5 ms·

"Teaching girls that their appearance is the first thing you notice tells them that looks are more important than anything." Hate to say it, but what if they a

by Tichy 15y ago

"Teaching girls that their appearance is the first thing you notice tells them that looks are more important than anything." Hate to say it, but what if they are? Lots of studies show that pretty people get further in life. Not that I mind girls being interested in other things, but perhaps the ideology should be kept in check. Even if a girl doesn't care about her looks, other people will, and she has to learn to deal with it.

derrida 15y ago
"Lots of studies show that pretty people get further in life." [citation needed]
- Tichy 15y ago
  http://lmgtfy.com/?q=prettier+people+get+further+in+life http://lmgtfy.com/?q=prettier+people+get+further+in+life You know, by saying "citation needed" what you actually say is "I don't really care for your opinion". If I wasn't so desperate to procrastinate, I should just ignore you. Why waste energy to educate you if you are obviously not interested in learning?
  - robertskmiles 15y ago
    Are you serious? > by saying "citation needed" what you actually say is "I don't really care for your opinion". You're saying "I don't care for your random opinion you could have pulled out of your ass with no correspondence to the real world, please demonstrate that you didn't just make that up." When you make a claim that you want to be taken seriously, cite your source. It's not hard, and it's sure as hell not anyone else's job. If you don't cite a source, people will reasonably assume that you have none, and disregard what you're saying. That's fine if you don't care, but I repeat, if you want to be taken seriously, cite your source. That job is yours and yours alone, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, only you can cite your source because only you actually know what source you used. Secondly, from a utilitarian efficiency perspective, if it takes X minutes to look up and post the source, then the total time spent when you cite your source is X, but if you don't, and everyone has to look it up themselves, the total time spent is X*n, where n is the number of people who read your post. For values of n greater than one, this is dumb. Do the sourcing once, to avoid duplication of effort.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      So is this the new standard for conversations in the age of the iPad? In any conversation, people will wildly touch their pads to get the sources to show off to their discussion partners? Doesn't make much sense to me... I consider HN a casual discussion, not a scientific discourse. I might snatch up some ideas - if they seem interesting, I can do research to learn more. If your first reaction to whatever I say is "you pulled that out of your ass" then yes, I think you don't have much respect towards me and not much interest in what I have to say, and I don't feel inclined to waste energy to educate you. I am not asking you to believe me, merely to consider ("ponder") what I say. If you are not willing to do that, maybe you should talk to somebody else instead. The point about efficiency is moot. A lot of people might already know the fact, and otherwise the first who expends the energy to do the research could just post it. On the other hand posting lots of sources could be irrelevant and a waste of time for the people who are already informed.
      - robertskmiles 15y ago
        > In any conversation, people will wildly touch their pads to get the sources to show off to their discussion partners? Well, in a 1-on-1 conversation, the value of n is 1, so, consistent with what I said, that would be dumb. In fact in a real-time face to face conversation, the time taken to cite the source is more like X(n+1), because while you're looking up the source, the listeners are likely to be just watching you look up the source, so you're using their time as well. Internet comment thread != real life conversation. > If your first reaction to whatever I say is "you pulled that out of your ass" then yes, I think you don't have much respect towards me My first reaction to an unsupported claim is "You could have pulled that out of your ass", because you could have. And no, I don't have that much respect for random strangers on the internet, because I don't know you, I don't have any reason to believe you have any relevant expertise, I don't know your motives, I can't observe your body language, tone and facial expressions, which would normally help me tell if a person knows what they're talking about. I have nothing to go on, other than what you write, and if what you write has no support, I can't assume there is support for what you write. > The point about efficiency is moot. A lot of people might already know the fact If people already know something, there's no point in posting it. The only people for whom reading your post is worthwhile are people who don't already know it. They are your audience, and they are the people you are neglecting. > On the other hand posting lots of sources could be irrelevant and a waste of time for the people who are already informed. You just stick in a link to the source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink), it doesn't really get in anyone's way. If they're curious about the source, they click the link.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- billswift 15y ago
  I don't think requests for citations by replying commenters is worthwhile. If a comment piques your interest, or simply your curiosity, Google Scholar can provide support (or disproof) readily and to a much greater, and especially more broad ranging, extent than is possible in a comment. And you will find a citation quicker than waiting for the original commenter to provide one, even if the person actually replies with a citation rather than just ignoring you. If you can't find support, then that is a good point to bring up in a reply. ADDED: Please note that I am not against people providing links to supporting information. The best way to get an upvote from me is to provide a link to an interesting paper or site.
- derrida 15y ago
  I apologize. I perhaps should have said 'What studies say that?'.
rmc 15y ago
Perhaps we should change the world's attitudes then.
- Tichy 15y ago
  Should go into Biotech then, I suppose.
- mbesto 15y ago
  I don't think this has anything to do with attitudes but is natural. Isn't attractiveness a sign of health? (for example - [1] the waist-to-hip ratio) Are we to defy natural selection? [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist-hip_ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist-hip_ratio
  - johnny22 15y ago
    been doin it for a long time already.. so why not.
  - JonnieCache 15y ago
    >Are we to defy natural selection? Hell yes. Have you ever been to a hospital? Defying natural selection is what makes us human beings.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      What do you mean? Cosmetic surgery?
      - JonnieCache 15y ago
        I mean pretty much everything that goes on in a hospital. Every time someone is prevented from dying, we are defying natural selection. In a sense, all use of technology raises us above our biology. In another sense of course, all our technological innovations are only a product of our naturally selected abilities, higher cognition, opposable thumbs etc. However, when you take this view, it renders the whole point moot, because it merges our higher social behaviours with our innate ones and erases the whole distinction.
gaius 15y ago
There are similar studies that tall men get promoted quicker. Girls at least have developed a means to compensate!

