Do better looking people tend to be more generous spirited?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Spencer stuck up for Thumbsucker, in the face of a torrent of vitriol here

Le Coq responded thus:

Unauthorized explanation of Spencer Chow's media life: If you, the viewer, are really good looking but not in an asshole way, you naturally just tend to be gung-hoes-and-*roses about most movies, and unsurprisingly enough, most anything else out there, even just regular lawns and especially parks! Therefore, one could say, if this 'Spencer' person spontaneously sprouted a two-headed-Chang face or maybe even just got toxic shock for a few weeks and gimped a pinky permanently - he would likely grow into an age-appropriate cynicism, start hating more movies and everyday objects. * - A Google search says I have just coined that phase this post, which in the long run means likely little. Anyway, Spencer Chow is better looking than me and I whine about anything when I post in bed. Oh YA KNOW I LUV YA SPENCERRRRRRrrrrrr (said in a whiteboy voice...kinda halfway to YOURS, Spence! Blakkaw!). OK forget this whole stupid post, Im' just zooted anyway!
PS

SPENCER CHOW GETS PUSSY

SPENCER CHOW DIGS MOVIES

AND SO WOULD YOU

This idea tickles me. Do hideous people tend to be all splenetic and good looking ones more chilled about things?

The concept of the evil deformed boy genius.
Alexander Pope the deadly hunchback.

Do you think there's anything in it?

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:15 (twenty years ago)

I knew this was an Alba thread before I even clicked on it. Sigh.

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:17 (twenty years ago)

I did too!

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:19 (twenty years ago)

Scientific Research = People's OPINIONS of you and your behaviour tend to be higher for good looking people.

Perhaps if you've been treated like a Good Person all your life, you'll tend to act like one? But I don't think so.

Because the reverse is true, according to Scientific Research = people's OPINIONS of you and your behaviour tend to be lower or more nefarious for less attractive people.

So I think less attractive people like myself have to try harder to get a good opinion, therefore we tend to be MORE honest, better behaved etc. And still get discounted because we're bitter that those good looking fuX0rs still get better ratings.

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:20 (twenty years ago)

btw, can I make an advance plea for this thread not to descend into a pit of "but you *are* good-looking" back-and-forthness?

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:23 (twenty years ago)

well ive known mean fucked up bitchy ppl of all face & body scores 1 to 11 inclusive

― minna (minna), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:28 (twenty years ago)

If you have been treated better by people your entire life, I would think that would polarise personalities. Either you would become totally spoiled and stuck up and expect the very best to be delivered on a plate, or else you would become rosy natured and generous and All For The Best In The Best Of All Possible Worlds Panglossian.

Anyway, what am I talking about? I hate "better looking" people anyway.

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:30 (twenty years ago)

It makes sense that the more physically attractive you are, the nicer people are gonna be to you. That could mean that you end up being super nice to everyone all the time, or it could mean that you take advantage of other people's niceness and turn into a nasty bastard, and I'm sure we all know attractive people who fit into both of those categories.

― Come Back Johnny B (Johnney B), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:30 (twenty years ago)

I didn't know it would be by Alba - I feel I am missing out here.

I don't think this is 'true' no (re the thread question). It's as much a generalisation as saying good looking people are vacuous, superficial, high-maintenance etc. i.e. there's as much truth in that as there is in the idea that they're more generous, kind etc.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:32 (twenty years ago)

minna definitely otm

― john p. irrelevant (electricsound), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:34 (twenty years ago)

I think I hate better looking people in the same way I hate students - it's jealosy in hate's clothing. I think that makes me a bad person, I'm not sure.

― Come Back Johnny B (Johnney B), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:35 (twenty years ago)

Can we stick a disclaimer at the top of ILE that says "All Generalisations Are Bad And Wrong" so it's out of the way and we can get straight to the generalising and theory-busting?

Good-looking people are nature's aristocrats. Speaking as a peasant I'd say they're more patronising than magnanimous.

― The Marquis of Cauliflower (noodle vague), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:37 (twenty years ago)

So this is why the hott Boris J lookylike from upstairs never speaks to me. It's not because he's gay, or married, but because he's too super goodlooking to condescend to the likes of me.

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:38 (twenty years ago)

I'm sorry, I cannot stay serious on this thread.

