Squeamish Bikini
  • Home
  • Squeamish Features
  • Squeamish Reviews
  • Squeamish News
  • Squeamish Contact
  • About Squeamish

Who is the boringest of Them all?

1/11/2012

0 Comments

 
Picture
Makes anybody funny. Image: Ben Salter
Those of you who read such things will know that Samantha Brick (sorry, this isn't going to be about her though so if you can stave off the envy) and Shona Sibary were debating the merits and setbacks of being beautiful. Sibary reckons if you are beautiful then you will have been so busy basking in compliments you will have forgotten to develop a personality. “I've long believed you can't have it all. And if you're lucky enough to be endowed with a symmetric face, fabulous figure and straight white teeth, then don't you dare try to claim you've got a great personality, too.”

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. 

118 women, with an average age of 29, took part in the study. They filled in questionnaires that measured their personality traits and values such as “tradition, self-direction, conformity and benevolence.” The women were then filmed entering a room and reading a weather report. Another 118 participants took part in the study as judges. Of these participants 40% were male. They were given a randomly chosen video of one of the women to watch and go about their usual business of evaluating the woman on attractiveness, values and traits.

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. 

Squeamish Kate
submit to reddit
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011

    Categories

    All
    Books
    Booze
    Cinematic
    Dress Up
    Educating Sue
    Educating Sue
    Friday 5
    Friday 5
    Geekery
    Gender Agender
    Gender Agender
    Glitter And Twisted
    Glitter And Twisted
    History Repeating
    History Repeating
    How To
    Just A Thought
    Just A Thought
    Let's Get Political
    Let's Get Political
    Music
    Nom Nom Nom
    Nostalgia
    Tellybox
    Why You Should Love

    RSS Feed


Squeamish Bikini

About
Contact us
Write for us

Newsletter

Picture
     Copyright © 2013