Apparently, looks really do matter. If the author's premise is true, society is already Gattica-like without need for those pesky dna-tests. What I find interesting is that apparently there's a bit of science going on as regards the whole beauty-thing. Really interesting--Russ and I have long decried greater society's slavish devotion to what we call "boring beauty", and perhaps there's something to that.
Then again, there's the empirical angle, which's intriguing. I'm no fan of Marilyn Monroe or Twiggy, but apparently what they both have in common with the oh-so lemurly Audrey Hepburn is a 0.7 waist/hip ratio, and that's considered important. It makes you wonder if one day public gyms will offer, for the proverbial nominal fee, a quantitative "beauty analysis". In one way it's really interesting, and in another, quite discomfiting. None of us like to think of ourselves as automata....
8 comments:
STILL maintain that Audrey Hepburn was The Quintessential Beauty of the 20th century, inside and out...and the last to have any class whatsoever amongst all the horrible hags of the industry...but I grew up on her movies so I admittedly am biased.
No arguments there!
This has been known for some time in the employment world, where better-looking or taller people are much more likely to be hired.
I do want to throw in that along with the scientific beauty stuff (eye/head ratio, facial symmetry, etc) there is what I propose is an unquantifiable aspect of "attractiveness", which would inlude a mix of "beauty", body movement, facial expression, intelligence, and (arguably more important than any of these) smell - both on a conscious and unconsious or pheremonal level.
Thus people who are pretty in pictures but stunning in person, and people who are stunning in photos but somehow "unattractive" when you meet them.
I suppose it could be reduced to attractive=beauty + charisma, but that definitely isn't the whole story.
and we don't know *anyone* like that (cough bookseller)(cough not me)
I think that this varies somewhat. While pheromones are quite important, they don't operate over the distances at which my head has been turned. :0)
I remember reading once about perceived attractiveness and the ability to pay attention to one who is physically attractive. This is especially important in my line of work as a college instructor. Turns out that people pay more attention to instructors who aren't hard to look at, generally give them more positive reviews, and are more patient with their idiosyncrasies than to instructors who are not.
Excellent article.
I have taken a fairly serious look at the matter, and here in my corporate world, I find that to a great extent, basic beauty judgments do indeed tell a story.
Barring injuries and allowing for inherent build (if you have a barrel chest, you are more likely to be thicker in the waist as well) , injuries, and a bit of middle-aged spread, I have clearly seen that those who keep themselves in better shape maintain a generally more positive attitude (critical to teamwork and innovation), and are much better at finding solutions to problems, rather than problems to solutions.
Conversely, barring medical issues, who is more likely to have a lingering sense of listnessness or ennui? The person who has generally taken care of himself, or the person who allows himself to fall into neglect?
Given that, it's no surprise that good looks do a better job of conveying authority and success, particularly given the ability of generally competent people to "work with what they have" features-wise, if they actually choose to do so. And I think the author is correct in taking Americans to task for castigating looks as it is now unfortunately common for financial success to be castigated as having "won life's lottery," ... rather than having done the fiscal equivalent of one's daily dozen.
Speaking of looks, here's a look at some landscapes:
http://catseye.blogs.com/
Post a Comment