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:38 (twenty years ago)

take the generalisations out of ilx and you wouldn't have the poxy fule problem when searching anymore, that's for damn sure

xpost

― john p. irrelevant (electricsound), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:39 (twenty years ago)

Better-looking people can be exceptionally mean to their more minging counterparts, though. Especially teenage girls, who make the Waffen SS look like a bunch of pansies.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:40 (twenty years ago)

additional disclaimer: we know everyone has different ideas about what constitutes 'good looking', hott etc. but presumably this is concerning people who are told they are good looking often enough by a large number of people, to the extent where they believe it and it can be considered as consensus as well as anything can be.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:44 (twenty years ago)

but you *are* good-looking, noodle vague.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:45 (twenty years ago)

mind you, i don't really know anyone like that. (xpost)

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:45 (twenty years ago)

because they're famous for that very reason.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:45 (twenty years ago)

Henry, that tactic was barred by Alba at the top of the thread.

Anyway, however lovely I might look, I'm black and festering on the inside. :)

― The Marquis of Cauliflower (noodle vague), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 12:47 (twenty years ago)

i've known a ton of "better looking people" that others gave all the leeway in the world to just because they were BLPs, so even if the BLPs were the most reprehensible dickheads on earth, the leeway-givers would never notice.

― america's next top ramen (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:01 (twenty years ago)

Can we stick a disclaimer at the top of ILE that says "All Generalisations Are Bad And Wrong"

I did use the word "tend" but people never seem to take any notice of that word.

But I'm not actually sure myself if they do even tend to. What if I changed the question slightly:

"Can being ugly lead you to be a splenetic cultural critic?"

You're ugly (or think you are) + you have little success in one or every field of your life -> you blame your lack of success (rightly or wrongly) on your looks -> you hate the world -> you get angry about people who have achieved cultural or other success in this cruel, tawdry world, assume they have slept their way to the top etc.

This formulation leaves open the possibility that other ugly people might not go down this road, and that enough beautiful people turn into misanthropes for their own reasons, thus leaving no overall correlation one way or the other.

How about that?

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:06 (twenty years ago)

Just to try and look at this the other way round, is there any truth in perhaps more generous spirited people are perceived to be better looking too?

Like, for the same person, say if you have a "50/50 face" (i.e. not conventionally beautiful or ugly). If this person is nice and generous and gracious, you're more likely to go, aw, and good looking to boot. Whereas, if this person is horrible anyway, you may be more inclined to say, god and kind of ugly too.

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:08 (twenty years ago)

That's true! Scowling becomes few faces.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:09 (twenty years ago)

I am the best looking man in Washington.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:13 (twenty years ago)

I don't think that people necessarily think that BLP have slept their way to the top... just more that they use the power of their beauty as a promise of sexuality rather than the actuality.

If anything, it's ugly people who have to sleep their way to the top. Because BLP can just be accepted for just being... just looking pretty and decorative and not actually doing anything about it.

Especially when you're younger, the assumption is that uglier girls will put out where the prettier ones won't, because they have to work harder to get the same attention.

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:13 (twenty years ago)

I wasn't criticising your generalisation, Alba, I was criticising the inevitable "generalisations are bad and wrong" post.

― The Marquis of Cauliflower (noodle vague), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:14 (twenty years ago)

Kate OTM. Empirical experience leads me to believe it isn't usually the pretty girls who get pregnant at 13.

― The Marquis of Cauliflower (noodle vague), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:15 (twenty years ago)

but that's kind of saying everybody just use their sexuality to get to the top, whether it be by sleeping or just teasing.

xxpost

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:16 (twenty years ago)

wasn't criticising your generalisation, Alba, I was criticising the inevitable "generalisations are bad and wrong" post.

Sorry, yeah, I know. I should have posted stevem's bit.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:16 (twenty years ago)

Well, sex (and accompanying pregnancy) especially in the young (and in the older should know better) is often about self esteem and the lack of it, rather than actual sexual attractiveness.

(Kate in overwhelmingly obvious statements shockah.)

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:17 (twenty years ago)

Especially when you're younger, the assumption is that uglier girls will put out where the prettier ones won't, because they have to work harder to get the same attention.

We have the answer then.

