> If whatever you're trying to do involves any sort of interpersonal interaction, you're gonna make the 2% up and then some.
No, your attractive colleagues are gonna make up that 2% and then some, not you. All these attractive fund managers got more funding, more promotions, better salaries etc according to the study, but they did a way worse jobs.
Their super power is that they make others pay for their success, they don't create the success themselves. The unattractive people however do help make other successful, that is what the 2% extra return per annum shows.
If you need people to do sales, then yeah hire an attractive person and give them commission, that way it works for you. But for most other jobs their success comes from manipulating you, and then their attractiveness works against you more than it helps.
Sure being attractive helps the attractive person more than anyone else, but I think there's enough surface area + network effects that a company full of attractive people will generally outperform a company of unattractive people of the same skill? For example while I'm sure I'd pretend it wasn't something I'm considering, given two similarly attractive offers and one very attractive interviewer I'd be foolish to consider myself unentangled in making that decision, try as I might.
No, your attractive colleagues are gonna make up that 2% and then some, not you. All these attractive fund managers got more funding, more promotions, better salaries etc according to the study, but they did a way worse jobs.
Their super power is that they make others pay for their success, they don't create the success themselves. The unattractive people however do help make other successful, that is what the 2% extra return per annum shows.
If you need people to do sales, then yeah hire an attractive person and give them commission, that way it works for you. But for most other jobs their success comes from manipulating you, and then their attractiveness works against you more than it helps.