
Physical attractiveness bias in the legal system (2017) - simonebrunozzi
https://www.thelawproject.com.au/insights/attractiveness-bias-in-the-legal-system
======
benhoyt
I was interested to see the section, "A lawyer's physical attractiveness" \--
it reminded me of a few years ago when my wife was supporting a friend during
a messy divorce by being present in court with her. Both parties' lawyers were
women, but the husband (who had a lot more money) had hired a very sharp, very
expensive, dressed-to-the-nines Manhattan lawyer. But the wife's lawyer was a
relatively inexpensive lawyer from Long Island, comparatively unattractive and
frumpily dressed. Obviously it helped that the Manhattan lawyer was very quick
on her feet, but my wife commented at the time that "even from the way she was
dressed, the Long Island lawyer didn't have a chance". It makes me sad how
much of an influence money and appearances are in the justice system. Maybe
all the lawyers and jurors should be literally blindfolded, like Lady Justice.

~~~
chrisseaton
> Obviously it helped that the Manhattan lawyer was very quick on her feet,
> but my wife commented at the time that "even from the way she was dressed,
> the Long Island lawyer didn't have a chance".

This is one of those veeery subtle class things. People don't realise how much
they signal to establishment institutions that they don't belong through
through things like how they dress. And because they don't realise it they
don't even know they're being disadvantaged.

I've seen people turn up to social events with what is very clearly to an
insider the 'wrong type' of suit (wrong fabric, wrong cut, buttoned
incorrectly, wrong shirt, wrong tie, wrong type of shoes), with people
silently judging them, but they would have absolutely no idea how much they
stand out and how they're being disadvantaged by it.

Hard to tackle because it's all silent, the victims are oblivious, and there's
not really any concrete action you can point to and criticise.

~~~
gotoeleven
The great thing about dressing one or two steps above a hobo is that if anyone
cares you know they're an asshole.

~~~
bonoboTP
It's not that simple though. I see it can help us cope better if we label them
as assholes, but the fact remains that the filter is there and it is silent.
Nobody will tell you these things to your face, you just go through life and
never get told the insider infos that people with the right background get
access to. And as others have written, faking it is almost impossible anyway.
Even if you have your clothes perfectly, you won't have all the right manners
and mannerisms, tone etc. As someone coming from Eastern European village folk
I know I will most likely never be an insider to those circles in Wester
Europe or America (lawyers, doctors, professors, intellectuals etc). I feel it
in every little bit fancier dinner event (academia or industry) or other
similar stuff that I'm a bumbling outsider. It's not just "assholes", normal
people to whom these things come naturally judge you too.

But it's ok. I did learn in my upbringing that my only value will come from
studying and skills and being useful. While rich upper class people are seen
to have intrinsic value by belonging to the elite tribe, through a deep web of
generation-bridging connections, us plebs must deliver and are only valuable
as long as we produce.

Software development and CS are good areas for this, as it requires a lot of
effort beyond theatricals and signaling and there is a lot of demand so the
elite does pay us through their teeth because they have to, even if they
resent our nature in their bones. Although there are definitely restrictive
interpretations of "cultural fit" at certain tech companies. But even as an
immigrant, work in tech is one of the best ways to a comfortable life. It can
be materially comfortable, but integrating to the high circles is practically
impossible. We must learn to embrace and find pride in who we are I guess and
stop pretending. Being authentic may be a better choice even if it goes with
sacrifices.

But overall, dismissing it as just assholes does not reach deep enough. It is
an issue to grapple with and process. There is a silent glass ceiling for most
of us and it's definitely even a lot lower than mine for many others.

~~~
bonoboTP
Upon re-reading my post I think I have add that the concept of "elite" is
tiered. I myself am part of a circle of white collar workers and get at least
sometimes to fancy dinners where I'm not quite confused with the janitor etc.
And even if I was born into the next higher class, there would be next higher
circles I couldn't reach. Being, say,in a lawyer dynasty doesn't may not be
enough for certain things, but I have to admit I don't know the distinguishing
signals at those levels.

The point is that it may feel frustrating to feel excluded, but everyone feels
that except multi-billionaires. I'd say therefore that after ensuring a
Western middle-class level of comfort, the rest is mostly a mental game of
accepting one's place, as there's always something higher that you can
frustrate yourself over.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
The point is that even a Western middle class level of comfort is beyond the
reach of most of the population.

It would be interesting and possibly revealing to research the source class of
tech workers to see how many don't come from a middle class background.

