Of course. Imagine I said that having good eyes makes it easier to see and presented a situation wherein two people, one with good eyes and one with ordinary eyes, attempted to read a far off sign. Obviously the person with good eyes would be able to see more clearly. You can't refute that by giving the other person binoculars.

I assume you refer to the physical sense of sight, in this situation, the person with better vision would be able to see better than the other. But since you want to introduce an artificial item, binoculars, let me introduce one of my own--eye surgery. Due to modern technologies, the procedure is harmless and simple. Now the person who was once less capable is now at least just as capable to see.

The only problem I had with your first situation, the appearance and job scenario, is that you only accounted for one variable and assumed it suitable for all other scenarios.

Why did you explain that? Not only is it unnecessary, it is irrelevant. Wealth does not mean wealthy.

Misleading much?, you used Britney Spears as an example of less/uneducated persons with money, and you pronounced wealth as the addition of both money and properties when I stated having more money than the average person is not the same as wealth; now you're stating that wealth does not mean wealthy.

Humor me, explain to me what your definition of a wealthy individual is. Wealth the word that is essentially wealthy even though the latter is simply the former word with a y at the end.

Creating such inequalities in the hypothetical situation I created is nonsensical.

Your situation had only one variable (appearance, plain vs pretty) and all other factors are constant. Which is fine for all situations of that nature, but the range of application is too narrow. My additions are perfectly sensible; your focus was on the employer's preference for attractiveness; whereas I focus on two needs of the employer--appearance of candidates and skill requirements.

In the scenario you proposed the plain employee can be assign a 1 and the attractive employee a 2; meaning the payoff for hiring the attractive person is larger than hiring the plain person.

The CEO situation is focus only on appearance and ignore skills all together, so we can ignore this one; I only gave it to propose a situation where hiring a person with less or no skills, compared to other possible candidates, is rational.

For the situations of differing skill levels we can break it down as follow: plain gets assign a 1, attractive gets assign 2, plain and skillful gets 3, attractive and skillful a 4. Here, with the addition of skillfulness of candidates, if no attractive and skillful person is available, the company would choose the plain and skillful candidate over the attractive candidate. By doing so the employer receives a payoff of 3. When skill qualifications are the primary concern of the employer, other qualities (attractiveness included) lose priority.

Wealth is the sum of your moneys and properties. It is not in itself an adjective and I did not use it as though it were.

Let's start with net worth. Net worth is define as assets less liabilities. High net worth individuals, as define by Fortune magazine, is a person with a current net worth of ten million USD or more, or a person who has earned a gross revenue exceeded one million USD for the past two years and is expected to continue to receive said revenue. As of 2009 less than one per cent of the entire global population is consider financially rich (has a high net worth) and roughly a hundred USD. I very much know what wealth is.

Now on to money. Money, specifically the currency, has little value. It only acts as a medium of exchange. If you look at money as a commodity (not necessarily in the forex sense), it becomes cheap.

I'd much rather have a million dollars worth of a stock with an EPS of fifteen per cent than a million cash. I'll hold on to those shares until I find something better or the company loses its earning power, even if I have to live like a middle-class person.

I know of the experiment. You clearly know nothing more than the general theory.

Pray tell what you do know of this thought experiment. As I am not a student of physics I do not know much of the experiment, all I know is it's application as a critique of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and as a reductio ad absurdum.

There you go.

I am not exactly supporting you there. If both candidates applying for the same job have the exact same qualification, the more attractive candidate will be hired. This was clearly demonstrated in an experiment conducted by 20/20. Other-things-equal, this will always hold true. However should two persons of different qualification both apply for the same position, the more qualified person will be hired (this is assuming the company is hiring a person for the position and not a person to simply gawk at).

Should the company be interested in searching for a candidate that "looks the part" to look the part and not perform the necessary tasks of the position, the person "looking the part" would be hired. This is generally present in the hiring of CEO's. The board of directors only need a person to look the part of the CEO, they themselves will manage and control the company.

However, if a pretty person with significantly less qualification than a plain person apply for the exact same position where the one hired is expected to perform the tasks required of him/her, the plain person will be hired.

You academic qualifications example was poor.

Actually the college example was suffice. It's not the only example available, just an example available; I ignored all other variables and focused solely on entering college to simplify and explain why looks isn't everything. On a different, but related, note: to study the cardiovascular system you look first at the heart and not veins and arteries attached to the stomach.

Why do you assume that college graduates will have easier lives?

