The results also showed that the switch to online learning in 2024 eliminated the beauty advantage — but only for female students. For non-quantitative courses, attractive female students experienced a drop in grades with remote learning, while attractive male students continued to see the benefits of their appearance.
According to Mehic, this suggests that discrimination likely explains the beauty premium for female students, who no longer enjoyed higher grades in remote settings. In contrast, the beauty premium for male students appears to be due to productivity-enhancing traits, since their grades remained higher despite lower interaction with instructors.
“The main takeaway is that both male and female students experience a beauty premium when teaching is in person,” Mehic explained. “But for females, this effect disappears with online teaching. This, at least to me, suggests that the beauty premium for males is due to some productivity-related factors, such as higher self-confidence, while for women, it’s more likely caused by discrimination.”
The main takeaway is men don’t experience a beauty premium, that’s why they remain unaffected while attractive women suffer. This is one of those subtle subversions, it clearly can’t be that women experience a pussy pass that men don’t so we must pretend attractive men get benefits somehow, because no ugly man has ever been confident or had social skills.
As time goes by, I've become more and more convinced that the 'woman are wonderful' halo effect is more powerful than anyone realizes. And that the majority of women lead charmed lives - yes, even the ugly ones - that is completely isolated from the male experience.
All you have to do to be a successful woman, in the eyes of nearly everybody, is take reasonably good care of yourself. Don't get super fat, don't accrue mountains of debt or fatherless children, and limit your promiscuous sex to some form of serial monogamy.
If you can do that, it doesn't really matter how attractive you are. People generally won't have a problem with you.
2 of the 3 nymphomaniac women I've met were "pretty" at best, most would consider them unattractive or even ugly. The other one was an absolute knockout. 😋
Ugly guys can have confidence, skills and personality too. There's handsome men who are repulsive once you get to know them :/
Lost my virginity one summer, pretty much went into sex obsession mode. I was absolutely shocked at the amount of numbers I was getting, but I wasnt really calling any of them so maybe they were fake numbers? God what a pathetic time, trying to lock eyes with every female between the ages of 18 and 40 that walked in the room.
I did eventually snap out of it. Was making out with two girls at my college, one was a neighbor in the next dorm, and the other was a girl that I met during lunch lol. My roomates g/f came out and laughed and said I had to pick one.
I realized then I didnt want either actually ahahahahahahahahaaha. That was enough to snap me out of it.
Contrary to Hollywood movies, a 110-pound woman punching a 220-pound man is an annoyance at best.
Women survived and passed on their genes, despite millennia of warfare and strife, because the survivors immediately sucked off their conquerors. Of course women are easier to influence and control: They evolved that way.
That effect is literally the primary method used in the century-long subversion of the West. Every single subversive and destructive movement happened because women were convinced to support it and that then led to men seeing it actually done.
Its been this way since the dawn of our species, I imagine. There is a reason males have bigger bodies and muscles. Someone has to fight the bears. It really aggravates me about the "man vs bear what would you take" thing, because for every 1 idiot predator male there are prolly 4 or 5 other males ready to beat the shit out of that person.
I know women have a hard time believing this, but most of us have that "big brother" feelings toward women. We have a desire to protect them from harm, not rape and beat them wtf.
This is bait. The odds of being a victim of violent crime of any kind, including rape in that global statistic, is much higher for men.
Yeah, I don't consider that an ovarian cyst can form on me either, instead I worry about testicular cancer. Wow, men and women have different problems on occasion. You have to look at on the whole, and on the whole, the odds of a man or woman causing you some kind of major physical and mental trauma through violent or non-violent application of their selves upon you is straight-up riskier and more harmful to men.
Another possible explanation is, men are more likely to give pretty women favorability in person, because they think - subconsciously or consciously, depending on the person - they might get sex out of it.
Women could be more likely to give a pretty man favorability overall, whether in person or not. It would be ironic if the reason the male "beauty gap" didn't fade online was the fault of women being illogical.
I disagree. I think what is going on is something more like:
Bob is the most attractive guy in his senior class. It helps him win Student Body President. He learns many skills and grows as a person as a result of his experience in the position.
Alice is the most attractive girl in her senior class. It helps her win Homecoming Queen. She gets a crown.
