Physical attractiveness and intergenerational social mobility
Physical attractiveness in adolescence appears to shape education, career outcomes, and social mobility, with several commenters noting evidence that good-looking men benefit especially strongly. Participants debate how much of this effect is biological bias versus socio-economic confounders (like wealth, grooming, BMI, height, and confidence), and question whether interviewer-rated beauty at age 15 is a reliable measure. Many share anecdotes about “pretty privilege,” argue that looks-based bias (“lookism”) may rival or exceed other forms of discrimination, and point out that cultural ideals of beauty and changing behavior can both amplify or mitigate these advantages.
Study design, measures, and limitations
- Attractiveness was rated by interviewers at ~15 years old on a 1–5 scale; several commenters find this odd given heavy physical changes during and after puberty.
- Concerns that interviewer demographics and broader socioeconomic cues (speech, grooming, clothing) may bias ratings.
- Some think reverse causality is substantial: better-off families can buy grooming, orthodontics, clothes, etc., which boost both perceived attractiveness and later outcomes.
- Others argue a cleaner study would use standardized face photos rather than in-person interviews.
Gender differences and “matriarchy” speculation
- Commenters note the reported stronger effect for men.
- Some speculate women can “marry up,” so education/income/occupation miss women’s mobility via household wealth.
- There’s pushback on “matriarchy” claims; data still show men dominate key decision-making roles, and attractive men are favored by both men and women.
Attractiveness, height, weight, and socioeconomic signals
- Multiple anecdotes: being “conventionally attractive” or improving appearance (weight loss, fitness, skincare, better clothes) dramatically changes how others treat you.
- Height and BMI are discussed as major, gender-differentiated proxies for attractiveness and pay; stories of tall executives and stalled careers for shorter men.
- Obesity and facial/body features often overlap with childhood wealth, health, and nutrition, making attractiveness partly a proxy for class background.
“Looksism,” privilege, and comparison to other biases
- Many agree “pretty privilege” is powerful: better first impressions, more trust, more leniency for mistakes.
- Some argue looks-based bias can feel more immediate and punishing than race/sex bias; others emphasize that attractiveness is more malleable (fitness, grooming, surgery).
- Skepticism that adding “looksism” as another “-ism” clarifies anything; risk of buzzword inflation.
Dating, harassment, and social dynamics
- Recurring theme: identical behavior is perceived as flirtation from attractive people and harassment from unattractive ones.
- Others counter that the key distinction is whether advances are wanted and whether someone backs off, not raw looks.
- Debate over men over-attributing romantic failure to immutable looks versus fixable behavior, confidence, and social skills.
Broader takeaways and skepticism
- Many say the findings are unsurprising: attractive people have easier lives and more social mobility.
- Some call the paper “clickbait social science” using old data and confirming priors; useful but far from definitive.
- A few note tech jobs can be relatively less appearance-driven compared with sales/marketing.