Dismiss Notice

Psst... Ready to join TalkBass and start posting, make new friends, sell your gear, and more?  Register your free account in 30 seconds.

*strokes beard* Interesting

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by LiquidMidnight, May 8, 2005.


  1. LiquidMidnight

    LiquidMidnight

    Dec 25, 2000
    Well, technically I don't have a beard; I have a Jazz dot. But that's not my point. Anyways, as someone studying human behavior, I found this intriquing. Can't say I'm convined by the evidence, but interesting none the less.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7721095/?GT1=6542
     
  2. Stomniar

    Stomniar

    Dec 5, 2003
    Spring Hill FL
    I have seen many things in my life so far that reflect that article, in more ways then one. Acne, braces, speech impediments, bad hair cuts, sickness, almost anything you can think of that affects a person can affect the way others see that person.

    :(
     
  3. This is one of those reports that makes me wonder who the hell is running it. There are too many factors that are based on opinion to be very credible. I wonder how long they ran these "observations"? There are a lot of metrics published on this or that and just about every one of them is biased in some way. IMO of course. None the less, it does make you think!
     
  4. Lowtonejoe

    Lowtonejoe Supporting Member

    Jul 3, 2004
    Richland, WA
    Without a doubt this has been happening throughout history. Pretty children have always been favored.

    It would not surprise me that in this day and age, with our concern about looks reaching crippling (to society) proportions, that this attitude (concerning children/parents) was becoming more and more rampant.

    We are raising up generation after generation of shallow, entitlement minded people. With each succeeding generation it only gets worse.

    Our society is degrading to the point of critical mass. Soon (relatively speaking) it will either fail-thus initiating radical, undirected change (of a darwinian nature) or as a society we wake up to the problem and initiate a change with a positive direction.

    Well, that's what I think.

    :D

    Joe.
     

  5. Yeah. I've been pointing out for a while that untill now, all major cities and cultures have fallen at about 1 million in population or less due to politics and disease, etc...

    Since we beat disease back a bit, it's only a matter of time before we hit the next stumbling block and there is a good chance society will fail if we can't work together and value something more than money.

    I do agree that we hold way to much weight in looks. After your post it (article) made a little more sense to me. I am always a sceptic when it comes to a published finding as we are fully capable if playing out the numbers just right if we want something.
     
  6. nastyn8c

    nastyn8c

    Feb 7, 2005
    Tampa, FL
    That is sad for MSNBC that this is considered legitimate research....
     
  7. LiquidMidnight

    LiquidMidnight

    Dec 25, 2000
    Yeah that's what I thought. It seems like there could be a lot of spurious varibles in the research. An actual journal article based on the expiriments would probaly give a more clear view on what actually occured. Like I said, I found the article interesting though, so I posted it.
     
  8. LiquidMidnight

    LiquidMidnight

    Dec 25, 2000
    True, but could all of that be symbolized by a cheeseburger?

    Sorry, I couldn't resist. :D
     
  9. jobu3

    jobu3 Artist formerly known as Big Joe

    Feb 17, 2002
    Mountain Top, PA
    How do you objectively measure ugliness? What was the 10 point scale? What was the amount of variablility on each of the subject's ratings from one researcher to the next?

    It's a ridiculous research project if it even happened at all. It's too subjective to really mean anything. Not scientific at all. :rolleyes:
     
  10. I'd imagine they set up some type of coding system, i.e. dividing and scoring individual facial features, relative to cultural standards of beauty/ugliness. That's how most of the studies based on appearance I've read have done it, anyhow. Believe it or not, using this method, it's not terribly difficult to get a pretty strong consensus score among a group of individuals. The hang-up is that sometimes features that might be considered "flaws" on their own actually add to someone's "attractiveness" in the minds of some observers. So yeah, there's a certain of subjectivity inherent - it's not just not as exaggerated as you might think.

    Anyway, I would have to read the study myself before drawing any conclusions about it. Certainly an intriguing idea, though...
     
  11. Petary791

    Petary791

    Feb 20, 2005
    Michigan, USA
    I have a few things going through my mind, but I don't want to offend anyone.

    :mad:
     
  12. Lowtonejoe

    Lowtonejoe Supporting Member

    Jul 3, 2004
    Richland, WA
    Yup.

