General

I don't know, I'd rather be a bit more optimistic about it. Sure, attractive people may have an advantage for the first impression, but if they turn out to be less than ideally competent, I think it overrides their appearance pretty well. In my experience at least, I've worked together with people who were charismatic and likeable but never pulled their weight, and they usually ended up getting their just desserts.

It's a good thing women have makeup so they can just fake good facial aesthetics. But then again... they have to spend money on that. </3

Yeah, and people with bad facial structure are completely hopeless (unless you're Steve Buscemi) because even working out won't help that.

Does this mean Bill Gates is attractive?

As long as you don't look like a neckbeard or greasy hobo you're fine if you also work hard.
You could be drop dead gorgeous and land any job; but if everybody hates your guts because you're an ass then you're gonna lose that job insanely fast.

I mean really, you'd have to be extremely unattractive for an employer not to hire you if you're incredibly hard-working and skilled (and proved it to them).

Either way, I don't know what you're trying to say. Attractiveness is just as important as hard work, if not more? While it doesn't hurt to be attractive, I'd still say hard work is more important for success. Like talent, being attractive can only get you so far. And of course, a dearth of either is bad in any situation.

[quote=Dragon11]@Ecliptic Ask yourself this, an unattractive man with a good job finding a woman versus an unattractive woman with a good job finding to a man.[/quote]

Unattractive male prostitute vs unattractive female prostitute, guess who is more likely to stay around another day?

@Ecliptic Ask yourself this, an unattractive man with a good job finding a woman versus an unattractive woman with a good job finding to a man.

[quote=Dragon11]In addition to all that, unattractive women will have it much worst than unattractive men.[/quote]
No it isn't.

[quote=DeadBaby]It seems like your ideas are not purely based on physical appearance. Some of them are based upon a person's ability to take advantage of social situations and construct pathways to success, which is a skill that may be learned and achieved through hard work. One proponent of that is learning how to speak and express your ideas, and small talk. Vocabulary is powerful, and it can make below average-looking people attractive. Also, it would be naive to believe good looks will always mean success.[/quote]

He never said good looks = success. He said good looks = easier to be successful, and it's true. As pointed out already, it doesn't even need to be "good" as in attractive looks. You could hypothetically be a black person going for a single position in let's say, China. You are competing against another Chinese guy with the same experience, qualifications, attitude, w/e etc. You could be on par with Ryan Gosling in looks, and the Chinese guy let's say is an average 5/10. Historically, they'd probably hire the Chinese guy just because he looks/is Chinese.

this is why you'll find nerds working at mcdonald's and dropouts getting that job you wanted just cause they knew someone

Wow then I must be dead sexy since I can land nearly any job I apply for. Confidence boost

In addition to all that, unattractive women will have it much worst than unattractive men.

@ropro: Yes, true. Read a post the other day regarding a guy who never got a single response from 100+ job applications, suspecting his foreign name was the issue. Again, such biases that ultimately discriminate between individuals cannot be avoided in an imperfect world such that we live in.

@Avatar: My bad. Please forgive.

@Piana: I agree. Once you break through that initial barrier of "physical appearance" and get your foot into the door, it's all up to everything else apart from that.

[quote=minniee]I'm sure you know this but in the process of becoming a doctor, one goes through vigorous tests as well as interviews. I guarantee in such an imperfect world we live in, whereby opportunities are limited - say one spot, two people with the same qualifications - one who looks like they were sports captain, and one who looks like they've been playing maplestory non-stop for the past year whilst munching on doritos and drinking mountain dew through the whole ordeal, that the former would proceed to the second interview because of their "looks".[/quote]

You said yourself that people are introducing unnecessary variables but here you are doing the exact same thing. Being attractive vs. not being attractive is not the same thing looking healthy vs. looking like you don't know how to take care of yourself. The original poster clearly indicated that by looks he was referring to genetic complexion not hygiene by itself. "You can't teach someone how to look good"

[quote=minniee]
EDIT: I also want to point out that others in this thread are introducing other variables into the equation which should not be a consideration, as your variable is purely physical attractiveness.[/quote]

This is a common misconception. A good idea with a bad presentation isn't attractive.

But pretty hurts..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXXQLa-5n5w

[quote=minniee]I'm sure you know this but in the process of becoming a doctor, one goes through vigorous tests as well as interviews. I guarantee in such an imperfect world we live in, whereby opportunities are limited - say one spot, two people with the same qualifications - one who looks like they were sports captain, and one who looks like they've been playing maplestory non-stop for the past year whilst munching on doritos and drinking mountain dew through the whole ordeal, that the former would proceed to the second interview because of their "looks".[/quote]

You're right. However, this has to do not only with looks but with stigmas as well. For example, one ethnicity might be treated differently than another one because it is perceived to be more intelligent, more beautiful, more skillful or more hardworking than the other. This can also be about gender, age, place of birth, area of education, parents' income and a million other factors. (as well as looks, of course.)
Everyone has his or her own biases, and even if you're the most peaceful person out there and the most accepting person and the most loving person, sometimes you're faced with decisions which are sub-conciously made in advance for you - and sometimes you have no other way to decide than to go by those instincts.

