10 ms·

There's a lot of data out there showing that attractiveness, fitness (as in, not obese), and tallness are all massive biases in the workplace -- much bigger in

There's a lot of data out there showing that attractiveness, fitness (as in, not obese), and tallness are all massive biases in the workplace -- much bigger in many studies than biases around gender and ethnicity even. I don't know why these forms of identity are almost entirely ignored, while we obsess over others. Imagine if tech companies published the height, weight, and facial symmetry of their workforces, like they do now with race and gender.

et-al 5y ago
Being unattractive is not a protected group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
- albntomat0 5y ago
  Just because something isn't a legally protect group, doesn't mean discriminating against that group is acceptable.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    This is why I dislike the idea of protected groups. Some people do seem to think that the existence of protected groups means it's ok to discriminate against anyone who isn't protected. But law is only about power. It has little relation to morality.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > This is why I dislike the idea of protected groups. Some people do seem to think that the existence of protected groups means it's ok to discriminate against anyone who isn't protected. In law, for private parties, that is expressly the case. Absent protected classes people could, and with them they still can outside of them, differentiate treatment on any basis they choose. For government action under US Constitutional law, it's expressly not the case, but discrimination on other bases has a lower threshold for Constitutional acceptability (rational basis vs. strict/intermediate scrutiny.) (Essentially every non-random decision affecting treatment of people discriminates on some basis.)
      - leereeves 5y ago
        And every group that is now protected was once not protected. Were, say, the actions taken against Alan Turing acceptable simply because they were legal at the time? I must say, I'm surprised to see you defending prejudice. From what I've read of your posts here over the years, I thought you were against such things.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Were, say, the actions taken against Alan Turing acceptable simply because they were legal at the time Kind of an odd example to use to defend that “protected classes make people think other discrimination is acceptable” argument, since protected classes didn't exist then and people thought that discrimination was perfectly acceptable. > I must say, I'm surprised to see you defending prejudice. I must say, I’m surprised you think I am defending prejudice.
        leereeves 5y ago
        > I must say, I’m surprised you think I am defending prejudice. You are literally arguing in favor of the idea that "it's ok to discriminate against anyone who isn't protected". Prejudice is still prejudice even if the particular characteristic on which that prejudice is based isn't protected (yet...). > Kind of an odd example to use to defend ... I'm not using that example to defend my statement, I'm using it to discredit the idea that the law can be used as a basis or guide for morality. Edit to add: Feel free to have the last word. I can't respond at the moment because I'm "posting too fast", even though I'm posting less often than some others here... I will say simply that the point is to oppose discrimination against a marginalized group. I don't understand your confusion about that.
        et-al 5y ago
        Laws are delayed reflections of our collective morality (or more cynically, the morality of the elites). Here, the concept of protected groups are to keep companies in check. I'm curious about your proposal for curbing discrimination.
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      The whole point of job interviews is to perform discrimination according to some non-protected categories - for example, preferring more competent people over less competent people, more hardworking people over slackers, more reliable people over less reliable people, more experienced people over less experienced people, cheaper people over more expensive people, etc, etc. It definitely is okay to discriminate over personal attributes, character and previous experiences, and employ the person who you want to work for you - which is not necessarily the same as the person 'most deserving of a job'. Freedom of association is an important right, people should be free to choose whom to deal with, and imposing restrictions on it (like the protected groups) is morally justified as an exception only if required by important reasons, for example, preventing the social harm done by racial discrimination in employment; in the default condition people should be free to refuse to associate with anyone simply because they don't want to.
      - leereeves 5y ago
        > people should be free to choose whom to deal with, and imposing restrictions on it (like the protected groups) is morally justified as an exception only if required by important reasons That reason is the same for any marginalized group: "preventing the social harm done by X discrimination". Why not simplify the statement and say "preventing the social harm done by discrimination"? Accepting discrimination against some people is inherently a hateful position.
