Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Beauty may only be skin deep, but stupidity ...

They're at it again at the University of Alberta. The department of Phrenology has added a new wing and it's beautiful. Well, some people say it's beautiful and some people say it's another ugly post modern welt on the landscape; I guess it really comes down to personal preference. They used to say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. They don't say that any more.

Speaking of beauty, someone has set themselves up as the final arbiter.

"The researchers noted if the parents belted their youngsters into the grocery cart seat, how often the parents' attention lapsed and the number of times the children were allowed to engage in potentially dangerous activities like standing up in the shopping cart. They also rated each child's physical attractiveness on a 10-point scale.

Two can play at that game.

"When a woman was in charge, 4 percent of the homeliest children were strapped in compared with 13.3 percent of the most attractive children. The difference was even more acute when fathers led the shopping expedition - in those cases, none of the least attractive children were secured with seat belts, while 12.5 percent of the prettiest children were.

Maybe it's just me, but differentiating between homeliest and least attractive, and most attractive and prettiest is an idiots pastime.

"Homely children were also more often out of sight of their parents, and they were more often allowed to wander more than 10 feet away.

The gumint should DO something. Forget Adscam; we've got homely childeren wandering more than ten feet away. Full speed ahead Mr. Darwin !!!

"Dr. W. Andrew Harrell, [who, for a man, is fairly ugly] executive director of the Population Research Laboratory at the University of Alberta and the leader of the [generally, attractive except for the one atomic bowser] research team, sees an evolutionary reason for the findings: pretty children, he says, represent the best genetic legacy, and therefore they get more care.

Someone is out to prove 'evolution' using subjective criteria. Judging infants on an aesthetic scale of 1 to 10 is ridiculous, but then this is the same university that gave us, finger size = aggression.

God I wish I was beautiful, or at least comely.

Italics Mine


Post a Comment

<< Home