20 ms·

Effects of physical attractiveness on political beliefs

43 points by hirundo 6y ago

imesh 6y ago
TLDR The effect exist but is very slight.
supernova87a 6y ago
The site is asking $25 to read the paper. This isn't a very accessible story, is it?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wiglaf1979 6y ago
Found a non-paywalled version of the paper. https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/about-dev.illinoisstate.edu/dist/2/123/files/2019/10/Peterson-Palmer-The-Effects-of-Physical-Attractiveness-on-Political-Attitudes.pdf https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/about-dev.illinoisstate.edu/di... I would guess this is the controversial part of the paper. "Further, we find that attractive individuals are more likely to identify with the Republican Party and more likely to be conservative. "
- KMag 6y ago
  It's unsurprising that people for whom the system is likely to work a bit better than average are, on average, a bit more sceptical about changing the system. But, it's good to have numbers to back up the intuition.
  - djaque 6y ago
    Another story could be that if the system is working for you, you're probably getting dental, can afford skincare, can splurge on the nice barber, etc.
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      These cosmetic factors have minimal impact on attractiveness.
      - badrabbit 6y ago
        Attractive people can roll around in mud and refuse to shower for a year and they'd still have plenty of suitors after them. But cosmetic factors can elevate otherwise average looking persons.
    - drak0n1c 6y ago
      They did "control for socioeconomic status", I assume that means levels of costly self-care were distributed across both political aisles when they were setting up the study.
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    It’s not the system, it’s people as such. Being attractive confers benefits pretty much universally. That should come as no surprise for a species that has been through millions of years of sexual selection. Otherwise, you are correct, the fallacy is to assume what works for you will work for others.
- rladd 6y ago
  Interesting. Because I find people who are Republican and “conservative” to be quite unattractive. And “conservative” is such a misnomer for what they are. They don’t want to conserve the environment or conserve civil liberties (freedom from authoritarianism), which would be conservative in a good way. They do want to conserve their privilege, so maybe that’s it.
  - mud_dauber 6y ago
    Seconded.
jeremiahh 6y ago
Poor people are ugly and on balance Democrat.
baryphonic 6y ago
I'm not surprised. In many cases, I think the causality arrow runs backwards, from beliefs to (un)attractiveness. A lot of attractiveness is inborn, but a surprising amount is also related to personal choice (such as weight, hair style, fashion choices, personal hygiene, grooming, body art, piercings and even scent). My personal experience has indicated that people on the Left are much more likely to disregard these attributes. Many on the Left take an "individualistic" approach to these attributes, where deviations from the "ideal" are a point of self expression (particularly with respect to hair, piercings, tattoos and weight); others on the Left attempt to "deconstruct" the "ideal" by actively subverting it. People on the Right tend to accept the "ideal" as desirable, and strive to achieve it.
- ivraatiems 6y ago
  You are right, I think, but maybe not seeing the whole picture as to why the left tries to break these standards down: Not everything you list is entirely a personal choice. Weight and scent are only a choice to a certain extent, as is available hairstyle. Choice of fashion, hairstyle, etc., are also culturally limited in many cases, or limited by where one lives and what one can access. That's the point of left-leaning deconstruction: to point out that what we take as the standard in these areas is no standard, just a cultural determination (which shuts some people out, or makes it hard for them unnecessarily) we've been told never to question. In my view, the right leaning response tends to be "yeah, but it's a determination that benefits us, so we like it."
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    Piercings, tattoos, unnatural hair colors and certain apparel commonly associated with "the left" - those are all tribal ornaments. They subvert or deconstruct nothing, they signal in-group/out-group membership. In terms of a natural instinct for aesthetics, I would argue that tribal ornaments are in fact generally unpleasant, which makes them honest signals. Certain African tribes have ornamentations that are outright mutilations. Similarly, as the ornaments of an out-group get appropriated by broader society, its ornaments must become more extreme to achieve the desired effect (e.g. the rise of facial tattoos). Furthermore, signaling society as a whole that you represent an out-group (and therefore a potential threat) confers various disadvantages, which also fits neatly into some oppression narrative that a proper leftist must endure.
mud_dauber 6y ago
Also: see "The Warren Harding" bias (Blink, Malcolm Gladwell).
Ijumfs 6y ago
We've known this for years. Ugly people are less apt to become successful or form relationships, so they will tend toward the socialist, big government type of beliefs looking to solve problems which they can't solve themselves. And it's now a trope, and a true one, that the radical leftist terrorist types like Antifa are by in large horrifically ugly people, inside and out.
- Yptur 6y ago
  lol