        PeterisP 5y ago
        Forcing people to work with someone against their will or preference also causes harm, and if society wants to do that it has to justify that the harm prevented is significantly greater than that - which is true for some types of discrimination and not true for others. If nobody in the village wants to work with Bob because he's an asshole, they should be able to discriminate against Bob (and other assholes) as the social harm of Bob being unemployed and unemployable does not justify the social harm caused by the state coercing people to work with Bob, violating their freedom to choose. It would be harmful (and IMHO immoral) to prohibit discrimination against assholes. Freedom of association - and the freedom of not-associating it implies - is not inherently hateful, it is one of fundamental human rights that should be curtailed only if other alternatives aren't feasible - merely having some reason or some harm prevented is not necessarily enough.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Just because something isn't a legally protect group, doesn't mean discriminating against that group is acceptable. For private action, it literally does mean that it is legally acceptable. What people find acceptable other than legally is subjective and will have infinite differences of opinion.
    - c0nducktr 5y ago
      > For private action, it literally does mean that it is legally acceptable. I don't believe the parent poster was implying it wasn't legally acceptable. They were making a value statement.
    - n4r9 5y ago
      What is legally acceptable is a laggy mirror of what society finds morally acceptable. Morals evolve over time and are gradually accepted by the majority before becoming law.
- hammock 5y ago
  Should it be?
mrshadowgoose 5y ago
I've always been amazed at the hypocrisy of all of this. A portion of attractiveness is culture-invariant, and quantifiable based on measurable factors such as facial symmetry. Study after study have demonstrated that humans innately treat attractive individuals better than others. Yet we obsess over skin colour and genitalia, without a single peep about the physical appearance discrimination that most humans take part in.
- burnished 5y ago
  Because that starts to verge on telling you who to find fuckable instead of who to treat as a peer. Plus the level of baggage is completely different. I'm surprised at your surprise.
  - mrshadowgoose 5y ago
    I think you've mistakenly scoped my point to solely "the dating game". Physical discrimination in that scope if of course, completely understandable, and IMO completely okay. However, it's been shown repeatedly that "fuckability" results in better treatment in most other aspects of one's life, including things like job opportunities, career progression, and general treatment in non-romantic social interactions. All of these are scopes that modern society hyperfocuses on when race or gender are involved. That's the hypocritical aspect of it.
    - burnished 5y ago
      Whats hypocritical about it? What are you possibly going to do about it that isn't already covered under a more general and better fitting "lets find ways to treat each other fairly that minimizes the opportunity for our monkey brains to fuck up and associate traits and characteristics with superficial features. there has got to be a way to do this, jesus christ"? By focusing on just that aspect, fuckability, you imply that there is something different about this trait that needs special attention outside of finding ways to deal with each other fairly despite the tendency to judge based on appearances. There isn't a way that doesn't start getting weird immediately.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bobbylarrybobby 5y ago
I've wondered if much of the gender discrimination in the workplace can be attributed to height discrimination, as women tend to he shorter. Is there data on how men and women fare adjusted for height? (This is obviously separate from any sexual harassment etc in the workplace -- I'm referring to compensation and promotions)
- WesternWind 5y ago
  There's some great studies, (and, as I recall a few HN famous anecdotes) on just the effects of using feminine names in emails or resumes vs masculine ones.
hammock 5y ago
>There's a lot of data out there showing that attractiveness, fitness (as in, not obese), and tallness are all massive biases in the workplace -- much bigger in many studies than biases around gender and ethnicity even. Not only are they biases, there is some data that shows attractiveness, height, etc actually correlate with competency. It might be a true stereotype (self-fulfilling or not).
- cafeoh 5y ago
  Quite naturally I would imagine it makes you more competent in every role where you can be discriminated on those basis (customer-facing, or any job that's heavy on communication). Could make sense for the social worker role, less so for the IT specialist, but I'd be interested to know your source.
  - autoexec 5y ago
    I'm hoping he comes up with a source too, but I imagine that the people we're all naturally biased toward generally get evaluated in the most favorable light so it'd be weird if there wasn't some data that showed they were more competent.
