Why Looks Matter
Dan Akst has an excellent article on it in the Wilson Quarterly, condensing a lot of the stuff I've been posting on recently (much to some people's chagrin) into one piece:
The problem is that, if anything, looks matter even more than we think, not just because we’re all hopelessly superficial, but because looks have always told us a great deal of what we want to know. Looks matter for good reason, in other words, and delegating favorable appearances to an affluent elite for reasons of cost or convenience is a mistake, both for the individuals who make it and for the rest of us as well. The slovenliness of our attire is one of the things that impoverish the public sphere, and the stunning rise in our weight (in just 25 years) is one of the things that impoverish our health. Besides, it’s not as if we’re evolving anytime soon into a species that’s immune to appearances. Looks seem to matter to all cultures, not just our image-besotted one, suggesting that efforts to stamp out looksism (which have yet to result in hiring quotas on behalf of the homely) are bucking millions of years of evolutionary development.The degree of cross-cultural consistency in this whole area is surprising. Contrary to the notion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or at the very least in the eye of the culture, studies across nations and tribal societies have found that people almost everywhere have similar ideas about what’s attractive, especially as regards the face (tastes in bodies seem to vary a bit more, perhaps allowing for differing local evolutionary ecologies). Men everywhere, even those few still beyond the reach of Hollywood and Madison Avenue, are more concerned about women’s looks than women are about men’s, and their general preference for women who look young and healthy is probably the result of evolutionary adaptation.
The evidence for this comes from the field of evolutionary psychology. Whatever one’s view of this burgeoning branch of science, one thing it has produced (besides controversy) is an avalanche of disconcerting research about how we look. Psychologists Michael R. Cunningham, of the University of Louisville, and Stephen R. Shamblen cite evidence that babies as young as two or three months old look longer at more attractive faces. New mothers of less attractive offspring, meanwhile, have been found to pay more attention to other people (say, hospital room visitors) than do new mothers of better-looking babies. This may have some basis in biological necessity, if you bear in mind that the evolutionary environment, free as it was of antibiotics and pediatricians, might have made it worthwhile indeed for mothers to invest themselves most in the offspring likeliest to survive and thrive.
The environment today, of course, is very different, but it may only amplify the seeming ruthlessness of the feelings and judgments we make. “In one study,” reports David M. Buss, the evolutionary psychologist who reported on the multi-generational study of mating preferences, “after groups of men looked at photographs of either highly attractive women or women of average attractiveness, they were asked to evaluate their commitment to their current romantic partner. Disturbingly, the men who had viewed pictures of attractive women thereafter judged their actual partners to be less attractive than did the men who had viewed analogous pictures of women who were average in attractiveness. Perhaps more important, the men who had viewed attractive women thereafter rated themselves as less committed, less satisfied, less serious, and less close to their actual partners.” In another study, men who viewed attractive nude centerfolds promptly rated themselves as less attracted to their own partners.
Even if a man doesn’t personally care much what a woman looks like, he knows that others do. Research suggests that being with an attractive woman raises a man’s status significantly, while dating a physically unattractive woman moderately lowers a man’s status. (The effect for women is quite different; dating an attractive man raises a woman’s status only somewhat, while dating an unattractive man lowers her status only nominally.) And status matters. In the well-known “Whitehall studies” of British civil servants after World War II, for example, occupational grade was strongly correlated with longevity: The higher the bureaucrat’s ranking, the longer the life. And it turns out that Academy Award-winning actors and actresses outlive other movie performers by about four years, at least according to a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2001. “The results,” write authors Donald A. Redelmeier and Sheldon M. Singh, “suggest that success confers a survival advantage.” So if an attractive mate raises a man’s status, is it really such a wonder that men covet trophy wives?
He calls for a "democratization of beauty," which...sorry!...doesn't mean everybody should get to get lazy, but that everybody should dress up and take better care of their appearance.
...To a bizarre extent, looking good in America has become the province of an appearance aristocracy—an elect we revere for their seemingly unattainable endowment of good looks. Physical attractiveness has become too much associated with affluence and privilege for a country as democratically inclined as ours. We can be proud at least that these lucky lookers no longer have to be white or even young. Etcoff notes that, in tracking cosmetic surgery since the 1950s, the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery reports a change in styles toward wider, fuller-tipped noses and narrower eyelids, while makeup styles have tended toward fuller lips and less pale skin shades. She attributes these changes to the recalibration of beauty norms as the result of the presence of more Asian, African, and Hispanic features in society.But what’s needed is a much more radical democratization of physical beauty, a democratization we can achieve not by changing the definition of beauty but by changing ourselves. Looking nice is something we need to take back from the elites and make once again a broadly shared, everyday attribute, as it once was when people were much less likely to be fat and much more likely to dress decently in public. Good looks are not just an endowment, and the un-American attitude that looks are immune to self-improvement only breeds the kind of fatalism that is blessedly out of character in America.
As a first step, maybe we can stop pretending that our appearance doesn’t—or shouldn’t—matter. A little more looksism, if it gets people to shape up, would probably save some lives, to say nothing of some marriages. Let’s face it. To a greater extent than most of us are comfortable with, looks tell us something, and right now what they say about our health, our discipline, and our mutual regard isn’t pretty.
Damn, it's not even dawn here and I bring you the link hot off of ALD and you've already got it. Alkon has the beauty beat covered.
Crid at August 4, 2005 6:11 AM
There was a book awhile back by a person who called himself a "Cultural Anthropologist" - the author's name was Lionel Tiger, and he pretty much foresaw this argument and the reasons why homo sapiens behaved in this manner, regardless of the local culture.
