LinkedIn
Facebook
TwitterOne Man's Blog
Specialization is for Insects.
Posted on Jan 15, 2008 - 1:15am by John P. in Work
Sensationalist title, I know. But apparently it’s true.
The Economist cites a study by Dr. Daniel Hamermesh of the University of Texas:
The accumulating evidence suggests that physical characteristics do give clues about intelligence, that such clues are picked up by other people, and that these clues are also associated with beauty. And other work also suggests that this really does matter…. [Dr Hamermesh] has collected evidence from more than one continent that beauty really is associated with success—at least, with financial success. He has also shown that, if all else is equal, it might be a perfectly legitimate business strategy to hire the more beautiful candidate.
Even more unfairly, Dr Hamermesh found evidence that beautiful people may bring more revenue to their employers than the less-favored do.
Beauty may matter for business, but can’t the less naturally graced make up for biology with a little effort and a credit card? Dr. Hamermesh, unfortunately, dashed that hope as well.
Can you really fake the unfakeable signal? Dr Hamermesh’s research suggests that you can but, sadly, that it is not cost-effective—at least, not if your purpose is career advancement… he looked at how women’s spending on their cosmetics and clothes affected their income. The answer was that it did, but not enough to pay for itself in a strictly financial sense.
Thanks to Jessica Stillman for the original article “Should You Hire the More Beautiful Candidate? Ask an Economist“.
It’s a sad truth I notice as well. Watching a movie the other day I found myself generally uninterested at the beginning due to a lack of people who I perceived as beautiful. It was kind of a startling feeling. I think that pretty folks just radiate more confidence and give us the impression that we need to recognize them in some fashion. Subtle, but present nevertheless :)
Even more than this truth, I still don’t really understand what makes people “beautiful” except from some sociological influence!
Funny you mention Sociology :) In my sociology class years back we examined other cultures that focused more attention on the “fuller” people. Being thin was almost a sign of failure, lol.
In the US, I’d say it’s the careful balance of showing more flesh in subtle ways (necklines, etc.) combined with the appearance of being in shape and having desirable features (cut jawlines, eyes, shapely noses, etc.). Lastly it’s a matter of symmetry.
A good example is Ashley Simpson.. I never considered her attractive before her plastic surgery on her nose/face/boobs?/etc but when I watched her most recent video (out of my head), I was surprised at how hot I thought she was.
I was sad that I was subconsciously helping to support the self-alteration movement, but I couldn’t lie to myself, she was definitely hotter =/
I deserve money too! I’m not that beautiful though..lol
Does this go back to the old “Dress for Success” strategy? Outward appearance does matter, some of it can be just knowing how to dress (I don’t really need to see your tattoo when you reach up for a binder at corporate headquarters) and there are other things like being tall and having great hair.
I would also suggest people with the most positive traits like intelligence, athleticism, nun chuck skills, computer hacking skills, beauty, etc will be attracted to others with some combinations of positive traits so it may be that success and beauty are bred into people so that they are more inclined to be successful because it was a trait of the parents rather than a benefit of having good looks.
Tom. You sound like Jimmy the Greek.