cassepipe 5y ago
The reason they are "obsessed over", or taken into account as someone else may put it, although I'll give you that any kind of social/cultural identity tends to lead to some form of obsession in some people's minds, is because they are deemed significant for locally dependent social/historical/political reasons which I am sure I don't need to give you examples of but will anyway : colonialism, slavery, genocides... You name it Whereas discrimination exist based of height, weight, and facial symmetry, because they are a little less based on cultural factors, they tend to cross group boundaries and not allow for culture wars because of its more evenly distributed nature. The interesting thing is that the fact that you took the time to write a comment about them and that they are becoming a social issue is because the culture spheres tend to be bigger and more intertwined with globalization. People who share the same issues can find eachother and aggregate across cultural identities. The incel "movement" is a product of the world wide web, I don't think it would have been possible in another era. On another hand, I don't think we need to establish hierarchies between discriminations. Although discriminations share a lot of their logic, they also often respond to their own logic. I am all in favor to put in place more mechanisms to avoid it, like any kind of anonymization, but I don't they are an argument against what's already put in place against more socially recognized ones.
- ajwfew 5y ago
  Attractiveness is not at all evenly distributed among races. Neither is height or weight. And "attractiveness" is still massively influenced by cultural perceptions.
  - cassepipe 5y ago
    1. My point was inside any group, there is a certain distribution of attractiveness relative to the attractiveness "standard" of that group. And that somehow, a certain level of (culturally defined) attractiveness is somehow not enough to constitute a group (or used to be not enough at least) Or maybe is that because attractiveness is relative enough at the individual level so that it is hard for an individual to be systematically identified by others ? Or is it because to self-identify as unattractive/attractive tends to have a negative social costs in social relationships ? I must admit I don't know. I am just throwing hypotheses now. Of course, now there is a form of more or less globalized standard of attractiveness that is more influenced by group that have the more power but that also has to open itself, the more globalized it becomes. But that globalized standard also challenges locally defined attractiveness. I take this is what you mean when you say that "attractiveness is not evenly distributes among races". (Instagram seems to be the symbol of that struggle for cultural dominance in the realm of attractiveness standards as it is massively used as a tool to capitalize on one's own attractiveness.) 2.Which is why I wrote "a little less" because I did not want to digress too much.
turing_complete 5y ago
Putting physical fitness in the same bucket as height, gender, and race is a category error. Whether someone is fit or obese tells you a lot about their lifestyle and daily choices. You cannot change your facial structure or tallness (yet), but fitness is definitely a signal for discipline and mental strength.
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  ...but fitness is definitely a signal for discipline and mental strength No, it doesn't. Not being fit merely tells you that they might have lifestyle choices different from your own. Or they might be female with PCOS. Or they might have a disease that causes fatigue or pain when they exercise. Heck, that might be the very reason for their desk job. Or a history of food insecurity and really need the insurance the job provides to be able to afford therapy, if they are even to that point. Heck, they might just not be knowledgeable enough to separate bad health advice from good health advice and despite trying things out, feel stuck. It isn't like I learned how to care for my body in school, after all. Health class focused on STDs and parts of the body while physical education classes were more focused on sports, rules, and being a good teammate. The reality is that being overweight only tells you that they are overweight.
  - turing_complete 5y ago
    Thanks, it is not absolute certainty, it is, as I said, a "signal": It's about statistical inference. That is what you do when you meet somebody or conduct a job interview. We are not all-knowing beings. The overwhelming majority are overweight because their diet is poor and because they move very little. It's not rocket science.
    - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
      You know you have this bias, though. People use the same sort of language for racism, homophobia, and such things. You can train yourself to think of exceptions to overcome some of the bias and honestly, if you are interviewing people, you should be doing so actively. It took me longer to type up the reply than to think of valid reasons this could happen to someone, after all. As you said, it isn't rocket science.
iamacyborg 5y ago
At my company we joke about how many of us hired during covid are really short. Remote hiring seems to have been a great leveller, at least on that one front.

