Why are the Beautiful People More Important these Days?

[Fuelbi]

I was watching this report on the news years ago when the Beijing Olympics were on. It turns out that this girl that was singing this song for the crowd was actually lip synching. The girl actually singing was "ugly" so they didnt put her on and replaced her with someone better looking. I was pissed off because that wasnt fair to her. Now ahead in time right now. I was watching television and all you see on Disney Channel are good looking people. Look at Miley Cyrus, Selena Gomez, and Demi Lovato. They say that looks arent everything but Disney is just showing kids that looks are everything. So the question is "Are looks really everything now?" Now if you think this goes back to my Disney thread it isnt its just an example

 

[NukSuCao]

The Milli Vanilli Scandal

It's been the same way for generations. Beauty and sexual desire is marketable nowadays, whereas an overweight girl with a beautiful voice is harder to sell. Most pop culture involves sexy women with skimpy outfits on, or some ***hole dude skateboarding or playing in a band or something "bad***". It's not anything new, it's to be expected, really. Have you played a fantasy game that didn't involve some beautiful women in some tight or skimpy outfit? Seen a live action movie with a protagonist that was an ugly girl that got good ratings?

The movie Penelope was truly fantastic in that it showed a girl with a deformation and a guy willing to look part it, but at the same time it ended with her problem going away. It again just shows that stories have to end with some beautiful women.

I for one am not attracted to most popular actresses/stars. A group of guys were practically salivating over Tila Tequila while I just sat back and pitied them. It's basically just the media these days.[/cliche_rant]

 

[Aposl]

Beautiful people are only "more important" these days if what you mean by important is that the majority says they are so they are. In reality the truth of how important they are is unchangeable, because truth is unchanging. So if in a hundred years no one thinks they are, that still doesn't actually change their level of importance. Also Miley Cyrus is ugly. (That one is just my opinion.)

 

[-ACE-]

It's been the same way for generations. Beauty and sexual desire is marketable nowadays, whereas an overweight girl with a beautiful voice is harder to sell.

Quoted for truth. Sex sells, and so do good looks. Putting an attractive person on stage or on a television show over someone that is considered less attractive is primarily a business decision in most cases. Looks aren't always the most important aspect in regard to what the public is looking for (as on a TV network like Discovery or Comedy Central for instance), but they are almost always a plus. I feel bad for the girl that didn't get to be seen on stage, but from a financial viewpoint, the network essentially saw the end result as having the best of both worlds (having a beautiful song AND a beautiful person "singing" it).

 

[Stroupes]

I don't think it's just a marketing technique.
I haven't done the research, but it seems that, in my community at least, the best-looking people get the most attention, are more involved in community activities (sports, clubs, etc.), whereas normal/ugly people are just kind of there.
It's just an observation, and it may not be true.
It just seems that good looking people have it easier in life.
But this is because their looks are more appealing. They're easier to look at, they're easier to focus on.

 

[-ACE-]

People are judged by their appearance heavily in today's society, and people who are generally considered to be more attractive do get more attention than those that are not. Those that are considered to be more attractive are granted more opportunities (on average) as well. I have done some research on this, but it was years ago for a school assignment. I limited my first post to a small section of the media because at first it seemed (imo) to be where the OP's main concerns existed.

 

[Hydra.]

First of all, I don't really see the argument/debate in this.

So the question is "Are looks really everything now?"

It's a question and everyone that posted has agreed that looks are not everything, of course they aren't, however they are a factor in many thing. Even if someone came in here and said "looks are everything!" They would be wrong, I could probably find a reason why there would be more then looks for any situation. Models? There is more to models then just looks, do you think a photographer wants to work with a model that is cussing and having a terrible attitude? Absolutely not. Are you going to marry someone that is really hot that treats you like crap? No.

The girl actually singing was "ugly" so they didnt put her on and replaced her with someone better looking.

You prove your point right here. Looks are not everything because if they were in this case that "ugly" girl wouldn't of been needed, but she was because she could sing great, where as the "attractive" girl might of had a good voice, or might of had a bad voice but the point is she didn't have the voice people were wanting, therefore proving looks are not everything.

 

[hillbillyhick]

Maybe we can debate on what the cause of this phenomenon is?
There are a lot of opinions here, but they don't get to the root of the issue: the reason why good looking people have it easier in life, are more important.

First of all we mention that there are good looking people. There are certain women that almost all men find attractive, giving evidence for some mechanism of evaluation, a standard for beauty. Whether this is because of nature or nurture is irrelevant here, though interesting.

Now why then do these good looking people have it easier?
There's no denying that we've all learned at a very early age that beauty is associated with many other good qualities (princesses in fairy tales, heroes,...) and unattractiveness with bad qualities (villains, witches,...). If this is true then it's perfectly understandable that beautiful people are more important and have it easier.

However there is also another explanation: beautiful people are in fact more competent than unattractive people. I'll refer to an article about intelligence and beauty:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...00903/beautiful-people-are-more-intelligent-i
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...0904/beautiful-people-are-more-intelligent-ii

I think that this explanation is not bad at all, but it's still not the only one to explain why attractive people have higher iq scores. Attractive people might actually benefit from the self-fulfilling prophecy. Because of our associations between attractiveness and other good qualities, attractive people might have higher expectations forced on them. And as the 'pygmalion in the classroom' experiment has shown us: higher expectations lead to better results.

