Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Research shows that people are more likely to think beautiful people are smart and talented. Why wouldn't we make those assumptions about children as well?
I wonder if that is true for both men and women. I think beautiful women are assumed to be less intelligent. But I digress....
My MIL is a child psychologist. She told us that studies have shown that attractive infants get more attention than unattractive infants. Adults (parents, caregivers, strangers) and other children are more likely to smile at them and try to engage them. And this attention helps the babies develop both mentally and emotionally. There are some fairly universal markers of a baby being attractive. Large wide-set eyes being the one that I remember (and true for most mammals, not just humans). It is heart-breaking to think that some kids are at a disadvantage from day one just because of how they look. It doesn't fit with our democratic ideals of being a meritocracy.
Extrapolating from this discrepancy in the treatment of infants, it is very possible that the people evaluating the play dates subconsciously focus more on the attractive kids than the less attractive kids.
hmm. On the beauty feedback loop. Son absolutely gorgeous and not introverted, but also very low social needs so not much of a desire to interact with grownups or even other kids (he's 4). He does his own thing - often loudly and cutely. He is amazing loooking, but, overall, he doesn't get as much attention as my non-gorgoeus daughter because he pretty much ignores any attention he gets.
Daughter is 14 months and cute enough, but nothing like her brother (I do think this is mainly the eyes - he has huge wideset eyes and she has normal-sized, narrow-set eyes). But OMG is she social, waving and flirting snd saying hi and smiling. She gets WAY more attention than him.
At admissions, I think a normal looking personable kid (daughter) would trump a goregous but not terrible personable kid (son). It does seem to be how it works in the real world.