"Not only are physically unattractive teenagers likely to be stay-at-homes on prom night, they're also more likely to grow up to be criminals, say two economists who tracked the life course of young people from high school through early adulthood."
….
"These economists found that the long-term consequences of being young and ugly were small but consistent. Cute guys were uniformly less likely than averages would indicate to have committed seven crimes including burglary and selling drugs, while the unhandsome were consistently more likely to have broken the law."
(Fedora Tip: reader Advogado de Diabos)
What I'd like to know is if the study focused solely on blue-collar crime. There have been other studies suggesting that attractive people are more likely to succeed in the white-collar job market. Consequently, I'd be willing to bet that attractive people commit a disproportionate number of white-collar crimes. Unfortunately, in typical MSM fashion, there's no link to additional information. Anybody out there know more about the variety of crime statistics involved in this study?
Funky Dung
















Comments 4
Ugly kids either grow up to commit crimes… or work with computers. That's what saved me from a life on the lam.
+0
Posted 17 Feb 2006 at 6:52 pm ¶I have a small problem with the study. The subjects were asked to rate their own attractiveness. I think this tests self esteem more than attractiveness. There are a lot of average people who can be either attractive or not based on their self esteem, how they dress, etc. Basically the study tells me people with low self esteem are more likely to commit crimes, which is an interesting but not too surprising find.
+0
Posted 17 Feb 2006 at 9:45 pm ¶Well of course ugly people commit more crime. Ugly children get treated worse than attractive children and their personalities either get bent or are allowed to go along uncorrected. Look at a bunch of mugshots. Almost all of the guys look "wrong" in some way.
+0
Posted 19 Feb 2006 at 3:27 pm ¶I agree to an extent with the ugly/self-esteem that Diabos mentioned. But the study itself was not run that way. The interviewer rated the student's attractiveness.
But I would ask what other factors were assessed in terms of demographics. Were those who ranked themselves ugly largely lower-income? This is particularly troublesome since the interviewer was rating the attractiveness. Would someone who was dressed poorly and without much makeup (for females) be rated lower because they lack the disposable income to do better?
Did they generally have a lower IQ? Or any other demographics which are often correlated to crime?
Perhaps a better study would be one of popularity. It may be that those who are less popular are more desperate for friends an acceptance, hence they fall into the wrong crowd.
It's also important to note that correlation is not causation! A watermelon is 95% water. A cloud is 99.9% water. But a watermelon is nothing like a cloud!
In any case, without additional data like what I mentioned above, the study seems to work hard to find its only preconceived notion of truth.
+0
Posted 20 Feb 2006 at 2:59 pm ¶Trackbacks & Pingbacks 1
Post a Comment