Damn, that’s kinda fucked up. We all know there are (mostly) subconscious biases against people we find unattractive. But that’s harsh that it shows up as such a big gap.
I’m a woman. Over the last 5-10 years I went from ~160-180 to 234 this Jan.The difference in treatment has been staggering. Now down to around 219. Hoping I can continue to lose. Not on a glp-1, though I’ve definitely considered it.
Might as well give it a shot (pun intended). Like Half my department and half the spouses are on it. Couple people it didn’t work for because they had side effects. I’m not on it, but anything I know it is that if you don’t have side effects you can stay on it indefinitely and if anything, it’s healthier for you.
I’m only a bit overweight at the moment. My issue is that I need energy and more time at a gym. And a lower back that’s 20 years younger.
FWIW, if it’s not a musculoskeletal injury/concern (and their possible neuropathic symptoms), maybe focusing on core & lower back strength at a gentle but regular pace could help you like it has for me.
My spine’s survived through 3 rollovers/tumbling crashes, ~10 auto collisions (7 while I was parked/stopped!), a 90ft cliff jump (never again), and teen years @ a McDojo to band a few. I’ve room for improvement, certainly, but the 237lbs I was at 10/24 is now down to ~170lbs, and I more often feel 20 again!
… until I look at the world around me, ofc. Then, I’m old AF & tired of fighting the Sisyphean battles toward common decency and compassionate “civilization”. 😅😶
I thought Aries was the “baby of the Zodiac”, though?
I’ve no real idea, I avoid that bullshit at every chance. Hell, I’ve politely left a first date for that. It only belies deeper-held beliefs in even more exploitive superstitions/cons. Best to move along. 🤷🏼♂️
There’s also studies that show height is also a predictor of salary. As well as skin color being a predictor of those who get promoted.
DEI was implemented based on those studies because educated black women were constantly passed over, even if they outcompeted their rivals in work competency.
I work at a larger company. I’m a tall guy (0th percentile) and there’s over a dozen people taller than me in the building. For the amount of people who work here, that number should be between 0 and 8 people taller than me.
I don’t read this one as a total plant, but I don’t think the methodology is great. Using a ucla cohort study that’s been in progress since 2024 (quarterly questionnaires) the author compares two groups.
People who received treatment
People who didn’t receive treatment but indicated that they would like to in future (control group)
Clearly not an excellent control group for the kind of claims she wants to make.
She puts effort into statistically ‘matching’ a bunch of parameters to try to make it a better control group. She also discusses this as a possible issue in the text and tries to give some statistical evidence but I don’t find it very convincing. Doubt it will ultimately get published.
I meant to imply the author was in good faith and not an industry plant like other white papers in the journal have been. I actually read the paper and don’t feel the need to prove my identity to you in a forum in order to have an opinion. I think it’s obvious and most people in adjacent fields would think so. The author acknowledges it as well which I mentioned. Also said nothing about p-hacking, I definitely don’t think that.
This is an unreviewed white paper, they’re putting it out looking for feedback.
Damn, that’s kinda fucked up. We all know there are (mostly) subconscious biases against people we find unattractive. But that’s harsh that it shows up as such a big gap.
there is a 10K/yr+ year premium on your height too. we love tall hot people. they get paid the most.
shorties get salary shafted
I’m a guy. Back when I was really healthy and in shape (after not being) it was super obvious how much better and easier “pretty people” have it.
I’m a woman. Over the last 5-10 years I went from ~160-180 to 234 this Jan.The difference in treatment has been staggering. Now down to around 219. Hoping I can continue to lose. Not on a glp-1, though I’ve definitely considered it.
Might as well give it a shot (pun intended). Like Half my department and half the spouses are on it. Couple people it didn’t work for because they had side effects. I’m not on it, but anything I know it is that if you don’t have side effects you can stay on it indefinitely and if anything, it’s healthier for you.
I’m only a bit overweight at the moment. My issue is that I need energy and more time at a gym. And a lower back that’s 20 years younger.
FWIW, if it’s not a musculoskeletal injury/concern (and their possible neuropathic symptoms), maybe focusing on core & lower back strength at a gentle but regular pace could help you like it has for me.
My spine’s survived through 3 rollovers/tumbling crashes, ~10 auto collisions (7 while I was parked/stopped!), a 90ft cliff jump (never again), and teen years @ a McDojo to band a few. I’ve room for improvement, certainly, but the 237lbs I was at 10/24 is now down to ~170lbs, and I more often feel 20 again!
… until I look at the world around me, ofc. Then, I’m old AF & tired of fighting the Sisyphean battles toward common decency and compassionate “civilization”. 😅😶
Attractive people are also more confident. This is an important factor in many roles.
they aren’t. they are perceived as more confident.
Actually, attractive people are more confident when the moon is waxing but are perceived as more confident when the moon is waning.
all folks have to do is all change their DOB on their job application to Leo or Aries, because those are the most confident star signs.
I thought Aries was the “baby of the Zodiac”, though?
I’ve no real idea, I avoid that bullshit at every chance. Hell, I’ve politely left a first date for that. It only belies deeper-held beliefs in even more exploitive superstitions/cons. Best to move along. 🤷🏼♂️
There’s also studies that show height is also a predictor of salary. As well as skin color being a predictor of those who get promoted.
DEI was implemented based on those studies because educated black women were constantly passed over, even if they outcompeted their rivals in work competency.
Looking at you, Apollo project…
I work at a larger company. I’m a tall guy (0th percentile) and there’s over a dozen people taller than me in the building. For the amount of people who work here, that number should be between 0 and 8 people taller than me.
Makes me wonder how biased the study was and how much of Harvard’s portfolio is wrapped up in pharmaceutical stocks.
I don’t read this one as a total plant, but I don’t think the methodology is great. Using a ucla cohort study that’s been in progress since 2024 (quarterly questionnaires) the author compares two groups.
Clearly not an excellent control group for the kind of claims she wants to make.
She puts effort into statistically ‘matching’ a bunch of parameters to try to make it a better control group. She also discusses this as a possible issue in the text and tries to give some statistical evidence but I don’t find it very convincing. Doubt it will ultimately get published.
You’re claiming p-hacking without any proof or qualifications stating why this is so clear to you.
The control group setup is to remove people who have no need for the drug.
I meant to imply the author was in good faith and not an industry plant like other white papers in the journal have been. I actually read the paper and don’t feel the need to prove my identity to you in a forum in order to have an opinion. I think it’s obvious and most people in adjacent fields would think so. The author acknowledges it as well which I mentioned. Also said nothing about p-hacking, I definitely don’t think that.
This is an unreviewed white paper, they’re putting it out looking for feedback.
“That’s fucked up. Like, we all know that obviously fatsos are universally fucking ugly but I didn’t think it would have such an impact”.
How a thing talking about weight immediately switched to being about attractiveness. That is fucked up indeed.