|
|
|
|
|
|
by parsnipsumthing
3425 days ago
|
|
|
Thank you! Honestly, comparing this to a job screening is a great move because it reveals his analysis to be pretty silly. This guy is looking for "intelligence" and "beauty" as universally agreed traits whereas even businesses who are screening for "intelligence" are able to forced to search for specific and industry-relevant information. It would be like hiring a CEO with only an IQ test. It's also the same with "beauty". Even industries that hire primarily based on beauty (modeling, acting etc) have widely differing criteria based on their own niche in the marketplace. American models are quite different to British models, for e.g. The French magazines require a different look to, say, German magazines. Catalogue models vs editorial models. Throughout Europe, various markets require different heights, different looks and different personas. That doesn't even take into account racial differences across the world. |
|
|
No, he's not. From the article: "beauty is a purely subjective trait whose interpretation may vary from person to person. Luckily it is not necessary for me to define beauty in this essay except to state that for any given beholder, it will probably be normally distributed amongst the population."
He's assuming a normal distribution but he's not assuming a universal agreed standard of beauty.