Constants and variables 34
Typically stupid article
Main point of article:
The congressmen with facial hair were thought to be more masculine, less feminist, and less likely to support women’s rights, Herrick wrote in a blog post about her work. As a consequence, women and self-identified feminists in the group said they were less likely to vote for them.
Totally confused. Probably some truth in the observation, but the article jumbles up every possible constant and variable in discussing causation.
Start with one constant rule: Attractive people hold fashionable beliefs.
Like most rules of behavior, this is far from absolute. Circumstances and random shit can get in the way. Still, it's a fairly valid generality. Why is it mainly true?
Attractive people get most of what they want. Jobs, mates, status.
For obvious reasons, culture tells us that the way to get jobs, mates and status is to follow the currently fashionable beliefs and behaviors. Culture also makes it easier to follow fashionable beliefs and behaviors.
Therefore, most people start out doing the "right" things. Attractive people get good results, so they have no reason to change. They continue doing the "right" things and believing the "right" beliefs. Unattractive people get poor results, so they lose faith in the fashionable beliefs and start doing unconventional things.
The rest is temporary variables. The permissibility of beards is strongly variable. In 1850 every man had a beard unless forbidden by religion or occupational necessity. In 1950 every man was clean-shaven unless forbidden by religion. At those points in fashion history you couldn't use beards as an indicator.
Since 1960 whiskers are openly optional. Thus owning a beard is a pretty fair indicator that a man is unattractive and wants to improve his appearance.
So we have the basic causation. Variable: Beard means unattractive. Constant: Unattractive men have been forced to examine fashionable beliefs closely, because adhering to fashion doesn't work.
One more variable: Currently fashionable beliefs about human characteristics and behavior are wildly delusional,
which means that unfashionable beliefs are inevitably closer to reality. This wasn't always the case. Before 1960, the beliefs you'd pick up from books and schools and media were reasonably close
to the facts of Nature, so unattractive people were more likely to hold delusional views like feminism. Since 1960 the Correct Line has been steadily accelerating toward an unimaginable set of bizarre psychotic hyperdelusions. As late as 1990, any human who held today's LEGALLY REQUIRED beliefs would have been considered dangerously insane.
Professor Polistra attempts to illustrate. The range of fashionable views in 1950 was clustered near truth. Unconventional views thus had to move away from truth. In 2015 the range of fashionable views is literally off the chart, beyond all measurable lines of falsehood. Unconventional views have to move closer to truth.