Ugly people are more generous spirited.

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:17 (twenty years ago)

x post

It's also about the nice tickly feeling you get in your tummy.

― The Marquis of Cauliflower (noodle vague), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:18 (twenty years ago)

you're totally turning me on.

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:19 (twenty years ago)

The etc. at the end of "sleeping their way to the top" was meant to make it a kind of "blah blah, getting on with looks or sexuality" catch all. Maybe the ugly deformed geniuses don't fully appreciate the intricacies of the interplay between sexuality and attractiveness. I know I don't.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:21 (twenty years ago)

Maybe the ugly deformed geniuses don't fully appreciate the intricacies of the interplay between sexuality and attractiveness

Because the UDG never needs to - they get by on brains alone. The BLP don't need to get by on brains when they can rely (to a greater or lesser extent) on looks. That doesn't make them bad people that need to be hated, it's just utilising a different part of them, yes?

Do liberals hate BLP? And why?

― Come Back Johnny B (Johnney B), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:33 (twenty years ago)

BLPs often end up with UDGs.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:41 (twenty years ago)

UDGs often end up with STDs.

― The Marquis of Cauliflower (noodle vague), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:44 (twenty years ago)

It makes sense that the more physically attractive you are, the nicer people are gonna be to you.

Isn't that actractivenessism? should that be about as bad as racism or sexism? I mean people can't decide how attractive they are.

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:54 (twenty years ago)

Or is it that more attractive people really are better, whereas no race or gender is better than another. I not sure if this is really true.

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:57 (twenty years ago)

Obviously there are plenty of unattractive people that are all around better than attractive people.

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 13:58 (twenty years ago)

There's probably some genetic predisposition mixed up in this, a subconscious attraction to people who look like good breeding stock.

― The Marquis of Cauliflower (noodle vague), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:00 (twenty years ago)

posh girls are hott.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:01 (twenty years ago)

Well, quite clearly, not all generalisations are bad and wrong!

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:01 (twenty years ago)

x-post

Isn't it genetically better to mix races.

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:03 (twenty years ago)

and what about guys being nicer to attrictive guys compared to unattractive ones? Where's the subconscious thoughts of good breeding stock in that?

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:05 (twenty years ago)

Well, sex (and accompanying pregnancy) especially in the young (and in the older should know better) is often about self esteem and the lack of it, rather than actual sexual attractiveness.

(Kate in overwhelmingly obvious statements shockah.)

(Kate in turning specific personal neuroses into blanket statements about the rest of humanity SHOCKAH)

― amon (eman), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:09 (twenty years ago)

and what about guys being nicer to attrictive guys compared to unattractive ones? Where's the subconscious thoughts of good breeding stock in that?
-- A Nairn (moreta...), November 9th, 2005.

that's just plain ole constitutional bisexuality.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:11 (twenty years ago)

...uuuh, well, if it's a "specific personal neurosis" then it's one that many pregnant teenagers (or at least the ones that I have known) share. Enough to be statistically relevant.

x-post

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:11 (twenty years ago)

x-post

Who do you think you are Freud? Why is everything about sex?

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:17 (twenty years ago)

yes, i think i am freud. give me some cocaine, dog.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:17 (twenty years ago)

I’ve found the complete opposite, not so good-looking friend paid for me to go snowboarding in Tignes. Good-looking friend won’t get a round in.

― not-goodwin (not-goodwin), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:34 (twenty years ago)

It really wasn't supposed to be about people being generally nice. It was about people's bad-temperedness towards the whole world, and especially culture.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:41 (twenty years ago)

I think that if people treat you better because of your looks, you'd be more inclined to think that's the way the world in general works and give others the benefit of the doubt. I have no empirical evidence of this, though -- it's just more of a guess.

― KSTFUNS (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:45 (twenty years ago)

it's more about charisma rather than good looks in terms of what tends to make people treat you/others better. not sure how much of an indicator good looks are towards a person's charisma or charm, in fact this seems like a chicken/egg thing in terms of what drives what.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:49 (twenty years ago)

That's what I was gonna say - makes sense absolutly.

