NationStates

Various studies over the years have shown that a person’s physical appearance significantly colours their life experience, and Peterson and Palmer say these life experiences mould our political views.

“Attractiveness matters. When we are treated differently we begin to perceive the world differently,” says Peterson. “Research shows good-looking people tend to get on better in life because people interact with them differently.”

The study reports this can lead them to have a “blind spot” when it comes to understanding the hardships faced by others – making them more likely to embrace individualism and reject the types of social assistance and welfare aid more commonly promoted by leftwing policy.

“All attractive people are not conservative and not all unattractive people are liberals,” said Peterson. But he added: “Attractiveness gives a person a small push in the conservative direction.”

Link-a-dink..

It's science people.

I would argue that privilege, of which attractiveness can be a factor, is what leads to this idea that the world is pretty decent and fair place so there must be something wrong with these welfare scroungers. I am not unattractive in that I'm 6.2, with green eyes and somewhat dirty blond hair.. I certainly notice I get better treatment in general, I get smiled at more, I can smile myself into an upgrade.. I get listened to at work..

..but what say the dark denizens of NSG, that endless pool of human understanding and wisdom?

I'm a communist Adonis with hard left views and even harder abs.

Bakery Hill wrote:I'm a communist Adonis with hard left views and even harder abs.

The sort of revolutionary who'd end up killing everyone once in power.

That is a really interesting article, thanks for bringing it up!

Now I found a small irregularity in the source.

"The study reports this can lead [attractive people] to have a “blind spot” when it comes to understanding the hardships faced by others – making them more likely to embrace individualism and reject the types of social assistance and welfare aid more commonly promoted by leftwing policy."
as opposed to
"“All attractive people are not conservative and not all unattractive people are liberals,” said Peterson."

So this says that attractive people go for a more individualist view while "others" may lean towards collectivist views on society. On the other hand, the source relativates by saying that not all attractive peeps are conservative and blah... it says it up there. Does this mean that collectivist views and liberalism are seen as the same thing by Mr Peterson? Seems a bit far-fetched to me.

On another note, I see how this comes to be. I can actually understand the argumentation. However, we need to take a look at what is deemed attractive in society.

In western culture, we have very specific views on what is attractive and what is not. This ideal is mostly achieved by those with the monetary means to do so. Those who pay for gym subscriptions, eat healthily, have their hair done, have nice clothes, expensive make-up. Your (family's) income has a large impact on how you look after yourself, whether you are more interested in working or looking good, etc.

So maybe finances have an impact on looks and therefore looks only very minorly or even completely superficially change your political views, as lower incomes may be more leaning towards "the types of social assistance and welfare aid more commonly promoted by leftwing policy."

Now I know that the source states that finances were taken into account when the study was created, but we do not have any other information on that.

Well I have burn scars to most of my body, even though I am exceptionally fit. And right wing.

Here's the thing about ideologies and atttactiveness...China is a communist nation, but it has the prettiest girls, tied with South Korea. So I guess that's enough to prove my point.

Letwinist States wrote:Does this mean that collectivist views and liberalism are seen as the same thing by Mr Peterson? Seems a bit far-fetched to me.

I think it's really hard to pin down on language for this and thus open to nitpicking - what defines a liberal, what defines a conservative - how much does the Overton Window of any society fit in..

So maybe finances have an impact on looks and therefore looks only very minorly or even completely superficially change your political views, as lower incomes may be more leaning towards "the types of social assistance and welfare aid more commonly promoted by leftwing policy."

Well hence I say 'privilege' of which attractiveness is a factor, I think there's studies that show tall people tend to be more successful, I think most presidents are over 6ft along with many CEOs. The blind spot is in thinking you're self-made without factoring in the advantages of these things, attractiveness, good upbringing, height.. they may have far more impact on your success than you think and therefore you judge people who don't do well as their own fault.

Being attractive does change the way people interact with you, but it's not always a plus. It's annoying when you're not looking for a man, but you keep meeting guys that want to get in your pants. Not that ships wear pants, but you get my drift.

A m e n r i a wrote:Here's the thing about ideologies and atttactiveness...China is a communist nation, but it has the prettiest girls, tied with South Korea. So I guess that's enough to prove my point.

The Chinese don't exactly get to choose whether or not they want communist rule, since the government chooses which parties are and aren't legal.

Crockerland wrote:

A m e n r i a wrote:Here's the thing about ideologies and atttactiveness...China is a communist nation, but it has the prettiest girls, tied with South Korea. So I guess that's enough to prove my point.

The Chinese don't exactly get to choose whether or not they want communist rule, since the government chooses which parties are and aren't legal.

It's not communist anyway.

USS Monitor wrote:Being attractive does change the way people interact with you, but it's not always a plus. It's annoying when you're not looking for a man, but you keep meeting guys that want to get in your pants. Not that ships wear pants, but you get my drift.

Well it can happen the other way round, women will go and do these nice things for you and then get pissed off when you don't fall in love with them.. but it's hardly a major downer. It's certainly a less harassing approach and I've some nice household objects as a result.

USS Monitor wrote:Being attractive does change the way people interact with you, but it's not always a plus. It's annoying when you're not looking for a man, but you keep meeting guys that want to get in your pants. Not that ships wear pants, but you get my drift.

Is that a smoothbore Dahlgren gun, or are you just happy to see me?

Bombadil wrote:I think it's really hard to pin down on language for this and thus open to nitpicking - what defines a liberal, what defines a conservative - how much does the Overton Window of any society fit in..

I agree, the first point is simple nitpicking. Nonetheless, the author of a study which deals with political thinking (or any proper research) should be as precise as humanly possible. Maybe he has the two ideas defined in the actual paper, I do not know.

