Sibary is seemingly backed by an article published in Live Science that states: “beautiful women might be more likely to have some less attractive values, favoring conformity and self-promotion over independence and tolerance.” Using evidence researchers from Open University of Israel and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem published in the journal Psychological Science.
The study found that if the woman, or target as defined by the study, was judged to be physically attractive then she was also perceived to be “agreeable, open to experience, extroverted, conscientious and emotionally stable.” It was also believed by the judges that the attractive targets valued achievement more than the less attractive targets.
Perhaps unsurprisingly the filled in questionnaires showed no correlations between the judge's perception of a target and their own stated personality traits. Those deemed attractive were seen as more likely to value conformity and tradition over self-direction and universalism – with the researchers linked to tolerance and concern for others. This has been interpreted by Sibary and others to mean beauty = boring and conservative and plain/ugly = fun and interesting.
Brick, who you have to admit has her quirks to remember, disagrees. If her experiences are true then she's certainly a risk-taker: “I've been invited to Ivy League balls by strangers, whisked away on spur-of-the-moment skiing holidays and given numerous first editions of my favourite books - and all on account of my looks.” Quite what would possess you to go to a party on the whim of a complete stranger I don't know, my beauty causes me to conform to conservative safety measures. Brick argues that her beauty has provided her with experiences that have forced her to develop a personality.
Both Brick and Sibary seem to have conveniently forgotten the study found these traits of dullness are only percieved and had no base in fact.
And anyway, beauty is subjective! I hear you whine, I wish you wouldn't do that – it's most unattractive. Yes, it most definitely is. A person's thoughts on beauty can depend on culture, age, era and beer consumption. Victorians valued pale waifs so highly there are stories of women staying up all night drinking black coffee (I have read similar stories featuring, instead of black coffee, heroin injections) to achieve that darkened eye-bag look. Now we have learned eye-bags are GROSS and will get you a 'run-down and haunted' description in the tabloids. However nobody, not one culture has gone for wild eyed stares or suppurating acne. Every culture goes for a certain amount of symmetry in faces – whether big nosed or small featured. So we can allow for some uniformity in what appeals to people, what seems to be subjective in this study is science. Which is in the eye of the test tube holder.