I don't think it's just one of these explanations (or another one), I think it's probably a combination of all these explanations.

 

[Aposl]

I would have to say that people being recognized for their beauty does happen, but people being recognized for their talent happens more, there are plenty of famous people who are not very attractive in Acting, music, art, etc... The fact that this one example proves otherwise was just a scenario where an a hole was in charge. I mean if you take five minutes to think you could easily think of a bunch of famous and/ or rich people who have big entourages/ attention who are not pretty.

Secondly for the common situation, in which a beautiful person is treated better by an individual in an office or class room that is mere attraction, and that will always play a role. But, there are few people who's infatuation with someone's looks supersedes their dislike of their personality. This means when reality sets in you hate the person and the special treatment ends.

Thirdly people's looks fade. So is it really having it "better" to have to start from scratch and have a real talent once your in your mid thirties or forties, or have to start from scratch at the beginning of your life, so that the foundation you create cant just be taken away with aging?

 

[Hydra.]

Thirdly people's looks fade. So is it really having it "better" to have to start from scratch and have a real talent once your in your mid thirties or forties, or have to start from scratch at the beginning of your life, so that the foundation you create cant just be taken away with aging?

You won't have to start your career or talent over when you age, if you really had a good talent I suppose you would be wealthy enough to just get surgery to stay looking nice, or you would be popular enough that people wouldn't care. Also the "less attractive" people will age also, what advantage do they get later on in life?

I don't think "more attractive" people have it THAT much easier, I mean come on, sure they might look better but they still have to have the talent the "less attractive" person had, in order to "take" their job.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Do you make snap judgments about people based on how they look? We’d all like to think the answer is “no.” But even if you don’t consciously think badly of a person because they’re unattractive, or overweight, or of a different race, you may have certain biases hard-wired into your brain. And these biases may influence your behavior without you even realizing it.

All people never want to admit that they negatively judge a person by looks, but on the inside, many people actually do.
It is something that we literally do have "wired into our brains", the fact that people in general choose the more attractive or better-looking ones over ones that have acne, wrinkles, or whatever else makes humans look worse than usual.

Doctor Ingrid Olson once attempted an experiment based on a technique named 'priming'. Basically, it states that everything we can realize with our senses has a positive or negative statues within our minds.

Say a word that evokes positive memories or feelings, such as "chocolate", once it is said, many people seem to change into a more positive state of mind.
Another example of this is 'ice cream', unless you detest ice cream:

Take ice cream, for example. Just the mention of the word may trigger many different associations: the taste of your favorite flavor, a memory from childhood involving ice cream, the feeling of hunger, a mental image of a hot fudge sundae, and so on. Chances are, it also puts your brain in a generally positive frame of mind

Surprisingly enough, in the brief period that your brain is in this sort of 'positive' mode, it is more likely to absorb good ideas.
Same thing happens with negative words, such as 'hate' or 'vile'. Your mind may become a little more negative during that brief period of time.

This is what mainly happens with looks: bad looks make people respond negatively, while good looks made people respond positively. This is mainly the reason why beautiful people are chosen over a person with a face not as good as theirs.
However, an exception to this may be IQ level. Say you are a boss looking for one new employee, two people come in for the interview.
One has acne, the other has a clean and beautiful face. However, you scan their resumes and find that the person who is less attractive is much more intelligent than the beautiful one, and is also more productive in his or her work.
Yet some people still would pick the better looking one, sadly enough.

Both quotes come from: http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.php?DocID=299 "Beauty Bias"

 

[Aposl]

You won't have to start your career or talent over when you age, if you really had a good talent I suppose you would be wealthy enough to just get surgery to stay looking nice, or you would be popular enough that people wouldn't care. Also the "less attractive" people will age also, what advantage do they get later on in life?

I don't think "more attractive" people have it THAT much easier, I mean come on, sure they might look better but they still have to have the talent the "less attractive" person had, in order to "take" their job.

I think we were agreeing and didnt realize it...

 

[TigerWoods]

Biologically, humans are drawn to "beautiful" individuals in a population. This is a form of natural selection, since evolution favors characteristics that assist in attracting mates or in competing with the same sex.

Generally, muscular bodies in men are visually appealing since muscular men are generally healthier, thus probably having "quality genetic material." This is also true in women with curves, since the curvature of the pelvic region aids in childbirth.

Of course, distal factors still play an important role in humans, due to our elevated intelligence compared to other organisms. People may choose a genetically "weak" mate instead due to certain cultural or social stimuli.

My point is although beauty is usually skin deep, most of us cannot help but judge beauty. Most people will judge a book by its cover. For example, a great book that has an unappealing cover/title might just be ignored. However, there are people who will read past the "ugly" cover/title anyway, and may change their judgment.

*sources
http://family.jrank.org/pages/1147/Mate-Selection-Evolutionary-Factors.html
http://family.jrank.org/pages/1149/Mate-Selection.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism