7 ms·

Until this perception of attractive people being more trustworthy, smarter, etc. changes (it's probably not going to change), how do we incorporate this informa

Until this perception of attractive people being more trustworthy, smarter, etc. changes (it's probably not going to change), how do we incorporate this information into our lives and careers? My opinion: lose weight. Or rather, reduce your body fat percentage. It's not as hard as people make it out to be. Look at the hot or not composite index. Notice the correlation? The numbers are inversely correlated with their body fat percentage. If you are wearing great new clothes, are clean, are groomed, and are 30+ pounds overweight, you're going to look less attractive (and therefore less successful and trustworthy) to most people than someone who is wearing average clothes and is in decent shape. And I'm not talking about see-your-abs shape, though of course that's even better. I mean just getting to a healthy weight. It seems to me it's one thing that a lot of people with desk jobs overlook or fail to take seriously, that can mean a huge increase in quality of life in a lot of different ways.

scarmig 14y ago
What if you're short? Maybe devote your political activities to pushing for a height tax... http://www.nber.org/papers/w14976 http://www.nber.org/papers/w14976 But yeah, from an economically utilitarian perspective, you could solve this by differentially taxing the attractive.
- bherms 14y ago
  Harrison Bergeron, anyone?
  - scarmig 14y ago
    Great story, everyone should read it: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
    - bherms 14y ago
      Also, film adaptation that was phenomenally well done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvqsv1pPSbg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvqsv1pPSbg
  - gwern 14y ago
    Er, no. An economist would be horrified by Harrison Bergeron, as demonstrating the most damaging possible form of egalitarianism and nothing like the grandparent proposal; the point of a height tax is not to make tall people shorter - whatever good or purpose is being fulfilled by tall people is still fulfilled after the tax, and the tax serves the useful function of raising revenue while also not distorting any investments or consumptions or plans.
    - scarmig 14y ago
      Exactly. Though it bears pointing out that Mankiw was doing this as a parody of progressive taxation, not as a serious proposal.
      - gwern 14y ago
        I'm not sure it's such a bad idea. It's a non-distorting tax and the unearned benefits of height seem clearly established. Why not?
        irishcoffee 14y ago
        Better idea: Lets tax everyone who gives tall people advantages. The tall person didn't choose to be tall. Their parents didn't have a say in the matter either. Shall we tax them for making a tall heir? You know who had a say in tall people having "advantages"? Everyone who gives them said advantage. Tax them.
        lutusp 14y ago
        With all respect, bad idea. The next logical step would be the ability to choose any arbitrary trait to punish for producing an unfair advantage, like being smart (an overrated trait in many circumstances). Abraham Lincoln was both tall and smart -- such a program would have ruined him. :) Also, ideas like this only add to the power of governments. I think most people will argue there should be a limit to governmental power. People differ on what that limit should be, but I think most would agree that taxing height or some other trait goes too far.
bherms 14y ago
I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately we're in a country (assuming US) where everyone wants handouts and an even playing field, regardless of their lifestyle choices. People demand their offices install ramps for mobility scooters when they're morbidly obese and it's discriminatory not to oblige, but try arguing your work should open later because you drink too much every night. Overeating and copious alcohol consumption are one and the same, IMO. It's also easy for others to assume everything they don't have was given to others or comes naturally. Out of shape people give me hell all the time for being in excellent physical condition, but they don't know about the 10 miles of running every day and 6 hours of training I put into wrestling for most of my life, or that I run and lift weights daily and watch what I eat. To them, they're not willing to work on their body to have what others have, but are willing to bitch about it. Granted some people are just born unattractive, but it's amazing what a little focus on your appearance can do to change how you look and are perceived. We can extrapolate unattractiveness out a little bit and look at appearance as well. Would you be fired from an office job for dressing like a bum, smelling like body odor, and looking disheveled all the time? Most likely. Is that discrimination? I would argue it's not.
- scarmig 14y ago
  "everyone wants handouts" "an even playing field" The argument there would appear to be that the people arguing for a level playing field want no one to get handouts (or, alternatively, for them to get compensatory handouts). Which, in a world with perfect knowledge and perfect implementation, I could probably get behind a government policy enforcing that. After all, a rich kid getting access to a million dollar trust fund is getting a handout just as much as the single mom picking up some food stamps. Or a person with a pretty face making more money than someone with a pock-marked face does simply by that fact. Requiring perfect knowledge and perfect implementation are, of course, insurmountable caveats.
- glogla 14y ago
  Of course. "Stop being fat, it's easy, look at me how fit I am" is pretty much the same "Stop being poor, it's easy, look at how rich I am."
rprospero 14y ago
Another way of incorporating this is with the classic "Never trust a man in a suit" We know that we give extra weight to the arguments of good looking individuals. Guys in suits generally look better than guys in sweatpants. Therefore, if a guy in a suit tells you something, it's not really as good of an idea as you think it is. He's also not as competent or hard working as you think he is. To combat this, you should try harder to find faults in the well dressed. Hence, never trust a man in a suit.
- beachstartup 14y ago
  no, to combat this, you need to wear a nicer suit. if you are in a room full of suits and you are wearing casual clothes, you better own the fucking company or nobody is going to listen to a damn thing you're saying. the suit makes others, and yourself more authoritative, even to yourself. this is a highly social activity/phenomenon you're describing, you can't just power through and ignore it because you know how computers work.
  - rprospero 14y ago
    I'm sorry. I guess that I didn't make myself clear. I meant that distrusting people in suits should be used along side wearing one. You're absolutely right that this is a universal social bias that you can't erase simply through an act of will. Everyone will judge you on your appearance and you need act accordingly. However, if you don't try to overcome your own bias, you're ignoring people for no good reason. To put it differently, the first lesson you should learn from Monster Cable is that, with proper marketing, you can get people to pay $60 for a $1 cable. However, the second lesson you shouldn't buy Monster Cable.
- chatmasta 14y ago
  Why are people in Silicon Valley so against suits? I like dressing up. I look damn good in a suit and I want to wear one every day.
  - jodrellblank 14y ago

scarmig 14y ago

What if you're short? Maybe devote your political activities to pushing for a height tax... http://www.nber.org/papers/w14976 http://www.nber.org/papers/w14976 But yeah, from an economically utilitarian perspective, you could solve this by differentially taxing the attractive.

