psychology is not an exact science. It theorizes and helps to explain social phenomena.

 

Also the men you described are not universally attractive. They're not particularly attractive to the opposite sex.

 

Right, but that does not mean that one can simply disregard or discard the research on the basis of a personal hunch, especially when the research on human mating behavior is multi-disciplinary, and not limited only to psychology and sociology.

 

Which of the men are you referring to? The group that I said I think are attractive, or the group that I said women think are attractive?

 

No wonder people who study the hard sciences scoff at the social sciences! Some subjects for Masters Degrees should be classed as a waste of money!

 

The thing is, though, that they don't. Anyone who has any knowledge of modern research methods in psychology knows how stringent our standards for evidence are, and that our theories are constitued as much from related disciplines such as biology/neurobiology, neuroimaging, medicine, evolutionary biology, computing science, and to a lesser extent chemistry, as from clinical data, experimental/pseudo-experimental studies, descriptive/naturalistic research, etc. Psychology might not be able to lay claim to the sort of exactitude that accompanies research findings in chemistry and physics (unsurprising given the complexity of our subjects and the fact that we are, in a sense, our subjects), but it nevertheless abides by the scientific method, and is therefore a proper science that is treated as such by the wider scientific community.

 

If you can demonstrate that the research methods of the key theories/findings in modern psychology violate the strictures of the scientific method, then go for it: doing so would certainly carry more weight than your cute little parody there.

Edited January 2, 2010 by purgatori

[Eve]

Right, but that does not mean that one can simply disregard or discard the research on the basis of a personal hunch, especially when the research on human mating behavior is multi-disciplinary, and not limited only to psychology and sociology.

 

If you can demonstrate that the research methods of the key theories/findings in modern psychology violate the strictures of the scientific method, then go for it: doing so would certainly carry more weight than your cute little parody there.

 

 

 

Well I enjoyed it..

 

In total I would say that the 'scale' to decide who is unattractive and who isnt would need to be clarified. Right now, in looking at how this 'research' was conducted it looks like the scale is determined by the researchers themselves who cannot be just seen to be objective. Quite cheeky really and understandable only if the research was paid for by 'Hello' magazine or something.

 

BTW, I agree that a multi-disciplinary focus is highly significant but would still say that science, (as everything else) is vastly open to misuse. So I dont share your confidence in scientism in this instance but do understand that different approaches are needed for different levels of focus.

 

Take care,

Eve xx

[c489]

Re the post re "ugly, no hope". I'm writing this as someone who is very average looking, although I don't think I'm ugly (and, by the way, I suspect the poster isn't ugly at all - I think that term applies to very few people indeed). I've struggled with my lovelife, although there have been some good things along the way.

 

I think it's certainly naive to suggest that looks don't matter, and I've often got rather cynical when I've heard people talking about "it's all about personality".

 

All I would say is that my mind was changed a bit back in the summer. I briefly dated a girl back who I wasn't attracted to physically (I actually struggled to look at her in that way at all to start with) but over a few dates I really started to like her, and it was amazing how my sexual attraction to her grew as that happened. In the end it didn't work out - but it was nothing to do with looks, actually she ended it because I became keener than she was!

 

As I say, I'm not trying to suggest that looks don't matter. But, without wishing to sound mushy, how you feel about yourself will make a lot of difference. If you're happy with yourself as a person, and can accept your looks (whereever you think they are in the scale of things) then you may well find that things just start to happen.

 

All the best

[Peitho]

No wonder people who study the hard sciences scoff at the social sciences!

Guilty as charged.

My background in the ‘hard’ science certainly influences my view on this.

However, I am open to change my opinion.

 

 

Incorrect. Although humans do indeed display some degree of idiosyncratic tendencies when it comes to evaluating potential mates, there is still a remarkably high degree of consensus between individuals when it comes to determining what qualities go into constituting greater or lesser 'mate value.' Even in the domain of appearance, there are certain universally prized features, such as symettry, for example. I haven't read the article in question, because I have no need to: there is already a robust body of scientific research on human mating preferences, with which I am reasonably conversant. I suggest that you consult this research before writing off such notions as merely being 'someone's opinions.'

 

Although I find a bit strange that you comment on the article you haven’t read, I am open to hear the scientific stand on the universal beauty.

 

I would genuinely appreciate if you shared your expertise in that area.

 

How does the science measure the attractiveness?

[randall]

Guilty as charged.

Although I find a bit strange that you comment on the article you haven’t read, I am open to hear the scientific stand on the universal beauty.

 

I would genuinely appreciate if you shared your expertise in that area.

 

How does the science measure the attractiveness?