Attractiveness helps women at that moment. It situations where they cannot directly exploit it or their attractiveness fades, the advantage is gone. Men leverage the advantage for self-improvement, creating a persistent benefit that remains even if the attractiveness does not.
tl;dr: "Beauty premium" is transitive without ambition, which skews male.
As others have said, it's also possible that the physical qualities that are attractive in men are considered attractive specifically because they correlate with other qualities. For all we know, jawline and spatial reasoning share a gene somewhere. Human pattern recognition is far better than we give it credit for.
Edit: And now for a completely different angle. Girls are significantly more social than boys. Attractive girls are at the tip of the social hierarchy and, as such, are generally much more invested in it. If "remote learning" also means social isolation, it would be easy to believe that the students most likely to suffer mentally would be the social butterflies. The loner in the library sees no change, but Becky's world is crashing down. Basically, it's an interesting point of data (if true) but drawing any conclusions from it is impossible. Especially not, "muh discrimination!." Focusing solely on instructor interaction is a huge failing of this report.
Here’s my caveat at least: male confidence and social skills aren’t inherently due to attractiveness, but status. Being attractive can help their status and thereby their confidence, but so can being talented, wealthy, or simply raised by someone who understands the value of raising confident sons. You can very easily argue male testosterone levels also vastly influence their social abilities. Female confidence is nearly entirely dependent on their appearance.
Your edit was interesting in the social isolation aspect having a more detrimental effect on attractive women as well. It would make sense they have a more severe impact because they are used to their status being reaffirmed by social interactions.
For all we know, jawline and spatial reasoning share a gene somewhere. Human pattern recognition is far better than we give it credit for.
It's generally been proven that taller, more attractive people loosely correlate with better intellect or soft intelligence proxies. It doesn't even have to be genetic. It stands to reason that a healthy and well cared for childhood that leads to reaching a greater proportion of your potential height, could also potentially lead to you realising a greater degree of your mental potential too.
Experts keep discovering shit that we've known since before the bronze age. Aphrodite got pussy passes all of the time, and the other goddesses fucking hated her.
Attractiveness correlates with IQ. Life isn’t dungeons and dragons. You don’t have to dump intelligence to pump charisma. Attractive people are, on average, more intelligent than unattractive people. The “trade off” between beauty and intelligence is just cope created by ugly people.
And "High IQ just makes you better than everyone else" is just cope made by Jews to pretend the neuroticism and mental illness that it also correlates with is just them being better than everyone. Considering the Psychology field was founded by and ran by Jews for basically its entire existence, that's probably not even a joke entirely.
Correlation is a very specific term to denote that "there is a relationship here somewhere" without saying there is a specific causation happening. That correlation could literally be "higher IQ parents feed their kids healthier meals" or that "Attractive parents have better careers giving their kids more opportunities in school to reach their potential."
Correlation is the same as statistics, it tells you very little but putting it into a sentence lies through implications and simplification.
IQ is a threshold. The fact that 85 IQ blacks can’t run a society doesn’t mean that 105 IQ whites need to hand control of their prosperous nations over to 110 IQ Jews and Asians.
It is, but the fact that Jews and Asians are regularly the top of the list on IQ should tell you that its not as simple as "attractiveness and IQ are correlated, end of." Because both, if you remove the factor of job/money from the equation due to that's coloring effect, will regularly be mid-low on attractiveness scales in most societies.
So the "trade off" cope is likely equally as off base as the "smart people are also hot" one.
In the case of attractive women, I'd wager that, IQ or not, they never had to work as hard to achieve the same results due to being hotter and getting higher marks off that fact. Leaving them in reality dumber despite their capability once that was taken away, even if they could achieve much higher marks if given those tools and experiences.
What is IQ anyway, I think technically its measured in terms of spatial ability's?
The term IQ, or Intelligence Quotient, generally describes a score on a test that rates the subject's cognitive ability as compared to the general population.
Spatial reasoning is the mental transformation of spatial knowledge. >Such transformation is an integral component of everyday cognition, occurring within a variety of domains, such as attention, memory, and language, and across a variety of tasks, spatial and nonspatial alike.
I dont think its a really something that is "inherent" in people as more as something to be learned. Some people do learn much much more quickly and I guess thats what I discern as a true mark of intelligence.