by Tichy 15y ago

derrida 15y ago

"Lots of studies show that pretty people get further in life." [citation needed]

Tichy 15y ago
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=prettier+people+get+further+in+life http://lmgtfy.com/?q=prettier+people+get+further+in+life You know, by saying "citation needed" what you actually say is "I don't really care for your opinion". If I wasn't so desperate to procrastinate, I should just ignore you. Why waste energy to educate you if you are obviously not interested in learning?
- robertskmiles 15y ago
  Are you serious? > by saying "citation needed" what you actually say is "I don't really care for your opinion". You're saying "I don't care for your random opinion you could have pulled out of your ass with no correspondence to the real world, please demonstrate that you didn't just make that up." When you make a claim that you want to be taken seriously, cite your source. It's not hard, and it's sure as hell not anyone else's job. If you don't cite a source, people will reasonably assume that you have none, and disregard what you're saying. That's fine if you don't care, but I repeat, if you want to be taken seriously, cite your source. That job is yours and yours alone, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, only you can cite your source because only you actually know what source you used. Secondly, from a utilitarian efficiency perspective, if it takes X minutes to look up and post the source, then the total time spent when you cite your source is X, but if you don't, and everyone has to look it up themselves, the total time spent is X*n, where n is the number of people who read your post. For values of n greater than one, this is dumb. Do the sourcing once, to avoid duplication of effort.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    So is this the new standard for conversations in the age of the iPad? In any conversation, people will wildly touch their pads to get the sources to show off to their discussion partners? Doesn't make much sense to me... I consider HN a casual discussion, not a scientific discourse. I might snatch up some ideas - if they seem interesting, I can do research to learn more. If your first reaction to whatever I say is "you pulled that out of your ass" then yes, I think you don't have much respect towards me and not much interest in what I have to say, and I don't feel inclined to waste energy to educate you. I am not asking you to believe me, merely to consider ("ponder") what I say. If you are not willing to do that, maybe you should talk to somebody else instead. The point about efficiency is moot. A lot of people might already know the fact, and otherwise the first who expends the energy to do the research could just post it. On the other hand posting lots of sources could be irrelevant and a waste of time for the people who are already informed.
    - robertskmiles 15y ago
      > In any conversation, people will wildly touch their pads to get the sources to show off to their discussion partners? Well, in a 1-on-1 conversation, the value of n is 1, so, consistent with what I said, that would be dumb. In fact in a real-time face to face conversation, the time taken to cite the source is more like X(n+1), because while you're looking up the source, the listeners are likely to be just watching you look up the source, so you're using their time as well. Internet comment thread != real life conversation. > If your first reaction to whatever I say is "you pulled that out of your ass" then yes, I think you don't have much respect towards me My first reaction to an unsupported claim is "You could have pulled that out of your ass", because you could have. And no, I don't have that much respect for random strangers on the internet, because I don't know you, I don't have any reason to believe you have any relevant expertise, I don't know your motives, I can't observe your body language, tone and facial expressions, which would normally help me tell if a person knows what they're talking about. I have nothing to go on, other than what you write, and if what you write has no support, I can't assume there is support for what you write. > The point about efficiency is moot. A lot of people might already know the fact If people already know something, there's no point in posting it. The only people for whom reading your post is worthwhile are people who don't already know it. They are your audience, and they are the people you are neglecting. > On the other hand posting lots of sources could be irrelevant and a waste of time for the people who are already informed. You just stick in a link to the source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink), it doesn't really get in anyone's way. If they're curious about the source, they click the link.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
billswift 15y ago
I don't think requests for citations by replying commenters is worthwhile. If a comment piques your interest, or simply your curiosity, Google Scholar can provide support (or disproof) readily and to a much greater, and especially more broad ranging, extent than is possible in a comment. And you will find a citation quicker than waiting for the original commenter to provide one, even if the person actually replies with a citation rather than just ignoring you. If you can't find support, then that is a good point to bring up in a reply. ADDED: Please note that I am not against people providing links to supporting information. The best way to get an upvote from me is to provide a link to an interesting paper or site.
derrida 15y ago
I apologize. I perhaps should have said 'What studies say that?'.

rmc 15y ago

Perhaps we should change the world's attitudes then.

Tichy 15y ago
Should go into Biotech then, I suppose.
mbesto 15y ago
I don't think this has anything to do with attitudes but is natural. Isn't attractiveness a sign of health? (for example - [1] the waist-to-hip ratio) Are we to defy natural selection? [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist-hip_ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist-hip_ratio
- johnny22 15y ago
  been doin it for a long time already.. so why not.
- JonnieCache 15y ago
  >Are we to defy natural selection? Hell yes. Have you ever been to a hospital? Defying natural selection is what makes us human beings.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    What do you mean? Cosmetic surgery?
    - JonnieCache 15y ago
      I mean pretty much everything that goes on in a hospital. Every time someone is prevented from dying, we are defying natural selection. In a sense, all use of technology raises us above our biology. In another sense of course, all our technological innovations are only a product of our naturally selected abilities, higher cognition, opposable thumbs etc. However, when you take this view, it renders the whole point moot, because it merges our higher social behaviours with our innate ones and erases the whole distinction.

gaius 15y ago

There are similar studies that tall men get promoted quicker. Girls at least have developed a means to compensate!