The only research I could find at short notice was this from the UK:

[https://www.bcs.org/media/1652/social-mobility-
report.pdf](https://www.bcs.org/media/1652/social-mobility-report.pdf)

The UK and the US both have poorer social mobility than Europe, so the figures
in the US are likely to be even lower than here.

~~~
bonoboTP
> The point is that even a Western middle class level of comfort is beyond the
> reach of most of the population

Depends on the country, and I'm not sure it's the same effect, ie not being
able to pass culturally due to upbringing mismatch. Probably true for those
growing up in very poor, crime ridden places where they can't learn the basic
hygiene, punctuality etc needed for work.

As for social mobility, anecdotally, from who went where in my circles, tech
and engineering are definitely higher in this than law and economics. Whatever
is more concrete and harder to muddle the waters, is better suited for
outsiders as a ladder. But the really big money is always in softer things but
they a better gate-kept. I don't really think anyone tries to gatekeep the
hard fields or trades too much. It's also why "the Polish plumber" is a meme.
Easter European immigrants can take up such jobs and often reach a middle
class income. I know many simple hardworking people who couldn't progress much
due to cultural fit, but do make decent money in England/Germany etc. with
physical work (like transporting stuff, setting up stages, cutting trees).
Their kids do have a chance to enter the cultural middle class then.

------
Hokusai
> Generally, attractive people are perceived as more intelligent, more
> socially skilled, more appealing personalities, __more moral __, more
> altruistic, more likely to succeed, more hirable as managers, and more
> competent.

I am always astonished by how much we humans mix how moral is someone and how
horny that someone makes us.

And it works both ways. To tell someone that you are not attracted to them is
perceived as a judgement of their value in society and morality. When we
actually decide if we are horny for someone in just 1 second from a picture
and zero knowledge about that person.

Many years ago, I worked for a company that hired the hot one instead of the
competent one. And it was amazing to see the twisted justification. But, I
believe that the hiring manager was not aware and was convinced that the
decision was based on the bogus conclusions.

> Some researchers are skeptical that real jurors will have the same biases as
> the studies in simulated juries.

I would expect even worse bias when you do not feel observed and you are not a
student that may have knowledge about the concept of biased decisions.

~~~
BurningFrog
I believe the science is, unfair as it might be, that more attractive people
_are_ , on average, more intelligent, more socially skilled, more etc than the
opposite.

What we find attractive has formed through eons of evolution, and we retain
the preferences of those who managed to leave more descendants.

That's not the _same_ as being more intelligent etc, but it's not completely
unrelated either.

~~~
jdm2212
There's also the simple fact that attractiveness is endogenous. An
intelligent, hard-working person will realize that attractive people get
treated better and work to make themself attractive.

~~~
BurningFrog
Like I've heard several gorgeous people say:

"Do you think this _just happens_?"

~~~
luckylion
To be fair, you also hear rich people inheriting money saying the same. Nobody
wants their success to be based on the luck of the draw, everybody wants it to
be because of their hard work and perseverance because otherwise it's not an
accomplishment.

~~~
jdm2212
No one who has a full time job _and_ is in good shape, with well-maintained
hair, healthy skin, and a nice wardrobe, stays that way by accident. It's a
ton of work.

It comes more easily to some than others, but an hour at the gym is an hour at
the gym, whether you enjoy it or not.

I say this as someone who mostly doesn't do the work, but I have plenty of
friends and colleagues (and a spouse) who mostly do. It's effort and money and
time and stress for them.

~~~
luckylion
Sure, and there's probably some that you wouldn't ever notice as attractive if
they didn't spend an hour on make-up and another hour on tuning their abs each
day. But most of it is genetic lottery, not hard work.

The same is true for money. It's still work to turn a million dollars into two
million, but it's not anywhere close to the work required to turn a dollar
into a million dollars. But nobody wants to be successful because of a
lottery, so they'll argue that their father gave them "a small loan of a
million dollars" but they made it big themselves.

~~~
jdm2212
> But most of it is genetic lottery, not hard work.

The luck part isn't primarily about genetics [1], it's about whether you enjoy
(or at least don't hate) the routines necessary to be attractive.

For instance: my wife sticks to a strict diet because she doesn't like having
to make decisions about food. If you're lucky enough to be wired like her (I'm
writing this next to an empty pizza box...), you can hit any goal weight and
stay there. Our bathroom is covered in lotions and creams that she spends an
hour applying before bed every night. I could not tell you their names, to say
nothing of their purposes. She goes to the gym _every day_ except for planned
rest days, and does a workout routine that was decided on weeks ahead of time.
I maybe go for a jog, if I remember to and I'm feeling up to it.

I've tried copying what she does, and I can't even stick to it for a day. But
most women I know do some version of this, and all of the really attractive
men do, too.

[1] sure, it is possible to really lose the genetic lottery, but unless you
would've been a 19th century circus freak, the bottleneck is probably how hard
you're trying, not your genetics

~~~
mitchdoogle
You can be highly attractive and not very fit. And you definitely don't need
to have a skin care routine to be considered attractive.

I'd also argue that there is a feedback loop, i.e. attractive people are told
they're attractive starting at a young age, and so a large part of their self-
esteem comes from being attractive, so they feel more pressure to do the
things you mention, i.e. skin care, working out.

