Media isn't actually a "thing." It has the same etymological root as "medium"--the size between "small" and "large" as well as "psychic medium." Media, in other words, has no real substance of its own. It's the thing that's in between speaking and hearing; transmission and reception.
By way of articles, studies, and a couple of polls and links, this blog examines the significance of media in American culture. Post your thoughts after the jump.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Daniel Goleman's "Equation For Beauty Emerges In Studies"
I agree that being attractive can give its benefits to the individuals, but I do not believe that beauty can be mathematically measured in the way that Daniel Goleman presents. Though beauty definitely has to do with specific facial features and proportions, it is not the type of thing that you can quantify the way that easily. Things like health and hygiene are definitely factors when considering someone’s appeal, but I doubt our minds say “hmm, that person has an attractive chin, since it is one fifth the height of their face.” There is a much more complex meaning to what makes people attractive, especially since our expectations and definitions of beauty change on an almost annual basis. Beauty is also something that can be made through means of personality and physical adjustments (clothing, makeup, hair, etc.). A good example of this is the pictures that always leak of famous actresses and stars without makeup. Without makeup, after all, even people from Hollywood are not perfect. On the other hand, I believe that beauty, in itself, definitely does play a factor in success. Since people do usually spend more time paying attention to attractive individuals, they do get treated much differently. For the most part, it is because they get noticed, not necessarily because they outshine others in knowledge or aptitude, but just because they stand out in looks. Also, in many businesses, attractive individuals are usually hired to positions such as receptionists and customer service. This is because, unfortunate to people thought to be less attractive, more attractive individuals tend to be treated more politely and respectfully, and are more likely to return to the business in the future. This is not to say that not being strikingly beautiful means you will never be successful, it just means that you may need to prove yourself by other means, such as intelligence and experience. After all, just because you are “attractive”, it does not automatically make you any more able, or intelligent, than anyone else. In the end, being attractive is just kind of a plus for life, it might not actually get you anywhere, but it is certainly not a bad thing to be.
Attractiveness is all biological. That is why they have been able to 'quantify' sex appeal. I quote 'quantify' because I believe that numbers can’t fully account for attractiveness. I'm surprised that they haven't consulted biochemists when it comes to this though. Evolutionary traits are more easily explained and studied with the help of biologists. I think that they are ether looking in the wrong direction or need to take a different way of looking at this. Everyone just looks at the fact that they haven't taken into effect an individual’s personality. a quick way to disclaim a persons hard work. They are talking about attractiveness not compatibility. Attractiveness is evolutionary, biological, on the level of the subconscious. Compatibility is a concept born from community and society. Tony is writing this not Tbone. don't ask
I agree that attractiveness can correlate with higher success but not for the reason presents by Goleman. Goleman stated that people “tend to assume that beautiful women and handsome men are warm, sensitive, kind, interesting, poised, sociable and outgoing, and will have good jobs and fulfilling lives”. This may have some truth to it but I think the real reason a more attractive person would have more success is because they have more self-confidence. People who think they are not attractive will most likely stay hidden and are less likely to really go after what they want because they lack confidence in themselves. People who are more attractive most likely would not be afraid to put themselves out there because they know people will immediately like them more than someone unattractive causing greater success. I think that success comes more from what someone thinks of themselves rather than what other people see them as. I also don’t agree that there is an “equation” for beauty. Attractiveness is not something that can be measured although his research shows otherwise. Everyone has different opinions and preferences so he cannot say that those measurements are the equation for beauty. He and his research team cannot speak for the entire population of the world or even the population for America. There are some people that are attractive to most people and some that aren’t but there can’t be a specific look that is attractive. However I do agree with the statement made about men think physical attractiveness is more important than women do. I think this is because a woman’s motherly instinct is to see past someone's looks and into a person’s personality and likelihood to succeed.
I do agree that attractive people have a tendency to go farther in life, but I think this is true due to the fact that for a person to think that they are attractive they must have a certain amount of self-confidence. I think to be self-confident a person must be happy with who they are and those people tend to be more outgoing and happy with themselves. Although beauty does have to do with the shape of the face and how physically fit/ built a person is I do not believe that it is in a mathematical way. One thing that I do agree with according to Daniel Goleman’s paper is that fact physical attractiveness is more important when it comes to how a man judges someone verse how a women would view a person. Although this is true the appearance of a man can waver the women’s view over the amount of money the male makes. Goleman states that “a man is in a better position to further the survival chances of his offspring if he has access to resources or power, and is it has been to a women’s advantage to seek mates who had this access. Although it helps in a family if the male can make a good amount of money to support the family while the women is with a child there are plenty of single mothers or relationships where the man stays at home with the children while the women works. The stereotype where men are responsible to take care of the family has not been the same since women are now able to get the same jobs and pay as men. So because of this the amount of money a man can make is no longer one of the sole factors involved in how attractive a man may seem.
I completely agree that physical attractiveness will provide for increased benefits throughout life. This idea is so true that it can even be brought down to a science as explained in the article. It has become a social taboo that we indirectly ignore people that we dont necessarily enjoy looking at and, in the same respect, will take a second look at those we do enjoy the sight of. With this being said those people, attractive females in particular, will have an easier time talking to mates and or employers as they will be looked at in a positive image. As goleman said in his article, "those with more attractive physical traits are assumed to have all the positive traits," this assumption alone will aid these people in their ability to find a high paying job as well as the mate of their choice. This assumption, however, is completely instinctual as we almost revert back to primal pre-judgement when we first meet someone new or a potential mate.