 

Science doesn't measure it. Psychologists who claim it does are lying. The studies on attractiveness are based on surveys and 'studies' that ask people what they find attractive. These are usually as simple as showing particpants photos and asking them to rate various aspects of attractiveness. Psychologists then come up with theories to match the results and call it science.

 

The results are not repeatable with different groups of people beyond a vague similarity in results (eg, you'll see a majority, say 80%, in every group like certain features). Unfortunately psychologists and hacks use these weak studies to extrapolate what they feel are universal truths.

 

It's just amusing when years later so many of these studies that present day psychologists swear by are thrown out by later studies. For example, hack psychologists probably claim slim hour-glass women are the universal/common shape associated with attractive women. Yet in the 17th and 18th centuries larger women were more attactive. So it's a social thing and not a scientific truth. Unfortunately psychologists are pretty weak at hard science and seem to think surveys and studies constitute hard fact.

Edited January 3, 2010 by randall

[purgatori]

Guilty as charged.

My background in the ‘hard’ science certainly influences my view on this.

However, I am open to change my opinion.

 

 

 

 

Although I find a bit strange that you comment on the article you haven’t read, I am open to hear the scientific stand on the universal beauty.

 

I would genuinely appreciate if you shared your expertise in that area.

 

How does the science measure the attractiveness?

 

By computing an individual's 'mate value', or aggregate desirable traits. If a man has symmetrical features, a certain hip to waist ratio, a high status/paying occupation, good conversational skills, a high degree of heterosocial competency, etc. then we can estimate that such an individual ranks quite highly in terms of mate value, because he possesses features which are valued by most women. Of course though, how much attraction an individual experiences to any other is also situation dependent, as well as being strongly mediated by environmental influences exerted upon development throughout the lifespan.

 

Despite randall's claim that studies in this area are limited to 'asking people what they find attractive', the truth of the matter is that multiple research methodologies including field/quasi-experimental studies (such as organizing and observing 'blind date' events), neuroimaging and plethysmograph studies, and yes, surveys. Importantly, research in this area confirms predictions that have emerged out of evolutionary biology/psychology, namely that humans, like every other sexual species, assess potential mates for certain markers which are most suggestive of traits which future offspring may gain a survival advantage from. Other studies have confirmed the prediction that individuals who possess higher mate value and/or are rated as being attractive will enjoy greater access to sexual partners, and that those partners tend to, themselves, possess relatively high mate value. In other words, not only is the data set in this case very robust, but it both confirms certain theoretical predictions, as well as makes predictions which have themselves been confirmed. This is not to say that there aren't methodological problems in studies conducted thus far, and that later evidence may bring many of the findings into question; but then, scientific findings are always tentative and subject to later correction, unless you're dealing with something like pure mathematics.

 

Anyway, I cannot hope to provide anything like a comprehensive view of this area of research, so I highly recommend that you perform searches for the following in Google Scholar or whatever scientific database you prefer: 'mate value' 'human mating preferences' 'human sexual selection' 'facial preferences' 'physical attractiveness' 'socioeconomic status attractiveness', etc. -- and read some of the articles that turn up for yourself.

[cognac]

Science doesn't measure it. Psychologists who claim it does are lying. The studies on attractiveness are based on surveys and 'studies' that ask people what they find attractive. These are usually as simple as showing particpants photos and asking them to rate various aspects of attractiveness. Psychologists then come up with theories to match the results and call it science.

 

The results are not repeatable with different groups of people beyond a vague similarity in results (eg, you'll see a majority, say 80%, in every group like certain features). Unfortunately psychologists and hacks use these weak studies to extrapolate what they feel are universal truths.

 

It's just amusing when years later so many of these studies that present day psychologists swear by are thrown out by later studies. For example, hack psychologists probably claim slim hour-glass women are the universal/common shape associated with attractive women. Yet in the 17th and 18th centuries larger women were more attactive. So it's a social thing and not a scientific truth. Unfortunately psychologists are pretty weak at hard science and seem to think surveys and studies constitute hard fact.

 

Larger women were more attractive for the same reason Donald Trump is attractive. In a time period and nation where 3/4's of the population lives on bread and water, being fat is a sign of plentiful resources you can share with a lucky peasant man.

[randall]

Larger women were more attractive for the same reason Donald Trump is attractive. In a time period and nation where 3/4's of the population lives on bread and water, being fat is a sign of plentiful resources you can share with a lucky peasant man.

 

Yeah, which is why claims that psychologists have discovered some universal way of measuring attractiveness is so misleading and self-serving. Their studies do little more than confirm current trends and are not some universal law. I work in hard sciences (primarily aerospace engineering and computer engineering) and I'm not impressed by psychologists who try to use fancy terms to justify their work.