~~~
jdm2212
Definitely agree that there's a feedback loop and strong long-term effect of
initial level of natural attractiveness when you're young.

One of the advantages of not starting out on the "is attractive -> gets self-
esteem from attractiveness -> tries to be more attractive" cycle is that as
you get older you don't feel like you're losing anything. It's no fun when
you're young, but that's a small minority of most people's lives.

------
gamegoblin
"Liking What You See: A Documentary" is an excellent short story by Ted Chiang
(these days best known for the story behind the film "Arrival") about this
topic.

In the story, a highly-targeted brain treatment exists that can make it so
that one is unable to perceive physical attractiveness. The story explores the
ethics of such a treatment.

Here is a pdf, but if you like it, I highly recommend supporting the author
and getting both of his collections, "Stories of Your Life and Others" and
"Exhalation". You won't regret it.

[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vSPLnv...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vSPLnvgBqIgJ:https://canvas.wayne.edu/courses/102861/files/3959556/download%3Fdownload_frd%3D1+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-d)

~~~
greggman3
Someone should write a story about speakism, judging a message based on how
it's said instead of the content of the message. They can posit some AI that
extracts the facts from each person's message and removes how it was
expressed. This would be see to help people who are not proficient in the
local language, people who have accents that are perceived as less
intelligent/trustworthy, people who deliver their message in harsh ways (Linus
was apparently an example)

~~~
gamegoblin
That exact topic actually comes up in the story I linked.

SPOILERS BELOW (though knowing doesn't really detract from the story)

In the story, one of the central discussions is the debate to make the
procedure mandatory for students at a college campus. The procedure is non-
invasive and reversible, similar tot an MRI or something.

Fearing that this sort of public debate will spread, a cosmetics lobbying firm
(who wants to maintain the status quo) publishes a video with a persuasive
counter-argument.

It is later revealed that the video had been manipulated by software "capable
of fine-tuning paralinguistic cues in order to maximize the emotional response
evoked in viewers. This dramatically increases the effectiveness of recorded
presentations."

Some people get a further brain tweak to mitigate this effect.

------
BbzzbB
Disclaimer: I've only read the 'Key takeaways' in the article.

Should we consider a system where the judge and jury do not see the defendant
(and suer if applicable) in the pursuit of objectivity? I think the bias
towards attractive people is quite obvious in so many spheres of life. For
employment, for the way people treat you as a customer, colleague or day-to-
day, for housing, etc. We are actively fighting many -ism in (rational)
societies, but "unattractivism" is more taboo. I am not sure what the solution
would be at societal level. My feeling is that a societal movement for this
inclusion is more unlikely than the other ones, but that would require to
acknowledge an implicit scale of attractiveness which is divisive in the first
place (as opposed to gender, sexual orientation, ethicity, religion, etc which
are either obvious or self-decided). But I could be misreading the situation
obviously.

The judicial system is different, and with radically impactful consequences,
you do not have to eliminate human bias (which probably isn't even possible),
you just have to make the decision-maker blind just like peer-reviewed papers.
While we can't really hide identity for employment or housing, but a judge and
juree do not need to know the name or see the person. To go further, please
could be read by impartial narrator which would also take care of emotional
bias (should a good actor have a more lenient sentence?). In a way, the
justice system should seek ultimate objectivity for the sake of fairness. On
the flipside however, it would have a dehumanizing effect on the deciders to
have zero connection with the convicted and perhaps lead to an increase in
sentencing lengths, which I'm not particularly in favor of.

~~~
bacheaul
I actually just finished a stint of jury duty last week and got picked for 2
trials. A couple of observations:

1\. One of the trials was an underage rape case and there was essentially no
physical evidence. Mainly all we had to go on was 3 police interviews (2 from
the alledged victim, one from the accused). As a jury, we relied on those
videos to determine who we felt was telling the truth and the trust worthiness
of what they were saying. I'm not saying this was a good thing necessarily,
just an observation that this is what we did. I'd like to see the results with
a parallel jury that relied only on written transcripts etc.

2\. The judge actually gave us guidance at the beginning of both trials that
in addition to what witnesses said, how they appeared to us (their demeanour)
was also evidence that we could use in assessing the trust-worthiness of what
they said. My understanding was that we should use our general life experience
that we had acquired in our day to day living to assess the evidence of the
witness. I guess there are good sides (eg. intuition based on non-verbal
communication/body language) and bad sides (eg. biases) to using this
approach.

~~~
tomp
This might be a silly question, but how come there was no evidence?

I thought that the hard part with persecuting (adult) rape is that the
physical act is the same as sex - so there’s no “obvious” proof that the crime
even happened (like a dead body), only different interpretations of _why_ sex
happened.