43 points by hirundo 6y ago

imesh 6y ago

TLDR The effect exist but is very slight.

supernova87a 6y ago

The site is asking $25 to read the paper. This isn't a very accessible story, is it?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

wiglaf1979 6y ago

Found a non-paywalled version of the paper. https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/about-dev.illinoisstate.edu/dist/2/123/files/2019/10/Peterson-Palmer-The-Effects-of-Physical-Attractiveness-on-Political-Attitudes.pdf https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/about-dev.illinoisstate.edu/di... I would guess this is the controversial part of the paper. "Further, we find that attractive individuals are more likely to identify with the Republican Party and more likely to be conservative. "

KMag 6y ago
It's unsurprising that people for whom the system is likely to work a bit better than average are, on average, a bit more sceptical about changing the system. But, it's good to have numbers to back up the intuition.
- djaque 6y ago
  Another story could be that if the system is working for you, you're probably getting dental, can afford skincare, can splurge on the nice barber, etc.
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    These cosmetic factors have minimal impact on attractiveness.
    - badrabbit 6y ago
      Attractive people can roll around in mud and refuse to shower for a year and they'd still have plenty of suitors after them. But cosmetic factors can elevate otherwise average looking persons.
  - drak0n1c 6y ago
    They did "control for socioeconomic status", I assume that means levels of costly self-care were distributed across both political aisles when they were setting up the study.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  It’s not the system, it’s people as such. Being attractive confers benefits pretty much universally. That should come as no surprise for a species that has been through millions of years of sexual selection. Otherwise, you are correct, the fallacy is to assume what works for you will work for others.
rladd 6y ago
Interesting. Because I find people who are Republican and “conservative” to be quite unattractive. And “conservative” is such a misnomer for what they are. They don’t want to conserve the environment or conserve civil liberties (freedom from authoritarianism), which would be conservative in a good way. They do want to conserve their privilege, so maybe that’s it.
- mud_dauber 6y ago
  Seconded.

jeremiahh 6y ago

Poor people are ugly and on balance Democrat.

baryphonic 6y ago

I'm not surprised. In many cases, I think the causality arrow runs backwards, from beliefs to (un)attractiveness. A lot of attractiveness is inborn, but a surprising amount is also related to personal choice (such as weight, hair style, fashion choices, personal hygiene, grooming, body art, piercings and even scent). My personal experience has indicated that people on the Left are much more likely to disregard these attributes. Many on the Left take an "individualistic" approach to these attributes, where deviations from the "ideal" are a point of self expression (particularly with respect to hair, piercings, tattoos and weight); others on the Left attempt to "deconstruct" the "ideal" by actively subverting it. People on the Right tend to accept the "ideal" as desirable, and strive to achieve it.

ivraatiems 6y ago
You are right, I think, but maybe not seeing the whole picture as to why the left tries to break these standards down: Not everything you list is entirely a personal choice. Weight and scent are only a choice to a certain extent, as is available hairstyle. Choice of fashion, hairstyle, etc., are also culturally limited in many cases, or limited by where one lives and what one can access. That's the point of left-leaning deconstruction: to point out that what we take as the standard in these areas is no standard, just a cultural determination (which shuts some people out, or makes it hard for them unnecessarily) we've been told never to question. In my view, the right leaning response tends to be "yeah, but it's a determination that benefits us, so we like it."
- gridlockd 6y ago
  Piercings, tattoos, unnatural hair colors and certain apparel commonly associated with "the left" - those are all tribal ornaments. They subvert or deconstruct nothing, they signal in-group/out-group membership. In terms of a natural instinct for aesthetics, I would argue that tribal ornaments are in fact generally unpleasant, which makes them honest signals. Certain African tribes have ornamentations that are outright mutilations. Similarly, as the ornaments of an out-group get appropriated by broader society, its ornaments must become more extreme to achieve the desired effect (e.g. the rise of facial tattoos). Furthermore, signaling society as a whole that you represent an out-group (and therefore a potential threat) confers various disadvantages, which also fits neatly into some oppression narrative that a proper leftist must endure.

mud_dauber 6y ago

Also: see "The Warren Harding" bias (Blink, Malcolm Gladwell).

Ijumfs 6y ago

We've known this for years. Ugly people are less apt to become successful or form relationships, so they will tend toward the socialist, big government type of beliefs looking to solve problems which they can't solve themselves. And it's now a trope, and a true one, that the radical leftist terrorist types like Antifa are by in large horrifically ugly people, inside and out.

Yptur 6y ago
lol