Doesn't look like Amy can do much more regarding the available research at this point - either you agree or you don't.
Dmac at August 4, 2005 8:01 AM
That's something I noticed in the other thread, too. People have very strong ideas not only about the issues under discussion, but also about exactly how much discussion is permissible before further expressions are unseemly.
That's very strange.
Crid at August 4, 2005 8:18 AM
I wasn't trying to cut off any debate here, but it does appear that at some point all relevant issues have been discussed ad nauseum. I don't pretend to know when that mystical moment occurs, but please have at it if you wish.
Dmac at August 4, 2005 8:45 AM
Opinion on this subject seems very similar to opinion on the current real estate boom. Those with property or in escrow believe the boom will continue and then stabilize, those without property think the boom will crash.
Those with looks are more accepting of the opinion that looks matter, those without hope they really don't.
I, for one, am going to wear my prettiest lipstick and iron my linen shirt today....
Diana at August 4, 2005 8:48 AM
AND start losing some of this fat ass....
Diana at August 4, 2005 8:49 AM
Just be sure you wear something that shows off your waistline! Always! (See Dev Singh on waist-to-hip ratio.) Very important!
Amy Alkon at August 4, 2005 9:40 AM
A little effort can go a long way, as long as you aren't the Abominbale Snowman: I showered and shaved this morning and people stopped crossing to other side of the street to avoid me.
This is OT Amy, but your recent column that advises women to carry a potentially off-putting book with them struck a chord with me: the other day I was about to strike up a conversation with a woman at a coffee house until I noticed her book: "Why Men Won't Commit". Sayonara baby!
Todd Fletcher at August 4, 2005 1:00 PM
Heh heh...one shouldn't do it while actively on the hunt. I actually took Firestone's "Fear Of Intimacy" by accident -- it's a good book, and I'll refer to it in my column one of these days -- but it is good anti-pest material! A certain person who comments here was the syphilis book toter!
Amy Alkon at August 4, 2005 1:10 PM
You could always bring "The Bitch in The House," or an 80's classic "Women who Love Too Much."
Dmac at August 4, 2005 3:51 PM
Actually, Norwood's Women Who Love Too Much is a very good book...still.
Amy Alkon at August 4, 2005 6:00 PM
PS If I'm out, The Bitch Is In The Bar.
Amy Alkon at August 4, 2005 6:01 PM
> AND start losing some of this fat ass....
A prominent female bottom? You say that like it's a bad thing.....
Stu "assman" Harris at August 4, 2005 6:38 PM
But the fabulously attractive don't live lives of constant bliss, as history proves. As Rita Heyworth said "They all went to bed with Gilda and they all woke up with me."
Being beautiful is no guarantee of sexual satisfaction, for example, Kim Cantrell and her now ex-husband wrote a book that mentioned how she'd never had an orgasm until him, and then several years into the marriage.
And shockingly enough, physical perfection is no recipe for a happy relationship--thanks, Brad and Jen. I guess he traded up, but Angelina Jolie was married to Billy Bob Thornton, so what are her standards?
In short--as William Goldman wrote about Hollywood, nobody knows anything.
KateCoe at August 4, 2005 9:15 PM
Women and men want different things. On the short list, aside from stability, trustworthiness, etc. men go for beauty; women go for men of status and power. We're biologically different, and our psychology is part of that.
Amy Alkon at August 4, 2005 9:29 PM
Oooh, look out, Amy - you've just played the Larry Summers card. Expect to be hit with an onslaught of outraged/victimized people, some of whom fainted just now when they were reading your post...
Dmac at August 5, 2005 8:27 AM
You wouldn't believe the email I'm getting. One woman wrote me, "You're no model." How rude. What I am is somebody who does the absolute best with what they have, and somebody who gets off her ass and jogs a few blocks so her ass won't be mistaken for Kansas. I've found whining about one's weight to be a poor method of firming up the butt cheeks.
Amy Alkon at August 5, 2005 9:48 AM
PS Kim Cantrell's ex-husband is a genius of sound (designs the most incredible sound systems - feels like you're inside the music). For him to write a book about his sex life...majorly tacky.
Amy Alkon at August 5, 2005 9:49 AM
I think the lady who wrote "you're no model" just did not get it and is possibly a little resentful that someone may be ok with themselves.
Attractive people still have problems but they have more of a chance to dip their toes in a larger pool of acceptable potential partners. oh... and get laid more often. Well done for the running!
Elena at August 5, 2005 10:10 AM
Better make sure that filter of yours is up and running today.
Dmac at August 5, 2005 10:14 AM
The culture of victimhood is stonger than ever in this country - better make sure that filter of yours is up and running today.
Dmac at August 5, 2005 10:15 AM
Exactly, Elena...and Dmac.
Amy Alkon at August 5, 2005 10:37 AM
This is the sort of free market biological determinism that can give a dog fleas. (See above flea post)
Mao See Tung at August 10, 2005 1:53 PM
The problem I see -- and i apologize if someone else has made this point already -- is not whether or not it happens, but whether or not it's okay.
The fact that something is psychologically explicable does NOT make it morally right, or if that's too strong a characterization, socially acceptable. It is completely psychologically explicable, even ingrained, for people to shun those who are different from them. However, that certainly doesn't make racial bigotry, or prejudice against the handicapped acceptable in ANY way.
Yes, we make these judgements, yes, they happen, and yes, they are the product of a normal functioning mind. But I'm sorry, that doesn't make them an acceptable behaviour, no matter how psychologically 'normal' or 'ingrained' they are.
Alix at August 11, 2005 10:38 AM
Leave a comment