[Closed] pretty people do better than ugly people....

i work in the public sector and our lab is brimming with very attractive well presented young women

oh and as its a big university there are approximately 10000 female students aged about 19+ wandering around

i do however look like i slept in a bus shelter

Bernie Ecclesttone has done alright!

Maybe the DWP ban all attractive people from working there then.

Or perhaps some start pretty but the relentless bureaucracy, stifling control over innovation and general drab working conditions make everyone turn ugly after a while.

it might actually explain SiB's point. Irrespective of how good looking you were when you started, by the time you've worked your way up to a succesful point in the organisation the conditions you work in has made you bitter and twisted. When you sleep you probably look pretty again but while your concious mind is active your face is just one snarling pit of fetid anger.

So, guys, if you were interviewing two people for a job, each with the same level of skill/education/motivation/coffee making ability and one was a hottie with a winning set of boobs while the other was a likeable chap who looked a bit like Ray Reardon, who would you employ?

In that situation I've been reliably informed the correct expression is T & T

confidence is sexy, its easier to be confident when people tell you your sexy,

...and not a good idea at work of course.

so as a short, bald, slightly overweight glasses wearer who doesn't drink alcohol, i'm screwed really, aren't i?

so as a short, bald, slightly overweight glasses wearer who doesn't drink alcohol, i'm screwed really, aren't i?

Nope, quite the reverse...

Its another of those "Life's not fair" shockers. It really isn't, and you get what you can. Its a bun fight and any advantage people can leverage they will. The biggest difference is ambition, if you don't have it you won't do what it takes to get to the top cos you won't want to do what it takes, which generally isn't very nice or fun.

ruthlessness and the ability to screw other's over is pretty key to success in the modern business world, may i suggest that it's much easier to be the bad guy who makes the money when you've always been bitter and care little about the fortune of others... if you're short and ugly... AKA Bernie Ecclesttone 😉

The biggest difference is ambition, if you don't have it you won't do what it takes to get to the top cos you won't want to do what it takes, which generally isn't very nice or fun.

wurd dawg. i have ambition, but i wont let it put me in a position where i might hurt another person. as such my talents are used to make other's the big bucks and i get to go home knowing i've made a positive difference to people. i like it this way

Being of only average height and appearance I'm doing OK. One bad decision, say a tattoo, and I'd be struggling a lot more on the employment front.

Its self reinforcing too, people with good genes tend to do better because they come from families with good genes who tend to have done well. Hence they have the expectations and advantages from the start, plus the ability / assets. Plus successful men / women tend to have good look partners, hence good looking children, and so it goes on.

Also worked for an investment company for a while. My boss was female, reasonably pretty and endowed ( * coughs *). Believe me, it wasn't her brains or capabilities that got her promoted.

It turns out that there's more to data than anecdotes!

😆

that'd explain why the benefit queues are full of ugly tattoo'd people!

This absolutely cannot be true.

DD is ****ing gorgeous and he spends all day on his knees! 😉

Certainly tick the ugly box so I see why I'm skint.

Thanks for explaining!

he may be gorgeous and have the biceps of a greek god, but there's no denying what he oozes in looks, he loses in height.

therefore.... mid-success.

As well as his work as George Clooneys hair double, I was thinking only last night, Bravisimo has a certain Jose-esque air to his persona

[img] http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/sptussowexperts/joseslide.jp g" target="_blank">http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/sptussowexperts/joseslide.jp g"/> [/img]

He does a lot of sliding around on his knees too

There is only one possible comment on this subject.... [img] [/img]

Case dismissed

DD is **** gorgeous and he spends all day on his knees!

Does he get a fiver a time?

Does he get a fiver a time?

I've heard he's a whole lot more expensive than that. But he is [i]very[/i] good with wood.

£2.50 with his teeth in!

Honey Money by Catherine Hakim

I really have to fight to get on in life despite having the body of a greek god.

[img] [/img]

Dionysus?

well the cock size is right but I'm a bit taller than that.

last time I checked the dragons were all gopping bar Peter "i've got quirky socks" jones.

short, fat, ugly, balding......yep I'm knackered on all levels, cheers philly you've made my bleak existence even more futile 😥

but you're wealthy in terms of the amount of people who love you tazzy!

(knows your not really fat cos i've seen photatoes!)

you're wealthy in terms of the amount of people who love you tazzy

I tried self love, now need to Veet my palms on a regular basis and am a regular at spec savers

can't have been pics of me philly...I look like one of the minions in despicable me

It's not about height or prettiness. It's about hair.

Going bald? You're going to struggle I'm afraid.

BTW, my boss who sits on the board of a FTSE100 company is about 4'10". She's got plenty of hair though.

Of course, our CEO is about 6'2". Full head of hair.

Wrong. There is no statistically significant evidence for your theory.