― Come Back Johnny B (Johnney B), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:49 (twenty years ago)

The best thing to be is someone who "brushes up well". You've never been able to totally rely on your hottness, so you've had to develop other attractive qualities. But if you're just in a bar and the music is maybe too loud to show how generous spirited you are, it'll probably be a bit dark and you can wear enough make-up to pass yourself off as one of the good looking people.

Oh, this was supposed to be about attitudes to culture and I've made it about pulling people in bars.

What does splenetic mean?

― Cathy (Cathy), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:55 (twenty years ago)

To have the qualities of a splan.

― Come Back Johnny B (Johnney B), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:59 (twenty years ago)

sple·net·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spl-ntk) also sple·net·i·cal (--kl)
adj.
Of or relating to the spleen.
Affected or marked by ill humor or irritability.

n.
A person regarded as irritable.

― not-goodwin (not-goodwin), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 14:59 (twenty years ago)

Oh, that's funny, I think the last word I asked someone what meant was dyspeptic, and it meant exactly the same thing.

TS: splenetic vs dyspeptic vs curmudgeonly?

― Cathy (Cathy), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:04 (twenty years ago)

See also:

Sanguine (of the blood) - cheerfully confident, optimistic
Choleric (of the yellow bile) - easily angered, bad-tempered
Phlegmatic (of the flem) - of calm temperament, unemotional
Melancholic (of the black bile) - upset tum caused by too much fruit

Are there any more? I just know these ones because we did the Four Humours in GCSE History.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:04 (twenty years ago)

I've gotten gradually better-looking in my life, which is not to say that I'm Brad Pitt now, but I went from being chubby, awkward, pale, etc. to being (well, still a little chubby), but strong-jawed and broad shouldered -- reasonably good looking, I guess. And I've also just generally gained confidence. But I always secretly worry that I'm turning into more of an asshole as a result.

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:06 (twenty years ago)

Snottic (of the mucus) - boorish, socially inept

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:07 (twenty years ago)

These are shaming me, I thought Phlegmatic meant the opposite of that.

Oh, I thought of another, bilious. (Don't sit there crooning like a bilious pigeon!)

― Cathy (Cathy), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:09 (twenty years ago)

Ehhh, sorry for this but what does EMO mean? Is it short for emotional or something? If so why does it apply to certain styles - ie I've heard SPECTACLES described as EMO.....

― Rumpie, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:09 (twenty years ago)

It's just like 2000 all over again. Where's my aluminium scooter?

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:10 (twenty years ago)

How Emo are you?

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:13 (twenty years ago)

I suffer neither from looks nor generosity of spirit. Nor do I suffer from false modesty.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:23 (twenty years ago)

Ooooh, I think I get it! They are those unapproachable 'kitsch' people - the girls tend to have pigtails and stripy tights, the guys wear long leather jackets, they drink in coffee houses and sorta look like tame goths?

The girls like Eeyore merchandise?

― Rumpie, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:24 (twenty years ago)

i missed what UDGs stood for.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:25 (twenty years ago)

Obviously there are plenty of unattractive people that are all around better than attractive people.

By "all around better" you mean "all around gooder and super-nicer," don't you? Because obviously you can't mean "'all-around better' is the same as 'being a winning package of intelligence, physical fitness and aptitude, charisma and sexual attractiveness.'" Because then you'd be wrong.

I kid.

Sort of. Charisma, as said above, has a lot to do with it. I know loads of people that, in a snapshot, aren't anything amazing but, in person, are unbelievably attractive. Just because they're fun and self-confident. There's a lot to be said for the idea of "Thinking you're hot = actually being hot." It won't work on everyone, but it'll work on a lot.

― giboyeux (skowly), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:26 (twenty years ago)

I think you're confusing them with small children.

x-post

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:26 (twenty years ago)

Ugly Deformed Genius.

You know, like me. ;-)

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:26 (twenty years ago)

Johnney B totally OTM in his first post.

Being attractive means that you get more attention, and more leeway in life generally than uglier people. How you respond to these boons (like many other possible advantages and disadvantages in life) depends on your character, which is ultimately what determines the generosity of your spirit.

Also, trying to discredit/invalidate someone's opinions based on their physical appearance is dud.

― Laura H. (laurah), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:26 (twenty years ago)

(UDG - Ugly Deformed Genius)

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:26 (twenty years ago)

Cf Lucky Jim, which goes on and on about the differences between the gregarious, stacked, rich girl and the awkward, tasteless, knobby academic one.