et-al 5y ago

Being unattractive is not a protected group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

albntomat0 5y ago
Just because something isn't a legally protect group, doesn't mean discriminating against that group is acceptable.
- leereeves 5y ago
  This is why I dislike the idea of protected groups. Some people do seem to think that the existence of protected groups means it's ok to discriminate against anyone who isn't protected. But law is only about power. It has little relation to morality.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > This is why I dislike the idea of protected groups. Some people do seem to think that the existence of protected groups means it's ok to discriminate against anyone who isn't protected. In law, for private parties, that is expressly the case. Absent protected classes people could, and with them they still can outside of them, differentiate treatment on any basis they choose. For government action under US Constitutional law, it's expressly not the case, but discrimination on other bases has a lower threshold for Constitutional acceptability (rational basis vs. strict/intermediate scrutiny.) (Essentially every non-random decision affecting treatment of people discriminates on some basis.)
    - leereeves 5y ago
      And every group that is now protected was once not protected. Were, say, the actions taken against Alan Turing acceptable simply because they were legal at the time? I must say, I'm surprised to see you defending prejudice. From what I've read of your posts here over the years, I thought you were against such things.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Were, say, the actions taken against Alan Turing acceptable simply because they were legal at the time Kind of an odd example to use to defend that “protected classes make people think other discrimination is acceptable” argument, since protected classes didn't exist then and people thought that discrimination was perfectly acceptable. > I must say, I'm surprised to see you defending prejudice. I must say, I’m surprised you think I am defending prejudice.
        leereeves 5y ago
        > I must say, I’m surprised you think I am defending prejudice. You are literally arguing in favor of the idea that "it's ok to discriminate against anyone who isn't protected". Prejudice is still prejudice even if the particular characteristic on which that prejudice is based isn't protected (yet...). > Kind of an odd example to use to defend ... I'm not using that example to defend my statement, I'm using it to discredit the idea that the law can be used as a basis or guide for morality. Edit to add: Feel free to have the last word. I can't respond at the moment because I'm "posting too fast", even though I'm posting less often than some others here... I will say simply that the point is to oppose discrimination against a marginalized group. I don't understand your confusion about that.
        et-al 5y ago
        Laws are delayed reflections of our collective morality (or more cynically, the morality of the elites). Here, the concept of protected groups are to keep companies in check. I'm curious about your proposal for curbing discrimination.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    The whole point of job interviews is to perform discrimination according to some non-protected categories - for example, preferring more competent people over less competent people, more hardworking people over slackers, more reliable people over less reliable people, more experienced people over less experienced people, cheaper people over more expensive people, etc, etc. It definitely is okay to discriminate over personal attributes, character and previous experiences, and employ the person who you want to work for you - which is not necessarily the same as the person 'most deserving of a job'. Freedom of association is an important right, people should be free to choose whom to deal with, and imposing restrictions on it (like the protected groups) is morally justified as an exception only if required by important reasons, for example, preventing the social harm done by racial discrimination in employment; in the default condition people should be free to refuse to associate with anyone simply because they don't want to.
    - leereeves 5y ago
      > people should be free to choose whom to deal with, and imposing restrictions on it (like the protected groups) is morally justified as an exception only if required by important reasons That reason is the same for any marginalized group: "preventing the social harm done by X discrimination". Why not simplify the statement and say "preventing the social harm done by discrimination"? Accepting discrimination against some people is inherently a hateful position.
      - PeterisP 5y ago
        Forcing people to work with someone against their will or preference also causes harm, and if society wants to do that it has to justify that the harm prevented is significantly greater than that - which is true for some types of discrimination and not true for others. If nobody in the village wants to work with Bob because he's an asshole, they should be able to discriminate against Bob (and other assholes) as the social harm of Bob being unemployed and unemployable does not justify the social harm caused by the state coercing people to work with Bob, violating their freedom to choose. It would be harmful (and IMHO immoral) to prohibit discrimination against assholes. Freedom of association - and the freedom of not-associating it implies - is not inherently hateful, it is one of fundamental human rights that should be curtailed only if other alternatives aren't feasible - merely having some reason or some harm prevented is not necessarily enough.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Just because something isn't a legally protect group, doesn't mean discriminating against that group is acceptable. For private action, it literally does mean that it is legally acceptable. What people find acceptable other than legally is subjective and will have infinite differences of opinion.
  - c0nducktr 5y ago
    > For private action, it literally does mean that it is legally acceptable. I don't believe the parent poster was implying it wasn't legally acceptable. They were making a value statement.
  - n4r9 5y ago
    What is legally acceptable is a laggy mirror of what society finds morally acceptable. Morals evolve over time and are gradually accepted by the majority before becoming law.
hammock 5y ago
Should it be?

