"Charming" is important!
I found the writing of a good scientific journal of cafesalemba, titled Beautiful Politicians (King & Leigh, 2007). They want to prove, whether the politicians are beautiful (the point here is not only beautiful but also good-looking) much more to choose from. Due to various reasons in the interest of research, Australia was chosen as the study area. The result? In the words of their own: Beautiful Candidates are indeed more Likely to be elected, with a one standard deviation increase of in beauty associated with a 1 ½ - 2 percentage point increase of in voteshare. Not too big, but in Australia, with the number of candidates is much and the difference in the sound of a thin, 1-2 percent can be very significant. Other findings are more interesting: we find evidence suggestive beauty That matters more in electorates with a higher share of apathetic voters.
Hmm ... I immediately recall election of 2004. Some media said that the elected candidate is favored especially by the mothers, who perceive the candidate as "handsome and dashing." I also remember some analysis of our political commentators, that the behavior we actually mostly apathetic voters. Ha! Worthy candidate can win it right?
So it's not fair? Candidate given his good looks or beauty (which given the quality?) could get more votes than not handsome/beautiful?
Actually, that beauty matters not only in the realm of politics. From the prologue in writing that I also get the conclusions of previous studies: the labor market in Canada and the U.S., the more attractive people get better wages (Hamermesh and Biddle, 1994), including for professions such as lawyers (Biddle and Hamermesh, 1998 ) and advertising executives (Pfann, Bosman, Biddle, and Hamermesh, 2000). It is also apparently true for the labor market in Australia (Borland, 2001) and the United Kingdom (Harper, 2000). Why, it's in the West, certainly not in the East right? No, this is also true in China (Hamermesh, Meng and Zhan, 2002). To add to the 'injustice' that, I add: that people are less attractive more Likely to commit crime (Mocan and Tekin, 2006). I've also read that people who have higher average incomes greater than their shorter colleagues (can be found in the journals or articles economics of beauty, perhaps).
The world is not fair? Maybe. But how else would, emang works like that... (at least as demonstrated research).
However, to definitively conclude that it is true the world is only good for people who are handsome/beautiful to pass some thought beforehand.
Actually, what is beautiful? What is a handsome or beautiful? Forget the debate about whether our perception of kegantengan/beauty is socially constructed or provided by nature . Dian Sastro thesis, he says, shows that the definition of beauty is a social construction. I do not know, which I know is Dian Sastro I find beautiful, whether it's because of the social construction of nature or is opinion only. What is clear, cross-cultural research on beauty ratings indicate, in the language of King & Leigh, beauty is not 'in the eye of the beholder'. Is not that beautiful but relatively, like those excuses? Yes, at the micro-individual level. I judge Mariana Renata, for example, quite 7, while you judge 9. However, if surveyed, on a macro level, aggregate may be obtained, the value of Mariana Renata is X while it's Fulanita Y, where X> Y, which means more beautiful than Fulanita Mariana. And that applies across cultures (Langlois et al, 2000).
So, in fact quite safe to conclude at the macro level of beauty is universal, no matter the origin of that assessment, whether social or natural construction.
The next question, how is that beauty? The symmetrical-proportioned? Proportionate like what? Or follow the opinion of Oprah while interviewing Charlize Theron, that beautiful people are those who have a triangular shape harmony between the eyes, nose and lips? (Already, already, no need to check yourself and look in the mirror, he33x). Or follow Pramudya, that beauty is a good arrangement of the bones with attached meat in proportion?
This is not research, but a personal opinion. I personally think is different between 'pretty', 'sweet', 'cute', 'interesting/attraktif', and 'beautiful'. Because it involves a sense, I find it hard to make the restrictions clear categories. I think there are pretty, but somehow, really unattractive. There also are actually less beautiful, but somehow again, why it is very interesting.
I propose we use the charming term for people who do not care about pretty or not, but interesting. Applies to both men and women. This charming term is also used, so the title is good and I use rhyming ("charming" it's important!)
Well, I think it's charming is not associated with physical beauty. In essence, charming is the ability to create comfortable and pleasant for the people in our view. So, this charming beautiful I am proposing to change the economics of beauty in literature.
As shown in the research, it is important that charming! Charming people have more income, fewer criminal act, and preferably to be selected.
Now, whether the world is not fair? While the beautiful/handsome physically, if you want to agree, that charm is not associated with the physical. You may be handsome, charming but not necessarily. You may not be pretty, but it could be charming (or may not). Thus, the charm was not a given quality, but quality can be obtained, can be learned. Charm related to how we want to show ourselves. Personal branding. personal positioning, which can be designed. Well, then, this world is not fair. Neutral. Because it would depend on us, want to learn to be charming or not?
Next, how to be charming? Well, for which I also still have much to learn, he33x. Maybe the people who have been out there interested charming explain?
And Allaah knows best showaab bus.
Only GOD and the All-Knowing
Like ·
- Keysia Luvi and like this.
-
-
