[HN Gopher] The Power of Attraction: How Beauty Influences Start...
___________________________________________________________________
The Power of Attraction: How Beauty Influences Startup Investments
Author : adrian_mrd
Score : 40 points
Date : 2024-08-25 20:27 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.unisg.ch)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.unisg.ch)
| pajeets wrote:
| Race is a big factor whether folks on HN/YC wants to admit it or
| not.
| bofadeez wrote:
| You mean affirmative action and DEI based discrimination?
| outlore wrote:
| i think they mean elizabeth holmes and adam neumann
|
| more seriously, is it even possible to have discussions on
| race without devolving into talking points?
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| Whats sad us we instantly devolve to "talking points" that
| we didn't even think of ourselves. Zero original thought
| just repeating what some pundit said your opinion should be
| on the matter.
| bofadeez wrote:
| There's no information or content in your reply.
| neilv wrote:
| > _" It is now up to the venture capital scene to become aware of
| this challenge and take appropriate measures to create a fairer
| and more balanced investment environment."_
|
| Won't the VCs' thinking be that the same cortisol-boosting
| effects on them will also apply to other people with whom the
| founders interact, increasing likelihood of startup success?
| mgaunard wrote:
| Depends on the target market.
|
| If they need to sell to other men, that's fine, but if they
| need to sell to other women (which is actually quite likely),
| then not so much.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| Heterosexual women definitely respond to the physical
| attractiveness of other women. So do men on men.
|
| All else being equal I'd definitely prefer to work with a
| more attractive coworker regardless of sex.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| Heterosexual women tend to be jealous of other attractive
| women, and view them negatively as a result. The culture of
| competition between women is fierce in a way that men
| typically don't get.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| Agree with this; I forgot to include in my post that the
| directionality isn't necessarily guaranteed!
| broken-kebab wrote:
| Any sources on this? Personally as a man I don't have a
| definition of male attractiveness. And it seems even many
| women don't have it being more attracted by behavior. And
| women's reaction to women coworkers' beauty is let's say
| very much non-linear if to judge by my experience
| bofadeez wrote:
| Of course. VCs exist to generate profit for themselves. They
| should fund whoever they think will help them get a ROI.
| Otherwise they can just stop risking their capital and go chill
| out on a beach instead. They don't exist to give a fair shot to
| everyone who deserves it.
| EGreg wrote:
| In finance, this is called a Keynsian Beauty Contest:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest
| amluto wrote:
| That link has 100% broken scrolling on my device. The actual
| journal link works better:
| https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01492063241249699
| mertbio wrote:
| Try disabling the content blockers.
| mgaunard wrote:
| It's already well-known that attractive women also do well at
| sales.
|
| This is the same thing.
| carabiner wrote:
| And recruiting.
| leshokunin wrote:
| I mean it's human nature. Much like how most CEOs of Fortune 500s
| are over 6ft tall (https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comment
| s/2d8jwd/til_t...), youre not going to correct for this.
|
| If the decider doesnt have many data points, they're going to
| find points to support their hunch. This person works out super
| hard, the did a marathon, super good at chess, being hot will
| open some doors, anything goes.
|
| The reality is most of the deals are made through friendly
| intros, and vet you for a certain lingo and overall fitness to be
| fundable.
|
| Good luck correcting this culture. Are you going to evaluate the
| deals you missed, and go "eh to be fair the guy was a slob and
| came from a no name school, and we under estimated grit /
| timing"?. It's not like the data that shows youre bad at data
| driven evaluation is going to sway someone who isn't data minded.
| pajeets wrote:
| and white mostly and almost never East Asian
| leshokunin wrote:
| There is a long list of biases at play for sure. But I think
| beyond ideas like structural racism and such, we can look at
| just how decision making is done and see this isnt solvable
| pajeets wrote:
| so why do they demand loyalty from East-Asian Americans?
|
| you discriminate against them and expect them to die for
| your country
|
| how can any individual remain loyal to a country that hates
| them and constantly sabotages and oppresses them using
| other groups?
| g8oz wrote:
| This is quite a MRAZN take.
| jorvi wrote:
| I mean, since this happens on such a grand scale and is
| "uncorrectable" doesn't that introduce permanent arbitrage
| into the market?
| danaris wrote:
| Even if it is true that it is not a solvable problem,
| striving toward an unattainable perfection is still a
| worthy goal.
| trhway wrote:
| If you know that attractive founders will do better down the road
| at other rounds/sales/etc, then it is logical to give preference
| to and invest earlier in such founders. Blame the game, at least
| in the large part.
| bofadeez wrote:
| Why do we need a study to explain common sense to adults?
