The abstract seems to deliberately construct a misrepresentation and uses it as motivation for the paper: "Common maxims about beauty suggest that attractivenes

The abstract seems to deliberately construct a misrepresentation and uses it as motivation for the paper: "Common maxims about beauty suggest that attractiveness is not important in life." The authors go on to imply that those maxims are meant to assert that something "is the case" when they are obviously asserting a "should be the case". Kind of silly, no? Unless there really are maxims that assert "looks are not important in life at the current moment in time, you will never be judged by your attractiveness today" -- but I've never heard any of these. The three maxims that the paper names are all either of the "should" form or not at all related to "importance" -- the first claims relativity from person to person, not importance, the second asserts a "should", and the third is totally unrelated to actual social conditions (the "life" in "attractiveness is not important in life"). So the paper seems to exist for its own strawman, but I'll have to read the whole thing...