But absolutely beauty correlates to intelligence, you cant typically have both. Again what is beauty, we can define it as a near perfect symmetrical face mixed in with your own personal subjections of what beauty is. What one person finds beautiful, others dont.
I guess if you want to be beautiful you better spend your time making it so. Spend your time looking in the mirror, going to social events, learning the newest fads. And then there is also raw lust, which is more a product of pheromones and subconscious desires that still are a mystery to this day.
Anyway this is the entire premise behind, can a person become a genius through hard work and sheer desire? I believe the answer is yes, others may feel it is no. One thing you will find in common with people like zuckemberg, cant believe i brought that guy up, or any other internet startup, or most inventions. They were done by people who had no friends, no social life to interrupt and get in the way of their mindly pursuits.
Cant say when I think of scientists or programmers, that I think of "beautiful" people lol.
That does not carry over for women. The inverse appears to be true there because boys start simping by the time they hit puberty and just piles on from there. Their mental growth freezes.
Then the attractive women should continue to get the same grades in remote learning. No, this study makes it apparent that something else is going on with respect to attractive women that isn't true for everyone else.
I think there's a cutoff point where the correlation probably inverts. Attractiveness might correlate in the midwit range but geniuses tend to be pretty meh in looks.
A lot of geniuses are perfectly attractive: reasonable bodyfat ratio, good lower back spinal curve, fine neck and arm lengths, great facial symmetry. But a lot of geniuses don't bother with becoming attractive as an additional action, because they don't need to be. So they neglect fashion sense, because a frumpy sweater is easier to wear, or because it's objectively a poor financial decision to "get your nails done" (seriously, a hundred bucks to use a nail file on you and some polish and laquer?!).
There was a study about this back in covid. The hypothesized explanation was that attractive men leverage their beauty into tangible skills: leadership, confidence, networking. Attractive women do not.
I would take that further and question how they measure "attractive". Competence is a dimension of male attractiveness.
That seems odd to me. Is this university-age only? Are there way more male professors than females?
I would think that for every male giving out a "pretty pass" there'd be a vindictive (feminist) twat down-marking her. :/ But if the ratio M/F teachers was high then this finding would be a natural.
My theory on this is that men exercise their beauty premium differently.
Attractive students receive a disproportionate share of peer resources. Whether through tutoring or people eager to carry them through group projects. The people who are both intelligent and attractive lead study groups and get mobbed by people who just want to hear them paraphrase and explain things. The act of paraphrasing and explaining and preparing to perform reinforces the curriculum and benefits them.
At face value, females are passive. Help pursues them and remote learning scenarios make this unlikely. Males are initiators. Even in remote situations, they're still going to video/conference call people and hunt down help. Arguably, in a lockdown scenario, they're going to have more one on one access to the peers willing to hold their hands. The intelligent + attractive males are still going to lead groups and repeat and ruminate on the curriculum.
This paper examines the role of student facial attractiveness on academic outcomes under various forms of instruction, using data from engineering students in Sweden. When education is in-person, attractive students receive higher grades in non-quantitative subjects, in which teachers tend to interact more with students compared to quantitative courses. This finding holds both for males and females. When instruction moved online during the COVID-19 pandemic, the grades of attractive female students deteriorated in non-quantitative subjects. However, the beauty premium persisted for males, suggesting that discrimination is a salient factor in explaining the grade beauty premium for females only.
This sounds like one of those BS studies to me. Why would good-looking men and not good-looking women retain the advantage that is supposedly only due to their good looks?
Because their premise is fundamentally flawed: "Attractive" men include the trait "intelligent" by female raters. "Attractive" women often don't, it's a neutral trait, by male raters.
Correct. It’s an indirect refutation of any claim that male and female attraction mechanisms are “the same”. Men view female attractiveness through the prism of fertility - youth, beauty, curves, submissiveness, femininity, etc. None of those traits correlate with performance in school lol
The main takeaway is men don’t experience a beauty premium, that’s why they remain unaffected while attractive women suffer. This is one of those subtle subversions, it clearly can’t be that women experience a pussy pass that men don’t so we must pretend attractive men get benefits somehow, because no ugly man has ever been confident or had social skills.
