PDA

View Full Version : Ugly? Feeling neglected? Having trouble relating with others? Here's why.


JimNasium
05-03-2005, 01:38 PM
May 3, 2005
Ugly Children May Get Parental Short Shrift
By NICHOLAS BAKALAR

Parents would certainly deny it, but Canadian researchers have made a startling assertion: parents take better care of pretty children than they do ugly ones.

Researchers at the University of Alberta carefully observed how parents treated their children during trips to the supermarket. They found that physical attractiveness made a big difference.

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.

The findings, not yet published, were presented at the Warren E. Kalbach Population Conference in Edmonton, Alberta.

When it came to buckling up, pretty and ugly children were treated in starkly different ways, with seat belt use increasing in direct proportion to attractiveness. 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.

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.

Age - of parent and child - also played a role. Younger adults were more likely to buckle their children into the seat, and younger children were more often buckled in. Older adults, in contrast, were inclined to let children wander out of sight and more likely to allow them to engage in physically dangerous activities.

Although the researchers were unsure why, good-looking boys were usually kept in closer proximity to the adults taking care of them than were pretty girls. The researchers speculated that girls might be considered more competent and better able to act independently than boys of the same age. The researchers made more than 400 observations of child-parent interactions in 14 supermarkets.

Dr. W. Andrew Harrell, executive director of the Population Research Laboratory at the University of Alberta and the leader of the research team, sees an evolutionary reason for the findings: pretty children, he says, represent the best genetic legacy, and therefore they get more care.

Not all experts agree. Dr. Frans de Waal, a professor of psychology at Emory University, said he was skeptical.

"The question," he said, "is whether ugly people have fewer offspring than handsome people. I doubt it very much. If the number of offspring are the same for these two categories, there's absolutely no evolutionary reason for parents to invest less in ugly kids."

Dr. Robert Sternberg, professor of psychology and education at Yale, said he saw problems in Dr. Harrell's method and conclusions, for example, not considering socioeconomic status.

"Wealthier parents can feed, clothe and take care of their children better due to greater resources," Dr. Sternberg said, possibly making them more attractive. "The link to evolutionary theory is speculative."

But Dr. Harrell said the importance of physical attractiveness "cuts across social class, income and education."

"Like lots of animals, we tend to parcel out our resources on the basis of value," he said. "Maybe we can't always articulate that, but in fact we do it. There are a lot of things that make a person more valuable, and physical attractiveness may be one of them." Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/03/health/03ugly.html?ei=5090&en=9eb324d54c314034&ex=1272772800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&position=)

Rain Man
05-03-2005, 01:41 PM
This explains so much.

siberian khatru
05-03-2005, 01:43 PM
I do NOT neglect my ugly children. I always make sure the pork chop is tied securely around their necks so the dog will play with them.

JimNasium
05-03-2005, 01:43 PM
I do NOT neglect my ugly children. I always make sure the pork chop is tied securely around their necks so the dog will play with them.
ROFL

Rain Man
05-03-2005, 01:48 PM
My parents actually paid lots of attention to me as a child, so I was pretty lucky. I'll always cherish those memories of playing "Push me into the street" with mom, and "King of the Ledge" with dad. Ah, memories.

Jenny Gump
05-03-2005, 01:50 PM
Well...duh. Who wants to spend time nurturing ugly people?

Saulbadguy
05-03-2005, 02:03 PM
When I worked at a daycare, I paid less attention to the ugly kids. They were usually pretty stupid, too.

jspchief
05-03-2005, 02:10 PM
When I worked at a daycare, I paid less attention to the ugly kids. They were usually pretty stupid, too.Thank you. That was very helpful in reducing my fear and guilt associated with sending my baby girl to daycare.

Saulbadguy
05-03-2005, 02:14 PM
Thank you. That was very helpful in reducing my fear and guilt associated with sending my baby girl to daycare.
They don't say "he's got the face only a mother could love..." for a reason. FWIW, kids were ugly for a reason. The main reason was the childs parents didn't take care of their hygeine, or groom them well. There was this one kid whose front 2 teeth rotted out cause the parents never made him brush his teeth. I also recall several children coming in to the daycare dirty, hair unkempt, and dirty clothes. For the most part, parents who actually cared, did not have "ugly" children.

siberian khatru
05-03-2005, 02:14 PM
Thank you. That was very helpful in reducing my fear and guilt associated with sending my baby girl to daycare.

If the kid's good looking, you got nothing to worry about. If the kid's ugly, blame yourself, not Saul. :p :p :p

munkey
05-03-2005, 02:15 PM
And all this time I thought it was cuz I can't spell....

:sulk:

Nzoner
05-03-2005, 02:16 PM
Damn and all these years I always thought dad was kidding when he told me to go play on the train tracks.

Bob Dole
05-03-2005, 02:17 PM
"Because you're a loser" is a much more concise answer to the question and leaves more ad space in the publication.

Rain Man
05-03-2005, 02:23 PM
They don't say "he's got the face only a mother could love..." for a reason. FWIW, kids were ugly for a reason. The main reason was the childs parents didn't take care of their hygeine, or groom them well. There was this one kid whose front 2 teeth rotted out cause the parents never made him brush his teeth. I also recall several children coming in to the daycare dirty, hair unkempt, and dirty clothes. For the most part, parents who actually cared, did not have "ugly" children.


That's a direct slap in the face to my parents. They did too care.

munkey
05-03-2005, 02:25 PM
The main reason was the childs parents didn't take care of their hygeine, or groom them well.

My sister-in-law of whom I WOULD NOT admit I'm related recently admitted to my wife that their 5 year old daughter has 13 cavities :shake:

It's not like they don't have money or own a home....I aquate it to sheer immaturity and lazyness. :shake:

munkey
05-03-2005, 02:28 PM
"Because you're a loser" is a much more concise answer to the question and leaves more ad space in the publication.

:banghead:

Skip Towne
05-03-2005, 02:35 PM
And all this time I thought it was cuz I can't spell....

:sulk:
You can't spell? Neg rep for you.

Coogs
05-03-2005, 02:43 PM
So basically 0 out of every 10 fugly kids are fastened in, and 1 out of every 10 good looking kids are fastened in. Looks like the evidence was overwhelming. Money well spent! :)