Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

I think this is a really interesting perspective because we often think that we can override our evolutionary traits and that we've somehow moved beyond them, but they often show through in more subtle ways, like this article shows. Even though our society today puts a lot of emphasis on physical attractiveness, this research shows that there might be a deeper reason for that. This article seems to show that there's less of a societal influence on these elections and more of an evolutionary or instinctual one

I'd like to say that if I were called upon to vote, I would make my decision free from any influence created by physical appearance of a candidate. But it does seem possible, after reading this article, that some unacknowledged bias may creep in when we make decisions regarding political candidates. As a society, we do reward people who are seen as being more attractive than others. It makes no sense, given that appearance has so little to do with ability or qualifications. Being attractive does not mean that someone will necessarily be good at something, just as being "unattractive" does not in any way mean that someone is unqualified.

This article is really interesting, in that it forces us to look at our society in a different way. It's odd to think that we still put so much faith on appearance, but the more I think about it, the more I realize it's true. Conventionally attractive people are treated in a different way, if only slightly so in some aspects, which would make any self-respecting human being feel a bit guilty. White and Kendrick's connection to our basic fear of disease made the topic even more uncomfortable-it says that maybe we hold prejudice against the ugly. What does this tell us about our morals as a society? That we cling desperately to what is beautiful, not what is right.

Personally, I do agree to some extent with Andrew Edward White's and Douglas T. Kendrick's point that more attractive candidates tend to win. Our society invests money and time into industries that are based mostly on appearances therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that our decisions are influenced by people's appearances. For example, the entire entertainment industry is filled with people who have gained their success and fame solely based on their looks. I would like to think that people could rise above appearances when considering presidential candidates but I think it is hardwired into our DNA. In the article, they talked about how people associated disease with less attractive people and to some extent I feel that this is true. For instance, I feel that people would be more likely to invest the future of the nation in someone that is attractive over someone that perhaps is overweight and less attractive because people may worry that the overweight candidate will have health problems. Picking the more attractive candidate is not the deciding factor in every single case however I do think it does have a small role in each of our decisions whether we admit it or not.

When looking at the big picture and thinking realistically about our past candidates and presidents, I ultimately agree with White and Kendrick's opinion that looks do indeed make a difference in politics. From what I've noticed throughout my lifetime and what i've been focusing on in my Government class is that as Machiavelli said, it is not only looks that intrigue people into being more fond of you and enable a blind following, but also certain traits that politicians display in public to enhance their appearance as well. For example, Obama being the all-American family man we as American's can't deny that we have a soft spot for in our hearts.

It is interesting how we are still led by internal, instinctual biases though we don't realize that. I think that a lot of our voting is based on subtle bias (concerning age gender etc) as well as the more obvious, non subtle bias (like political viewpoints). And as humans we like to believe that we are above these basic urges when really we just try to rationalize them or even don't even realize them. I think that it's unfortunate however, that something as important as politics could be influenced by the candidate's healthiness.

I think that White and Kendrick's thinking is defiantly true given our past presidents. Although, I think that anyone that runs for president often has them self together and doesn't take over from the actual election until Paul Ryan last year who ran for VP for the republicans. I think that people that are neutral or haven't studied enough about the people running would vote for the more attractive one over the one that isn't attractive but has more purpose for running. Very interesting point though.

I believe in any role, whether the character be straight/gay/lesbian/trans/etc, there are many possible options for actors/actresses. Obviously the blogger believes that the trans actors he provided would have been a more suitable option than Leto but the fact is that his performance just won him an Oscar, the most prestigious award he could've won for his performance. Also, a key part of acting is delving into the character. I believe that as long as an actor properly exercises the expectations of a director for that specific character, they have done their job.

I find this article pretty funny, especially since my grandma asked me just yesterday about twerking. She probably would have had no idea what twerking was if the New York Times hadn't written an article about how to explain it, which ironically parents are far more likely to read than their kids.

This is a well-written, well-executed satirical piece that does an effective job of highlighting what I believe are the actual problematic aspects to Miley's twerking (the cultural appropriation rather than her right to display her sexuality as she saw fit, even if one doesn't personally find it attractive), while also offering humor to make it less pedantic. This medium hopefully makes it easier for old straight white guys to process the incident.

I think this is a very important article to publish in response to the VMA twerking media boom because it takes the focus off of Miley Cyrus but it doesn't try to ignore her involvement. It's true: we are not to judge. This is not the first or the last time that a child star has done something that could be perceived as an attempt to gain media attention or to throw off an image they created in their early acting. This moves away from comments like "Miley Cyrus needs to keep her tongue in her mouth," and towards that relatable comic episode that we have all experienced when our parents ask us about things that all teenagers know and that parents can't seem to figure out--like a meme.

I love this. I love that it shows a long standing issue in a clever and fresh way. I also now feel horrible about loving Say Yes To The Dress.

While reading this article, I primarily had your question "could a funny article like this work for the tam news?" in the back of my mind. Perhaps to a lesser degree, an article like this could work. For example, a hard core photo-kid could for one period forget that they're a photo-kid and out try auto shop or something. I'm not sure if it would have the same effect (<correct?) but I think it would still make an interesting read.