As time goes by, I've become more and more convinced that the 'woman are wonderful' halo effect is more powerful than anyone realizes. And that the majority of women lead charmed lives - yes, even the ugly ones - that is completely isolated from the male experience.
All you have to do to be a successful woman, in the eyes of nearly everybody, is take reasonably good care of yourself. Don't get super fat, don't accrue mountains of debt or fatherless children, and limit your promiscuous sex to some form of serial monogamy.
If you can do that, it doesn't really matter how attractive you are. People generally won't have a problem with you.
2 of the 3 nymphomaniac women I've met were "pretty" at best, most would consider them unattractive or even ugly. The other one was an absolute knockout. 😋
Ugly guys can have confidence, skills and personality too. There's handsome men who are repulsive once you get to know them :/
Looks are over rated. Im not exactly a "chad".
Lost my virginity one summer, pretty much went into sex obsession mode. I was absolutely shocked at the amount of numbers I was getting, but I wasnt really calling any of them so maybe they were fake numbers? God what a pathetic time, trying to lock eyes with every female between the ages of 18 and 40 that walked in the room.
I did eventually snap out of it. Was making out with two girls at my college, one was a neighbor in the next dorm, and the other was a girl that I met during lunch lol. My roomates g/f came out and laughed and said I had to pick one.
I realized then I didnt want either actually ahahahahahahahahaaha. That was enough to snap me out of it.
Yep. That's one of the larger black pills. Across the board, women are privileged and prioritized and sheltered and promoted simply for being women.
Because eggs are rare and finite and valuable and sperm is cheap and plentiful.
They'd be a lot less rare if they didn't kill their babies so damn much.
Its literally evolution though... women are born with a finite amount of eggs.
Men just have a pump set on go.
Honestly, I think part of it is women are easier to control and make them do what you want versus a male.
Which makes me wonder about that part in the bible that claims that eve was the first one to bite the apple.
Contrary to Hollywood movies, a 110-pound woman punching a 220-pound man is an annoyance at best.
Women survived and passed on their genes, despite millennia of warfare and strife, because the survivors immediately sucked off their conquerors. Of course women are easier to influence and control: They evolved that way.
That effect is literally the primary method used in the century-long subversion of the West. Every single subversive and destructive movement happened because women were convinced to support it and that then led to men seeing it actually done.
Its been this way since the dawn of our species, I imagine. There is a reason males have bigger bodies and muscles. Someone has to fight the bears. It really aggravates me about the "man vs bear what would you take" thing, because for every 1 idiot predator male there are prolly 4 or 5 other males ready to beat the shit out of that person.
I know women have a hard time believing this, but most of us have that "big brother" feelings toward women. We have a desire to protect them from harm, not rape and beat them wtf.
It's more charmed that you and I have never once considered the possibility that you might be raped.
This is bait. The odds of being a victim of violent crime of any kind, including rape in that global statistic, is much higher for men.
Yeah, I don't consider that an ovarian cyst can form on me either, instead I worry about testicular cancer. Wow, men and women have different problems on occasion. You have to look at on the whole, and on the whole, the odds of a man or woman causing you some kind of major physical and mental trauma through violent or non-violent application of their selves upon you is straight-up riskier and more harmful to men.
Its true, men can never experience traumatic assualt of any kind, right?
Might be your dumbest post yet.
He and gitz can’t seem to ever find the bottom.
Well, Antonio regularly finds bottoms…
There's a lot of competition in that category.
Why wouldn't that be a possibility? Gay men exist, as well as bs prison sentences.
I'm pretty sure Grant isn't a jailbird. He doesn't sound like the type. I don't think he just came from a gang meeting.
Who knows? He could be one of those classy mafia types, like the Corleones.
So gay.
Male sexual assault victims are more or less just as prevalent as female ones if you use objective criteria instead of self-reported surveys.
That you think one is vastly less likely than the other isn't proof that men have it easier, it's proof that propaganda works.
Attributes considered attractive in men correlate more with discipline and intelligence than those commonly considered attractive in women.
Another possible explanation is, men are more likely to give pretty women favorability in person, because they think - subconsciously or consciously, depending on the person - they might get sex out of it.
