Attractive people earn more than unattractive people (not too surprising);
The premium is larger for men than women (surprising);
Being fat hurts women way more than men, both in terms of earnings and in other ways. (details are surprising, even if main conclusion isn’t)
Very beautiful women do not appear to do much better in marriage markets than average-looking women, but ugly women are heavily penalized. (somewhat surprising that beauty doesn’t help more on the upside)
Obviously, studies like these always have a ton of methodological criticism, but it’s still interesting to think about.
“Very beautiful women do not appear to do much better in marriage markets than average-looking women”
I bet there’s data bias here because the gold digger marriages probably fail more. And the keepers tend not to be the super beautiful women who have gotten everything they’ve wanted
I don’t think you’ve identified data bias. What you’re describing is a causal mechanism.
Data bias would be if the sample of gold digger marriages captured in the study was somehow different or non-representative of gold-digger marriages in the population at large. Or if gold-digger marriages were disproportionately represented (high or low) in the sample.
This was discussed in the article and is in fact potential data bias. The conclusion was that truly unattractive women are sufficiently penalized that they drop out of the official labor force entirely, thus the number of women sampled is skewed to greater attractiveness vs the men, when compared to the population at large.
As for the attractiveness of smart women, I think that it’s a cultural phenomenon in the US that women who are smart and educated to take advantage of it are also told that they should try to tone down their attractiveness if they are going to be taken seriously.
However, I have had some stunningly attractive colleagues who are also ferociously smart. Many of them are eastern european or ex-soviet. But there are Turks, Latinas, and even a few Southern US types in the mix.
I knew one hot Russian type girl in college who was also very smart. But then, when I came back for the 5 year reunion, she had become fat (also engaged).
Also, did they consider weight separate from total beauty or was it factored in?
I am assuming they never looked at men in pnw. In fact, it’s almost guaranteed that the most unattractive man in the room is the highest earner (also most socially awkward). (Not that all msft guys are socially awkward and unattractive, but there are plenty who are.)
Re: women I don’t know. The col is relatively high here so many there aren’t as many ugly women? I know the %ugly increases as you go further inland. But again, I feel my definition of beauty is subjective.
I’d also like to know how they measured beauty. Usually what they do is post photos and have some random selection of people (often both men and women) rank them on the classic 1-10 scale or 1-5. I do not know if that is what they did in this study.
Depends on your definition of charisma of course. But imo, charisma is determined by personality rather than looks. And good looks are in no way a guarantee for an exciting personality.
Women are the more selective gender. Beautiful women will go after the top men and these men happen to have a plethora of options. The more options you have, the lower the odds of the relationship working. Not only does the woman have to convince the man with many options that being monogamous is better than being what a man at his core was wired to be (non committal with the most partners possible), they also have to convince him that for decades. That’s not an easy task to accomplish when there’s a lineup of other women waiting for your man.
As for ugly women, men would rather stay unmarried than marry one (even many ugly men). It’s like holding on to a lottery ticket for these men. Chances are they won’t match up with a hottie but still staying in the dating pool at least gives them hope that one day it can happen.
^ there is a chick I saw on okcupid. She was way + sized, a teacher (so not a great income), and was holding out for a decent guy. Hate to break it to her, but she’ll probably be waiting a while…
I think no one doubts that to be unattractive (i.e. ugly), of either sex, is a major problem in terms of limiting your mating choices. Given that at least some people in any population are going to fall toward the bottom of the scale, it’s a sad fact of life that there will be people who are unattractive and lonely (as well as some who are unattractive and lucky).
I think the more interesting question is how much does being superattractive help, vs being just normal or above-average-but-not-outstanding. This research suggests that although there is an advantage, it is not nearly as large as one would think.
There’s a lot I could write about my own opinions, my experiences, etc. on this, but I have a busy day today. I can say two things for thought. 1) Being superattractive may get you lots of offers and proposals (whether man or woman), but I sense they skew towards jerks (and the female equivalent) with boundary issues. Sure, you attract confident people, and many confident people are outwardly successful, but you’ll also just get people who have boundary issues. 2) As I’ve gotten older, I’ve noticed that the most interesting women I interact with aren’t necessarily the most beautiful. I think we search for the perfect partner for a long time when we are young, but once we realize that perfect partners aren’t really out there, then we start to look at what are the interesting imperfections.
I read somehwere last week a saying that “if you are rich and famous, more people will love you, but they will be those who love your wealth and fame.” Bromion sounds like he might have this issue; he’s already noted that he’s rich enough that everyone wants a shot at his wallet… and you can bet that also includes lithe sexy young things that want to make his pecker go “pow!” It sounds like a nice problem to have, until you realize that if he ever wants a family, this stuff can mean a divorce, not being able to see your kids more than once every other week, and half of your assets gone south, not to mention difficulties concentrating on what company to short while it’s all going on.
I’m not picking on bromion, who adds a lot of useful commentary here, but in the attraction game, it’s probably best to be above average, rather than superattractive.
Fair point. Ironically, I think I did better with women before I had a great career. For one, I had a lot more time. But I also had different expectations and was a lot more willing to take risks with women who weren’t necessarily a great fit but were attractive and would be fun. As a pretty good looking guy, I could get women even without money. Now I feel like I’m playing to not lose most of the time. What if she accidentally (or worse, “accidentally”) gets pregnant? I would be stuck with her. And I generally don’t trust people because they will always have an agenda for what is best for them (men or women, broad comment not related specifically to dating). I feel like I have a target on my back all the time.
Attractive women in the dating game are particularly brutal and shallow in my experience. It becomes very transactional – how much am I “paying” in order to sleep with her? It’s more like an arrangement than a relationship.
Having grown up poor, I’d much rather have “mo money, mo problems” than no money but there is a trade off most people probably cannot appreciate until they have direct experience with it. I don’t have a solution to the marriage / family dynamic because it creates a huge risk overhang. Agreeing with your broader point, if I ever get married it will probably be to a 7 with a great personality who I genuinely believe is very loyal. I would not marry a 9-10. I agree with ft’s point too about high value men having a lot of options, but that goes both ways. If both people have a lot of options it creates instability in the relationship.