As someone with a Medical Science BmedSci and a particular interest in Genetics....

Its self reinforcing too, people with good genes tend to do better because they come from families with good genes who tend to have done well. Hence they have the expectations and advantages from the start, plus the ability / assets. Plus successful men / women tend to have good look partners, hence good looking children, and so it goes on.

HAHAHAHAH

wait..wait let me get composure..

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR

Educational and financial success is much more strongly dependent on environmental factors, I bet even epigenetics factors into it more strongly. Not to mention a lot of Oxbridge guys are ugly. Read this and let it blow your ****ing mind.

Bakermans-Kranenburg and van Ijzendoorn wanted to see whether kids with a risk allele for ADHD and externalizing behaviors (a variant of a dopamine-processing gene known as DRD4) would respond as much to positive environments as to negative. A third of the kids in the study had this risk allele; the other two-thirds had a version considered a “protective allele,” meaning it made them less vulnerable to bad environments. The control group, who did not receive the intervention, had a similar distribution.

Both the vulnerability hypothesis and the orchid hypothesis predict that in the control group the kids with a risk allele should do worse than those with a protective one. And so they did—though only slightly. Over the course of 18 months, the genetically “protected” kids reduced their externalizing scores by 11 percent, while the “at-risk” kids cut theirs by 7 percent. Both gains were modest ones that the researchers expected would come with increasing age. Although statistically significant, the difference between the two groups was probably unnoticeable otherwise.

The real test, of course, came in the group that got the intervention. How would the kids with the risk allele respond? According to the vulnerability model, they should improve less than their counterparts with the protective allele; the modest upgrade that the video intervention created in their environment wouldn’t offset their general vulnerability.

As it turned out, the toddlers with the risk allele blew right by their counterparts. They cut their externalizing scores by almost 27 percent, while the protective-allele kids cut theirs by just 12 percent (improving only slightly on the 11 percent managed by the protective-allele population in the control group). The upside effect in the intervention group, in other words, was far larger than the downside effect in the control group. Risk alleles, the Leiden team concluded, really can create not just risk but possibility.

Moral of the story, environment plays a more important role. There's a lot of smug idiots in this thread.

Also this thread exemplifies the reason why I always laugh when someone talks about sexism, racism, ageism etc. It's all about me, me me. At the end of the day everyone accepts lookism - for business (not hiring certain races might be profitable) or finding a mate etc (based on their own often wrong instinct, have you ever dated someone who turned out to be a psychopath or later on developed a disease? Well your genetic discrimination didn't work). My point being is that as a species we have apparently started evolving towards ending racism within society. However lookism would suggest we are as discriminatory and prone to incorrect assumptions as we have ever been. Therefore I would consider sexism or racism to be a problem because collective individuals with some identity stamp their feet when they feel they are being wronged - basically it's all about me. Those who are just ugly cannot speak out and people don't care because it's not ussually happening to them, they discriminate towards others based on looks anyway.

Well, enough of my insane rambling.

bwaaaaaaarp, so you agree with most of the thread that lookism as you word it is still pretty big in the modern day world? 🙂

I've just read this thread. 😯
Bullies!! 🙁

so everyone calls you the sexiest thing to happen to STW since TJ posted those photos of his flowing locks and you feel bullied?!

is the stretching of the skin around your bulging biceps making you all sensitive?

I've just [s]read this thread.[/s] carried out my usual " friday vanity search" of the interweb using my usual search terms, (DD, bravissimo, clooney & biceps)

Bullies!!

😉

The posts containing disgusting sexual innuendos on page 2 have all been reported. Expect bannings people.

I remember reading something somewhere, along the lines that people with good posture who are in good shape do better in interviews.

The real test, of course, came in the group that got the intervention. How would the kids with the risk allele respond? According to the vulnerability model, they should improve less than their counterparts with the protective allele; the modest upgrade that the video intervention created in their environment wouldn’t offset their general vulnerability.

As it turned out, the toddlers with the risk allele blew right by their counterparts. They cut their externalizing scores by almost 27 percent, while the protective-allele kids cut theirs by just 12 percent (improving only slightly on the 11 percent managed by the protective-allele population in the control group). The upside effect in the intervention group, in other words, was far larger than the downside effect in the control group. Risk alleles, the Leiden team concluded, really can create not just risk but possibility.

But where do looks come into this? Whats the effect of placing or removing ugly children within the group. If you remove the ugly children from the classroom will the ADHD children (or even all the children) would stop being distracted by being forced to tease and bully them, and be able instead to focus their energy on something more academically beneficial? What about the ugly kids' parents? They're often just as ugly if not more so - teachers time would be better spent not having to placate them at parents evening because little Johhny had his head flushed down the toilet [i]again[/i]. Loose the ugly kids - loose the ugly parents. Win Win.