- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 549
- Reaction score
- 1
I was looking at the PR message boards and came across a post that sorta bugged me because I thought it was so incorrect. Here it is, and let the debate begin. The following is NOT my words:
"To answer your question [about looks helping in admissions process]: usually good looks convey an advantage and, for whatever reason, med students tend to be better than average looking...It could be that my school is biased or that I pay a disproportionate amount of attention to the hotties. Or it could be that your perception is biased. Did you go to an expensive undergrad with a lot of rich kids. Rich kids tend to have rich daddies whose dissatisfaction with mediocrity often doesn't stop at their choice of mates, and whose reproductive options are above average. Net effect: rich babies are born better looking. Add better diet, braces, rhinoplasty, etc. and you have a population that's clearly above the aesthetic norm. If that's your sample population, it will bias your perception of how truly homely average is." -written by screen name psychic
I, LizardKing, argued against this person's theory with the following: The theory that rich people tend to be better looking based on the factors you mentioned doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I think it might be true when you compare individuals below the poverty line to those way above it...but poverty-stricken people might only look worse because of limited access to nutrition, health care, hygiene, etc. I really don't think this difference in looks--a difference I don't think even exists--has anything to do with genetics. But if you're comparing mega-rich people to middle class individuals, the theory is even more way off. In many cases, mega-rich people tend to be ambitious to an extreme. Although there aren't any empirical data on this, I think there might be an inverse relationship between how good you look and how extreme you are in terms of ambition. Now good-looking people can and often are motivated--there are plenty of exceptions--but how many have you met who are also extremely (we're talking Napoleonic) cutthroat? Not many I suppose. Bill Gates, for instance, is one of the most ruthless, shrewd business types but not attractive at all. In any case, if a mega-rich person who tends to be not so good-looking finds a spouse who is good-looking, this mating does not necessarily result in good-looking children, right? Basically a really ugly person + an attractive individual will most likely result in a mediocre looking child. So, if most people in the population are mediocre looking, what has the mega-rich person really done by mating with a really attractive person to make his/her children stand out compared to the rest of the population in terms of looks? Not much. I conclude my arguments by saying that the theory of rich people being better looking is not only flawed but also dangerous--it can lead to a false sense of superiority and a different type of discrimination.
This makes for an interesting debate and I'm curious to hear what SDNers feel about it.
"To answer your question [about looks helping in admissions process]: usually good looks convey an advantage and, for whatever reason, med students tend to be better than average looking...It could be that my school is biased or that I pay a disproportionate amount of attention to the hotties. Or it could be that your perception is biased. Did you go to an expensive undergrad with a lot of rich kids. Rich kids tend to have rich daddies whose dissatisfaction with mediocrity often doesn't stop at their choice of mates, and whose reproductive options are above average. Net effect: rich babies are born better looking. Add better diet, braces, rhinoplasty, etc. and you have a population that's clearly above the aesthetic norm. If that's your sample population, it will bias your perception of how truly homely average is." -written by screen name psychic
I, LizardKing, argued against this person's theory with the following: The theory that rich people tend to be better looking based on the factors you mentioned doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I think it might be true when you compare individuals below the poverty line to those way above it...but poverty-stricken people might only look worse because of limited access to nutrition, health care, hygiene, etc. I really don't think this difference in looks--a difference I don't think even exists--has anything to do with genetics. But if you're comparing mega-rich people to middle class individuals, the theory is even more way off. In many cases, mega-rich people tend to be ambitious to an extreme. Although there aren't any empirical data on this, I think there might be an inverse relationship between how good you look and how extreme you are in terms of ambition. Now good-looking people can and often are motivated--there are plenty of exceptions--but how many have you met who are also extremely (we're talking Napoleonic) cutthroat? Not many I suppose. Bill Gates, for instance, is one of the most ruthless, shrewd business types but not attractive at all. In any case, if a mega-rich person who tends to be not so good-looking finds a spouse who is good-looking, this mating does not necessarily result in good-looking children, right? Basically a really ugly person + an attractive individual will most likely result in a mediocre looking child. So, if most people in the population are mediocre looking, what has the mega-rich person really done by mating with a really attractive person to make his/her children stand out compared to the rest of the population in terms of looks? Not much. I conclude my arguments by saying that the theory of rich people being better looking is not only flawed but also dangerous--it can lead to a false sense of superiority and a different type of discrimination.
This makes for an interesting debate and I'm curious to hear what SDNers feel about it.