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:27 (twenty years ago)

UDG:

ihttp://www.marveldirectory.com/pics/picsg/gremlin.gif

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:28 (twenty years ago)

Oh well, http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/g/gremlin.htm

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:31 (twenty years ago)

Lucky Jim, which goes on and on about the differences between the gregarious, stacked, rich girl and the awkward, tasteless, knobby academic one.

OTM, but I don't think the distinction between the two characters is primarily about class (in the narrowest sense anyway). Christine (the stacked one) works in a bookstore (though her uncle is rich), while Margaret (the knobby one) is a university faculty member (nothing's said of her socioeconomic background, but she seems to be a bit of a climber). It's all about their appearances and personalities. IIRC, Jim reflects that if Margaret had had some quantitatively-defined greater amount of physical beauty and fashion sense she wouldn't have been nearly as neurotic, an assessment with which the reader is implicitly encouraged to agree.

― xero (xero), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 15:49 (twenty years ago)

nick i was really hoping that would be tony randall's intelligent gremlin from gremlins 2 ('oh, we may stumble along the way, but civilization, yes, the geneva conventions, chamber music, susan sontag....')

― _, Wednesday, 9 November 2005 16:01 (twenty years ago)

Yes, the book makes it into a whole chix vs egg and concludes, finally, that there's no end to the ways in which nice things are nicer than nasty ones (if I remember correctly), which isn't a terribly logically sophisticated conclusion, y'know? Anyway, Christine has the luxury of choosing to work in a bkstore cos she's got nothing to prove, right? She can afford not to care, as the thinking goes, which is precisely the kind of thing that makes Margaret bitter (and thus even more unpleasant).

Anyway, the whole question is silly. I've known people who seemed grotesque on first meeting and who I now can't look away from, and I don't even mean their "inner beauty" shines out or some malarkey, I mean the same skin & features as before have been transformed by familiarity and beloved little expressions. For some reason this happens more often for me with other women, I have theories about why but not germane here.

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 16:05 (twenty years ago)

I want to hear those theories. Please don't worry about derailing the thread. It wasn't very good in the first place, as you point out.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 16:51 (twenty years ago)

Because I can love an unlimited number of women w/o any danger of sliding into romantic stupidity, whereas if I started to find a man that beautiful on a feature-by-feature basis, I'd be in far over my head.

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:00 (twenty years ago)

sorta look like tame goths?

Phrase of the day.
I rather like the thread.

― Matt (Matt), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:02 (twenty years ago)

lc's theory is magnificently phrased, but i don't think it can be applied across the board. most of my girlfriends are above average in the looks department, and probably 75% are bitches. smart and funny and often charming beyond belief, but bitches nonetheless.

― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:06 (twenty years ago)

But do they get really worked up about, I don't know... how awful Garden State is, or people who say "proactive"? Such that there's real abject hate in their eyes?

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:09 (twenty years ago)

(or do they just say "that's shit" and move on?)

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:10 (twenty years ago)

..but surely that's just about passion and Being Emotional. And whether people get worked up emotionally has nothing to do with whether they are attractive or not.

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:14 (twenty years ago)

Suddenly I realise that this thread is about a completely different thing than I thought it was.

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:14 (twenty years ago)

Passion can be directed in different ways though. I might be passionate about the things I love, but not let silly, annoying, crap things in the world bother me that much.

x-post:

oh?

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:16 (twenty years ago)

Anyway, the whole question is silly.

Sorry, my dismissiveness not really called for, I should have just said that I don't find the appearance -> spirit conclusions to be very err...meaningful. I like to think we are all capable of getting over ourselves sooner or later and being a little more self-aware than the confining "nature vs nurture" sort of argument that I get from the orig post.

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:16 (twenty years ago)

No, N, I think what you're talking about is being laid back vs. being emotional/hystrionical. I don't think that has anything to do with looks. I know plenty of uptight, hystrionic bitches who are lovely to look at (and know it).

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:18 (twenty years ago)

But do they get really worked up about, I don't know... how awful Garden State is, or people who say "proactive"?

god yes.

― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:20 (twenty years ago)

as alluded to upthread, really attractive people don't have to develop attractive personality traits.