    :D

    Joe.
     
  13. Lowtonejoe

    Lowtonejoe Supporting Member

    Jul 3, 2004
    Richland, WA
    Yeah. It kind of reminds me of when Scientific American came out with their special issue on the mind about 10 years ago.

    I was so frikkin disappointed. It sounded like all the main articles used the exact same reference source. I quit reading Scientific American for a long, long time after that. I could not for the life of me figure out how the editors let that one slip by!

    Ah well.

    :D

    Joe.
     
  14. Lowtonejoe

    Lowtonejoe Supporting Member

    Jul 3, 2004
    Richland, WA
    In far too many ways.

    :D

    Joe.
     
  15. Lowtonejoe

    Lowtonejoe Supporting Member

    Jul 3, 2004
    Richland, WA
    No, you are wrong.

    (Easy there big guy! Let me explain.)

    It's all about proportion. I saw a special on PBS a few years ago on beauty. They figured out that all of the worlds people who are considered 'beautiful' have a specific 'proportion', (in the mathematical sense) to their face...and their bodies.

    I can't remember exactly what they said but at the start of the program I thought it was all BS and by the end of the program, to me, it made very logical sense.

    Honest to God.

    :D

    Joe.
     
  16. Thee

    Thee

    Feb 11, 2004
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    I have never heard it referred to as a jazz spot, but I'm thinking I know it as a soul patch? Dizzy/zappa style, right?
     
  17. walewein

    walewein

    Jun 13, 2003
    Belgium
    There is still a major amount of variance in this buckling up behavior that isn't explained by this "prettyness". + 86.7% of the pretty children weren't buckled up either.

    Where are the numbers on this one?

    So first the research team rated them and then observerd their behaviour? or the other way around? I guess they could just see what they wanted to see. Now, if they would have let other people judge these childrens appearance, independent from the research team, the investigation might gain a bit more credibility from my side.

    Edit: I would like to see if the parents would still act differently when their child's live was at stake, I don't think so. I don't know if you can generalize this to other situations.

    And another thing, I wonder if the results were still like this if we ruled in the sexe of the child. Obviously people will be more caring to a daughter than to a son (that's a scientifically proven fact).
     
  18. tifa

    tifa Padawan Bassist

    Mar 8, 2005
    Blackburn, UK
    Hmmmmm - I may be completely off track here, and please let me know if you disagree! But surely parents naturally think their child is beautiful anyway. The 'atractiveness' of the child as measured by whatever method the experiment uses would probably be irrelevant to the parent - they think that their child is beautiful no matter what the scientist says.

    Going from that then I would think all parents give their child the most love and affection possible - since they all think their children are attractive anyway.

    I appreciate there will always be exceptions but generally speaking....?

    maybe I'm looking at it too simply?
     
  19. walewein

    walewein

    Jun 13, 2003
    Belgium
    Mmm...don't know, but then again, I don't have children. Maybe some parents here could elaborate on this?
     
  20. jobu3

    jobu3 Artist formerly known as Big Joe

    Feb 17, 2002
    Mountain Top, PA
    No, I'm not. ;)

    In the scientific and medical realms, if you don't document it, you didn't do it.

    They need to have a "methods section" in the article to show exactly how they decided who fell into what and go into detail regarding how they chose. There certainly are ways to do it as objectively as possible. Only use subjects that fell within a certain range of looks that so many testers agreed on independently and list the variance: list ones that were not included and why, list the critereia for the scale. List the ages of the parents and the kids. List who ad all ugly kids or who had a mixed family. There's a lot more they probably should look into all of which they didn't show anything.

    After they did it once, they should have had several independent groups repeat the study on the same subjects, or repeat it on groups that were very large. Then the study should be repeated in different locales to either help support or refute the initial hypothesis. I think they should have also had independent studies to show if the testers were at all biased towards the looks or actions of anyone involved.

    Either it was poorly documented or poorly executed if not both. And another thing is that they didn't show anywhere that they had permission to do this, IIRC. I'm not sure how many people would give permission to rate their children based on looks and poor parenting as a result of it.

    There was no link to the original data. There was no link to an original article. We don't know what quallified the original testers. Were they psychologists? Pediatricians? Random untrained people?

    So in other words, this study showed nothing. :meh: