LG says: "Libertarians tend to be ugly because it’s an anti-majority philosophy. People who are attractive have an easy time going through life and derive far too many advantages from the status quo to ever question it. It’s only outsiders, who are usually ugly, who join up with fringe movements."

I think there's something seriously wrong with that statement. Do I sense some latent anti-attractivism?

-- Jeremy

All three, really.

Persuade? Well, nothing, really. It's a question of what rings true to me based on my past experience. None of these propositions do. They would have to start being manifestly true before my eyes (as, in the past, they have been generally untrue).

I can understand how someone would form this impression, given the circumstances this guy describes himself in and the way he describes himself personally. I just think something else altogether is going on there.

Yep, yep, and yep!

See, I'm with you on most of this. I just don't quite buy the psychological reason.

This is one of my pet interests and I disagree. I haven't read a single scientific study of beauty that adequately controls for the difference between attractiveness and confidence or that clearly controls for the negative effect of being unattractive. I do not know this for fact, but feel that it is a fairly safe assumption that there is a high correlation between considering yourself attractive and having high confidence. When pretty people are supposed to do better in job interviews, have things easier, etc. is it because they're pretty or because people are responding to their confidence? Most of the time if the two traits are linked, it's not so important because hey, they're linked. But I suspect that pretty, non-confident people often have as many problems as average people and average but highly confident people do much better than pretty, non-confident. But I've yet to read a study that took this into account. There have even been some studies that find the extremely beautiful have a harder time with certain aspects of life (as do the extremely intelligent) because they incur resentment and fear in other people (although I read those in a composite book about beauty --Survival of the Skinniest-- and so cannot evaluate how well-done those studies were). Like so many things, it seems safest to be slightly above the bell-curve... enough to stand out but not enough to threaten.

I do think that the extremely non-pretty (people with very visible deformities etc.) do have a harder time with things.

P.S. I realize a 20/20 episode is not scientific evidence. But I strongly doubt that the results of scientific study would be any different.

I think confidence can be expressed through posture and captured in still photographs.

Sorry to be so late with a response. :) I am perplexed how you could have a meaningful study that measured beauty's impact on things like jobs that were based on still pictures alone. You could ask hypotheticals and I would expect that people's responses would bias towards the people they considered more beautiful because they'd have little else to go on, but that's not how the studies I've seen have been done because that's not how people make the decision. My proposition is that the 'everything else' that happens in a job interview, or a personal interaction is, as--or more--meaningful than whether people are considered beautiful. What's important to me about separating out confidence, in this particular discussion, is that the discussion was not "all other things being equal, better looks lead to more success". Sure. Make everything else equal, raise ANY positive attribute and it should lead to more success. All other things being equal, greater intellignece would lead to more success. All other things being equal, great wealth would lead to more success. But the discussion was "pretty people have an easier time in life." So there's where the confident but average vs. pretty but non-confident comes in. My point is that all other things AREN'T equal and I'm arguing that people emphasize the wrong attribute.

I don't think confidence is inseparable from beauty at all. I think confidence is VERY separate. What I said is that I think perception of self as beautiful and confidence are often linked.

I don't find the 20/20 anecdote inconsistent with my argument at all unless the fat suit made the model only moderately overweight and she was dressed in a flattering fashion. If, as is typical in these things, the fat suit made her appear morbidly obese, then it would be exactly what I said about the extremes. I DEFINITELY think they have a harder time with things (the model's body language I'm sure was very different between the two times, if for no other reason then she's not fat and couldn't have been confident in the fat suit). A more meaningful thing for me would be to have someone very beautiful and someone closer to average.

I disagree with 2 and 3, myself.

The woman in that picture is scary looking.

DC-area libertarian girls are actually quite attractive. Smart too. I think the city attracts 'em.

Forget the libertarians, Capitalist Chicks are hot.
http://www.capitalistchicks.com/

Somewhat off-topic, but you should probably know about this Google employee who was fired for his blog.

1) Beautiful people have it much easier in life, that's not even open to debate. Obviously, they CAN screw it up completely through really stupid behavior, but beyond that, it's easier to find a mate, get a good job or be successful in business etc.

2) A recent UK study found that beauty is the most important factor for happiness. Not surprising either, as beauty is a reflection of healthy genes and good life prospects, cf. above.

3) Being good looking does NOT mean that one has a vested interest in the status quo or that a person is stupid. Being a libertarian has NOTHING to do with being unsuccessful or having trouble with the status quo per se. Many highly successful and attractive business men are libertarian, even some billionaires.

While I can't speak for myself, my wife definitely is highly attractive. And I can't complain about my own position in life. I'm way more successful than the average person and have a very interesting life, yet I'm a very active Anarcho-capitalist.

4) People who are disgruntled with life will not become libertarians, they will turn to the left or even extreme left. Libertarianism is all about self-rule, acceptance of responsibility AND acceptance of often "unfair" outcomes, if they are not based on the use of force.

I have been to tons of libertarian meetings all over the world (literally) and I simply don't agree that libertarians are unattractive. They are probably quite simply average, although in recent times, I've seen more and more very attractive women. The main change here is that a lot more women are joining, but many are really good looking, too.

S. Metzeler, Switzerland

And I agree with what he's saying. Being "hot" doesn't get you much respect for your ideas. Being ATTRACTIVE, however, is an advantage. They are two different things, really. I am taken much more seriously when I play down the babe factor, but don't resort to being a slob either.

And in case anyone was wondering, "Libertarian Girl" is a complete asshat.

~Redneck Feminist
http://redneckfeminist.blogspot.com/