3 ms·

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-Ph

by 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.

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.