That goes away if it’s _statutory_ rape, where even just sex is evidence of
crime.

~~~
bacheaul
So she claimed she had been raped while sleeping over at a friend's house by
the father of the friend. He claimed it never happened. She only told her
mother and step-father around 2-3 weeks afterwards about it.

She was forced (she was not able to choose) to take pregnancy rejection
medication but refused/declined to have a physical examination/rape kit done
(she had a choice in this). So essentially there was no physical evidence (in
the trial at least) that sex had ever occurred. Also, the trial was taking
place around 6 years after the alledged incident.

What we did have was a very detailed, consistent, plausible, and compelling
recount of events leading up to, during, and after the rape from the 13 year
old victim in a police interview about a month after it occured and also
another interview around 2 years later. Watching the interviews, and based on
the type emotion she showed at particular points, the language (including body
language) she used to describe the events etc it was difficult to not believe
her, it was in fact heart breaking to watch and listen to.

I guess my point is that all that "soft" information that we received from the
video recorded interview was indeed information that we used to assess whether
we thought she was telling the truth or not or whether she was coached or was
making it up, for whatever reason. We were in fact instructed by the judge to
use that information to make our assessment whether there was reasonable doubt
or not.

I'm not sure how you separate this type of information from other information
we also receive eg. the physical attractiveness of the accused and defendant
and how the legal system can remove this type of bias. Based on other comments
here, I'm also no longer sure about whether we, as a jury, should be using
that soft information, and I'd love to see results from studies about how
juries assess evidence when it is presented in different ways as suggested
here.

------
ve55
This reminds me when I once remarked that Elon Musk's various procedures to
change his appearance likely were an ROI of >1,000x for him and have probably
increased his net worth by billions if not tens of billions of dollars, just
by making him seem more attractive.

It's unfortunate that appearances are always so important, but it's definitely
ingrained deeply into reality. Also see:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect)

~~~
Firebrand
One wonders how much wealthier Bezos would be if he had the same procedures
done.

~~~
ve55
He definitely started eating and exercising better. I personally think he
looks great for his role.

~~~
55555
lol yes he started eating and exercising better... and taking supra-
physiological amounts of testosterone. he had a second puberty in his 50s that
was more androgenic than the one he had in his teens.

------
mindvirus
Ted Chiang (wonderfully talented sci-fi author, wrote the story Arrival was
based on) wrote this great short story "Liking What You See: A Documentary"
that explores a device that causes people not to see physical attractiveness,
by inducing something like prosopagnosia (a medical condition where people
can't recognize faces) in the wearers. It's written in short snippets of
people arguing for or against device and whether it should be mandatory. It
didn't consider the legal system angle though!

~~~
9nGQluzmnq3M
PDF:
[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vSPLnv...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vSPLnvgBqIgJ:https://canvas.wayne.edu/courses/102861/files/3959556/download%3Fdownload_frd%3D1+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-d)

------
bambax
It's kind of funny that the article, and most, if not all of the comments
imply that basing sentencing on physical attractiveness is "unfair".

Yet our current society tends to consider it completely fair that success
should be a function of IQ.

IQ is no less a given than face symmetry. Grit too. Nothing's "fair".

~~~
collegeburner
Giving an IQ test for a job is illegal.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Giving an IQ test for a job is illegal.

No, it's not. Using any criteria that creates substantial disadvantage to a
protected class is illegal if you can't show a sufficiently close nexus to
bona fide job requirements/performance, which happened to be found to be the
case with the IQ test that was adopted as a direct replacement for overt
racial discrimination in the _Duke Energy_ case. But the _legal_ rule that
comes from that case is not “IQ tests are illegal”, and in fact IQ tests are
used in a number of places in hiring (including, as became notorious in
another case where the practice was upheld, being used where a score _above_ a
threshold was disqualifying in a particular police department.)

------
DC-3
It's funny, in a society with an intellectual obsession with recognising and
deconstructing systems of privilege, we largely overlook what is possibly the
single most powerful inborn advantage one can have - attractiveness. It's
rightly considered abhorrent that people could be treated unequally based on
their race or gender, but I think that we are on some level accepting of the
fact that attractive people have it easier in almost every field of endeavor.

~~~
at_a_remove
Someone, I think Sonja Starr, did a series of studies on racial bias on
sentencing. Unsurprisingly, it existed. Here's the shocker: the male versus
female bias on sentencing was _enormous_ by comparison, using the same
methodology.

I remember a very left forum in which someone bemoaned that one out of four
homeless are women, and that's why we should care about homelessness.

Overall, I have begun to look at _which_ privileges are examined and which are
ignored as the real three card monte.

~~~
sukilot
> I remember a very left forum in which someone bemoaned that one out of four
> homeless are women

That sounds like an extreme mischaracterization. The concern about homeless
women is the extra suffering the endure at the hands (and other parts) of
homeless (and other) men.

