101–110 of 148 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I'm aware being an attractive male doesn't hinder your chances in the STEM fields as it maybe would a female.
I think it can work against you, people might not take you seriously as an engineer if you're too goodlooking or well built.
Evolution wise, this is because people like in others, what they wish they had for themselves. Likewise, people hate in others what they dislike about themselves. We celebrate the beautiful because we wish we too could be beautiful. We mock the ugly/short/gay/fat/skinny/weak because those are qualities that we ourselves do not wish to have. If all of society punishes those with these traits, people with these traits…
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2...
Here the data were less clear, but several reviews of the literature have concluded that there is indeed a small, positive relationship between beauty and brains... In the U.K., for example, attractive children have an additional 12.4 points of IQ, on average. The relationship held even when he controlled for family background, race, and body size. From this, Kanazawa concluded that the famous halo effect is not a cognitive illusion, as so many academics had assumed, but rather an accurate reading of the world: We assume that beautiful people are smart, he argues, because they are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I'm aware being an attractive male doesn't hinder your chances in the STEM fields as it maybe would a female.
I think it can work against you, people might not take you seriously as an engineer if you're too goodlooking or well built.
I know this sounds cocky, but I thought it might add to the discussion.
Being good looking is fucking awesome. So is being smart. Both are a combination of genetics and hard work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Though it bears pointing out that Mankiw was doing this as a parody of progressive taxation, not as a serious proposal.
I'm not sure it's such a bad idea. It's a non-distorting tax and the unearned benefits of height seem clearly established. Why not?
You know who had a say in tall people having "advantages"? Everyone who gives them said advantage. Tax them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another way of incorporating this is with the classic "Never trust a man in a suit" We know that we give extra weight to the arguments of good looking individuals. Guys in suits generally look better than guys in sweatpants. Therefore, if a guy in a suit tells you something, it's not really as good of an idea as you think it is. He's also not as competent or hard working as you think he is. To combat this, you should…
Why are people in Silicon Valley so against suits? I like dressing up. I look damn good in a suit and I want to wear one every day.
Y'know, as the article spent pages and pages explaining.
I'm surprised there's no mention downsides to being an attractive man. I think they certainly exist, but perhaps the net is positive?
Straight porn. They don't want attractive men, it makes male viewers feel inadequate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure it's such a bad idea. It's a non-distorting tax and the unearned benefits of height seem clearly established. Why not?
Better idea: Lets tax everyone who gives tall people advantages. The tall person didn't choose to be tall. Their parents didn't have a say in the matter either. Shall we tax them for making a tall heir? You know who had a say in tall people having "advantages"? Everyone who gives them said advantage. Tax them.
Abraham Lincoln was both tall and smart -- such a program would have ruined him. :)
Also, ideas like this only add to the power of governments. I think most people will argue there should be a limit to governmental power. People differ on what that limit should be, but I think most would agree that taxing height or some other trait goes too far.
For some reason a lot of my clients are fashion startups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it can work against you, people might not take you seriously as an engineer if you're too goodlooking or well built.
Don't know why you were downvoted. I've noticed this too. Someone who works out a lot (noticeably muscular) is stereotyped in academia or STEM professions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Er, no. An economist would be horrified by Harrison Bergeron, as demonstrating the most damaging possible form of egalitarianism and nothing like the grandparent proposal; the point of a height tax is not to make tall people shorter - whatever good or purpose is being fulfilled by tall people is still fulfilled after the tax, and the tax serves the useful function of raising revenue while also not distorting any inve…
Exactly. Though it bears pointing out that Mankiw was doing this as a parody of progressive taxation, not as a serious proposal.
He's a morally and intellectually bankrupt academic. He's currently defending Reinhart and Rogoff, for instance.