Shorter Ann Althouse

18 Responses to Shorter Ann Althouse

1. Pingback: feminist blogs

2. 2

   Woman says:

   February 19, 2006 at 4:18 am

   Oh for f*ck’s sake.

   Reckon I’ll just go rob me a corner store.
3. 3

   Mendy says:

   February 19, 2006 at 7:40 am

   Of all the things to study, I have to wonder how tightly they controlled for the famillial and economic factors that lead to criminality.

   I’m by no stretch of the imagination “attractive” by society’s standards and yet I’ve not broken any law nor evern been arrested. I have to wonder who funded the study and what possible aim they could have had in mind. There are lots of attractive criminals and lots of unattractive ones. The very notion of what is attractive and what isn’t is highly subjective and variable from individual to individual.

   Now I think I’ll go have another cup of coffee and tackle my research paper.
4. 4

   Nona says:

   February 19, 2006 at 8:51 am

   I don’t think your summary is fair to Althouse at all. The fact is, researchers found a correlation between ugliness and criminality. There are three possibilities:

   1. Pure coincidence that better-looking people have better chances in life.
   2. Ugly people are, because of their ugliness, more likely to turn to criminality.
   or:
   3. People who are likely to turn to criminality don’t have nice facial expressions, use drugs, etc., all of which might make them be rated as less attractive.

   Althouse was just pointing out the third possibility. She wasn’t saying or even implying that if you’re ugly, it’s because you’re a criminal. That isn’t a fair inference at all.
5. 5

   Steven says:

   February 19, 2006 at 9:15 am

   What is beauty? That is something that is decided by society and changes over time. If you notice, the annerexic chick on the TV screen that we consider beautiful now is much different than the slightly plump woman that was beautiful in the 1700’s. That is because what society considers to look beautiful is always going to be identical to what society considers to look rich. That nice little explanation just to say: Beauty is a relative concept. So how do we decide who’s beautiful and who’s not?
6. 6

   Robert says:

   February 19, 2006 at 10:37 am

   Um, Ann isn’t the one who conducted the study. All she’s done is link to it, and provide several proposed causal mechanisms that undermine its conclusion, rather than supporting it.
7. 7

   Mendy says:

   February 19, 2006 at 11:05 am

   Robert,

   I never said she did conduct the study. And I agree that she undermined the study’s conclusions. I never stated otherwise. Mine was a reaction to the study linked to not to Ann’s post.
8. 8

   Mendy says:

   February 19, 2006 at 11:11 am

   Nona,

   my reaction as stated above was to the conclusions drawn by the study itself and not to Althouse’s rebuttal of the study. If I worded my post in a manner that wasn’t clear, I apologize for that.
9. 9

   alsis39.5 says:

   February 19, 2006 at 11:27 am

   I was impressed by the poster on Ann’s blog who said tattoos make women look like hookers. Who knew that my dislike of needles was a direct indicator of my sexual purity ? Golly.

   I can’t wait to wake up Mr. Alsis and inform him that his tattoo makes him look like a gigolo.
10. 10

    Robert says:

    February 19, 2006 at 11:36 am

    Mendy, you’re not the person who said “shorter Ann Althouse=If you’re ugly, it’s because you’re a bad, bad person.”
11. 11

    Brandon Berg says:

    February 19, 2006 at 1:02 pm

    A fourth possibility is that there’s some common factor–perhaps inadequate nutrition in infancy or childhood–that leads both to ugliness and to some sort of mental defect that makes a person more likely to engage in criminal behavior. It is worth noting that in the same study, attractiveness ratings were positively correlated with scores on a vocabulary test.

    Also, the overall effect was pretty small: “Very unattractive” people were only about 5% more likely to commit crimes than “very attractive” people.
12. 12

    Mendy says:

    February 19, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    Robert,

    sorry for the misinterpretation of your post.
13. 13

    Emily H. says:

    February 19, 2006 at 6:22 pm

    Brandon Berg’s hypothesis seems reasonable; I suspect that a certain amount of unattractiveness is related to poverty (lack of ability to afford orthodontia, dental care, dermatologist, frequent haircuts, and so forth), and it’s pretty uncontroversial that poverty and crime are correlated.
14. 14

    alsis39.5 says:

    February 19, 2006 at 7:18 pm

    I wonder if anyone plans to do a study that focuses on white-collar crime and how many ugly people are doing it. We just rented the Enron movie and will probably watch it tomorrw. I look forward to breaking out a notepad and pen and keeping careful track as to whether the worst offenders are also the toughest on the eyes.
15. 15

    Rachel Ann says:

    February 20, 2006 at 12:13 am

    There really isn’t enough information in that report to make a sensible response. My questions would be: what factors (in terms of personal/family life) were controlled for? Did they take into account how well the child was treated by peers/family growing up? Social support? Children who are taunted for whatever reason are likely to develop a greater anti-social attitude. How strong was family support for the “less attractive”? Did these children suffer from deformities or were simply “less pretty”?
    What were the “seven types of criminal behaviour?” (as alsis39.5 asks) How did they account for the commission of the crimes? Self reporting? Arrest records? Indictment conviction? If a person is less likely to be judged guilty if they are more attractive then the over all criminal record of those who are a “ugly” will be greater than those who are not. What was the statistical difference between the two groups?

    Lots of questions, too few answers.
16. 16

    Brandon Berg says:

    February 20, 2006 at 1:16 am

    The July 2005 version is here. It’s preliminary, though, so don’t go citing it or anything like that.
17. 17

    mythago says:

    February 20, 2006 at 11:09 am

    Yet another possibility: when you have money, you can afford to fix ugliness (braces, cleft lip, scars) and you can avoid problems that lead to ugliness in the first place (bad nutrition, bad dentistry). Poverty being correlated with crime and all, it’s not surprising.
18. 18

    jrochest says:

    February 20, 2006 at 10:49 pm

    It is worth noting that in the same study, attractiveness ratings were positively correlated with scores on a vocabulary test.

    Oh, geeze frinkin’ gawdalmighty, guys.

    I’m no psych major, but even I remember the studies that have been done that link attractiveness with greater perceived intelligence, authority and social success. The point is that the intelligence is *perceived*: give a testee a set of photos and ask them to rank the subjects in order of intelligence, and they’ll ALWAYS rank them in order of conventional beauty. Yes, pretty people are more likely to come across well in an interview, and therefore to be seen as successful and smart. And possessed of a larger vocabulary, of course.

    A correlated fact is that the attractive are much less likely to be suspected of wrongdoing — they don’t look like they ought to be guilty. And if they are caught cheating or breaking the law, they’re much more likely to be let off. It’s the “but she ‘s so nice, and I’m sure she’s really really sorry and will never speed/ lift money from the till/ plagiarize again”. The male version runs something like “but he’s such a fine young man, and from such a good family, how can we ruin his life over a little DUI/ embezzlement/ sexual assult/ vandalism”.

    While the ugly, who just *look* guilty, get caught, charged and convicted, often for things they didn’t do.

    Althouse’s comments, which include the brilliant statement that

    It may be only that a person’s mental condition leads to both criminal behavior and physical unattractiveness

    are wibbling idiocy and deserve to be heartily jeered.