Alright, my fellow Kiwis. I have finally finished reading
@hood CASH's scientific article that he linked to me that he says endorses the Halo Theory or Lookism or some shit.
http://www.academia.edu/407255/On_t...s_of_Trait_Centrality_in_Impression_Formation
And I can safely determine that he is talking completely out of his ass and has not actually read this article, because there is no fucking mention of Lookism or Lookism-esque traits at all in this article.
But in case you were curious, it's a study on how the perceptions of certain individuals and the descriptions of said individuals changes based on certain highlighted traits. In particular, the study focused on the difference between "warm" and "cold," and how "warm" individuals would be commonly described more as friendly rather than "cold" individuals. It ran a series of five tests that confirmed the correlation between certain key terms and the perceptions of individuals by these terms, and how this generally remains the case even when the hints are more subtle or obscured (such as with a hard to read font). If you're into psychology, I would imagine it would be an interesting read. It fairly kept my interest, at the very least.
The thing that's of particular note is that the study only endorses the "positive" aspects of this perception and not the "negative." This being that the study says that warm people were commonly described as more friendly, but it did not imply that the cold people were described as more hostile or repelling. The whole thing that I've gathered on "Lookism" from very cursory skims of whatever shit I get about is that there's this stigma in society where attractive people are liked more because they are attractive, while less attractive people are shunned because they are not attractive. This is derived partially from the "Halo Theory," which I've also skimmed, which implies that the traits that an object has can be influenced by the perception of the object. What people who take "Lookism" seriously are saying is that, because they are ugly, society paints them as subhuman and rejects them.
However, that's... not necessarily the case. If anything, the idea of perceptible traits changing the way people view an object is more geared toward highlighting the most visibly positive aspects, rather than magnifying the negative effects. To put this more bluntly, attractive people may be viewed as more likable or friendly
because they are attractive, but that does not imply the opposite is the case, i.e. it does not imply that unattractive people are viewed as less likable or friendly.
Now, full disclaimer here, but I don't specialize in Psychology and my knowledge on the Halo Theory and Lookism is from very cursory skims from some quick Google searches, so something I may have said may be glaringly wrong. If you think I'm wrong somewhere (and are not a Loveshy because you guys will distort anything to suit your means), then please fill me and us in on where I'm wrong.
tl;dr The article has nothing to do with Lookism, and
@hood CASH is still ugly and I would not have sex with him.
