[POLL] Do Parents Treat Ugly Children Worse?

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: cerebusPu
the only way to have ugly children is to have ugly parents.

Not true, there's often a large discrepancy. Further, first-borns tend to be less attractive, sorry to sound graphic but it's my theory that this is because the birth canal compresses the head/face more on the way out than for subsequent children, which it's more ready for & used to.

Here goes Gurck with another one of his crazy vagina theories again!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PingSpike


Here goes Gurck with another one of his crazy vagina theories again!

ROFL!!! Now THAT'S sig material!!

 

[Quasmo]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: cerebusPu
the only way to have ugly children is to have ugly parents.

Not true, there's often a large discrepancy. Further, first-borns tend to be less attractive, sorry to sound graphic but it's my theory that this is because the birth canal compresses the head/face more on the way out than for subsequent children, which it's more ready for & used to.

Here goes Gurck with another one of his crazy vagina theories again!

link to first theory

 

[yukichigai]

If that's true, then do I ever feel bad for this kid.

 

[shilala]

It's common knowledge that good looking people get better treatment.
It's across the board.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
If that's true, then do I ever feel bad for this kid.

Oh sweet, christ. Uglier than those water people/toad things on star wars EP1.

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
If that's true, then do I ever feel bad for this kid.

For the love of Christ, they could at least comb the kid's hair for a fvckin picture.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: dullard
I watched this last night on the news and from what I heard, there just isn't enough data to support their theory.

How many families do you know where some children are attractive and others are homely? For me, not very many. Usually all of the children are attractive or all of the children are homely. So I assume that ~10% of the families have a significant difference in children attractiveness (if you know this assumed number is wrong, post a link and we can change the numbers).

Thus they had 10%*400= 40 observations. I also assume that is 40 children, or ~20 attractive ones and ~20 unattractive ones. I don't think that is a sufficient sample size to reach any meaningful conclusions.

Instead, what I think they measured was that the unattractive adults generally have a different outlook on life than attractive adults. Since attractiveness runs in families, the unattractive parents generally have unattractive children; attractive parents generally have attractive children. Thus it is not surprizing at all that unattractive parent treat their children differently.

the biggest problem with this study is, what is their standard for attractive? "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". how do they know the parents perceive their children the same way the researchers did? because of how the parents treated the children? how is that for backwards reasoning?