
Effects of physical attractiveness on political beliefs - hirundo
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/effects-of-physical-attractiveness-on-political-beliefs/D5214D0CAE37EE5947B7BF29762547EE
======
baryphonic
I'm not surprised. In many cases, I think the causality arrow runs backwards,
from beliefs to (un)attractiveness. A lot of attractiveness is inborn, but a
surprising amount is also related to personal choice (such as weight, hair
style, fashion choices, personal hygiene, grooming, body art, piercings and
even scent). My personal experience has indicated that people on the Left are
much more likely to disregard these attributes. Many on the Left take an
"individualistic" approach to these attributes, where deviations from the
"ideal" are a point of self expression (particularly with respect to hair,
piercings, tattoos and weight); others on the Left attempt to "deconstruct"
the "ideal" by actively subverting it. People on the Right tend to accept the
"ideal" as desirable, and strive to achieve it.

~~~
ivraatiems
You are right, I think, but maybe not seeing the whole picture as to why the
left tries to break these standards down:

Not everything you list is entirely a personal choice. Weight and scent are
only a choice to a certain extent, as is available hairstyle. Choice of
fashion, hairstyle, etc., are also culturally limited in many cases, or
limited by where one lives and what one can access.

That's the point of left-leaning deconstruction: to point out that what we
take as the standard in these areas is no standard, just a cultural
determination (which shuts some people out, or makes it hard for them
unnecessarily) we've been told never to question. In my view, the right
leaning response tends to be "yeah, but it's a determination that benefits us,
so we like it."

~~~
gridlockd
Piercings, tattoos, unnatural hair colors and certain apparel commonly
associated with "the left" \- those are all tribal ornaments. They subvert or
deconstruct nothing, they signal in-group/out-group membership.

In terms of a natural instinct for aesthetics, I would argue that tribal
ornaments are in fact generally unpleasant, which makes them _honest signals_.
Certain African tribes have ornamentations that are outright mutilations.
Similarly, as the ornaments of an out-group get appropriated by broader
society, its ornaments must become more extreme to achieve the desired effect
(e.g. the rise of facial tattoos).

Furthermore, signaling society as a whole that you represent an out-group (and
therefore a potential threat) confers various disadvantages, which also fits
neatly into some oppression narrative that a proper leftist must endure.

~~~
ivraatiems
> They subvert or deconstruct nothing, they signal in-group/out-group
> membership.

Why can't they do both?

When you call a body alteration someone made by choice a "mutilation", you're
viewing it from your cultural context, not theirs. Your context might be the
default where you live, but it isn't the only one. That's the whole point: The
limits of aesthetically pleasing appearance are subjective and shouldn't be
dictated by what you or I personally find comfortable.

Sure, there's a signaling component to what people wear. But to assert people
are getting face tattoos just to indicate which political tribe they're in is
an extreme claim that requires substantial evidence. Do you have any?

~~~
gridlockd
> Why can't they do both?

Because you can actually see the opposite happening: Mainstream culture
subverts tribal ornamentation by picking up the look as fashion but discarding
the essence, a process also known as "cultural appropriation".

As for deconstruction, I just don't _see_ it. Well, maybe I sort of see it
with the unnatural hair colors. Maybe you can explain how?

> When you call a body alteration someone made by choice a "mutilation",
> you're viewing it from your cultural context, not theirs.

Particularly, I was thinking of the practice of amputating the small finger
that is practiced by certain Xhosa tribes. Objectively speaking, it confers no
advantages, not even those that _could_ be attributed to the genital
mutilation practiced in Abrahamic religions. It therefore is a very strong
tribal signal - and unlikely to be appropriated.

> That's the whole point: The limits of aesthetically pleasing appearance are
> subjective and shouldn't be dictated by what you or I personally find
> comfortable.

What "should or should not be" is of no consequence to basic primate behavior:
You send an out-group signal, you get the out-group treatment - and vice
versa.

> But to assert people are getting face tattoos just to indicate which
> political tribe they're in is an extreme claim that requires substantial
> evidence.

