Originally Posted by Earthmover
In 1968, there was actually a study done by Emory social scientists that observed a fairly large sampling of males between 15-18 (n=1000) seeing whether their hobbies were (1) thought of by a sample of females (n=500) as a "bad" hobby or a "good" hobby, and (2) rated their looks on a scale of 1 to 10. What they found was that there was high correlation between a low attractiveness score and the number of "bad" hobbies the individual had. For example, a person with attractiveness around a 2 had something like 3.75 "bad" hobbies, while a person with A=9 would have around 2.5 "good" hobbies.
I think there might be some relevance to this whole thing of "good and bad hobbies".
People are treated differently in American society based upon looks. Very attractive people get more? or different kinds of attention compared to someone who may not be as attractive.
I guess this extra attention could be looked at as good or bad. But, IMO, a more attractive person will be faced with different issues than someone who is less attractive.
I have been following this thread and wanted to post earlier but it's a hard topic to dissect.
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
So I take it that nobody collects jars containing pickled animal foetuses or artwork and correspondance from jailed serial killers.
It looks like you may be one of the, uh, most attractive people on the universe considering those hobbies?