Attractiveness has a bigger impact on men's socioeconomic success than women's, study suggests

m3t00 , 7 months ago (edited 7 months ago)

91 up, 45 down. 46 Hmm, article does mention"A recent study published in Social Science Quarterly" onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ssqu.13320Source URL psypost looks ‘fly-by-night’. downvote and scroll. clickbait spread by repeat spammers is another issue usually handled by uber-admins/mods but will sneak in occasionally.

Pistcow , 7 months ago

No shit. Biggest muscle bound frat-bro fucktard I’ve ever known kept climbing in the corporate world. His work was shit but always getting top marks in our group. I was sitting next to him when he got a call from “his bank”, put it on speaker phone, and gave them his credit card number, expiration date, zip code, and 3 digit code. “Dude, Randy, that was a scammer”. “Oh…shit… I better call my bank”.

Pretty people have it unbelievably easy not mater how fucking stupid they are.

Person264 , 7 months ago

Where do you work where you get “top marks”?

Monkeyhog , 7 months ago

Where do you work that they don’t give performance appraisals?

Person264 , 7 months ago

We have performance appraisals, never heard them referred to as “top marks in a group” like we’re still in school doing a group project, to me the original post reads like a story made up by a student.

Pistcow , 7 months ago

Everyone got 3 and he got a 5 on his review even though I was double his sales. Yes, most places do performance reviews.

Person264 , 7 months ago

Well, that sucks, did you raise it with your manager or is there no point

Pistcow , 7 months ago

Yup. This situation isn’t unique, and I’ve seen it twice before. Mediocre work but pretty and just rocket up in the company.

ubermeisters , 7 months ago

The MARKet

DieguiTux8623 , 7 months ago

Maybe other men unconsciously feared being beaten in a fight with him, since he was more physically strong than average. Maybe we’re still cavemen deep inside.

ubermeisters , 7 months ago

ugh can we please not start posting psypost in !science? its bad enough that they were allowed to be spammed over at reddit. its almost always half-cocked crocks of shit trying to make a story fit a narrative.

Sheeple , 7 months ago

This so much this. I’m sick of “woe is me” incels complaining about problems caused by toxic masculinity, then they proceed to blame women

Acoltc OP , 7 months ago (edited 7 months ago)

deleted_by_author

Knitwear , 7 months ago

Their primary issue was with the source and whether this is the right sub for it

m3t00 , 7 months ago

there isn’t a lot of formal moderation rules here and mods are volunteers. I never liked heavily moderated groups because I always violate someone’s arbitrary rules. downvote and scroll. lemmy needs a sort by vote total or something.

Windex007 , 7 months ago

I’d be pretty careful about drawing any conclusions that are too broad from this study when trying to compare the female vs male experience, for a multitude of reasons.

The least of which being that while the splay might be slightly larger for men, the overall social mobility is higher than women. This is to say, unattractive males still have higher social mobility than unattractive women.

In the case for economic mobility specifically, even the ugliest men have more social mobility than the most beautiful women.

So, sure, it might (big asterisk) be the case that being attractive plays a larger role in social mobility for men than it does for women…

… But simply being a man, according to this data, still places one statistically heads and shoulders above being a woman for social mobility.

So… Yeah… The reason people are wary about studies like these is that they’re incel honey. We recognize them as being extremely easy to draw terrible and unsupported conclusions from. That doesn’t intrinsically make them bad, it just makes people want to nip those obvious misconceptions in the bud.