Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Not a Flat Earth (more findings about looks)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Not a Flat Earth (more findings about looks)

post #1 of 20
11/2/08 at 5:31pm
Thread Starter 
Because it's a good find and lately there hasn't been much sharing to counter any skepticism about the important of appearance, you get to read Asset or Distraction? The Link Between Physical Attractiveness and Academic Achievement During Adolescence

Funny how anyone who recently was an adoloscent probably wouldn't be surprised, but many others might be surprised and disturbed by the ramifications.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 20
11/2/08 at 6:34pm
Jesus, you're really obsessed aren't you.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 20
11/9/08 at 5:30pm
"Lookism"...that just made me laugh. Legislation based on personal impression? What a bunch of bull.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 20
11/10/08 at 2:33pm
What I want to know is where this grant money is coming from.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 20
11/11/08 at 3:58pm
Thread Starter 
Lookism is a form of appearance discrimination. So, in essence, is racism.

Would there be a President Obama if the man, with the same natural inclinations and coloring, had an unfriendly face and a less athletic build? Would he even have become a politician?

Think of the costs to society when people aren't able to contribute as much as they could. The tricky part is discovering how to intervene early in life.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 20
11/11/08 at 4:03pm
Please stop.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 20
11/11/08 at 5:04pm
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 20
11/11/08 at 6:20pm
What utter shit you spout when talking about looks and politicians.

Reply
Reply
post #9 of 20
11/11/08 at 6:49pm
Thread Starter 
He looked better when he was younger, when he got started. And older candidates aren't expected to be 'sexy.' Also, the UK probably is not as superficial as the United States, and its political system is different. FYI, there are a slew of recent findings about looks and elections.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 20
11/12/08 at 2:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensimageconsultant View Post
He looked better when he was younger, when he got started. And older candidates aren't expected to be 'sexy.' Also, the UK probably is not as superficial as the United States, and its political system is different. FYI, there are a slew of recent findings about looks and elections.

i highly doubt the UK isnt as superficial as the states. considering london is practically the fashion capital of the world. (after paris, arguably second place.)
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 20
11/12/08 at 3:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensimageconsultant View Post

I wonder why its not published

dl
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 20
11/12/08 at 4:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensimageconsultant View Post
Lookism is a form of appearance discrimination. So, in essence, is racism.

Would there be a President Obama if the man, with the same natural inclinations and coloring, had an unfriendly face and a less athletic build? Would he even have become a politician?

Think of the costs to society when people aren't able to contribute as much as they could. The tricky part is discovering how to intervene early in life.

...It explains how this pretty little number became the queen:



And there are MANY unattractive politicians. People blame something on them being ugly because they lack charisma and self respect. There is probably a fraction of a percent of people who come off unattractive even though they take good care of themselves (weight, dental, skin etc) are good talkers, dress well, socially active etc. I think this idea of lookism is bullshit, no downtown hip bars don't hire fat waitresses why should they. I know I'll never get a job in a hip gym because I am not that muscular, but I don't go and sue them. Looks are SO subjective that really if a person has the initiative to care for themselves and has something going on in their life them even though they might not have the same opportunities but they will live a perfectly normal life.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 20
11/12/08 at 5:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by likeitaloud View Post
...It explains how this pretty little number became the queen:
The monarchy are not politicians.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 20
11/12/08 at 7:11pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by borderline View Post
The monarchy are not politicians.

One less point to address, thanks Not that it means politicians in the UK are reliant on their looks as much as American politicians are, but indeed it's possible that Britons generally are as superficial as Americans.

In Body Consciousness, someone posted a link to a good article that has a well-written summary of looks and career advancement. (There's more valuable information on other pages.)

So combating looksism is not necessarily about regulating businesses where appearance obviously does matter. And 'beauty' is not mostly subjective, which probably is the most irritating claim repeatedly made about looks.

Why does the subject make people so angry and opposed to learning from research findings? For example, do people genuinely not know how much harder it is for those with lifelong below-average attractiveness? Then they should wonder why they don't know such individuals.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 20
11/12/08 at 7:33pm
too long a read about yet another ism. cliffs?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Not a Flat Earth (more findings about looks)