I agree that being attractive can give its benefits to the individuals, but I do not believe that beauty can be mathematically measured in the way that Daniel Goleman presents. Though beauty definitely has to do with specific facial features and proportions, it is not the type of thing that you can quantify the way that easily. Things like health and hygiene are definitely factors when considering someone’s appeal, but I doubt our minds say “hmm, that person has an attractive chin, since it is one fifth the height of their face.” There is a much more complex meaning to what makes people attractive, especially since our expectations and definitions of beauty change on an almost annual basis. Beauty is also something that can be made through means of personality and physical adjustments (clothing, makeup, hair, etc.). A good example of this is the pictures that always leak of famous actresses and stars without makeup. Without makeup, after all, even people from Hollywood are not perfect. On the other hand, I believe that beauty, in itself, definitely does play a factor in success. Since people do usually spend more time paying attention to attractive individuals, they do get treated much differently. For the most part, it is because they get noticed, not necessarily because they outshine others in knowledge or aptitude, but just because they stand out in looks. Also, in many businesses, attractive individuals are usually hired to positions such as receptionists and customer service. This is because, unfortunate to people thought to be less attractive, more attractive individuals tend to be treated more politely and respectfully, and are more likely to return to the business in the future. This is not to say that not being strikingly beautiful means you will never be successful, it just means that you may need to prove yourself by other means, such as intelligence and experience. After all, just because you are “attractive”, it does not automatically make you any more able, or intelligent, than anyone else. In the end, being attractive is just kind of a plus for life, it might not actually get you anywhere, but it is certainly not a bad thing to be.
ReplyDeleteAttractiveness is all biological. That is why they have been able to 'quantify' sex appeal. I quote 'quantify' because I believe that numbers can’t fully account for attractiveness. I'm surprised that they haven't consulted biochemists when it comes to this though. Evolutionary traits are more easily explained and studied with the help of biologists. I think that they are ether looking in the wrong direction or need to take a different way of looking at this. Everyone just looks at the fact that they haven't taken into effect an individual’s personality. a quick way to disclaim a persons hard work. They are talking about attractiveness not compatibility. Attractiveness is evolutionary, biological, on the level of the subconscious. Compatibility is a concept born from community and society.
ReplyDeleteTony is writing this not Tbone. don't ask
I agree that attractiveness can correlate with higher success but not for the reason presents by Goleman. Goleman stated that people “tend to assume that beautiful women and handsome men are warm, sensitive, kind, interesting, poised, sociable and outgoing, and will have good jobs and fulfilling lives”. This may have some truth to it but I think the real reason a more attractive person would have more success is because they have more self-confidence. People who think they are not attractive will most likely stay hidden and are less likely to really go after what they want because they lack confidence in themselves. People who are more attractive most likely would not be afraid to put themselves out there because they know people will immediately like them more than someone unattractive causing greater success. I think that success comes more from what someone thinks of themselves rather than what other people see them as. I also don’t agree that there is an “equation” for beauty. Attractiveness is not something that can be measured although his research shows otherwise. Everyone has different opinions and preferences so he cannot say that those measurements are the equation for beauty. He and his research team cannot speak for the entire population of the world or even the population for America. There are some people that are attractive to most people and some that aren’t but there can’t be a specific look that is attractive. However I do agree with the statement made about men think physical attractiveness is more important than women do. I think this is because a woman’s motherly instinct is to see past someone's looks and into a person’s personality and likelihood to succeed.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that attractive people have a tendency to go farther in life, but I think this is true due to the fact that for a person to think that they are attractive they must have a certain amount of self-confidence. I think to be self-confident a person must be happy with who they are and those people tend to be more outgoing and happy with themselves. Although beauty does have to do with the shape of the face and how physically fit/ built a person is I do not believe that it is in a mathematical way. One thing that I do agree with according to Daniel Goleman’s paper is that fact physical attractiveness is more important when it comes to how a man judges someone verse how a women would view a person. Although this is true the appearance of a man can waver the women’s view over the amount of money the male makes. Goleman states that “a man is in a better position to further the survival chances of his offspring if he has access to resources or power, and is it has been to a women’s advantage to seek mates who had this access. Although it helps in a family if the male can make a good amount of money to support the family while the women is with a child there are plenty of single mothers or relationships where the man stays at home with the children while the women works. The stereotype where men are responsible to take care of the family has not been the same since women are now able to get the same jobs and pay as men. So because of this the amount of money a man can make is no longer one of the sole factors involved in how attractive a man may seem.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that physical attractiveness will provide for increased benefits throughout life. This idea is so true that it can even be brought down to a science as explained in the article. It has become a social taboo that we indirectly ignore people that we dont necessarily enjoy looking at and, in the same respect, will take a second look at those we do enjoy the sight of. With this being said those people, attractive females in particular, will have an easier time talking to mates and or employers as they will be looked at in a positive image. As goleman said in his article, "those with more attractive physical traits are assumed to have all the positive traits," this assumption alone will aid these people in their ability to find a high paying job as well as the mate of their choice. This assumption, however, is completely instinctual as we almost revert back to primal pre-judgement when we first meet someone new or a potential mate.
ReplyDelete