I do not assume college graduates have easier lives, nor do I promote such a thought. The current recession has clearly demonstrated the fact graduates are roughing it as well as the non-graduates. But the situation at hand is (hopefully) not the norm of developed societies. In times of economic prosperity, the educated will have better preparation for the disappearance of said times than the less educated.

I only said your Britney Spears example is a poor one. Had you used a different celebrity I would have had to agree with you. For instance Heidi Klum, Emma Watson or Shia LaBeouf. These people would have been excellent examples of wealthy individuals that lack formal higher education but do extremely well in life. (Not to suggest they lack intelligence.)

You obviously don't consider wealth to be a measure of ease.

Wealth definitely is a factor of ease. I thought using one of the wealthiest men in the world as an example clarified that.

Also, having more money than the average person is not the same as wealth.

If you want to bring hydrocyanic acid into it, yes.

The cat is either dead or alive, and until the box is open, we must assume the cat is both. Read up on it before you make a remark.

Britney Spears did not attend college, but made more money than most graduates ever do. Looks and intelligence are not mutually exclusive anyway. After college, with the same qualifications, the odds are in favour of the prettier girl getting a job they both apply for, regardless of which one that is.

While looks and intelligence are not mutually exclusive, they are also not dependent upon one another. And yes given the same qualifications, or relatively the same, prettier people will be hired in place of plain people. Of course, if they're both intellectually equal, the employer must then search for other qualities.

Spears is a poor example. I don't know what news you've heeded; from what I've heard and read, Britney has a pretty bad life (even "bad" is an understatement).

People with talents which others have a demand for, but themselves lack, will pay those with these talents. Though Brit has gone abysmally downhill for many years now.

Also, this is a case of specialized knowledge/talent and not general knowledge/talent; e.g. teachers know a lot, but it's all general knowledge, thus they get paid little. Warren Buffet, extremely specialized knowledge in the field of investing, is one of the wealthiest men in the world (despite not paying himself much as the Chair of Berkshire).

I am of the opinion that class transcends money.

Alright, then I'm not of peasantry.

I would argue that fatty, unnatural foods are an artificial influence.

I'm pretty sure most foods are artificial. Ironically, foods that do not come naturally are more expensive than foods that do.

You are imposing your predilections as the results of an experiment you have not carried out.

You got me there, but do you really think the result I proposed would not come to pass. Until it is actually carried out it's like Schrodinger's cat.

That's not the issue. It is obvious that a pre-existing advantages (such as money) would tip the scales, but on equal societal footing, handsome people have been proven to have easier lives.

Since when is societal footing equal for any two persons?

You did not answer the question

The intelligent trailer-girl must be smarter than the average middle-class girl due to her financial limitations. If she is only just as smart, then she is common at best. The trailer-girl must be smarter than the intelligent middle-class girl to have the same chance at success.

Let's examine colleges:

A trailer-girl and a middle-class girl of the same intelligence; if no scholarships are available, the middle-class girl's parents will pay and the trailer-girl must take on a loan. To repay that loan she must work full-time in addition to school. As their intelligence are the same, let's say average because no scholarship was granted, the trailer-girl will not be able to handle the work load and eventually drop out.

If the middle-class girl and the trailer-girl are accepted to one of the holy trinities, both cannot pay the full cost, and only one full ride scholarship is available. Their financial background will be disregarded, and their intelligence will come into question. The smarter girl will get the grant. Should the trailer girl get the grant, the middle-class girl will take on a loan. But should the middle-class girl get the grant, the trailer-girl will not be able to attend the Ivy due to her inability to qualify for a loan. Loan agencies would deem her a high risk investment.

If both girls are intelligent, both attend the same college, both receive partial or full ride scholarships, the middle-class girl will have more time to tend towards school and personal pursuits because her parents will pay her cost of living whereas the trailer-girl must work.

But the person benefited from the situation is uncertain. If the middle-class girl is idle with her time, the extra time available to her is useless. If the trailer-girl fail to learn of the dire situation she is in, then she will never escape her situation.

Should the middle-class girl use her time purposefully and pursue greater education outside of her classes, she is sure to surpass the trailer girl with great distance. Should the trailer-girl learn of her situation and vow to never again be in such restraints, she can do great things.

One last option available to both have little to do with their academic intelligence. And that option is to sleep their way through college. Sex is a demand for which there is always a shortage of supply.

What boring prospects you must have.

This view towards life has done the opposite for me. By not believing in love my life has been quite flavorable. But this is irrelevant for the debate.

Are you of peasantry?

No, I'm not poor or am I rich, but not quite middle-class either. I'm not so sure myself. I have money, not a lot, but not more or less than I need; and I'm not in financial restraints like the middle-class.

