Weddingbee boards

Hello Bees,

So just for fun I wanted to add a poll on this. I recently read a psychology/sociology report on an experiment that was done a few years ago to determine whether or not "looks" play a part in how we judge people. I'm curious to see if you agree.

Here is the experiment/study:

Two juries were selected and made up of the same demographic/racial/religious/political etc. groups. In other words they made two identical juries (as much as anyone could). Secondly they selected two judges that had the same age, race, political views, similar rulings on cases, etc. (same thing here, two identical judges). They than presented the same case, with the same lawyers, the same evidence, and the same use of words and detials for both. The judge and jury all believed the trial to be real. The lawyers and other participants were part of the study.

Here is the only thing that was different for both "mock" trials. In trial "A" the accused (an actor) had a terrible apperance. She had unkept hair, little makeup, shabby clothing, and they had done makeup on her to make her to appear as those she had bad teeth, bags under her eyes, wrinkles, etc. (they gave her an over all apperance of a "street person" or "drug user.") In trial "B" the accused (same actor) now had her hair freshly cut and colored, she was very well put together, had trendy clothing on, and her nails and makeup were finely manicured. (they gave her an over all look of an upper-middle class woman).

In each trail the woman spoke the same lines and used the same language. The only thing that differed from trial "A" to trial "B" was her "looks." It was a murder trial and in the end the trial "A" resulted in a 15 year prison sentence with parole after 10 years served. In trial "B" the accused was deemed "not guilty."

They did several versions of this experiment only changing apperance factors and EVERYTIME the more put together and well manicured person got the lesser charge. MIND BLOWING!! For all those of you who say apperances aren't everything this might make you think twice!

Now here's my question. Was your first impression of your SO swayed by apperances? I have to be honest that if I didn't think my FI was so handsome I probably would have shrugged him off when he first tried to pick me up in a crowded setting. Shallow? I'll let you decide ;)

I voted yes, but to a certain degree. Depending on the situation, but thoughts of what the other person looks like will cross your mind a one point or another. Whether it'll change the outcome of the situation depends, but plays a huge role in first impressions.

To be honest, my SO's looks are what drew me to him first. Well to be fair we were total strangers when we met, he worked at the bank where I got my mortgage for my first place and when I saw him walking up to get me for our first appointment I thought "HOT DAMN!", then once we chatted and he had a great personality too, I was sold. But his looks are what hooked me first ;)

okay I'll be the one to get into science. Humans are animals. Animals were out on this planet for one purpose, reproduction. In the animal kingdom the males with the most color and beauty get the most mates. Same can be said for humans. When it comes to our animal instinct, physical attraction is what matters.

My mother and I were talking about this study and she totally gave me an eye opener! I always think in my head that looks don't matter, but my mom pointed out that in all three of my serious relationships (FI included) I have dated blonde, blue/green eyed, tall, and reasonably handsome men. I don't see myself as shallow, so I guess this is just what I'm attracted to subconsciously!

So here I am sitting next to my FI last night and I was having a total mushy gushy moment thinking I'll have the most beautiful babies ever. lol. It reminded me of when I first met my FI because the first thing that came out of my aunts mouth was, "You two will certainly have some beautiful blonde babies!" So I guess in some sense looks do play a part whether it's on a conscious level or a subconscious one. I'm sure it'll always in the back of our minds at least a little bit. To me that's not shallow...just nature! Like the peahen gravitating to the magnificent display of feathers on a peacock.... haha.

@KaitlinHudson: You beat me to it!

Honestly when I met my husband I didn't think he was the most attractive man I had ever met, but I did think he was sweet, kind and adorable. Now i feel like he is the most handsome and amazing man ever.. I think the better the person, the less looks matter. What makes me sad is that all of his friends say that I'm way to "hot" for him and they have no idea how he "pulled me". It makes me sad because I never want him to feel bad about himself in any way =(

@KaitlinHudson:

I was just going to say it, I'm a biology student, you? lol

As well, I was definetly attracted to my guy of 7 years because he fit the 'type' I usually go for.  But he is 7 years younger than me so being receptive to him was more of a 'Mr. right now' than a 'Mr. right', lol!  Plus, I was JUST finalizing my divorce, so I sure wasn't looking for more than a fun guy.  Now 7 years later.....:)

I was working as a waitress the first time I saw my FH. I IMMIDEATLY thought he was good looking, and then proceeded to start a conversation with him even though he wasn't seated at one of my tables...

I probably wouldn't have met him if I didn't have that inital attraction to him before I knew him.

However, I have had several boyfriends previously who I hadn't thought were particularly attractive until I started falling for them.

