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.
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.
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.
They did "control for socioeconomic status", I assume that means levels of costly self-care were distributed across both political aisles when they were setting up the study.
It’s not the system, it’s people as such. Being attractive confers benefits pretty much universally. That should come as no surprise for a species that has been through millions of years of sexual selection.
Otherwise, you are correct, the fallacy is to assume what works for you will work for others.
Interesting. Because I find people who are Republican and “conservative” to be quite unattractive.
And “conservative” is such a misnomer for what they are. They don’t want to conserve the environment or conserve civil liberties (freedom from authoritarianism), which would be conservative in a good way. They do want to conserve their privilege, so maybe that’s it.
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.
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."
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.
> 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?
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.
> 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.
We've known this for years. Ugly people are less apt to become successful or form relationships, so they will tend toward the socialist, big government type of beliefs looking to solve problems which they can't solve themselves. And it's now a trope, and a true one, that the radical leftist terrorist types like Antifa are by in large horrifically ugly people, inside and out.
23 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 58.3 ms ] threadI 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. "
Otherwise, you are correct, the fallacy is to assume what works for you will work for others.
And “conservative” is such a misnomer for what they are. They don’t want to conserve the environment or conserve civil liberties (freedom from authoritarianism), which would be conservative in a good way. They do want to conserve their privilege, so maybe that’s it.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.