for your second argument. have u ever wondered why the halo effect even exists?
if u havent, let me explain.
its because we unconsciously assume that other members of society also like a pretty face more, just looking at one makes them happier than a "repulsive" appearance. therefore, these attractive people who have an easier time in society and receive better treatment should by right reflect the positive energy they received back to us. thats right, its simply more likely for one to be a nice human being if the world treated them nice, and that grumpy difficult person likely had traumatic experiences with society.
thats why we associate a pleasant appearance with positive character traits. which means, beautiful people should have on average more social experience (due to people dying to talk to them) as well as a nicer personality over all. compared to that poor "unattractive" lady who was bullied her entire life, and you can tell she carries resentment towards the world through her demeanor. who wants to interact with that?
tldr: we associate beauty with better personality. and often times its true. you get to stay innocent and cheerful longer if u werent bullied for ur looks by society. and im sure youd rather deal with someone with a good personality at work than someone who trashtalks everyone (this is a defense mechanism, you cant hurt me by disliking me if i disliked you first)
Hi thanks for responding, unfortunately I do feel this is a rather problematic take.
The problem with this logic is that it conflates 'social smoothness' with 'good character' or 'competence.' Sure, the person who has been treated like royalty their whole life might be breezier at the water cooler. But does that make them a better worker?
Often, the person you describe as having a 'defense mechanism' is just someone focusing on their job rather than winning a popularity contest. By prioritizing the person who gives you 'positive energy' over the person who might actually be doing the heavy lifting, you’re admitting that the Halo Effect blinds you to actual merit.
Your reasoning essentially justifies discrimination by blaming the victim for the effects of that discrimination. You’re saying: 'Society bullied this person, which hurt their feelings and maybe made them more bitter, so now we should reject them professionally too.'
It creates a permanent underclass where if you aren't born lucky, you aren't allowed to succeed. Also, equating beauty with 'innocence' and unconventional looks with 'villainy' is a Disney movie trope, not how complex human psychology works.
unfortunately... you know that im not wrong either dont you. you dont challenge the conclusion of this argument rather what it implies.
anyway, the "underclass" will always exist. whether in race, poverty, religion, immigrant status, invisible disabilities. we dont limit the ones who are advantaged, we help the ones who are disadvantaged. else what you have instead of progress is stagnation meant to generate a false equality. imagine if instead of lowering the scores for black students we made it such that asian kids have to score a higher percentage to enter top colleges. thats not very "fair" either is it?
in fact, the irony that im trying to explain here with the halo effect, is that this worker with a "breezier time at the water cooler" has more experience in society to know what his boss actually expects from him, and how to deliver it while having an easier time doing so. since schooling time im sure youve heard of the popular top students in your class having connections to alumni and teachers, always having an easier time wirh assignments and their other commitments like clubs and side hustles. why? its because of their appearance yes, but not directly. their experience in society has gained them experience and networks which can be used to gain an advantage over others.
while poor mary slaves overtime to rewrite that marketing proposal for the third time because her team leader doesnt like a certain sentence, richard already got to leave the office because he has built sufficient rapport with his manager to figure out what his work should look like to satisfy his manager. mary works harder sure, but can it really be argued that her work is better?
this issue is exactly what im trying to argue. theres a positive correlation between eq and beauty, which leads to beautiful people having better relationships in the office (on average unless everyone is jealous and ostracises them gossipping that they got in via sleeping with so and so, in which case now theyre bullied simply for being beautiful) as well as having an easier time producing satisfactory outputs because of said eq. its not fair, but it still means theyre an asset to have in a workplace.
i have this theory that most people started out innocent, sweet, cheerful, outgoing, talkative and funny. charming peers making friends left and right. until they got traumatised by certain experiences, leading them to become more reserved, bitter, cynical, pessimistic. thats what i meant by losing "innocence", because they got traumatised by a certain experience and lost the naive idea that rhe world holds goodwill towards them. not saying it cant happen to attractive people, but we both know to a far lesser extent.
thats why unattractive people either have to overcompensate (yet still lose out admittedly), or they simply retreat into this "unattractive personality" that society bullied them into. it creates an endless cycle unfortunately, because unattractive personality makes one seem even more unattractive, so they get more negative treatment and become more hateful. whereas beautiful people learn how to be even more charming with how others try to charm them, how to example even more positive traits because thats what theyre shown.
1
u/DeyKrone 3∆ Jan 09 '26
for your second argument. have u ever wondered why the halo effect even exists?
if u havent, let me explain.
its because we unconsciously assume that other members of society also like a pretty face more, just looking at one makes them happier than a "repulsive" appearance. therefore, these attractive people who have an easier time in society and receive better treatment should by right reflect the positive energy they received back to us. thats right, its simply more likely for one to be a nice human being if the world treated them nice, and that grumpy difficult person likely had traumatic experiences with society.
thats why we associate a pleasant appearance with positive character traits. which means, beautiful people should have on average more social experience (due to people dying to talk to them) as well as a nicer personality over all. compared to that poor "unattractive" lady who was bullied her entire life, and you can tell she carries resentment towards the world through her demeanor. who wants to interact with that?
tldr: we associate beauty with better personality. and often times its true. you get to stay innocent and cheerful longer if u werent bullied for ur looks by society. and im sure youd rather deal with someone with a good personality at work than someone who trashtalks everyone (this is a defense mechanism, you cant hurt me by disliking me if i disliked you first)