Attractiveness and success

by Captain Walker

Categories: Humanities, Psychology & Philosophy

At any one time I have several posts in the backend that I am drafting, some over weeks and others over months.

Obviously a topic may hit me and I decide there and then to get on with that, instead of creating yet another draft.

So this morning (Sunday 8th May 2022), the topic of attractiveness comes up from my wild browsing of the ‘information superhighway‘. I won’t go into details of how I got there.

The more important issue is how attractiveness works. This topic is about women because ‘attractiveness‘ is not a word that is usually applied to men. Did I say men can’t be attractive? I did NOT!

The research on this topic is pretty settled – the jury had come in, many years ago.

Women who are perceived as attractive tend to get ahead more in careers, business, and other areas of life.

From my own observations the key characteristics of female attractiveness are:

  1. Facial features that people agree are attractive.
  2. Body shape – usually BMI between 20 and 23.
  3. Height >5′ 6″ (or 167 cm)
  4. Smell – perfume helps. Halitosis doesn’t.
  5. Likeability.
Rude interruption

Stupid: This is ridiculous!

CW: Are you a woman?

Stupid: No

CW: Are you a man?

Stupid: No. You haven’t stuck a gender or sex on me. You should know better than to ask.

CW: So what’s your problem?

Stupid: This post is sexist as hell!

CW: Rubbish.

Stupid: How?

CW: I don’t define the research. It is there. The findings have been settled for many years.

Stupid: Yeah – but you’re giving your opinion on what’s attractive. That’s just your preference. Other people might like chubby women under 5 foot tall, who smell like a donkey.

CW: That’s fine for other people. I am reporting my observations in summary of how I have seen loads of men react to women with the above characteristics I’ve listed. I’ve not seen a majority of men get excited about women who are “chubby women under 5 foot tall, who smell like a donkey.” Have you?

Stupid: No I haven’t but Kylie Minogue is just under 5 foot tall and most men found her to be attractive.

CW: Jeez. I fully agree. I’m not talking about individual exceptions. I’m giving a summary of statistically where it is.

Stupid: I don’t know about statistics.

CW: Good. Well shut up, listen, learn – and stop distracting me like that with things you don’t understand.

Stupid: But I’m trying to learn.

CW: I don’t believe that for one second. The pattern of your interruptions shows a propensity to jump in with rhetoric and insults. You’re just saying you’re trying to learn, so that other people will see me as insensitive etc. No more time for you. Back the box.

[collapse]

Jeeez! It becomes very difficult for me to write these blogs when I’m intruded upon by the above sorts of social media type of drivel, in the backdrop of my mind.

I feel tired now. So I’ll leave it there with some screenshots and links.

From Personnel Psychology at Wiley.

From Forbes the following:

The reading of posts on this blog is subject to the Terms & Conditions. Unpalatable truths and personal experiences may be told. Nothing posted on this blog is directed at any identified person. On occasions individuals are quoted anonymously. That does not mean that they have been identified to the world. Should any person or organisation reading this blog find something that makes them feel or know that they  are being referred to - any such perceived identification does not mean 'identified to the world'. ‘Stupid' is an impish figment of my imagination who occasionally is allowed to pop up – and does not represent any known individual or individuals. ‘Stupid'  carries the characteristics groups of people with 'social media mindsets'. The treatment of  'Stupid' is not representative of the way people are treated in real life. Adverse inferences made are dismissed in advance. 

While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing posts on this blog, they make no representation or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents  and specifically disclaim any implied warranties or fitness for a particular purpose. Posts on this blog do not contain all information available on various topics. Posts contain opinion based on facts, experience and other concepts. Opinions expressed are not advice nor intent on persuading any individual or other legal entity to adopt the opinions.  Posts are not created to be specific to any individual’s or organisation’s situation or needs. All persons are instructed to obey relevant policies and procedures that may apply to them. Departure from such, is at readers' own risk. You should consult with a professional with fiduciary duty to you, when making decisions. The author and publisher shall have no liability or responsibility to any person or entity regarding any loss or damage incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, directly or indirectly, by the information contained on this blog or hyperlinked from this blog. 


Other posts that may interest you...

Ethical sluttery aka Polyamory

I knew nothing of this until today. I’m not like ‘OMG’, because nothing much surprises me these days about human nature. The link to the full story will only be live for about 24 hours, so tough if you’re late. The excerpt from The Times is below (full credits to them). Those who need to ... Read more

The Barnum Effect

Some will be reaching for Google and dictionaries on this. Some fine examples of Barnum statements, “Humans a not perfect“, or “Everybody makes mistakes – are you perfect?” or “Not everybody is a scientist.” The words seem to hold a truth held dear by ordinary people. But in essence they lack depth by the way ... Read more

Reading is dead

What a bold assertion – ‘Reading is dead’? I’ll explain what I mean as I go on. Experiences in the last few years have led me to conclude that people actually: Don’t read Don’t find information to read of their own volition. Even if they read, quickly report ‘It’s confusing‘ or ‘I don’t understand‘ or ... Read more