You're probably not going to believe what I'm about to say.
A study at Rice University recently confirmed that people are more likely to trust attractive people than the average-looking Joe. So bear with me, even though by now you're probably convinced I'm full of it.
The Rice study on the benefits of beauty is not the first of its type but it is the latest chapter in the book we're apparently judging by its cover - the book on how brains might beat brawn, but good looks trump them all.
Countless examples of trusting beauty over the beast pop up in our society and permeate the walls of our pop culture and history. We're all raised (hopefully) on the notion that we shouldn't pass judgment on anything until we've found out what it's really about. But somewhere along the line we stopped reading the fine print and started subscribing to the oldest issue of bias - the one with Cindy Crawford on the cover and the article titled "Survival of the Prettiest."
Snap judgments we make help us to decide between taking candy from the proverbial stranger and running away - first impressions are protective tools we use to summon our catalog of experience to guide us in split-second decisions. But what does it say about a society when we'll take the Tootsie Pop from a potential pervert just because we like their smile?
It says we're as vapid as we are in danger. Not only is this a slap in the unbecoming faces of hard-working, talented but not aesthetically blessed people, but it's a sign that our priorities are in line with those of the acerbic judges on America's Next Top Model. When perceived beauty is the yardstick of a person's worth our society will end up coming up short, not to mention shallow.
Even in the sometimes unsightly world of politics it is sometimes the face and not the platform that leads a man to office. When presidential debates debuted on television in 1960 between then Vice President Richard Nixon and presidential hopeful John F. Kennedy, it was the first time the voting public really started to judge the potential leader of the free world on his ability to double as a candidate for People magazine's "Sexiest Man Alive." Nixon was recovering from the flu and refused to don make-up, a cardinal sin in the visual oriented world of television. Meanwhile, the youthful and vibrant Kennedy was sun-tanned and smiling all the way to the White House as the new and attractively-approved victor - which many analysts say helped to decide the tight race.
But the benefits of prettiness extend beyond the scope of trustworthiness, approval and even beyond Pennsylvania Avenue. The previously mentioned studies confirm that a cute face can lead people to believe you're smarter, more social and generally a better person.
Our society is visually oriented to a fault. We often choose style over substance and form over function - our role models are being replaced by supermodels and our culture will suffer some hideous consequences.
A Hofstra study found that a handsome man is more likely to be hired than an average-looking man with the same resume. And usually these beauty pageant winners land at the top of the corporate heap and reap even more benefits once they arrive. A recent study by professors of economics at the University of Texas and Michigan State found that "unattractive" people earn 5 to 10 percent less money than people of average looks, who in turn earn 3 to 8 percent less than the chosen people of pretty.
When we only skim the surface we rob ourselves of seeing true beauty which transcends the shell of people's skin. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but in this case the beholder is blemished with poor judgment.
Our cultural conventional wisdom is in danger of being re-written. Will the path to success be driven less by hard work and more by the plastic surgeon's knife?
It will be a sad day if that ever rings true. We may end up with a slew of pretty faces, but we'll become a society that is very, very ugly.