― kingfish orange creamsicle (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:21 (twenty years ago)

Also:

not let silly, annoying, crap things in the world bother me that much.

I call bullshit, having seen how worked up you get over very minor points of spelling and grammar and inappropriate comma usage.

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:23 (twenty years ago)

I was really just wanting to repost LeCoq's thing about Spencer and wonder aloud whether the concept of the misanthropic deformed genius had any basis in reality, and whether said misanthropy/ill-temper might genuinely have been caused by the deformity.

OK, RADICAL IDEA:

Forget the physical aspect of this.

Do you think that hypercritical, ill-tempered critics are often/ever that way because they are unhappy in themselves, be it because of their appearance or whatever else? Is there a correlation there, at least?

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:23 (twenty years ago)

(y'know, like lame-o artist retort to critic is "they're just bitter cause they're a failed pop star" etc.)

Or is the propensity to get worked up about rubbish things evenly distributed across those of high and low self-esteem?

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:26 (twenty years ago)

my friend with the highest self-esteem (or raging egomania as some see it) actually gets the most angry about random things than anyone else i know.

― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:28 (twenty years ago)

arrrrgh! that sentende made NO SENSE!

― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:28 (twenty years ago)

arrrrgh! i can't even type properly!

― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:29 (twenty years ago)

if i were better-looking, would my poor grammar and typos bother me more or less?

― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:29 (twenty years ago)

Did Scrooge have low self-esteem?

― jel -- (jel), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:29 (twenty years ago)

I call bullshit, having seen how worked up you get over very minor points of spelling and grammar and inappropriate comma usage.

Woah - hold on. When I said "I might" I meant "one might" really. I wasn't making any personal claims. Though as it goes, I really don't get worked up about any of those things. I don't even point them out anymore, but when I did I wasn't sitting there seething. It was just some compulsion to be pedantic.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:30 (twenty years ago)

Do you think that hypercritical, ill-tempered critics are often/ever that way because they are unhappy in themselves

Well, find me a critic - or indeed any other kind of writer, or artist, or anything - with a healthy self esteem (i.e. not low and not over-exaggeratedly high) and we'll discuss it.

I guess maybe that's the entire way that I've misunderstood the thread. Yes, I think that people who are unhappy with some aspect of something about themselves are more likely to be easily worked up about ridiculous things as a displacement activity.

But I think (with the exception of maybe Ned) people who have normal self esteems don't become ~~interesting~~ critics or writers or anything else vaguely requiring opinionation.

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:31 (twenty years ago)

ok. what i was trying to say: the person i can think of with the highest self-esteem from my group of friends is also the most short-tempered.

― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:31 (twenty years ago)

x-post because raging egomania isn't exactly healthy self esteem either!

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:32 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, Starscream had a breakdown in the end.

― jel -- (jel), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:33 (twenty years ago)

Ahhh, Kate's right, I thought this thread was about something completely different.

I dunno, I can get worked up about everything if I try hard enough; I am tirade-prone. Whether or not I am unpleasant-looking (and would therefore prove yr point) isn't really my call, is it? Because the whole thing depends on how I'm treated by others, my relative ugliness must be in the eye of the beholder.

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:34 (twenty years ago)

my friend with the highest self-esteem (or raging egomania as some see it) actually gets the most angry about random things than anyone else i know.

You know, I wish I hadn't used the phrase "self-esteem" cause I think it's such a slippery concept. I never have any idea where my self-esteem level is, for example. Other people might think they could tell me, but I'm not sure I'd trust them.

I almost believe that to be relaxed about oneself and the route one is taking through life, one *has* to be relaxed generally and not get all worked up about stupid things. Which makes my argument circular.

FIN.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:35 (twenty years ago)

i do think there's something to be said for the theory that attractive people have long taken for granted many things in life that most other people have to work hard for (sex with attractive people, compliments, being at the top of the social chain), so their personalities are sometimes not as well-cultivated. which isn't to say there aren't nice ones out there, but they tend to live in rarefied air and can get away with being assholish.