I didn't actually claim that.

In any event, it doesn't have to be a political tribe per se, nor does it have
to be one particular tribe. A Maori is going to have a face tattoo for
different reasons than a rapper.

By getting a face tattoo you are at least implicitly positioning yourself
against anyone who thinks face tattoos are bad, which probably includes 99% of
"conservatives".

Unless you're Maori of course, then maybe getting a face tattoo would be the
"conservative" thing to do.

~~~
ivraatiems
> Because you can actually see the opposite happening: Mainstream culture
> subverts tribal ornamentation by picking up the look as fashion but
> discarding the essence, a process also known as "cultural appropriation".

I don't think this means you can't use counterculture to deconstruct
mainstream culture, but I agree that it's a barrier. However, I disagree with
any implication that the purpose of ornamentation is only in/out-group
identification, to the extent you're making it here, and I'll explore that
further.

> As for deconstruction, I just don't see it. Well, maybe I sort of see it
> with the unnatural hair colors. Maybe you can explain how?

I think it's following the same basic logic the grandparent comment/originator
of the thread described. It says "here is something I choose to do to myself,
which I say is beautiful, in part _because_ you say it isn't beautiful."
That's a deconstructive framing and justification for the action.

But I want to back up for a second. I'm not asserting that a given person who
believes in social justice causes, and chooses to dye their hair pink,
necessarily chooses consciously to associate those two things. I think it's
possible, but it's equally likely that the person sees their friends doing it,
thinks it would look good on them (for whatever "good" means in their mind),
and so does something similar.

> What "should or should not be" is of no consequence to basic primate
> behavior: You send an out-group signal, you get the out-group treatment -
> and vice versa.

The predominant implication here, to me, is that the basic primate behavior as
you understand it is the driving influence. And that could be, in the same
sense that our basic desire to eat leads us to order takeout instead of going
hungry. My concern is that reducing an action to the most basic impetus,
discarding what "should or should not be", and discarding all the other
reasons one could have for taking an action that are also factors, eliminates
understanding by eliminating nuance.

If we think of someone's act of self-expression predominantly through the lens
of which groups it signals what to, we're losing a lot of information; as you
say:

> A Maori is going to have a face tattoo for different reasons than a rapper.

but I'm more concerned about the nuance of those reasons than identifying the
primal drive. The primal stuff is easy to find; it's the layers between that
and the action where we can learn more, and/or influence behavior.

You can say "I know why this person has done thing X; it's to signal to
outgroup Y" \- but you don't actually know that, and even if you did, I'm not
sure how it's helpful without more information.

------
wiglaf1979
Found a non-paywalled version of the paper. [https://cpb-
us-w2.wpmucdn.com/about-dev.illinoisstate.edu/di...](https://cpb-
us-w2.wpmucdn.com/about-
dev.illinoisstate.edu/dist/2/123/files/2019/10/Peterson-Palmer-The-Effects-of-
Physical-Attractiveness-on-Political-Attitudes.pdf)

I would guess this is the controversial part of the paper.

"Further, we find that attractive individuals are more likely to identify with
the Republican Party and more likely to be conservative. "

~~~
KMag
It's unsurprising that people for whom the system is likely to work a bit
better than average are, on average, a bit more sceptical about changing the
system. But, it's good to have numbers to back up the intuition.

~~~
djaque
Another story could be that if the system is working for you, you're probably
getting dental, can afford skincare, can splurge on the nice barber, etc.

~~~
gridlockd
These cosmetic factors have minimal impact on attractiveness.

~~~
badrabbit
Attractive people can roll around in mud and refuse to shower for a year and
they'd still have plenty of suitors after them. But cosmetic factors can
elevate otherwise average looking persons.

------
mud_dauber
Also: see "The Warren Harding" bias (Blink, Malcolm Gladwell).

------
supernova87a
The site is asking $25 to read the paper. This isn't a very accessible story,
is it?

------
imesh
TLDR The effect exist but is very slight.

