"Looks are just noise" is the conventional wisdom. I'd be surprised if there was no correlation at all, between "looking competent" and "actual competence". Is

"Looks are just noise" is the conventional wisdom. I'd be surprised if there was no correlation at all, between "looking competent" and "actual competence". Isn't beauty (for want of a better word) associated with symmetry? And isn't that associated with healthy development of body and mind? And isn't that a positive factor for competence? I think people react against "looking good" because we have a tendency to over-value it; but dismissing it entirely (as an indicator) is simply the opposite error. On the other hand, being naturally gifted (and relying on it), instead of working hard, can undermine one's success: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-raising-smart-kids http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-raising-sm... In Harding's case (thanks for link; I'm not from the US), much judgment seems to dwell on his oratorical skill, not on his "actual competence" as a statesman. If voters liked his speeches, and that was their purpose, then his oration showed competence with respect to its goal. Disclaimer: I really know nothing about him. I guess a simple solution to my original question is to select a field where competence can be measured objectively (not politics!), where the actual correlation between "looking competent" and "actual competence" can be ascertained empirically. I'm sure this has been done already...