Much worse is the horrific (and never retracted) Washington Post article
fretting that murder at work is a female epidemic because _even though men are
murdered_ _more_ often than women at work, men die so much in other ways that
murders of men aren't important*.

It was absolutely gobsmacking to read the utter disregard for men's lives.

"more men are murdered on the job than women. But that's because [450%] more
men are killed on the job overall."

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/27/murde...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/27/murder-
is-second-most-likely-way-for-women-to-die-at-work/)

~~~
at_a_remove
Nope. That was the thrust of their argument: we should care about the homeless
because some of them were women. I've seen it elsewhere, there's even some
handy samples on imgur if you search for them.

------
aminozuur
This reminds me of another study that showed that "90% of CEOs are of above
average height." (source below)

I also wonder if the WFH revolution will reduce the advantage a tall, handsome
guy has over a more productive, short guy.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_discrimination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_discrimination)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Interestingly if you account for height discrimination, it causes women to be
_over-represented_ in management roles, implying that what's normally ascribed
to sex discrimination is really height discrimination and the sex
discrimination, if anything, goes the other way. A 5'6" man is less likely to
be in management than a 5'6" woman.

It also implies that if we solved height discrimination there would be a lot
more female CEOs.

~~~
jariel
" A 5'6" man is less likely to be in management than a 5'6" woman."

Maybe a better way to put it, an 'average height female is more likely to be
in management than a below-average height male'.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
5'6" is the average height in the US, so they're both of average height.
Someone engaged in height discrimination and not sex discrimination is, by
definition, looking at their height and not their sex.

~~~
lotsofpulp
This website says 5ft 9in for men:

[https://dqydj.com/height-percentile-calculator-for-men-
and-w...](https://dqydj.com/height-percentile-calculator-for-men-and-women/)

Based on my life experiences in the US, I would not believe half of all adult
males were below 5ft 6in.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Based on my life experiences in the US, I would not believe half of all
> adult males were below 5ft 6in.

That's because they're not. The average height of adults in the US is 5'6" and
half of them are women.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Oh, oops, I thought you meant men.

------
montenegrohugo
This is an unfortunate reality in most aspects of life. Physical
attractiveness _does_ matter, and has many advantages. Whether in job
interviews, relationships (non-romantic ones too!), performance assessments or
even the judiciary system: attractive people are seen more favorably.

~~~
YetAnotherNick
Ask any girl and they will say that people who wants to be friends with them
greatly depends on the current attractiveness of her. I think it is less true
for males, but nonetheless I feel like there is correlation.

~~~
joncrane
I think males are subjected to the same appearance biases, but it's not
necessarily pure attractiveness. Height and size, for example.

~~~
YetAnotherNick
I still think the effect of attractiveness on female-female friendship is much
much more than male-male friendship. I don't know if there is some known
theory or reason for it, but you can see in a group of female friends, the
attractiveness level is in similar range more often than not(of course
speaking from anecdotes, nothing to prove).

------
modeless
Wow, a huge effect on sentencing (fine amounts, prison term lengths) but _no_
effect on conviction rate? That seems hard to believe.

If true, it means that this bias could be fairly straightforward to correct in
theory, though in practice I doubt people would accept the necessity or
fairness of such corrections.

~~~
tristor
With the exception of mandatory minimums, sentencing usually is broadly
subjective with judges having significant leeway. In contrast, convictions are
based on juries who are provided strict instructions on how they must arrive
at a verdict. Swaying the judge can you get you lighter sentencing but has no
impact on the verdict.

~~~
modeless
Of course that's how it works in theory. I'm just surprised (and encouraged)
to find that it appears to be true in practice.

------
MaximumYComb
This should be obvious to anyone who isn't gifted with top ~10% looks. Not
just in the legal system but in the way the really attractive just have things
easier. The person who just smiles and avoids trouble, etc.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
A huge confounding factor is that socio-economic status and life history can
significantly affect attractiveness.

For example, in the US at least, a lot of people consider having nice,
straight teeth attractive. But getting there requires good dental care and
perhaps orthodontics such as braces which can be expensive. Thus, not only are
straight teeth attractive, they can be a signal of socio-economic status.

Another thing is that life situations alter attractiveness. For example, I
have seen people who were attractive once, but after a few years of using
meth, they would not be described as attractive by a lot of people.

Also, in at least one of the studies, photos of the criminal were used to
judge attractiveness. These may have been mugshots. However, how someone looks
on mugshots can be significantly different if one has been living on the
street for sometime vs living in a wealthy home, and their lawyer arranged
their client to turn themselves in to the police.

------
echelon
Physical bias is inherent in everything. All human interaction.

Being "beautiful" or "ugly" can be a pro, it can be a con, it can lead to
jealousy. Awkwardness, feeling low self-esteem, confidence, tension, etc. A
lot of it is subjective.

