I thought the article was really fascinating, though. Here's the basic premise:
[A]ccording to economics professors Daniel Hamermesh of the University of Texas and Jeff Biddle of Michigan State University, . . . plain people earn 5 to 10 percent less than people of average looks, who in turn earn 3 to 8 percent less than those deemed good-looking. * * * Hamermesh and Biddle found that the probability of a male attorney attaining early partnership directly correlates with how handsome he is.
I think that a person's "attractiveness" depends in large part on what they make of what they've been given. For example, a person who is secure and confident in who they are (or, to use the cliche, has mastered "self-acceptance") gives a more favorable impression of themselves to others than does a person who is insecure or self-deprecating. I would venture to say that oftentimes those we deem "attractive" or good looking are attractive to us based more on their attitude and how they interact with others than on their looks. Even strikingly beautiful people can lose much of their appeal if they can't make eye contact or interact poorly with others. The secure business person dresses smarter, speaks up, shakes hands firmly and on the whole exudes a general attitude that others find attractive.
In the same way, I think that people who are generally thought "unattractive" often are unattractive because of a lack of self-acceptance; i.e., they don't think very highly of themselves so they don't even try to make other people think highly of them. Their lack of self-confidence evidences itself in their being less neatly-dressed and perhaps less well-groomed than others, which creates a sort of unimpressiveness that the average person simply labels as ugliness.
What I'm getting at is that oftentimes, hard-working, self-motivated people automatically give positive impressions to those with whom they interact. Others deem them "good-looking" simply because of their attitude and the way they present themselves, not because of their innate physical beauty. On the other hand, an untidy or insecure person often has an unimpressive demeanor or lackadaisical attitude toward the things they undertake. These people can be assumed unattractive based solely on appearance, which is not the same as innate beauty.
If this is the case, LGU's survey then proves an entirely different point: Instead of showing that pretty people make more money than ugly people, it really only shows that industrious, self-confident people make more money than those who are not. And we all knew that already. :-P
Thoughts, anyone?
P.S. One final reason why I like my interpretation of the survey results better than LGU's *wink*: If earning potential is based more on how you conduct yourself outwardly versus your God-given physical features, there is hope for those of us who are just average or below average. If it's all based on looks (or lack thereof), which we can't help, there are a lot of people in the world who are out of luck. :-P
No comments:
Post a Comment