Bombadil wrote:Well hence I say 'privilege' of which attractiveness is a factor, I think there's studies that show tall people tend to be more successful, I think most presidents are over 6ft along with many CEOs. The blind spot is in thinking you're self-made without factoring in the advantages of these things, attractiveness, good upbringing, height.. they may have far more impact on your success than you think and therefore you judge people who don't do well as their own fault.

Interesting, I did not know about the height thing. Of course, that puts a different spin on things because you cannot realistically, permanently alter your size for all I know.

Now I completely agree that the arguement is sound, I am simply questioning as to whether "good looks" as such might simply be a "symptom" of the greater reason for this political belief, which could be wealth. It starts with what make-up one wears, how to do one's hair and ends with the perfect outfit. I also understand that this is not inherent beauty/ handsomeness but it plays a great part, I would think.

USS Monitor wrote:

Crockerland wrote:The Chinese don't exactly get to choose whether or not they want communist rule, since the government chooses which parties are and aren't legal.

It's not communist anyway.

Close enough.

Neanderthaland wrote:

USS Monitor wrote:Being attractive does change the way people interact with you, but it's not always a plus. It's annoying when you're not looking for a man, but you keep meeting guys that want to get in your pants. Not that ships wear pants, but you get my drift.

Is that a smoothbore Dahlgren gun, or are you just happy to see me?

Both.

USS Monitor wrote:

Crockerland wrote:The Chinese don't exactly get to choose whether or not they want communist rule, since the government chooses which parties are and aren't legal.

It's not communist anyway.

True, true, but sometimes people can be beautiful even without fancy clothing and makeup. I've seen my crush wake up with her bare face and messy hair and she still looks great to me. I think it's genes that actually contribute to a person's attractiveness.

Letwinist States wrote:

Bombadil wrote:I think it's really hard to pin down on language for this and thus open to nitpicking - what defines a liberal, what defines a conservative - how much does the Overton Window of any society fit in..

I agree, the first point is simple nitpicking. Nonetheless, the author of a study which deals with political thinking (or any proper research) should be as precise as humanly possible. Maybe he has the two ideas defined in the actual paper, I do not know.

Bombadil wrote:Well hence I say 'privilege' of which attractiveness is a factor, I think there's studies that show tall people tend to be more successful, I think most presidents are over 6ft along with many CEOs. The blind spot is in thinking you're self-made without factoring in the advantages of these things, attractiveness, good upbringing, height.. they may have far more impact on your success than you think and therefore you judge people who don't do well as their own fault.

Interesting, I did not know about the height thing. Of course, that puts a different spin on things because you cannot realistically, permanently alter your size for all I know.

Now I completely agree that the arguement is sound, I am simply questioning as to whether "good looks" as such might simply be a "symptom" of the greater reason for this political belief, which could be wealth. It starts with what make-up one wears, how to do one's hair and ends with the perfect outfit. I also understand that this is not inherent beauty/ handsomeness but it plays a great part, I would think.

Hmm.. I think what's considered 'beautiful' can be pretty equated with symmetry, the more symmetrical your face the more good looking you are seen to be. I mean.. make up and hair can do wonders but it can also be a disaster. I think wealth comes into play with education and confidence.. if you've never had to wonder where your next meal is coming from you're essentially more confident and that can also starkly affect your view on the world.

Bombadil wrote:

Bakery Hill wrote:I'm a communist Adonis with hard left views and even harder abs.

The sort of revolutionary who'd end up killing everyone once in power.

Or I'm secure enough in myself that I don't have too xx

Donut section wrote:

USS Monitor wrote:
It's not communist anyway.

Close enough.

It's not even close, though.

And I think this study is dealing with where individuals fall on the political spectrum relative to their own society, not what direction a whole culture will evolve in. If you live in China, you're competing with other Chinese people to get hired, find a date, etc., etc. How you stack up against some dude in Albuquerque is not very relevant.

Bakery Hill wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
The sort of revolutionary who'd end up killing everyone once in power.

Or I'm secure enough in myself that I don't have too xx

That's maybe true now, but once you achieve victory and await applause and getting down to doing good things only to find critiques and plotting.. you'll soon start the purges.

It's the way it goes.

Bombadil wrote:
Hmm.. I think what's considered 'beautiful' can be pretty equated with symmetry, the more symmetrical your face the more good looking you are seen to be. I mean.. make up and hair can do wonders but it can also be a disaster. I think wealth comes into play with education and confidence.. if you've never had to wonder where your next meal is coming from you're essentially more confident and that can also starkly affect your view on the world.

That is certainly a good point. I shall ponder this a little further.

Donut section wrote:Close enough.

Nah, not really. Too much government and private enterprise, too little self-determination. So I would agree with Crockerland that China is hard to take as an example.

I could see this being the case. I suspect there is a limit, however.

It's a bit of a cliche, I know, but the modern far-right isn't exactly made up of Aryan supermen.

Makes sense. I am disgusting

Letwinist States wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
Hmm.. I think what's considered 'beautiful' can be pretty equated with symmetry, the more symmetrical your face the more good looking you are seen to be. I mean.. make up and hair can do wonders but it can also be a disaster. I think wealth comes into play with education and confidence.. if you've never had to wonder where your next meal is coming from you're essentially more confident and that can also starkly affect your view on the world.

That is certainly a good point. I shall ponder this a little further.

Donut section wrote:Close enough.

Nah, not really. Too much government and private enterprise, too little self-determination. So I would agree with Crockerland that China is hard to take as an example.

Still close enough.

Neanderthaland wrote:It's a bit of a cliche, I know, but the modern far-right isn't exactly made up of Aryan supermen.

The Nazi leadership wasn't either.