― gear (gear), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:37 (twenty years ago)

you could have just excelsiored that post by lecoq, you know, instead of leading us into all of this nonsense.

x-post

― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:39 (twenty years ago)

i remember this girl i went to junior high with named m@rissa, who was a sweet, extremely nice girl, who then seemed to realize that she was attractive and when high school came ditched all her friends and turned into a fairly horrible person. i remember someone asking her what happened to her and she replied that when you're popular you don't have to be nice. which is true! except replace "popular" with "hot".

― gear (gear), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:40 (twenty years ago)

I hate "excelsiored". It's stupid and annoying and now I'm going to stick pins in dolls of whoever invented it.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:40 (twenty years ago)

I hate excelsiored, because I'm funny all the time.

― jel -- (jel), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:43 (twenty years ago)

no you're not (see how i obliterate your self-esteem)

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:44 (twenty years ago)

I hate excelsiored because it's changed the tone of ILX in general to a gang of comedian wannabees, but that's another story and another thread.

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:44 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, but gear that's just about being nice and nasty. As I tried to point out, the thread was meant to be more about whether or not you get worked up about things. I didn't think how ambiguous the phrase "generous sprited" was. It originally read "Do better looking people tend to be more generous spirited critics?" but I changed it for some reason. I thought that the things I went on to post, including LeCoq's thing about Spencer, made it clear what I meant, though.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:44 (twenty years ago)

crankiness just happens.

― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:45 (twenty years ago)

This is like the old days, when I'd start a badly phrased thread and then spend the entirety of it trying to make amends.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:46 (twenty years ago)

excelsior thread is good when there is something on it i like and laugh at that i may well have missed otherwise. but it's crap any other time.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:46 (twenty years ago)

No, I mean I especially hate the way the threads have this tradition of having the word "excelsior" in their title.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:48 (twenty years ago)

It's easy to be sanguine when everything's going your way, obv.

As far as good-looking, shit-together critics: you'll probably find that their negative commentary lacks the seething vitriol of ugly and deformed failures. Or:

Critic A (for Awesome!) considers it his/her duty to make sure that society in general takes notices of and rewards the creators of Good Shit, be it food, art, music or bicycles. The bad stuff? Meh. It's bad, therefore dismissed. Why get worked up about it, right? "This sucks...moving right along."

Critic B (for Beligerent Blowhard) is personally offended by things that Suck, and wants to make sure that whoever made it understands, in no uncertain terms, that they are wholly deficient in their craft. Critic B, when considering something that he/she likes, elevates it to an almost supernatural plane of Gooditude, scorning the pretenders.

As a result, Critic A is more likeable and well-received, even by those who have gotten, well, criticized. On the other hand, Critic A's cool ambivalence to the unworthy can be even harder to bear than withering revulsion ("won't you at least recognize my existence?" "why would I bother?")

Critic B can be enormously entertaining, but as stated before, a bit of a blowhard. Also, his/her spectacular and elaborate cut-downs are easy to shrug off because, well, they're just so theatrical! Anyone who's opinion actually counted wouldn't resort to stunts like that, right?

...basically, we're talking about nabisco and Alex in NYC, people.

(ZING!)

― giboyeux (skowly), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:48 (twenty years ago)

mega xpost, obv.

― giboyeux (skowly), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:48 (twenty years ago)

You can't bring me down Steve, the thread your looking for is "has ILX gone down the dumper? part 34567"

― jel -- (jel), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:49 (twenty years ago)

giboyeux, you are great.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:50 (twenty years ago)

"great" = "you understand what I mean"

I don't know what that says about my self-esteem

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:51 (twenty years ago)

i knew you'd deflect my blast jel. honour is satisfied.

so what about people who become 'better looking' and then become more mean-spirited...does this happen? one would assume it's because they've gained confidence by becoming happier with how they look, but remembering how much they disliked themselves before, and disliking that fact still, but that confidence possibly leading to arrogance about it.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:52 (twenty years ago)

POWER UP!

― giboyeux (skowly), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:52 (twenty years ago)

NB. I am not saying that Alex in NYC is an ugly, deformed failure. Also, his misanthropy is so comic book and he's all cuddly with his kid, so he doesn't really count.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:53 (twenty years ago)

No, I mean I especially hate the way the threads have this tradition of having the word "excelsior" in their title.

i think it's my fault for using it first, but someone else's fault for using it again.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:53 (twenty years ago)

Neither was I.

