May 9, 200521 yr Taken from http://www.nytimes.com: 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." Lol :lol:
May 9, 200521 yr Ugly Kids< Pretty kids Beauty is a curse on the world. It creates social rifts between those that are not ascetically pleasing.
May 9, 200521 yr Ugly Kids< Pretty kids Beauty is a curse on the world. It creates social rifts between those that are not ascetically pleasing. beauty is a gift to those who recieve it - Only character in Runescape History maxed out in RSC and RS2
May 9, 200521 yr hmm isnt there wars going on and people are talking about if kids get better parenting if they are attractive.. what makes a child attractive.... doesnt this border... better not say... but comeon... this is newspaper spam.... As: Dontknowyet -157 R.Rs: Dontknowyet - 38 Bigboybad - 104
May 9, 200521 yr Ugly Kids< Pretty kids Beauty is a curse on the world. It creates social rifts between those that are not ascetically pleasing.then whyare you saying pretty kids are greater than ugly kids
May 9, 200521 yr [rant] Ok, this is probably the first time i've dissed Canada after all the times I stood up for it. So, our researchers are researching attractiveness now? Well, way to go Canada, instead of finding away to solve of the sponsorship scandal, or researching something relevant to our lives...They did this.....This is truly embarrassing, they probably thought "Well, we have money for research, lets do this!", because all Canadians know, our Trans Canadian Highway is in perfect condition, and schools are spic and span!! I really think that article is BS, I have never known any parent that would treat one of their children better because they're prettier. Any parent that does think like that, should just give up her children for adoption, because that's how suicides are made: not enough caring and loving. In summary, nice going Canada, another pointless creation. [/rant]
May 9, 200521 yr Ugly Kids< Pretty kids Beauty is a curse on the world. It creates social rifts between those that are not ascetically pleasing. What if your sons/daugthers in the future and you found it's ugly kids? It's not nice. :roll:
May 9, 200521 yr Ugly parents = ugly kids. They've got no one but themselves to blame. Kirk and Lars I could handle. At the same time.
May 9, 200521 yr Ugly parents = ugly kids. They've got no one but themselves to blame. Liv Tyler >.< Mercifull <3 Suzi "We don't want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If we let players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. We feel your status in real-life shouldn't affect your ability to be successful in RuneScape" Jagex 01/04/01 - 02/03/12
May 9, 200521 yr Ugly parents = ugly kids. They've got no one but themselves to blame. Liv Tyler >.< I stand corrected. Kirk and Lars I could handle. At the same time.
May 9, 200521 yr [rant] Ok, this is probably the first time i've dissed Canada after all the times I stood up for it. So, our researchers are researching attractiveness now? Well, way to go Canada, instead of finding away to solve of the sponsorship scandal, or researching something relevant to our lives...They did this.....This is truly embarrassing, they probably thought "Well, we have money for research, lets do this!", because all Canadians know, our Trans Canadian Highway is in perfect condition, and schools are spic and span!! I really think that article is BS, I have never known any parent that would treat one of their children better because they're prettier. Any parent that does think like that, should just give up her children for adoption, because that's how suicides are made: not enough caring and loving. In summary, nice going Canada, another pointless creation. [/rant] *applauds* Nice summary. Enough money is wasted on useless research these days, not only in Canada, but everywhere. Reseachers stop researching, we don't care! Member of #darkwebz.
May 9, 200521 yr Reseachers stop researching, we don't care! :cry: /me stops doing his research job Mercifull <3 Suzi "We don't want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If we let players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. We feel your status in real-life shouldn't affect your ability to be successful in RuneScape" Jagex 01/04/01 - 02/03/12
May 9, 200521 yr Author lol i love the responses...i had to do an article summary, and i found this...seems like a good choice :lol:
May 9, 200521 yr Ugly parents = ugly kids. They've got no one but themselves to blame. Liv Tyler >.< I stand corrected. don't forget Jordan!
May 9, 200521 yr Reseachers stop researching, we don't care! :cry: /me stops doing his research job No Matt, you're the only good researcher! 0=) Member of #darkwebz.
May 10, 200521 yr [rant] Ok, this is probably the first time i've dissed Canada after all the times I stood up for it. So, our researchers are researching attractiveness now? Well, way to go Canada, instead of finding away to solve of the sponsorship scandal, or researching something relevant to our lives...They did this.....This is truly embarrassing, they probably thought "Well, we have money for research, lets do this!", because all Canadians know, our Trans Canadian Highway is in perfect condition, and schools are spic and span!! I really think that article is BS, I have never known any parent that would treat one of their children better because they're prettier. Any parent that does think like that, should just give up her children for adoption, because that's how suicides are made: not enough caring and loving. In summary, nice going Canada, another pointless creation. [/rant] Alberta's the only province that's not in debt to the federal government. Let them do what they want with all their damn money they get from oil. Even though I'm sure it could have went elsewheres. Honestly though, how much could it cost to ask people if they find their children attractive and sit around at a grocery store. The problem with the gene pool is that there's no lifeguard.
Create an account or sign in to comment