We're animals, and we often forget that fact. We try to normalize as much as
possible to remove these biases (thankfully), but it's completely impossible
to remove outright.

I'm waiting for the day we have Matrix-like capabilities and can change our
avatar on a whim. :)

~~~
amelius
Totally true, but physical bias should not be a factor in the legal system.

~~~
echelon
The only way to completely remove it is to present and rule on cases blind.

But even then, a lot depends on judges' and juries' emotional variance
throughout the day. Did they have a meal that gave them indigestion?

It's imperfect.

------
irrational
A coworker came back from jury duty. She said, “He was totally guilty.” “How
do you know?” “Because his lawyer had greasy hair and shifty eyes.” “So he was
guilty because his lawyer looked untrustworthy?” “Yes” “Okay...”

------
mikece
This reminds me of a study of cases where judges pre-screened cases looking at
the evidence and charges without ever seeing the defendant or demographics
about them and predicted the outcome. Their expected verdicts and sentencing
was far more uniform and _accurate_ (taking appeals into account) than the in-
person trials that followed.

------
jariel
Welcome to the real world?

This is in everything.

That said, you don't want to be _too_ attractive - rather, nice symmetry, good
proportions, healthy looking, but generally not attractive like a model.

Height and even girth for men, but only height for women as weight is a
negative for them (I'm loathed to find the source for this, sorry).

One of the only fields where 'well turned out' folks are naturally viewed with
scepticism ironically is software! Either by way of reason (ie nobody who
spends that much time looking good has spent enough time on algorithms!) or by
jealousy (ie it's unfair that this attractive person is as smart as me!) I
think we tend to love 'true geek' flair. It's probably mostly a healthy bias
...

Edit: I should add 'nice teeth'. Seriously, 'nice teeth' are the ultimate mark
of class in an ostensibly classless society. Like in the UK, the oddly huge
variety of accents immediately projects one's origin (and thus class, however
totally unfair it seems to be that way, at very least subconsciously),
'perfect teeth' are generally uncommon in nature, more likely it means one's
parents could afford the $5K in braces etc. for their kids, which is still not
entirely widespread. It's not something I think we think of consciously, but
my gosh 'nice teeth' make a really 'nice smile' and it has such a big social
impact without us ever really realising it.

------
nabla9
Another think that affects justice system is blood sugar.

Court rulings depend partly on when the judge last had a snack
[https://www.economist.com/science-and-
technology/2011/04/14/...](https://www.economist.com/science-and-
technology/2011/04/14/i-think-its-time-we-broke-for-lunch)

The paper: Extraneous factors in judicial decisions
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1018033108

~~~
viburnum
I think that one was debunked, cases weren't scheduled randomly.

~~~
spyder
Yes:

[https://www.pnas.org/content/108/42/E833](https://www.pnas.org/content/108/42/E833)

[https://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2017/07/impossibly-
hungry-...](https://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2017/07/impossibly-hungry-
judges.html)

------
blueblimp
The only section I needed to read was "causation". Essentially, there's no
evidence that this is a causal effect of attractiveness on sentencing, and
there are many alternative explanations available.

So do an RCT please.

~~~
cheerlessbog
If you lead a tough life of crime or had an abusive childhood that led you to
crime, etc - I would expect it to be hard on your body - and looks.

Whenever I see correlation assumed to be causation I like to wonder why they
excluded causation in the other direction. In this case, maybe sentencing
someone heavily is hard on their looks, and we know once you go to jail you’re
likely to reoffend, and that continues, until you have the correlation you
observe, perhaps?

------
miki123211
My opinions are quite controversial, but I think that for most jobs,
interviews should be conducted fully in text, through a platform that doesn't
reveal anything about the interviewed. This is the only way to combat this
kind of bias in recruitment, where it exists too. Teaching people not to
discriminate is just the beginning. Changing the system to make discrimination
impossible is much, much more important.

~~~
TomMarius
How do you see cultural match and the person's mentality that way? Many
brilliant engineers simply wouldn't fit into my team and would be a net
negative. Most of the time it's obvious to the person being interviewed too,
but how would we know if we don't talk about non-technical things or don't
even see each other or talk at all?

~~~
mwcampbell
Would it help if the work itself were also done fully remotely using only
text? I'm with miki123211 on this.

~~~
TomMarius
However it is not, at least not if we are talking about (agile) software
engineering and related disciplines that other team members do.

------
notSupplied
If you haven't read "Liking What You See", a short story by Ted Chiang, do
yourself a favor and check it out. It is one of the most interesting works of
fiction focused entirely on this subject. It is part of the book "Stories of
Your Life and Others".

------
ilyagr
I find it surprising that, according to the article, attractiveness affects
the severity of the sentence, but not whether someone is judged innocent or
guilty. If the former is true, the latter seems too good to be true.