No, ugly, plain and pretty are descriptions. Goth, punk, jock, nerd; these are labels.

It's actually both, depending on the situation you use it. Goth, punk, jock, nerd labels are also descriptions of behaviours which lead to appearances of such that the kids can be called these things.

Is that a joke of some kind?

You used the words vulnerable and scantily clad in that context, I couln't help but joke a bit.

Why do you assume that people are naturally unfit?

Since two-thirds of Americans are obese. Even if no one is born obese, and obesity is unnatural, it's existence is now natural.

Without results, proposing an experiment is meaningless.

Do you need to know the weight of a fat person to know he/she is fat?

The experiment I proposed can be done, I just haven't carried it out because no girl I know wants to dress extremely down without pay. Even so, I'm certain the results would be as I have already stated.

Would a pretty trailer-girl have an easier life than an ugly trailer-girl? On your original point, would an intelligent trailer-girl have as much chance of success as an intelligent middle-class girl?

The pretty trailer-girl could have an easier life than the ugly girl in the same situation, iff she takes advantage of her looks and a person is willing to become her sugar daddy. However due to her natural financial limitation she must focus what money she does have on her body to portray an appearance of anything but "trailer trash" to get the sugar daddy in the first place; this endeavor may be quite costly if she does not quickly find the sugar daddy. Then again, she may sell her body on a street corner or the local bar, or manipulate an unattrative male of money with the promise of love and sex.

Most people are given the same opportunities for success, most just don't sieze them. The intelligent trailer-girl must be smarter than the average middle-class girl due to her financial limitations. If she is only just as smart, then she is common at best. Such is a rare breed, as most people allow their natural surroundings to determine their future and attitude.

Only peasants fall in love with labels.

But you do have a scale.

Love is false hope invented by the middle class.

Everyone uses labels; call a cat a cat, you label it cat; call that cat a dog, you label it dog.

Are you blue blooded to hint I'm of peasantry?

Have you got any idea how hard it is to explain to your friends the persons you've dated in details (not private, but general) after the break ups, or the persons you or they wish to date next? I admit every woman is unique in her own way, but to even try to describe every woman's uniqueness would take forever; and despite their uniqueness, all people (not just women) fall into categories we can use to label them. Labeling simplifies the process. Calling people ugly, plain or pretty is labeling.

This is size 8-10, apparently

Every country uses different sizes. The sizes I refer to are the generally accepted ones of esteemed fashion houses like Chanel, Prada and Valentino.

It behoves us to choose better wives

Marriage is overrated in the twenty-first century.

That doesn't require standing in front of one's mirror for an hour. Nor is washing or cutting one's hair a special occasion.

I didn't say spend a lot of time each day tending to one's appearance, just look clean. Is it really too much to ask of naturally good looking guys to look clean. Never mind some people like dirty.

Some find dirtiness attractive. Tiredness can not be remedied by a mirror, and paunchiness is beside the point.

Eating enough to become paunchy is artificial influence upon one's looks.

Physically dirty can be sexy in some instances but that all depends on the cause of the dirtiness (dirty from rolling around in a cat fight, yes; just rolling around outside alone, not sexy). The mirror can tell a person whether or not he/she is tired and act to relieve this state.

If eating to the point of becoming paunchy is artificial, then working out to the point of becoming fit is also artificial. If that is the case, I like the latter form of artificial and prefer it to naturally unfitness.

Vulnerable and scantily clad...

When my last ex walked out of the bathroom in lingerie neither of us thought she was vulnerable or under dressed.

Oh, and what I proposed was a controlled experiment.

Where they belong

If pretty girls who live in trailers are nonetheless pretty girls and they belong there for whatever reasons, then this proves that handsome people do not necessarily live easier lives than the rest of the population. Last I checked, living in trailers is generally not preferred by just about anyone who isn't homeless.

All the intelligent girls I have met are pretty.

I do hope it'll stay that way for you.

Your life seems to be a collage of stereotypes.

More or less. I do recognize the differences in people, but they're still people-ish, more or less; I just have preferences. That and after you've bedded a variety of women, had the fun, shared a commitment you start to look for someone to settle down with; the rest sort of cease to be women and become labels, it's not so much about who she is but what she is.

No doubt you have some invented method of deduction in this matter that you employ to entertain your own illusion of intelligence.

Not quite. I prefer Johnny Walker Blue over Jack Daniels, Dom Perignon over Walmart champagne, a pretty blond in the red dress over a girl sitting in the corner whose hair is in need of products, Macy's over Old Navy, Armani over Levi's. The scale is just for referencing amongst friends to simplify the process of comparison. I'm not gonna lie, it is entertaining.

