I've actually discussed this in my professional development courses. There have been studies that suggest if all other factors were equal (both candidates were equally qualified and such) the attractive person would get hired. I don't know if it is intentional or not, but I definitely would say that it exists in the business/corporate world.
Exactly... Lets assume all other area's are equal since looks don't determine your intellegences and education, I'd much rather have picked the attrctive one to represent my company then the less attractive one considering all other factors are equal.
But that would mean that the 'pretty person' has one factor (looks, obviously) over the 'less pretty person', which means they are no longer equal.
People will always take the best that they can get.
That's why I said all other factors being equal.
So you did. Sorry about that.
... do you think it's true that those blessed with looks are more likely to have better jobs and a higher quality lifestyle than those who are not?
It varies, sometimes yes and sometimes no.
When it comes to relationships it's often better to not be the epitome of physical perfection. Those who aren't mind-blowingly attractive work harder to keep their partner happy and are overall considered a better catch because of it. This can apply to other aspects of life as well, those who aren't able to sail through life on good looks compensate through personality. In a way this means it's better to be slightly less attractive than perfect, and those who are amazingly good-looking will often live with the insecurity that they're only liked for appearance and not for who they really are.
There are rich and successful people who look like the backside of a horse, so I guess beautiful people only really have the advantage if it's a job that relies heavily on image. Besides, what's considered attractive varies depending on people and culture. It's really one of those Your Mileage May Vary things, IMO.
Important Board Topics
Trending Topics