If both _are_ true, it's fascinating. We should then research the mechanism
that makes judgements more fair, and see if we can't change the way the
sentence is determined to match that.

~~~
jariel
It is fascinating because the notion of guilt may be difficult to apprehend.

It could be that the investigation of guilt is very carefully pursued, with a
lot of rules, a lot of evidence.

It could also be that for 'most cases' the outcome is actually fairly straight
foward?

Also, once someone is found to be 'guilty' \- then we are free to 'loathe and
pity then'. Whereas guilt/innocence is mostly a black and white affair,
subject to objective guidance ... the sentencing may not be, which is to say,
it's maybe hard to reference 'what is a little and what is a lot' in any given
scenario, so are bias are more likely to run free.

------
sytelus
These are eye opening results: minimum 2X to almost 4X increase in fine for
unattractive people! In a way attractiveness plays out everywhere starting
from college admissions to careers to finding mate. We don't want to admit it
but then we are fighting against biology and evolution. I guess it doesn't
matter what other attributes one has in long run. Evolution doesn't care
anything but propagating the best genes which apparently attractiveness is a
statistical proxy.

Another irony: Virtually every object of value in modern world is made by
scientists and engineers but guess who is million times more worshiped,
popular, paid, followed, protected and cared about: actors! Most actors simply
act out a scene someone else designed, someone else shot, someone else wrote,
someone else directed. None of the behind the scene people matter much or even
get fraction of a credit because they are often not as attractive as these
puppets to put on the screen. That's humanity for you in its raw form.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Virtually every object of value in modern world is made by scientists and
> engineers but guess who is million times more worshiped, popular, paid,
> followed, protected and cared about: actors!

Not really. It just seems that way because of the a tiny, highly visible slice
at the top of the field. The 2018 median pay for an actor was $20.43/hr, there
were only 64,500 of them working in 2018, and there's about 1% projected 10
year growth in the field.

[https://www.bls.gov/ooh/entertainment-and-
sports/mobile/acto...](https://www.bls.gov/ooh/entertainment-and-
sports/mobile/actors.htm)

The median pay for a software developer in 2018 was $50.77/hr, there's almost
1.4 million of them, and there's 21% projected 10 year growth in the field.

[https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-
technology/...](https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-
technology/mobile/software-developers.htm)

> None of the behind the scene people matter much or even get fraction of a
> credit because they are often not as attractive as these puppets to put on
> the screen.

Directors, Producers, Screenwriters, and Composers, among others, often are as
prominently, or nearly so, credited as stars, paid quite well, and quite well
known; definitely moreso than non-star actors.

And star actors very often have a _much_ bigger impact on productions than
just presenting what others have written, actively shaping their characters
and often other parts of the production.

------
waterhouse
"Attractive people tend to have better physical health, better mental health,
better dating experiences, earn more money, obtain higher career positions,
chosen for jobs more often, promoted more often, receive better job
evaluations, and chosen as business partners more often, than unattractive
people."

Could some of those correlate with things relevant in court? Prior criminal
history, for example? (That explicitly and deliberately _does_ factor into
sentencing, where the main difference is reported.) Are they controlled for?
The article doesn't use the word "control" or "history". I only see a couple
of studies about mock juries, where the subjects are merely given a photograph
and a packet to read, which _does_ control for everything (except for details
that the subject's imagination is left to fill in).

------
stevebmark
Eventually we'll have an equality movement for the very real effects
attractiveness / unattractiveness have on things like job performance. It will
be a more subtle equality movement than civil rights, gay rights, trans
rights, but it will happen.

~~~
hedberg10
Already happened. Kurt Vonnegut described it in Harrison Bergeron.

------
bloak
So many people in this discussion seem to think that "attractiveness" is a
scalar value. This makes no sense to me. Quite apart from this being highly
subjective (different people having different opinions) I couldn't even state
my own opinion on something so vague. If you asked me which of two people is
most "attractive", I wouldn't know what's meant. If you asked me which looks
more intelligent, or more friendly, or more trustworthy, or more healthy, or
more fun, I could perhaps give some kind of answer, but, seriously, what is
"attractive" supposed to mean?

~~~
misanthropian00
It sounds like you have a kind of impairment in this regard. Most of us don't
need anyone else to define 'attractive' for us. It is something we all feel
when we see a face that represents certain ideals of aesthetics. For me it is
a small round flat doll-like face with large widely spaced and elongated and
ideally slightly upturned eyes close to the edge of her face. When a girl has
a face like that I feel a kind automatic love for her. I think that is what it
really is: a kind of aesthetically based instant love. Every time you find
someone attractive it is a variant of love at first sight differing only in
degree.

------
keiferski
“Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.“
\- Mark Twain

Mostly a joke, but also completely true. We are physical beings in a visual
world. The way you present yourself matters.

------
cmrdporcupine
Makes me think of this SNL sketch:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvgBKO7CGzY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvgBKO7CGzY)

------
PlugTunin
This got me thinking of the connection to ageism. Sure, a younger person might
be hired over an older candidate for reasons that are legitimate: maybe the
more senior person wants too much money, or maybe the hiring powers-that-be
want to bring in someone who can "grow with the company".

But occasionally, I suspect these reasons become convenient excuses to go with
the younger, more attractive, reasonably-qualified candidate.

------
11thEarlOfMar
The article mentions that felonies did not produce a sentencing bias. Perhaps
this is because sentencing guidelines for more severe crimes are also more
closely defined by the points of the case and judges have less latitude in
sentencing. If so, could other forms of bias be mitigated by providing
additional guidelines for sentencing in those cases? Do they simply suffer
from lack of attention to the guidelines?

------
refurb
Hmmmm... physical attractiveness is highly subjective. What was the
methodology for determining it? I didn't see it in the article.

And physical attractiveness can vary by setting. Dressing business
professional helps attractiveness in a court room, but if you were dressed
like a stripper, you might still be highly attractive, but cause a negative
perception in the court room.