@KatNYC2011: The BC thing was true for me.. I've been on it for many years and my SO is not only soft looking (no strong features, light hair, light eyes) but he is the calmest, most caring and level headed man I've ever met. He never gets mad, I'm pretty sure he's incapable lol. I've never heard him yell, he's just my happy go lucky softy :)

I believe there are two kinds of situations in which looks play different roles. 

One kind is like the study you describe, where the "meeting" with the other person is very impersonal. This kind of situation includes any occasion where you are meeting someone for the first or second time, just getting to know them, whether it's in a social or business context. Because these interactions are very superficial and provide little other information about a person, yes absolutely looks play a huge part. So much of an initial impression is formed subconsciously. Anyone who claims never to be swayed by looks is ignorant of how powerful these instinctive mechanisms are (as the study you cite demonstrates).

We have to realize that for the greater part of human evolution, people lived in relatively small, secluded groups. People knew everyone else in their group. Meeting a new person necessarily meant that the new person was from a different group, possibly one with adverse interests, and people had to be able to decide very quickly whether this new person presented any danger. We still have that instinct in us, and it is still useful from time to time.

I'm not saying that "judging a book by its cover" is ethically correct, just that it is a fact of life. We all do it. But most of us recognize that it's a terrible way to actually get to know someone, and we extend or prolong some interactions in order to make deeper assessments. These are the situations where the interactions become much more personal. After you've gotten to know a person, looks quickly take a backseat to personality.

Yes, better looking people have a big advantage, because their looks enable them to draw others in very quickly and with a minimum of effort. But to create sexual attraction, looks are only one part of the equation. There are lots of other ways to attract others that require a little more time and effort, and that's where intellect, humor, personality, passion, talent, etc. come in. As long as your looks aren't so repellant that no one will speak to you, you will have the opportunity to be judged on qualities besides looks.

My anecdote: The first time I saw my FI, my heart seriously skipped a beat. I swear to God, time stood still. He was the most gorgeous guy I had ever laid eyes on. I thought he was going to be a major douche. It was just my experience that most good looking guys are egotistical a-holes. Never before in my life had I fallen for a guy based on looks first. Most of the guys I crushed on were "cute" but not hot. They were usually nerdy types who I fell in love with for their brains and personality, and then sexual attraction followed. Luckily, I got to know FI and found that he is also very smart, goofy, sweet, and down to earth. And then I was all over him. ;)

Edit: Oh yes, don't even get me started on the part that looks play in sexual selection! (ex-biology student here!) Other bees have already weighed in on physical attributes like height and musculature, which indicate good health and strength. There is also symmetry of facial features, which studies say seem to indicate resistance to disease. Seriously, I remember reading a study where they took some of the best looking men of the time (ex. Brad Pitt, Denzel Washington) and found that compared to the average, these men's faces were almost perfectly symmetrical. And I'm sure many bees have read about the studies where composites of people's faces are usually rated as more attractive than most of the original faces they were made from. This is because less distinct, more average-looking features indicate a more diverse genetic background, which is also indicative of greater resistance to disease. 

However, it seems that these factors are most important when sizing up a guy for a purely physical relationship, but much, much less important when assessing a guy for marriage potential.

@luckyprincess: haha nope, not biology, meteorology... still an "ology" does that count?!

@KatNYC2011: ohhhh I've never read it! Sounds juicy! ;) and I've heard that ovulating women actually are capable of undergoing physical changes while ovulating to attract a mate. 

Humans think of themselves as so advanced and over other animals, when in reality we're all equal we've just been taught through society and other places that our animal instincts are wrong and we should suppress them. 

@KatNYC2011: I'm an anything-involving-science nerd. Right now I'm re-reading all of my Dan Brown books and will definitely look into the ones you've mentioned! Thanks :)

I think looks definitely make a difference.  I think my FI is gorgeous, but as long as I thought he wasn't gross, I'm sure I would've started talking to him and eventually fallen for him, as I did.  The thing with your comparison to the experiment though is that it's not based on attractiveness, but rather appearance.  If someone is unkempt and clearly doesn't take care of themselves, then that is a major turn-off for me.  Not the least of which reason is that I don't think we'll have anything in common and I can't imagine us sharing the same lifestyle views (i.e. hygiene, being healthy and active, etc.).  And while it might be mean or unfair, I definitely use those criteria when approaching people.  Not that I wouldn't be perfectly nice and pleasant to someone who I think has opposite views on health than I do, and I may find that we have a connection and would make great friends, but I wouldn't have dated someone like that unless he showed signs he wanted to change.

Not exactly on point with the thread, but I think there's a difference between judging people's attractiveness (which short of surgery, they can't help), vs. judging someone's appearance (which may tell you a fair amount about their personality and values).