I bet the second order effect of being surrounded by pretty people generally leads to better outcomes. In the surgeon's paradox you actually care about the raw skill of the individual and nothing else. If whatever you're trying to do involves any sort of interpersonal interaction, you're gonna make the 2% up and then some.
> If whatever you're trying to do involves any sort of interpersonal interaction, you're gonna make the 2% up and then some.
No, your attractive colleagues are gonna make up that 2% and then some, not you. All these attractive fund managers got more funding, more promotions, better salaries etc according to the study, but they did a way worse jobs.
Their super power is that they make others pay for their success, they don't create the success themselves. The unattractive people however do help make other successful, that is what the 2% extra return per annum shows.
If you need people to do sales, then yeah hire an attractive person and give them commission, that way it works for you. But for most other jobs their success comes from manipulating you, and then their attractiveness works against you more than it helps.
Sure being attractive helps the attractive person more than anyone else, but I think there's enough surface area + network effects that a company full of attractive people will generally outperform a company of unattractive people of the same skill? For example while I'm sure I'd pretend it wasn't something I'm considering, given two similarly attractive offers and one very attractive interviewer I'd be foolish to consider myself unentangled in making that decision, try as I might.
it's certainly true that attractiveness is part of being a prostitute but outside of vocations where attractiveness is built into the work itself I don't think what you said actually applies.
Are you kidding me? Being attractive is like playing life on easymode! It's a bonus to every interaction you have in life, have you never had to interview for a job?
It gives you an advantage, so does being tall, having a deep voice, being confident, etc.
The entire point is that if you're successful without these advantages you're probably better than someone perceived to be as good but with the advantages.
We've all worked for and with unattractive people.
> being tall, having a deep voice, being confident
these are subcategories of being attractive, or entangled dimensions at the very least
> if you're successful without these advantages you're probably better
marginally better at the specific task at hand, which in most professions can be counterbalanced by being attractive
for example take two engineers, they have equal interpersonal skills but one is more skilled and less attractive than the other. The less skilled engineer may still have higher throughput as a result being better able to manage up, despite having the same interpersonal skills, simply because of their attractiveness bonus. I think you're really underestimating the effect size, I think it's large enough to be significant in most work.
> these are subcategories of being attractive, or entangled dimensions at the very least
absolutely not true, they're often about being dominant or authoritative. phone work is a perfect example where people trust you more if you have a deeper voice because you're seen as more authoritative.
Men with hair are considered more attractive, balding men are considered more authoritative because most men in positions of authority are older and balding.
Here, let me reply to your made-up situation with my own made-up situation.
What if one engineer was good looking and gay and slept his way to the top and another engineer was ugly but good.
who will continue rising faster? The gay slut, duh. therefore everyone should endeavor to be a gay slut despite _THIS CONVERSATION_ being about engineering skill.
