Talk:Lookism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wow, I never knew

Wow, I never knew JayKeaton 15:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete?

Suggest that this article be deleted for its complete lack of usefulness.

I was looking for this information so there must be a need for it. It certainly not a word or attitude I like but awareness is important so I don't see a reason for deleting it.199.126.58.151 03:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Sue Oguchi

I agree. It may be more on the dictionary side, but could be expanded Mattgibson 12:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Self-Parody?

This sounds like a self-parody of the egalitarian movement. Is this actually legitimate and not just some April Fool's joke? Life, Liberty, Property 06:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to Egalitarianism in the See Also section.Godfinger 13:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Major dictionary

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language is now a major dictionaries, is it? JayKeaton 07:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Least harmful?

I'd be surprised if there isn't something we can include regarding "lookism" being among the least-harmful and most-logical forms of discrimination, since (unless I'm mistaken about the definition) lookism would include statistical profiling, and would not preclude changing one's opinions if the object of the lookism proves good will through actions or words. —AltiusBimm 18:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk to a guy with a burn scar over his entire face about how harmless is lookism... —Jemmy_tc 16:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that lookism is the most harmful form of discrimination.--DnivyØ (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh...(palm on face) oh wikipedia. I saw this article a long time ago, couldn't believe such a stupid article could exist even on a site like wikipedia. Several months later, it's still here. Jimbo Wales, you're the greatest enemy of factual and useful information since Herodotus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.209.52.162 (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

props

props to this article for addressing this issue that rich white people want to pretend doesn't exist. 199.117.69.8 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

lookism is really just racism and hatred of other cultures and styles. 199.117.69.8 (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Racism has to do with judgments based on race and can affect people of any appearance within that race which is being judged. Lookism is judgments based on appearance and can affect people of any race. Therefore Lookism is not a form of Racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 07:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No Such Word as 'Lookism'

there is no such thing as lookism its your own damn fault if your are unscfull 64.222.103.145 (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is real,my boss will not hire people she thinks are too ugly,she has turned down people with experience over a drop out kid,and hired the kid because she was pretty (dirrtypittie) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirrtypittie (talk • contribs) 01:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

From the Google results it appears that 'lookism' is a real word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.75.127 (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously using Google search results to determine if something is a word or not? Is "hiybbprqag" now a word because it gets twice as many hits as "Lookism" ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.193.240 (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. A construction of letters formed from a valid (if abstract) noun and the suffix "-ism" is not automatically another valid noun. Of course, this article makes the even broader assumption that "-ism" modifies its prefix in such a way that "-ism" is synonymous with "prejudice" or "discrimination." And even *if* you make that assumption, "look" is the wrong word, being primarily a verb that means something only tangentially related -- "appearance" would be a better choice, but presumably the author decided "appearancism" didn't quite roll off the tongue. Change this to "appearance-based discrimination" or something similar, or delete the article. It makes Wikipedia look silly.

Cdecoro (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous citation

This entry cites Game, Florence; Carchon, Isabelle; Vital-Durand, Francois (2003). "The effect of stimulus attractiveness on visual tracking in 2- to 6-month-old infants" to support the following sentence:

"adults, children, and even infants seem to have high agreement about which faces are more attractive than others. This shows that judgements on attractiveness are not entirely influenced by culture."

The cited research does not support that statement at all. First of all that research, as its title makes clear, only targeted infants, not children or adults. Secondly the research determines that infants find an image of a face more attractive than that of a cross or a bunch of straight parallel lines. It says nothing about infants perceiving one face as more attractive than another, and I sincerely doubt that any research would ever make such a finding.

I am new to Wikipedia as a contributor so I am not sure what's the best way to address this error but I will start looking into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcgilly (talk • contribs) 18:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Page restored

Just so everyone knows the lokism page i still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 07:34, 30 June 2012‎

For info: the page was deleted via WP:PROD. I restored it following a request from User:SmokeyJoe. Whouk (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

On review, I oppose the PROD. Thank you Whouk for restoring. Yes, it is a dubious article. However, it is a term and a concept that is in realworld use. I think these articles, such as listed in Template:Discrimination sidebar, could do with some merging, but not outright deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Adjective / verb

A person that applies the concept of "lookism" is "lookist" in his actions or "looksist"? And this person is a (noun) "lookist", according to "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition"? Thanks for clarifying in advance. --Philipp Grunwald (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

POV?

