5 ms·

Far from your Burger King straw men, there's even a very famous study, out of the UK if I'm not mistaken, that confirmed the thesis of black women being the lea

Far from your Burger King straw men, there's even a very famous study, out of the UK if I'm not mistaken, that confirmed the thesis of black women being the least attractive group across the whole spectrum of major ethnic groups. I mean, there must be one group, out of all, that would score lower than the others ain't there? Reality doesn't have to be politically correct at the end of the day.

Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
Source or it wont be discussed. But aside from that, and the inherent assumption that beauty standards are universal and biological which is a pretty big assumption. A slight societal preference does not lead to the conclusions people drew from the article. To give an example, taller men have a higher chance of being promoted. Fortune 500 CEOs are disproportionately tall compared to the general population. As a society we still promote meritocracy, and working hard. Not telling people who are 5'4 to just give up and be unemployed cause they will never be the CEO of Ford Motor company.
- lmm 4y ago
  > To give an example, taller men have a higher chance of being promoted. Fortune 500 CEOs are disproportionately tall compared to the general population. As a society we still promote meritocracy, and working hard. Not telling people who are 5'4 to just give up and be unemployed cause they will never be the CEO of Ford Motor company. Now you're moving the goalposts, which shows you knew your original claim was wrong. "It didn't happen, and if it did they deserved it" indeed.
narrator 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
compiler-guy 4y ago
Strangely, There doesn't have to be just one with a lower score than the others. One of the weirdest things about being human is that our preferences are neither rational nor consistent. The classic example in behavioural economics is with ice-cream flavors. If I prefer chocolate to strawberry and strawberry to vanilla, it doesn't follow that I prefer chocolate to vanilla. The preferences aren't transitive, and there doesn't exist a total preferences order.
- Brusco_RF 4y ago
  Thats a very interesting point that I've never considered. Where can I read more about that? Is there a study you can link me to?
  - compiler-guy 4y ago
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11483173/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11483173/ is one such study. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/preferences/#Tra https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/preferences/#Tra has an overview, note especially the paragraph about pair-wise comparisons.
- imtringued 4y ago
  But economists assume that preferences have a total order otherwise there wouldn't be a utility curve.
  - compiler-guy 4y ago
    Economists assume a utility curve in the same way that physicists assume spherical cows. They are a useful abstraction which help explain many things, but don't reflect reality completely. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/BehavioralEconomics.html https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/BehavioralEconomics.html

Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago

Source or it wont be discussed. But aside from that, and the inherent assumption that beauty standards are universal and biological which is a pretty big assumption. A slight societal preference does not lead to the conclusions people drew from the article. To give an example, taller men have a higher chance of being promoted. Fortune 500 CEOs are disproportionately tall compared to the general population. As a society we still promote meritocracy, and working hard. Not telling people who are 5'4 to just give up and be unemployed cause they will never be the CEO of Ford Motor company.

lmm 4y ago
> To give an example, taller men have a higher chance of being promoted. Fortune 500 CEOs are disproportionately tall compared to the general population. As a society we still promote meritocracy, and working hard. Not telling people who are 5'4 to just give up and be unemployed cause they will never be the CEO of Ford Motor company. Now you're moving the goalposts, which shows you knew your original claim was wrong. "It didn't happen, and if it did they deserved it" indeed.

narrator 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

compiler-guy 4y ago

Strangely, There doesn't have to be just one with a lower score than the others. One of the weirdest things about being human is that our preferences are neither rational nor consistent. The classic example in behavioural economics is with ice-cream flavors. If I prefer chocolate to strawberry and strawberry to vanilla, it doesn't follow that I prefer chocolate to vanilla. The preferences aren't transitive, and there doesn't exist a total preferences order.

Brusco_RF 4y ago
Thats a very interesting point that I've never considered. Where can I read more about that? Is there a study you can link me to?
- compiler-guy 4y ago
  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11483173/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11483173/ is one such study. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/preferences/#Tra https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/preferences/#Tra has an overview, note especially the paragraph about pair-wise comparisons.
imtringued 4y ago
But economists assume that preferences have a total order otherwise there wouldn't be a utility curve.
- compiler-guy 4y ago
  Economists assume a utility curve in the same way that physicists assume spherical cows. They are a useful abstraction which help explain many things, but don't reflect reality completely. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/BehavioralEconomics.html https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/BehavioralEconomics.html