bherms 14y ago
Harrison Bergeron, anyone?
- scarmig 14y ago
  Great story, everyone should read it: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
  - bherms 14y ago
    Also, film adaptation that was phenomenally well done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvqsv1pPSbg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvqsv1pPSbg
- gwern 14y ago
  Er, no. An economist would be horrified by Harrison Bergeron, as demonstrating the most damaging possible form of egalitarianism and nothing like the grandparent proposal; the point of a height tax is not to make tall people shorter - whatever good or purpose is being fulfilled by tall people is still fulfilled after the tax, and the tax serves the useful function of raising revenue while also not distorting any investments or consumptions or plans.
  - scarmig 14y ago
    Exactly. Though it bears pointing out that Mankiw was doing this as a parody of progressive taxation, not as a serious proposal.
    - gwern 14y ago
      I'm not sure it's such a bad idea. It's a non-distorting tax and the unearned benefits of height seem clearly established. Why not?
      - irishcoffee 14y ago
        Better idea: Lets tax everyone who gives tall people advantages. The tall person didn't choose to be tall. Their parents didn't have a say in the matter either. Shall we tax them for making a tall heir? You know who had a say in tall people having "advantages"? Everyone who gives them said advantage. Tax them.
        lutusp 14y ago
        With all respect, bad idea. The next logical step would be the ability to choose any arbitrary trait to punish for producing an unfair advantage, like being smart (an overrated trait in many circumstances). Abraham Lincoln was both tall and smart -- such a program would have ruined him. :) Also, ideas like this only add to the power of governments. I think most people will argue there should be a limit to governmental power. People differ on what that limit should be, but I think most would agree that taxing height or some other trait goes too far.

bherms 14y ago

I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately we're in a country (assuming US) where everyone wants handouts and an even playing field, regardless of their lifestyle choices. People demand their offices install ramps for mobility scooters when they're morbidly obese and it's discriminatory not to oblige, but try arguing your work should open later because you drink too much every night. Overeating and copious alcohol consumption are one and the same, IMO. It's also easy for others to assume everything they don't have was given to others or comes naturally. Out of shape people give me hell all the time for being in excellent physical condition, but they don't know about the 10 miles of running every day and 6 hours of training I put into wrestling for most of my life, or that I run and lift weights daily and watch what I eat. To them, they're not willing to work on their body to have what others have, but are willing to bitch about it. Granted some people are just born unattractive, but it's amazing what a little focus on your appearance can do to change how you look and are perceived. We can extrapolate unattractiveness out a little bit and look at appearance as well. Would you be fired from an office job for dressing like a bum, smelling like body odor, and looking disheveled all the time? Most likely. Is that discrimination? I would argue it's not.

scarmig 14y ago
"everyone wants handouts" "an even playing field" The argument there would appear to be that the people arguing for a level playing field want no one to get handouts (or, alternatively, for them to get compensatory handouts). Which, in a world with perfect knowledge and perfect implementation, I could probably get behind a government policy enforcing that. After all, a rich kid getting access to a million dollar trust fund is getting a handout just as much as the single mom picking up some food stamps. Or a person with a pretty face making more money than someone with a pock-marked face does simply by that fact. Requiring perfect knowledge and perfect implementation are, of course, insurmountable caveats.
glogla 14y ago
Of course. "Stop being fat, it's easy, look at me how fit I am" is pretty much the same "Stop being poor, it's easy, look at how rich I am."

rprospero 14y ago

Another way of incorporating this is with the classic "Never trust a man in a suit" We know that we give extra weight to the arguments of good looking individuals. Guys in suits generally look better than guys in sweatpants. Therefore, if a guy in a suit tells you something, it's not really as good of an idea as you think it is. He's also not as competent or hard working as you think he is. To combat this, you should try harder to find faults in the well dressed. Hence, never trust a man in a suit.

beachstartup 14y ago
no, to combat this, you need to wear a nicer suit. if you are in a room full of suits and you are wearing casual clothes, you better own the fucking company or nobody is going to listen to a damn thing you're saying. the suit makes others, and yourself more authoritative, even to yourself. this is a highly social activity/phenomenon you're describing, you can't just power through and ignore it because you know how computers work.
- rprospero 14y ago
  I'm sorry. I guess that I didn't make myself clear. I meant that distrusting people in suits should be used along side wearing one. You're absolutely right that this is a universal social bias that you can't erase simply through an act of will. Everyone will judge you on your appearance and you need act accordingly. However, if you don't try to overcome your own bias, you're ignoring people for no good reason. To put it differently, the first lesson you should learn from Monster Cable is that, with proper marketing, you can get people to pay $60 for a $1 cable. However, the second lesson you shouldn't buy Monster Cable.
chatmasta 14y ago
Why are people in Silicon Valley so against suits? I like dressing up. I look damn good in a suit and I want to wear one every day.
- jodrellblank 14y ago