JUST FOOLIN'

― giboyeux (skowly), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:54 (twenty years ago)

Alba i think of you as having healthy self-esteem - in the middle you know? you seem secure enough. i know you weren't necessarily asking for other people's opinions on this matter here.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:54 (twenty years ago)

I've noticed that on those programmes when people "get a famous face/body" they gain this new confidence, and then decide that they don't want to be in Playboy after all/ don't fancy their childhood sweetheart after all/ can get away with so much more. Perhaps, it's the chemicals in the pec/calf/breast/butt implants.

― jel -- (jel), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 17:55 (twenty years ago)

there was that marissa girl i described, who ended up being what someone called a nush (nice until she's hot). i knew a few people like that, and the transition seemed to occur between 8th and 9th grade.

― gear (gear), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:00 (twenty years ago)

I think I have been conflating two types of criticism, actually. There's the Alex in NYC-type beligerent "DESTINY'S CHILD IS THE SPAWN OF SATAN!" thing, and then (and maybe this is more what I was originally thinking of) there are the more silent-but-deadly, hateful critics, who, faced with something they don't like, see it as their duty to try to make the creator of that thing feel as bad about themselves as possible*, with snide remarks, pithy put-downs etc. The latter type of person, I often imagine, feels awful about their own lives and seeks solace in staking out the moral or intellectual high ground above their hate figures.

*were they ever to actually read the criticism.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:03 (twenty years ago)

I actually know a critic who fits that description to a T.

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:05 (twenty years ago)

TS: Excelsior (aka Tell them they're funny) vs What Do You Look Like (aka Tell them they're hot)

Excelsior draws first blood because at least you don't control whether you get quoted on there or not (unless you believe the conspiraciiies).

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:07 (twenty years ago)

Thing is, with the What Do You Look Like threads, it's a way of coralling narcissism/"give me a compliment, please" into one controlled area where you can choose to participate or not.

if Excelsior were one long conversation of people being witty at one another, fair enough. But it's not, and what it does is just inspire people to post "funny" one-liners and catchphrases in lieu of actual well thought out debate, in the hopes of being Excelsiored.

But we are off topic.

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:09 (twenty years ago)

NOBODY DOES THIS. EVER.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:11 (twenty years ago)

I hope no one does. It seems rather paranoid to think people would.

― KSTFUNS (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:14 (twenty years ago)

New ILX rule: Anyone who brings up the hoary "ILX USED TO FULL OF INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION NOW IT'S JUST DUMB JOKES" trope is forever exiled to this thread.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:16 (twenty years ago)

weird the first word i saw on that thread was "trope", in a posting by n/a

― gear (gear), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:17 (twenty years ago)

Oh god, now we're just going to get into this crap. Forget I ever even expressed an opinion.

― Streatham's Paisley Princess (kate), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:17 (twenty years ago)

I've always avoided the intelligent conversation threads. The idiocy threads did seem more light-hearted in days gone by, my glasses may be rose-tinted.

― jel -- (jel), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:19 (twenty years ago)

Kate, I seriously have no idea what you're talking about. If there's any "crap" here, it's crap that you brought up. And I'm just "expressing an opinion" too.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:20 (twenty years ago)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v515/RJG/timmy.gif

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 9 November 2005 18:29 (twenty years ago)

play it, timmy.

― di, Thursday, 10 November 2005 01:24 (twenty years ago)

i have wondered at this type of thing myself. i think maybe that being a bit of a chameleon during life can make a person far more cynical than might otherwise have happened, as it attunes you more to the superficiality in other people (and yourself i suppose.) could create vitriol in people, amplifying any sense of injustice, get them angry enough to want to "do something" about it. unless it swells into despair or overwhelmed complacency, which is hardly the same thing as being laid back, despite the similar appearance sometimes.

― Kim (Kim), Thursday, 10 November 2005 04:05 (twenty years ago)

"This douche gets indie chick loving and I don't?"

― Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Thursday, 10 November 2005 17:16 (twenty years ago)

I have been totally guilty of this in the past too, I'm not making that last post as an accusation of anyone! I think it's a really strong undertone in pretty much all (male?) armchair criticism that has be constantly struggled against.

― Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Thursday, 10 November 2005 17:22 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.