mrshadowgoose 5y ago

I've always been amazed at the hypocrisy of all of this. A portion of attractiveness is culture-invariant, and quantifiable based on measurable factors such as facial symmetry. Study after study have demonstrated that humans innately treat attractive individuals better than others. Yet we obsess over skin colour and genitalia, without a single peep about the physical appearance discrimination that most humans take part in.

burnished 5y ago
Because that starts to verge on telling you who to find fuckable instead of who to treat as a peer. Plus the level of baggage is completely different. I'm surprised at your surprise.
- mrshadowgoose 5y ago
  I think you've mistakenly scoped my point to solely "the dating game". Physical discrimination in that scope if of course, completely understandable, and IMO completely okay. However, it's been shown repeatedly that "fuckability" results in better treatment in most other aspects of one's life, including things like job opportunities, career progression, and general treatment in non-romantic social interactions. All of these are scopes that modern society hyperfocuses on when race or gender are involved. That's the hypocritical aspect of it.
  - burnished 5y ago
    Whats hypocritical about it? What are you possibly going to do about it that isn't already covered under a more general and better fitting "lets find ways to treat each other fairly that minimizes the opportunity for our monkey brains to fuck up and associate traits and characteristics with superficial features. there has got to be a way to do this, jesus christ"? By focusing on just that aspect, fuckability, you imply that there is something different about this trait that needs special attention outside of finding ways to deal with each other fairly despite the tendency to judge based on appearances. There isn't a way that doesn't start getting weird immediately.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bobbylarrybobby 5y ago

I've wondered if much of the gender discrimination in the workplace can be attributed to height discrimination, as women tend to he shorter. Is there data on how men and women fare adjusted for height? (This is obviously separate from any sexual harassment etc in the workplace -- I'm referring to compensation and promotions)

WesternWind 5y ago
There's some great studies, (and, as I recall a few HN famous anecdotes) on just the effects of using feminine names in emails or resumes vs masculine ones.

hammock 5y ago

>There's a lot of data out there showing that attractiveness, fitness (as in, not obese), and tallness are all massive biases in the workplace -- much bigger in many studies than biases around gender and ethnicity even. Not only are they biases, there is some data that shows attractiveness, height, etc actually correlate with competency. It might be a true stereotype (self-fulfilling or not).

cafeoh 5y ago
Quite naturally I would imagine it makes you more competent in every role where you can be discriminated on those basis (customer-facing, or any job that's heavy on communication). Could make sense for the social worker role, less so for the IT specialist, but I'd be interested to know your source.
- autoexec 5y ago
  I'm hoping he comes up with a source too, but I imagine that the people we're all naturally biased toward generally get evaluated in the most favorable light so it'd be weird if there wasn't some data that showed they were more competent.

