HERE’S JUST HOW MUCH IT PAYS TO BE CONVENTIONALLY ATTRACTIVE
We’ve come to expect impossible, even improbable standards of beauty to populate our magazines and our television shows. It’s another thing entirely to find they’ve invaded our workplace.
Watch Vox’s full video to see the many other ways these unrealistic beauty standards effect where we work.
Oh waaa. This is just typical Huff Post way to find some irrational way to make up a rationlization for the fake wage gap. No would should appolgize for being attractive.
"find they’ve invaded our workplace"
Actually no, though the measurements are modern, the phenomenon is ancient. Otherwise we would still look like apes.
I find this post to be true. I can see where other people would disagree, but I’ve always felt disadvantaged, both covertly and openly, for being ugly as fuck. I’m not gonna say I’m oppressed and start a activism movement over it, but I think there is some truth in this.
Is there any actual science behind attractive people being more competent? Because then, this would kind of make sense. Doubt there is any, though.
Actually, there is a lot more going on here than you think.
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, rather it is inborn, but every so often we get these campaigns (usually aimed at women) against the very concept of beauty and the human appreciation of attractive people. These campaigns are because “Western” society has brainwashed us with unrealistic standards of beauty which women in particular strive to emulate. Of course, without this “brainwashing” we’d naturally accept people for their “inner” beauty, or something…
Appreciation for novel traits (particularly secondary sex characteristics) are notable in sexual selection - look at the sexual dimorphism among birds of paradise as a result of persistent sexual selection. Similarly, in a reverse trend; novel, highly visible, and colourful traits seem enough to explain the evolution of light skin, hair and eyes among Europeans. Human physical variation is due to differences in sexual selection, rather than differences in notions of beauty.
We have an innate taste for natural beauty and virtuosity, not mediocrity. You’ll distinguish between fine art and toddler drawings for this reason. Even if you’re ethnocentric (which has it’s own set of evolutionary explanations) I bet you can still distinguish between the attractive and unattractive of other ethnic groups - and there is nothing much culturally conditioned about "European standards of beauty" for instance. Darwin noted as much:
Mr. Winwood Reade, however, who has had ample opportunities for observation, not only with the negroes of the West Coast of Africa, but with those of the interior who have never associated with Europeans, is convinced that their ideas of beauty are on the whole the same as ours. Mr. Reade found that he agreed with the negroes in their estimation of the beauty of the native girls; and that their appreciation of the beauty of European women corresponded with ours. They admire long hair, and use artificial means to make it appear abundant; they admire also a beard, though themselves very scantily provided. Mr. Reade feels doubtful what kind of nose is most appreciated; a girl has been heard to say, “I do not want to marry him, he has got no nose;” and this shows that a very flat nose is not admired (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in relation to Sex, 2nd ed.)
An explanation for all this looks to be mutational load. For instance, it’s actually a lack of deleterious mutations, not ‘good’ genes ‘for healthy,’ ‘for fit’ or ‘for smart’ that confer increased intelligence among individuals. Attractiveness may signify that an individual possesses a low level of genetic load. If someone is dumb and ugly chances are they possess a higher degree of genetic load. Figures…
For this reason identifying what is healthy and unhealthy becomes perfectly normal human behaviour — those funny looking kids burdened with higher mutational loads come in many flavours; fragile-X kids don’t look the same as those with Down syndrome, for instance. Pathogen avoidance, too, explains stigmatisation of obese people. Health, by whatever means identified, is paramount in nature.
Is attractiveness linked to competence? Perhaps. At minimum, good looks are by and large associated with health. They also reflect mate quality, naturally. A bias toward attractiveness is human nature.
More importantly, you cannot address these issues assuming individual attraction and taste is all a result of some culturally imprinted phenomena, which I imagine is what most people assume both the cause and solution to this is. There’s something more innate going on here.