I find the stereotypical fat, intelligent, bespectacled females are fictional.

Again, do hope your world stays this way. Also depends on your definition of fat. A woman over size six is overweight to me, not to mean I prefer size zero.

Plain is not ugly. See [pretty|plain|ugly] and all the subsets therein.

Not once did I said plain is ugly. I thought the scaling notion might have clarified that.

Neither does poverty.

Touche, I would much rather be with money than without when I'm unhappy; shop therapy does work.

Would it be better if they were on the bread lines due to lack of qualification? Using one's intelligence to constitute one's own happiness is akin to using one's looks.

I didn't say they shouldn't do what they do. I much prefer thirteen year old boys masturbating than having sex. And someone's gotta keep the average married men entertained. Just have to make do with what one's got.

Image and handsomeness are separate entities, one artificial, one natural. You seem to be inferring that males are ugly unless they regularly attend to their ablutions and trimming.

Doesn't hurt for some guys to cut and comb their hair, or maybe just have it look washed. I'm guessing you've never seen the good looking guy with his hat on, but when it came off he became something else (not that guys who use product always look good). Some clothes that aren't beat up/worn out would also help (not necessarily designer but relatively new, or just not ridiculously used). Or do you think dirty, tired and paunchy is smexy? Does working out fit into the category of artificial to you?

It does not concern the merits of the aforementioned artifices. It is concerned with naturally handsome people living easier lives.

Take the most beautiful girl you know of, rub dirt all over her face, dress her in raggedy clothes, place her next to a hobo on the busiest street in your city and no one except you and persons who know her can tell the difference between her and the hobo. I've seen some pretty "trailer" girls who remained in their trailers.

All in all, let's just agree to disagree.

Again, in my experience they are. I have never seen an ugly female intellectual at my school.

I did not say ugly people are smart. Just because someone is smart does not make her attractive, and there are different levels of attractiveness. For instance, some girls you (or, more, I) would only nail once (the conquest/game/sport type), the friends with benefits type, the relationship type, the "some guy I don't like with the hot girlfriend I wanna bang type", the pure, untouched "good" girl I want to do naughty things to (this doesn't fall into conquest), et cetera, et cetera.

I have a scale, girls don't fall into either pretty or ugly for moi, but maybe your standards are a little lax; if all intelligent girls are attractive/pretty to you, then to each his own.

If they are stupid. I did not say pretty girls had to be smart, only that smart girls are generally pretty (Though it is hardly stupid to use your looks to your advantage).

I've seen plenty of plain smart girls, more so than I see pretty smart girls. A person's looks can only take him/her so far. Not limited to but including; the trophy wives don't strike me as happy people, they seem pretty miserable/bored. Money does not equal happiness. Listen to Boring by The Pierces. Also porn stars; these women definitely rely on their appearance, but I don't think there's a lot of happy endings.

Wrong Debate

No, I'm in the right place. You wrote "whereas intelligent males are usually aesthetically deficient"; an intelligent male who does not tend to his appearance may come off as plain or unattractive. Certainly the focus of this debate is physical appearance and the lifestyle that is a direct result thereof.

This does not disprove the notion that most intelligent girls are pretty.

Nor does it prove so.

Bang on.

While it is not my life's goal to shag a VS Angel, I wouldn't mind if given the chance. :)

Sorry for entering your debate midstream.

In my experience, intelligent girls are pretty, whereas intelligent males are usually aesthetically deficient. Funny eh?

Intelligent girls are not necessary pretty and pretty girls are not necessarily unintelligent. While more attractive people do get more perks in life, they are often believed to rely less on their knowledge and more on their physical features. This is similar to the assumption that gay males are good looking and have a good sense of fashion.

In regard to males, most spend less than one minute infront of a mirror a day and about one hour a year shopping for clothes. Metrosexuals are an entirely different story.

One experiment done goes as follow: give males pictures of girls, one photo each, of either attractive or plain females with profiles of the females, these pictures and the actual appearances of the persons the profiles belong to are not the same; inform the boys these girls will call them with some questions for the experiment; monitor these phone calls; the boys who believe they are communicating with attractive girls will act as though they are communicating with attractive girls and these girls will respond as though they are attractive whether they are or not. Say I give you three profiles, all smart girls, the only differences are the photographs (attractive, plain, ugly), have them call you; then have you list the girls by intelligence, smartest first; the end result is most likely that you list the attractive girl as smartest or the ugly girl as least smart. But all this depends on your perception of physical beauty, my experiment assumes you perceive Alessandra Ambrosio as attractive and Rosie O'Donell as unattractive.