cassepipe 5y ago

The reason they are "obsessed over", or taken into account as someone else may put it, although I'll give you that any kind of social/cultural identity tends to lead to some form of obsession in some people's minds, is because they are deemed significant for locally dependent social/historical/political reasons which I am sure I don't need to give you examples of but will anyway : colonialism, slavery, genocides... You name it Whereas discrimination exist based of height, weight, and facial symmetry, because they are a little less based on cultural factors, they tend to cross group boundaries and not allow for culture wars because of its more evenly distributed nature. The interesting thing is that the fact that you took the time to write a comment about them and that they are becoming a social issue is because the culture spheres tend to be bigger and more intertwined with globalization. People who share the same issues can find eachother and aggregate across cultural identities. The incel "movement" is a product of the world wide web, I don't think it would have been possible in another era. On another hand, I don't think we need to establish hierarchies between discriminations. Although discriminations share a lot of their logic, they also often respond to their own logic. I am all in favor to put in place more mechanisms to avoid it, like any kind of anonymization, but I don't they are an argument against what's already put in place against more socially recognized ones.

ajwfew 5y ago
Attractiveness is not at all evenly distributed among races. Neither is height or weight. And "attractiveness" is still massively influenced by cultural perceptions.
- cassepipe 5y ago
  1. My point was inside any group, there is a certain distribution of attractiveness relative to the attractiveness "standard" of that group. And that somehow, a certain level of (culturally defined) attractiveness is somehow not enough to constitute a group (or used to be not enough at least) Or maybe is that because attractiveness is relative enough at the individual level so that it is hard for an individual to be systematically identified by others ? Or is it because to self-identify as unattractive/attractive tends to have a negative social costs in social relationships ? I must admit I don't know. I am just throwing hypotheses now. Of course, now there is a form of more or less globalized standard of attractiveness that is more influenced by group that have the more power but that also has to open itself, the more globalized it becomes. But that globalized standard also challenges locally defined attractiveness. I take this is what you mean when you say that "attractiveness is not evenly distributes among races". (Instagram seems to be the symbol of that struggle for cultural dominance in the realm of attractiveness standards as it is massively used as a tool to capitalize on one's own attractiveness.) 2.Which is why I wrote "a little less" because I did not want to digress too much.

turing_complete 5y ago

Putting physical fitness in the same bucket as height, gender, and race is a category error. Whether someone is fit or obese tells you a lot about their lifestyle and daily choices. You cannot change your facial structure or tallness (yet), but fitness is definitely a signal for discipline and mental strength.

Broken_Hippo 5y ago
...but fitness is definitely a signal for discipline and mental strength No, it doesn't. Not being fit merely tells you that they might have lifestyle choices different from your own. Or they might be female with PCOS. Or they might have a disease that causes fatigue or pain when they exercise. Heck, that might be the very reason for their desk job. Or a history of food insecurity and really need the insurance the job provides to be able to afford therapy, if they are even to that point. Heck, they might just not be knowledgeable enough to separate bad health advice from good health advice and despite trying things out, feel stuck. It isn't like I learned how to care for my body in school, after all. Health class focused on STDs and parts of the body while physical education classes were more focused on sports, rules, and being a good teammate. The reality is that being overweight only tells you that they are overweight.
- turing_complete 5y ago
  Thanks, it is not absolute certainty, it is, as I said, a "signal": It's about statistical inference. That is what you do when you meet somebody or conduct a job interview. We are not all-knowing beings. The overwhelming majority are overweight because their diet is poor and because they move very little. It's not rocket science.
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    You know you have this bias, though. People use the same sort of language for racism, homophobia, and such things. You can train yourself to think of exceptions to overcome some of the bias and honestly, if you are interviewing people, you should be doing so actively. It took me longer to type up the reply than to think of valid reasons this could happen to someone, after all. As you said, it isn't rocket science.

iamacyborg 5y ago

At my company we joke about how many of us hired during covid are really short. Remote hiring seems to have been a great leveller, at least on that one front.