Women could be more likely to give a pretty man favorability overall, whether in person or not. It would be ironic if the reason the male "beauty gap" didn't fade online was the fault of women being illogical.
I disagree. I think what is going on is something more like:
Bob is the most attractive guy in his senior class. It helps him win Student Body President. He learns many skills and grows as a person as a result of his experience in the position.
Alice is the most attractive girl in her senior class. It helps her win Homecoming Queen. She gets a crown.
Attractiveness helps women at that moment. It situations where they cannot directly exploit it or their attractiveness fades, the advantage is gone. Men leverage the advantage for self-improvement, creating a persistent benefit that remains even if the attractiveness does not.
tl;dr: "Beauty premium" is transitive without ambition, which skews male.
As others have said, it's also possible that the physical qualities that are attractive in men are considered attractive specifically because they correlate with other qualities. For all we know, jawline and spatial reasoning share a gene somewhere. Human pattern recognition is far better than we give it credit for.
Edit: And now for a completely different angle. Girls are significantly more social than boys. Attractive girls are at the tip of the social hierarchy and, as such, are generally much more invested in it. If "remote learning" also means social isolation, it would be easy to believe that the students most likely to suffer mentally would be the social butterflies. The loner in the library sees no change, but Becky's world is crashing down. Basically, it's an interesting point of data (if true) but drawing any conclusions from it is impossible. Especially not, "muh discrimination!." Focusing solely on instructor interaction is a huge failing of this report.
Here’s my caveat at least: male confidence and social skills aren’t inherently due to attractiveness, but status. Being attractive can help their status and thereby their confidence, but so can being talented, wealthy, or simply raised by someone who understands the value of raising confident sons. You can very easily argue male testosterone levels also vastly influence their social abilities. Female confidence is nearly entirely dependent on their appearance.
I agree with the additional point that those male testosterone levels also impact physical attractiveness.
Your edit was interesting in the social isolation aspect having a more detrimental effect on attractive women as well. It would make sense they have a more severe impact because they are used to their status being reaffirmed by social interactions.
It's generally been proven that taller, more attractive people loosely correlate with better intellect or soft intelligence proxies. It doesn't even have to be genetic. It stands to reason that a healthy and well cared for childhood that leads to reaching a greater proportion of your potential height, could also potentially lead to you realising a greater degree of your mental potential too.
There are no girls on the Internet.
Experts keep discovering shit that we've known since before the bronze age. Aphrodite got pussy passes all of the time, and the other goddesses fucking hated her.
Well, yeah. Pretty privilege is very real.
It's not entirely "privilege" -- there's also a strong correlation between attractiveness and IQ.
But yeah, attractive women have large, clear bonuses on top of that.
Attractiveness correlates with IQ. Life isn’t dungeons and dragons. You don’t have to dump intelligence to pump charisma. Attractive people are, on average, more intelligent than unattractive people. The “trade off” between beauty and intelligence is just cope created by ugly people.
And "High IQ just makes you better than everyone else" is just cope made by Jews to pretend the neuroticism and mental illness that it also correlates with is just them being better than everyone. Considering the Psychology field was founded by and ran by Jews for basically its entire existence, that's probably not even a joke entirely.
Correlation is a very specific term to denote that "there is a relationship here somewhere" without saying there is a specific causation happening. That correlation could literally be "higher IQ parents feed their kids healthier meals" or that "Attractive parents have better careers giving their kids more opportunities in school to reach their potential."
Correlation is the same as statistics, it tells you very little but putting it into a sentence lies through implications and simplification.
IQ is a threshold. The fact that 85 IQ blacks can’t run a society doesn’t mean that 105 IQ whites need to hand control of their prosperous nations over to 110 IQ Jews and Asians.
It is, but the fact that Jews and Asians are regularly the top of the list on IQ should tell you that its not as simple as "attractiveness and IQ are correlated, end of." Because both, if you remove the factor of job/money from the equation due to that's coloring effect, will regularly be mid-low on attractiveness scales in most societies.
So the "trade off" cope is likely equally as off base as the "smart people are also hot" one.
In the case of attractive women, I'd wager that, IQ or not, they never had to work as hard to achieve the same results due to being hotter and getting higher marks off that fact. Leaving them in reality dumber despite their capability once that was taken away, even if they could achieve much higher marks if given those tools and experiences.