It's easy to find studies showing a correlation between physical attractiveness and IQ. One example: personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/I2011.pdf

This brief research note aims to estimate the magnitude of the association between general intelligence and physical attractiveness with large nationally representative samples from two nations. In the United Kingdom, attractive children are more intelligent by 12.4 IQ points (r = .381), whereas in the United States, the correlation between intelligence and physical attractiveness is somewhat smaller (r = .126). The association between intelligence and physical attractiveness is stronger among men than among women in both nations. The association remains significant net of a large number of control variables for social class, body size, and health.

The cited studies don't account for that. DS Belgium (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

While this kind of research could definitely have a certain merit and be valuable for combatting misogynistic, slut-shaming stereotypes such as the "dumb blonde" who exploits her looks and sleeps her way up (opportunism), which is the side of lookism harming attractive people (though the targets are overwhelmingly women, which reveals its essentially sexist background), it does not disprove the concept of lookism, nor the perception that the phenomenon is harmful. For any individual person judged as being good-looking, there is no justification on this basis alone to assume anything about their intelligence, education, skills, sanity or ability to get along in life, in either direction, full stop. That's the nature of prejudice: it can't be justified using statistics, because it affects both individuals and groups collectively.

Physical attractiveness is no more than an evolutionary rule of thumb, a quick-and-dirty way to make it easier to quickly find suitable mates, i. e., to pick them out from larger groups, because if somebody is good-looking, they're most likely reasonably healthy and adapted to society in various ways. It's not a fallacy; quite the opposite – it is a very successful rule, that's why it has proved to be so persistent. However, where the fallacy comes in is when the reverse assumption is made – just because somebody is not attractive it is not at all a given that they are unhealthy and unadapted, or even mentally ill. Unattractive people are not necessarily inferior in any other way.

Crucially, lookism is mainly a cultural problem: due to well-known developments, beauty standards, especially (but not only) in the Western world are so high that unrealistic expectations have arisen, and there is great pressure – predominantly on women (again, sexism) – to conform to standards that are difficult (and costly!) to achieve. The spectrum between "hot" – "plain" – "ugly" is continually shifting to include more and more people in the "plain" and "ugly" categories that wouldn't have been included there even in the quite recent past (especially in the global context of human history at large, where a few decades are an insignificant span of time). This only contributes to a culture ridden in shame and guilt.

Even if we ignore the academic debate about IQ for the sake of the argument, the fact that there is a high positive correlation between health and IQ, and this correlation is easy to understand, largely due to the necessity of good health to at least express high IQs, whatever genetic predispositions may be like in any individual case, ensures a significant positive correclation between physical attractiveness and IQ too. In short, if one does not believe that there is any statistical basis for the idea that less attractive individuals are intellectually inferior at least in principle, the demonstration of a correlation is a no-brainer and does not suggest what you seem to suggest: that treating attractive people as better, more capable, etc., or treating less attractive people worse, has any justification from statistics, even if one could draw recommendations for actions in individual cases from statistics.

It's a lot like the race vs. intelligence issue: both concepts involved are already highly controversial on their own, for reasons that are valid, regardless of whether you ultimately agree with them or not; even if the concepts were sound, the evidence of the statistics is debatable, if the correlations are in all cases even significant, and what the basis of the correlations is (genetic, cultural, or a combination of both to some unknown proportion, which includes the possibility of epigenetic factors playing a role); even if the statistics were correct, it would not justify discrimination on an individual basis, let alone treating individuals as crap; nor would it justify policies collectively targetting less intelligent groups the way white supremacists (invariably the main proponents of a correlation) have in mind, because a significantly lower average intelligence is ultimately a mild disability, making affected ethnicities essentially analogous to Down syndrome (tellingly associated by Down himself with racial/ethnic characteristics, like other mental disabilities) and the like. What we do with people of low intelligence otherwise is help them, not kick them. In short, it's a non-issue unless you are a fascist arsehole. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk about Lookism

I don’t think appearance is most important asperses of one’s life. Scholars believe that no matter how good a school is, if you do not support your appearance, you will not be able to marry. However, I think they got a misjudgment. This is because my ankle who got a gorgeous wife even though he was not a good looking men. I do agree that appearance affects not only personal life such as love, marriage, but also social life such as employment and promotion, so it make us to take a lot of time and effort to look at the appearance. Nevertheless, If you are too attached to your appearance, you may develop into a disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.250 (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lookism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205050857/http://www.bartleby.com/61/64/L0246450.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/64/L0246450.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Lookism in South Korea

A student finished an article on Lookism in South Korea but never moved it out of her sandbox: User:Holiakim/sandbox. The article has some issues that may not warrant moving it to main space independently, but perhaps parts of it could be merged here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Itsallgoodtoday.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mariahgonzalez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)