[quote=ropro]Though it is true that appearance generally affects the perception that people have of you when they first meet you, I don't think that in order to work in a certain field you have to be attractive (unless it's a field like being a model, in which case you do have to look elegant.) or have a certain body-figure (unless it's a field like basketball, in which case it is rather favorable that you'll be taller than your opponents.) If you're going to get fired from a job [b]such as a doctor[/], it's not going to be because "people don't find you attractive" or because "people prefer taller / thinner doctors", it's going to be because you're not doing your job well or you don't know enough about the work that you have to do.
Do different people with different levels of attractiveness and different body-figures get treated differently and are given a different amount of chances? No doubt about that. But as long as everyone gets to prove themselves to be fit to do the job (which is generally the case), it doesn't really matter.[/quote]

I'm sure you know this but in the process of becoming a doctor, one goes through vigorous tests as well as interviews. I guarantee in such an imperfect world we live in, whereby opportunities are limited - say one spot, two people with the same qualifications - one who looks like they were sports captain, and one who looks like they've been playing maplestory non-stop for the past year whilst munching on doritos and drinking mountain dew through the whole ordeal, that the former would proceed to the second interview because of their "looks".

Though it is true that appearance generally affects the perception that people have of you when they first meet you, I don't think that in order to work in a certain field you have to be attractive (unless it's a field like being a model, in which case you do have to look elegant.) or have a certain body-figure (unless it's a field like basketball, in which case it is rather favorable that you'll be taller than your opponents.) If you're going to get fired from a job such as a doctor, it's not going to be because "people don't find you attractive" or because "people prefer taller / thinner doctors", it's going to be because you're not doing your job well or you don't know enough about the work that you have to do.
Do different people with different levels of attractiveness and different body-figures get treated differently and are given a different amount of chances? No doubt about that. But as long as everyone gets to prove themselves to be fit to do the job (which is generally the case), it doesn't really matter.

This is stating the obvious. Any healthy man and woman could reproduce together, but that's not the only factor we consider when we want to mate - this is why evolution exists. Yes it isn't fair but that's how life is. Just like your examples of job vacancies, you have a pool of individuals who share a common set of skills that you're looking for but you only have a limited demand for those individuals. So how do you set them apart? Who's charismatic? Whose values are desirable and in line with company culture? [b]Who has the most potential to make your company better and expand further?[/b]
If you had the option of choosing between two women as your wife, both the [i]exact[/i] same apart from their looks - one being a 10/10 stunner and the other being 5/10, it would make sense to choose the "better looking" one because they possess more desirable qualities which would be passed on to your own children.

I repeat, it isn't fair but you are blatantly stating the obvious here.

EDIT: I also want to point out that others in this thread are introducing other variables into the equation which should not be a consideration, as your variable is purely physical attractiveness.

There's a distinction to be made. It boils down to what you think other people think of yourself. Confidence and the way in which you portray your image beats genetics any day.

It's true that being attractive helps a lot. But as long as you have a decent haircut, nice clothes and good hygene, you should be fine.

[quote=aznseal]Right, but a lot of the more successful researchers gain traction via conferences and networking. Networking is much easier when you're charismatic and attractive. The most successful ones are attractive, but also as you said, blessed with the intelligence few can dream of.

But another example is the Kratt brothers. All they have is a bachelors in Biology. They're no where near as intelligent as many biologists. However, they're hella successful due to their charms, ability to captivate an audience, and some luck.[/quote]

I feel like your definition of "successful" is Nobel prize laureate, cover of time magazine, or celebrities. Just like your example with the TV personalities you mentioned right now. My definition of successful is having a career you love and making good money. I have been on www.jobbank.gc.ca and have seen listings for mechanical engineers to biochem researchers that have been re-posted for weeks. Either they are waiting for that Michelangelo or maybe they are waiting for someone competent with experience.

[quote=Avatar]You can't teach someone genetics like you said. At the same time you can't teach someone to be brilliant. Maybe being attractive is a big plus in the medical field but being a practitioner isn't as mentally challenging as say being a researcher in medicine. So there are definitely occurrences where aesthetics mean nothing.[/quote]

Right, but a lot of the more successful researchers gain traction via conferences and networking. Networking is much easier when you're charismatic and attractive. The most successful ones are attractive, but also as you said, blessed with the intelligence few can dream of.

But another example is the Kratt brothers. All they have is a bachelors in Biology. They're no where near as intelligent as many biologists. However, they're hella successful due to their charms, ability to captivate an audience, and some luck.

You can't teach someone genetics like you said. At the same time you can't teach someone to be brilliant. Maybe being attractive is a big plus in the medical field but being a practitioner isn't as mentally challenging as say being a researcher in medicine. So there are definitely occurrences where aesthetics mean nothing.

[quote=Miauri]Contacts are everything. Got me my last two jobs. If you don't have family, being attractive is the #2 best way to get contacts[/quote]

Yeah. I realized it's so much easier to focus on being likable and aesthetically appealing than it is to study 24/7. Of course I have to study enough to stay competent in the field, but everything beyond that is unnecessary.

Contacts are everything. Got me my last two jobs. If you don't have family, being attractive is the #2 best way to get contacts

(100% dead srs). OMg totes! Looks matter. I Neeed be more Franschesko Loawzoski. Also OP, i know u have a thing for those female RN BSN grad students. Look at them. All of them are attractive. None of them are fat and I know you know why it's like this.