Tuesday, May 23, 2017

"Beautiful scientists not taken as seriously as less attractive colleagues"

Via Reddit:  Beautiful scientists may draw a crowd but are seen as less academically able than their less attractive colleagues, researchers in Cambridge have found.

It is thought the good looks of former musician and TV physicist Brian Cox and anatomy expert Alice Roberts may have played a big part in their roles as science communicators.

But, if the results of a study by psychologists at Cambridge University are to be believed, neither are rated as highly competent scientists by members of the public.

Lead researcher Dr Will Skylark, from the Department of Psychology, said he wanted to find out what impact good looks had on the perception of scientists.
"Given the importance of science to issues that could have a major impact on society, such as climate change, food sustainability and vaccinations, scientists are increasingly required to engage with the public.

"We know from studies showing that political success can be predicted from facial appearance, that people can be influenced by how someone looks rather than, necessarily, what they say. We wanted to see if this was true for scientists."
– Dr Will Skylark, University of Cambridge.
In the first of a series of trials, volunteers were shown photos of more than 300 British and American scientists and asked to rate them for intelligence and attractiveness.

(Link to more)

10 comments:

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

Really?

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

But who wants to work in the lab, when you can roll in zee hay?

Lem said...

So what they are saris if you're an aspiring scientist you should consider that nose job... or something.

Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ndspinelli said...

I take the beautiful ones MUCH more seriously.

rcommal said...

If those polled want to be taken seriously I suggest that they stop being so such not serious people.

And that they stop hiding behind lame easy sarcastic humor...

...so easily interpreted as serious.

Why be like random commenters on random blogs or hostages to Twitter driven by impulse.

rhhardin said...

Women tend to the social side of hard science. Organize conferences, become spokesmen.

Amartel said...

Well this is a first world problem. If you're good at your job then you'll be okay and if you stand your ground in the face of unfair doubt you will earn respect.

rcommal said...

Women tend to the social side of hard science. Organize conferences, become spokesmen.

See, this is EXACTLY at the crux as to why I consider Donald J. Trump to be such a whiny,emotionally feminine man...

...and have so considered him since--wait for it, 'cause it's true--as long as I have considered Bill Clinton a corrupt SOB, both of which judgements of mine date back to the early late '80s.

I called 'em both as most likely self-interested liars to the core in my mid-20s.

Full stop.

rcommal said...

And my voting record has reflected that from that day unto this.

Never voted for a Clinton.

Didn't vote for Trump.

Never voted for Obama, either (saw him for what he was around the time he first got elected to office in Illinois; in other words, a similar situation).

I may be annoying in many ways and on many levels, but there are ways in which I am quite good at things I do best. Ahem.