What is IQ anyway, I think technically its measured in terms of spatial ability's?
I dont think its a really something that is "inherent" in people as more as something to be learned. Some people do learn much much more quickly and I guess thats what I discern as a true mark of intelligence.
But absolutely beauty correlates to intelligence, you cant typically have both. Again what is beauty, we can define it as a near perfect symmetrical face mixed in with your own personal subjections of what beauty is. What one person finds beautiful, others dont.
I guess if you want to be beautiful you better spend your time making it so. Spend your time looking in the mirror, going to social events, learning the newest fads. And then there is also raw lust, which is more a product of pheromones and subconscious desires that still are a mystery to this day.
Anyway this is the entire premise behind, can a person become a genius through hard work and sheer desire? I believe the answer is yes, others may feel it is no. One thing you will find in common with people like zuckemberg, cant believe i brought that guy up, or any other internet startup, or most inventions. They were done by people who had no friends, no social life to interrupt and get in the way of their mindly pursuits.
Cant say when I think of scientists or programmers, that I think of "beautiful" people lol.
That does not carry over for women. The inverse appears to be true there because boys start simping by the time they hit puberty and just piles on from there. Their mental growth freezes.
Then the attractive women should continue to get the same grades in remote learning. No, this study makes it apparent that something else is going on with respect to attractive women that isn't true for everyone else.
I think there's a cutoff point where the correlation probably inverts. Attractiveness might correlate in the midwit range but geniuses tend to be pretty meh in looks.
Geniuses are definitionally outliers. They have minimal impact here.
A lot of geniuses are perfectly attractive: reasonable bodyfat ratio, good lower back spinal curve, fine neck and arm lengths, great facial symmetry. But a lot of geniuses don't bother with becoming attractive as an additional action, because they don't need to be. So they neglect fashion sense, because a frumpy sweater is easier to wear, or because it's objectively a poor financial decision to "get your nails done" (seriously, a hundred bucks to use a nail file on you and some polish and laquer?!).
It's weakly correlated.
Money is a stronger correlation.
This should make it obvious what's actually happening.
Plus, IQ is not constant throughout life, and most people will never face the kinds of challenges that cause it to increase.
There was a study about this back in covid. The hypothesized explanation was that attractive men leverage their beauty into tangible skills: leadership, confidence, networking. Attractive women do not.
I would take that further and question how they measure "attractive". Competence is a dimension of male attractiveness.
A related link:
Something tells me this study is full of bullshit.
Do not question The Science, insurrectionist.
That seems odd to me. Is this university-age only? Are there way more male professors than females?
I would think that for every male giving out a "pretty pass" there'd be a vindictive (feminist) twat down-marking her. :/ But if the ratio M/F teachers was high then this finding would be a natural.
The feminist's hatred of men would outweigh her jealousy of pretty girls.
My theory on this is that men exercise their beauty premium differently.
Attractive students receive a disproportionate share of peer resources. Whether through tutoring or people eager to carry them through group projects. The people who are both intelligent and attractive lead study groups and get mobbed by people who just want to hear them paraphrase and explain things. The act of paraphrasing and explaining and preparing to perform reinforces the curriculum and benefits them.
At face value, females are passive. Help pursues them and remote learning scenarios make this unlikely. Males are initiators. Even in remote situations, they're still going to video/conference call people and hunt down help. Arguably, in a lockdown scenario, they're going to have more one on one access to the peers willing to hold their hands. The intelligent + attractive males are still going to lead groups and repeat and ruminate on the curriculum.
looking back, a lot of middle school and high school was creepy teachers hitting on chicks between practice math problems
Abstract:
This sounds like one of those BS studies to me. Why would good-looking men and not good-looking women retain the advantage that is supposedly only due to their good looks?
Because their premise is fundamentally flawed: "Attractive" men include the trait "intelligent" by female raters. "Attractive" women often don't, it's a neutral trait, by male raters.
Correct. It’s an indirect refutation of any claim that male and female attraction mechanisms are “the same”. Men view female attractiveness through the prism of fertility - youth, beauty, curves, submissiveness, femininity, etc. None of those traits correlate with performance in school lol
the article has info on that