I'm not insulting you, I'm disagreeing with you. I misread your post, which is obvious from my reply.

Grow up.

you're right...

...nothing insulting to see here...move along now.

I'll take the grow up advice under consideration. Probably won't execute it ITT though b/c this was enjoyable.

Barron

1.
a) Largest mutual fund company in the world.
b)Top 6 largest banks in the world.
c)Currently for one of the largest energy companies in the US. Market cap of approx 50 billion.
Thats the end of #1.

#2 - clicking on a website and looking through their staff photos isn't exactly scientific.

I admitted it may have an impact, probably more so at the lower levels. At the higher levels, I'd say it has less of an impact, and I believe its substantially lower than what some of you believe.

First quote was while I was under the wrong impression. Doesn't count.

Second quote is the same as the first. When I asked where you worked, it was because I was trying to gauge how you could think this, as there may have been some bias which would be apparent due an industry/field I might not have considered.

Third quote was a lighthearted comment. Its called a joke.

And what was your role at these institutions? My bank has unattractive tellers that doesn't mean they have unattractive executives.

Actually it is. Assuming my selection was random, that all lawyers that work there have profiles, and that I'm qualified to judge physical attractiveness accurately that is exactly how a scientific study would be done.

Lol.

I do not know how Barron or Henry could be more clear. Do you genuinely not understand what they are saying, or are you trolling for sport? Serious question.

There couldn't be bias in the industry/particular firm/area the firm is located/lack of sufficient sample size/bias in the observer......

I think that would be obvious to a person who did NOT misread the post, obviously.

No. It isn't limited to one firm. In Canada we have seven law firms that matter and then a bunch of good boutique firms. I have friends at all of them. The distribution of physical attractiveness is not the same as the general population.

In the last few weeks I attended an exclusive charity event, a gala opening for a new building, and got invited to watch a hockey game in a corporate box. At none of these events was the distribution even close to the general population.

Have you never walked around the financial district during business hours? Compare that to walking around a random mall.

Sure. I've walked around the financial district in NYC, and I don't particularly remember myself thinking how attractive everyone is. I remember people being dressed well, but not particularly attractive. This could be due differences in our perception.

I don't think your last example is a very good one. There are extremely attractive people at malls in my area. There are extremely attractive people walking around center city in my area. Kmart, not so much. King of Prussia mall? Yes.

Either way, this is more of a question of our individual perceptions and biases. I may just not like girls in suits, and you might. This isn't the correct way to go about it.

Once again, you have friends at law firms and your perception is they are extremely more attractive than the general population. I've been to year end christmas parties, group events, charity events, corporate fundraisers, celebrity golf outings etc plenty of times and I don't remember ever being particularly aware of how much more attractive people were than what you keep saying is the "normal distribution of attractiveness".

Were people dressed nicer, and in general more aware of their appearance? Yes. Better looking? I didn't think so. I'm not saying you don't think they were in your experiences, I'm just not sure if this is the right way to go about it.

wil318466 what number would you rate your looks on a scale of 1-10.

You forgot insurance adjusters. What a homely bunch.

I think I can sum up my side of this argument with this article :

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/Careers/07/08/looks/


Admittedly, it might make a difference. I just don't think it makes a big difference, definately not as much of a difference as some of you seem to be coming off as it being. Not even close, especially the higher up you go.

Pretty much, this is what I'm arguing:

"How does this reconcile with all the research? Hiring managers say it is the appearance of confidence they find attractive, not the presence of physical beauty. And they contend that attractiveness has more to do with how you carry yourself and the energy you exude -- rather than having perfect features or a great physique.

According to Gordon Wainright, author of "Teach Yourself Body Language," anyone can increase their attractiveness to others if they maintain good eye contact, act upbeat, dress well (with a dash of color to their wardrobe) and listen well. "


You may believe its attractiveness, but I think confidence comes hand in hand with attractiveness in most cases, thereby making people believe it is attractiveness. I think it has more to do with confidence. I know plenty of fat bald guys that are successful. I know some tall good looking guys that are successful too. But they all are confident, hard working, good communicators, and I don't attribute their success to their level of attractiveness.

Does this make sense, or no?

And for the above poster, I would rate myself a 9. heh, only kidding.

He's a 12 obv.

99.8% of the population is undatable according to wil.

Response from wil: That's not true. I've personally dated .3% of my ugly ass co-workers. I stalk them first obv, scanning their work photos for candidates.

Hey thats not fair. Henry was the one looking through staff photos on the internet.

lol this is getting brutal. i'm laughing out loud.

i haven't literally laughed out loud in who knows how long:

i actually did w/ that one LOLLL

Barron

BTW does your lady boss whose "looks can stop a clock" know that you were posting how ugly she was on a public internet forum on work time today? That you used her as an example to disprove an argument over whether looks correlate with success?

BTW what energy company did you work for again?

she's not my boss, and I purposely left it very vague.

"looks that can stop a clock" is a term of endearment in some circles.

Yeah, I started repeatedly facepalming when wil started posting in this thread. But now it's just hilarious.

I didn't find this funny.

Why? I mean, I didn't maek the best argument, and made plenty of mistakes in the way I presented my side, but I'm much more correct than those two are.

Admittedly, I have to conceded I backpedaled and will accept it indeed does have an effect, but to the degree that was claimed is absurd.

Is that the circle of sloppy obese people with club feet and missing teeth?

Previously, wil wrote:

I don't look at management and say "Damn, they are all good looking people".

I've had managers who led over 30 people who had a club foot and a missing tooth. His boss weighed over 260 lbs. Both were capable, intelligent, strong leaders. Their looks had nothing to do with it. One made approx 150k, his boss made easily in the 300s.

I currently work with a female manager who's looks could stop a clock. Another director of her level is over 300 lbs, and sloppy looking. Both are extremely good leaders. Both make tons of money.

I'm starting to wonder where you guys worked. I'm not kidding.

lots of fail in this thread

barron already provided a few studies on the relationship between physical appearance and earnings, but here is a classic from a top economics journal: https://webspace.utexas.edu/hamermes...eautyAER94.pdf

It was one tooth.