~~~
huge87
> physical attractiveness is highly subjective

There's always sociocultural dependencies and personal preferences, but beauty
can certainly be quantified. Facial symmetry, body proportions, etc.

Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but only up to a point. There
are some markers that, when you increase or improve them, objectively increase
beauty.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness)

~~~
refurb
There are trends in what is considered attractive, but I would imagine you're
looking at a +/\- 30% variability.

Would love to know how these studies measured it.

------
andredz
Looking for something unrelated (retcons), I somehow ended up in this TV
Tropes article that contains quite a few examples relevant to this topic:
[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeautyEqualsGood...](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeautyEqualsGoodness)

------
collegeburner
Wow, after all the professional, personal, and legal information that's been
related here, I feel pretty badly. Is it really that important to go get
plastic surgery? I exercise and take care of myself, but have an exceptionally
asymmetric face, so might it improve my prospects personally and
professionally?

~~~
jdm2212
Ignore the studies and anecdata. Attractiveness is substantially a reflection
of personality, so it's hard to disentangle them in studies and anecdotes.

Being unattractive can be superficial, or point to deeper issues. In general
it'll hold you back to the degree that it points to deeper issues, because
people mostly won't care if your face is a bit asymmetrical if they can depend
on you and you are pleasant to be with.

------
wenc
Really hate to be the overanalyzer here, but just wondering how is physical
attractiveness defined in these studies?

And was charisma considered as a variable?

(I'm just thinking of the courtroom scene in "My Cousin Vinny". Joe Pesci is
not conventionally good looking but has a personality that is very persuasive)

~~~
1996
There are many scientific studies.

For all the variables, check table 1 of the following for "Zero-order
Pearson’s correlations between facial appearance and health, with the
corresponding p-values and sample sizes":

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5290736/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5290736/)

If you want more example for a given variable, for example the effect of
adiposity (we know it's quadratic), read one of the original papers:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6308207/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6308207/)

All this is well known now, as the first study was about 22 years ago:

Perrett, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., Burt,
D. M., … Akamatsu, S. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial
attractiveness. Nature, 394(6696), 884–887. doi:10.1038/29772

------
dang
If curious see also this similar thread from 3 weeks ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23821125](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23821125)

------
rogerdickey
Wonder if this controls for severity of the crime? It could be the case that
attractive people don't tend to commit crimes as serious (within each
category, ie misdemeanor)

------
HenryKissinger
What about tech? Are physically attractive software engineers more likely to
receive jobs and promotions than engineers of equivalent skills and
experience?

~~~
jpxw
Almost certainly yes, unless tech is different from the job market at large.

An interesting point on attractiveness in the job market is that people who
are extremely unattractive tend to also perform very well. It’s mildly
unattractive people who do the worst. My pet theory is extremely unattractive
people have to work their asses off to make enough money to be sexually
competitive in any way.

~~~
biggestdecision
Exceptions stand out from the crowd, good and bad. If you are a competent dev,
nobody cares about that if no one notices you.

If people notice you, they'll next notice if you are competent or not.

~~~
afuchs
This carries the assumption that competence is something that is purely
objective. I find it more likely that what is perceived as competence is still
subject to bias.

------
ekianjo
The bias does not exist only in the legal system...

~~~
site-packages1
No one made the claim that it did exist only in the legal system. This article
is just about bias in the legal system.

------
kingkawn
It’s wack as hell to go along with this kind of judgment and then just shrug
and say “that’s how it is!”

------
aduitsis
It is amazing how complete is the delusion that beauty is goodness. \- Leo
Tolstoy

------
triggercut
Not sure how this was done but this needs a 2017 tag. Old paper.

------
tyingq
I wonder how much of it is the DA team as opposed to the judge.

------
tus88
Correlation is not causation.