| llamaimperative wrote:
| Because common sense is so often wrong, duh. Disproving
| people's intuitions is literally 100% of the value prop of
| science as a whole. Once we stop being surprised by results, we
| can stop doing science.
| layer8 wrote:
| As the saying goes, because common sense is neither common nor
| sensible. ;)
| zh3 wrote:
| What's actually needed by investors is knowing whether this is
| correct in economic terms, i.e. whether it predicts who will
| ultimately be IPO'd successfully (make money for VC's and friends
| then bombs) or whether the company ultimately goes on to be be a
| win for pension funds and (pushing it to the next level) is
| ultimately better for the planet and those who live on it.
| ibash wrote:
| It's more nuanced than that.
|
| A lot of VCs aren't incentivized to see their portfolio company
| ipo. They are incentivized to see their portfolio company get a
| higher valuation and raise more.
|
| So it would seem that attractiveness leading to a higher chance
| of fundraising is aligned with their interest.
| Jun8 wrote:
| "The participants were randomly shown a video pitch of the same
| startup idea, but with some presented by a more attractive
| actress and others by a less attractive one."
|
| What objective measure of female beauty have they used? I thought
| it was a basic axiom of progressive thought that no such thing
| exists.
| bofadeez wrote:
| Facial symmetry and body proportions that would indicate health
| and suitability for reproduction.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| They chose actresses based on the researchers perception of
| their relative attractiveness but also had the men who
| participated rate the attractiveness of the person in the pitch
| as the final question, so there's a measure of the responder's
| perception of attractiveness.
| layer8 wrote:
| You don't need objective measures if you also ask the
| participants to rate the presenter's attractiveness.
|
| However, Hollywood wouldn't be what it is if subjective
| measures of beauty were completely random.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| It feels like this sort of thing is heavily ideological. A
| classic "nerd world vs. jock world" thing. But the reality is
| somewhere in the middle.
|
| Basically, if you take the axiom that physical appearance and
| genetic qualities should not matter at all, then we need to
| minimise its' influence.
|
| But you could also easily make the argument that beauty is a
| proxy for a lot of things that we _do_ want to maximise. It makes
| sense to reward those that are beautiful, fertile, strong, etc.
|
| Just not above all else. You wouldn't pick a romantic partner, or
| a friend, or a colleague _solely_ on those qualities, but to not
| incorporate them at all seems odd.
|
| I mean, on a basic level, you have to be able to get on with your
| colleagues. A lot of people would find it difficult to get on
| with someone who's ugly, doesn't shower, has no social skills,
| etc, even if their code is great and their stock picks too. It's
| not arbitrary.
| 3np wrote:
| > It makes sense to reward those that are beautiful, fertile,
| strong, etc.
|
| In a business context: Why?
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| Because a business context is not seperate from the personal
| context. If it were, then sales wouldn't exist.
| cbanek wrote:
| Same is true for interviews. As a woman who isn't super
| attractive, nor do I really try to be, some interviewers just
| have a weird expression when they meet me, and I know it's over
| from there. Just had this happen last week interviewing for a job
| where I've done PRs on the tools they were using and have been
| using the tools they were using for years. By the end of the
| interview he said he enjoyed talking with me but they won't be
| moving forward. He said I would struggle in the job due to
| technology but did not ask any technical questions.
|
| It is what it is I guess. But I also wouldn't want to work for
| such shallow people either. Note, the person was found on the HN
| who's hiring, so it's not just random people but also what I'd
| consider more thoughtful people who should know better as well.
| clbrmbr wrote:
| Definitely something investors should be aware of so that they
| can further optimize their decision making.
|
| However, scores of physical attractiveness are going to be
| strongly influenced by the character & charisma of the speaker.
| And I think it's undeniable that a highly charismatic and
| compelling speaker should have a better chance of success in
| leadership, public relations, and sales.
|
| I would prefer to see independent readings of attractiveness
| based on photographs alone, so that the attractiveness score is
| purely visual. Still visual attractiveness may count for
| something in later success but I would agree with the authors
| that in an ideal world, we'd be blind to someone's physical
| characteristics because that is something you're born with.
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| Also true for male founders. Perusing many of the companies in
| any YC batch, the founders, especially the nontechnical ones,
| appear to be far more attractive than average.
|
| It's a mixture of beauty bias (even the smart YC evaluators are
| not immune), the fact that more attractive people are more
| willing to take risks because they have a higher chance of ending
| up on their feet in the event of failure, and the eugenic "smart
| thus rich/high status dad/mom can marry hotter spouse" effect
| compounding over generations. Often YC founders come from
| privilege and physical appearance is certainly a correlate.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-25 23:01 UTC)