How much does physical attractiveness matter in big law? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Lmfao.

Listen, most people are not pretending or arguing that beatiful people or charismatic people don't have advantages in the workplace or that people should go out of their way to control the instinctive drive that subconsciously promotes the preference of physically attractive people over others. That's life.

The challenge here was originally around the initial post about choosing to staff juniors on deals based on their appearance. I don't particularly care to discuss the ethics of it. Ironically, big law is not a beacon of integrity or demanding of ethics.

It's just tedious, ridiculous, vapid, and fratty to choose candidates for doc review on the basis of who you want to fuck or would most want to look like. It makes you sound like a petulant boy that wears conch shell chokers and thinks liking American Psycho / Wolf of Wallstreet is a personality trait.

So you acknowledge that “it’s life” but when I say “that’s my life” you take issue with it?

How do you square that?

Do you really not understand the point that has been made over and over again in this thread and in response to your post?

Scenario 1:
X is human and thus naturally attracted to physically appealing people. Y is a beautiful female. X is naturally attracted to her and subconsciously engages in behavior that may benefit Y.

Scenario 2:
X is human and this naturally attracted to physically appealing people. Y is a beatiful female. X is naturally attracted to her and therefore actively prioritizes his preference for Y by actively engaging in behavior that benefits Y.

Do you understand?

I’m staffer anon.

I respect the person in scenario 2 more. And the mugger in the other post. They are more self-aware and honest. Sounds like they have been introspective and aren’t led by their second brain.

Unironically, to me you’re describing a virtuous person who accepts reality/human behavior and doesn’t act like they’re above it (when no one really is)

[Anonymous User]

Adam: hey is it true that if you go out in this neighborhood at night you'll get mugged?

Bob: yes, I personally will mug you

Carl: whoa dude that's not cool!

Bob: what? just answering the question. People get mugged at night, that's life.

It makes you sound like a petulant boy that wears conch shell chokers and thinks liking American Psycho / Wolf of Wallstreet is a personality trait.

These two comments >

[Anonymous User]

Lmfao.

Listen, most people are not pretending or arguing that beatiful people or charismatic people don't have advantages in the workplace or that people should go out of their way to control the instinctive drive that subconsciously promotes the preference of physically attractive people over others. That's life.

The challenge here was originally around the initial post about choosing to staff juniors on deals based on their appearance. I don't particularly care to discuss the ethics of it. Ironically, big law is not a beacon of integrity or demanding of ethics.

It's just tedious, ridiculous, vapid, and fratty to choose candidates for doc review on the basis of who you want to fuck or would most want to look like. It makes you sound like a petulant boy that wears conch shell chokers and thinks liking American Psycho / Wolf of Wallstreet is a personality trait.

So you acknowledge that “it’s life” but when I say “that’s my life” you take issue with it?

How do you square that?

Do you really not understand the point that has been made over and over again in this thread and in response to your post?

Scenario 1:
X is human and thus naturally attracted to physically appealing people. Y is a beautiful female. X is naturally attracted to her and subconsciously engages in behavior that may benefit Y.

Scenario 2:
X is human and this naturally attracted to physically appealing people. Y is a beatiful female. X is naturally attracted to her and therefore actively prioritizes his preference for Y by actively engaging in behavior that benefits Y.

Do you understand?

I’m staffer anon.

I respect the person in scenario 2 more. And the mugger in the other post. They are more self-aware and honest. Sounds like they have been introspective and aren’t led by their second brain.

Unironically, to me you’re describing a virtuous person who accepts reality/human behavior and doesn’t act like they’re above it (when no one really is)

@ Introspective Staffer Anon

You've engaged with none of the substance but I'll bow out now. Never change.

[Anonymous User]

I’m staffer anon.

I respect [...] the mugger in the other post.

[Anonymous User]

I wouldn't say charisma has no correlation to physical appearance at all. Charisma is recognized and established through the perceiver. I think it's generally accepted that we, as a society, tend to view attractive people as charismatic more readily. This has a lot to do with the physically attractive person's confidence, the perceiver's insecurities, projection, and so on.

I find that attraction is actually inversely correlated with charisma because attractive people have less need for eloquence, charm, etc. Their hotness makes up for it.

[Anonymous User]

I respect the person in scenario 2 more. And the mugger in the other post. They are more self-aware and honest. Sounds like they have been introspective and aren’t led by their second brain.

Unironically, to me you’re describing a virtuous person who accepts reality/human behavior and doesn’t act like they’re above it (when no one really is)

This take is *crazy* bad. If you are consciously making a decision based on looks, then it is not "human nature," since you could consciously choose not to make a decision based on looks. That is what people are rightfully ragging you for.

"I don't want to work with no fuggos" is absolutely not the same thing as acknowledging unconscious bias against uglies/fatties/etc. (in which group I consider myself, to be clear).

[Anonymous User]

I’m staffer anon.

I respect [...] the mugger in the other post.

Would you prefer a mugger “friend” who says “yea there are muggings all the time in this area. Guess it’s just life!” and then mugs you? Or the person who tells you “Yea I mug people here at night.” So that you know what to expect and can prepare accordingly?

Or are people here going to tell me the bold take that these “undesirable” people don’t actually exist and you could never imagine working with them or being friends with them.

[Anonymous User]

It’s very clear from basic psychology attractive people are going to be perceived as more likable, intelligent, competent, trustworthy etc.

People saying they don’t care about don’t consciously care about it, however there are subconscious subtleties that shift their perceptions of others. People are drawn to attractive people as per the definition of the word.

The main way I see this manifesting here is perception of intent. If attractive “Jessica” gives a sincere apology for a fuck-up with a pretty smile we are much more likely to attribute it as “accidental/won’t happen again” vs fat Bertha attempting the same.

[Anonymous User]

^ (2/2)

And the thing is-you won’t consciously notice it either. You may be like “Oh I just felt like Jessica was *genuine*/being sincere” whereas Bertha was “making excuses”, even if their body language, tonality etc is the exact same.

[Anonymous User]

I’m staffer anon.

I respect [...] the mugger in the other post.

Would you prefer a mugger “friend” who says “yea there are muggings all the time in this area. Guess it’s just life!” and then mugs you? Or the person who tells you “Yea I mug people here at night.” So that you know what to expect and can prepare accordingly?

Or are people here going to tell me the bold take that these “undesirable” people don’t actually exist and you could never imagine working with them or being friends with them.

I would prefer not to be friends with people who mug me. So yeah I guess honesty helps me avoid you but if you somehow think that reflects good on you....

[Anonymous User]

I’m staffer anon.

I respect [...] the mugger in the other post.

Would you prefer a mugger “friend” who says “yea there are muggings all the time in this area. Guess it’s just life!” and then mugs you? Or the person who tells you “Yea I mug people here at night.” So that you know what to expect and can prepare accordingly?

Or are people here going to tell me the bold take that these “undesirable” people don’t actually exist and you could never imagine working with them or being friends with them.

I would prefer not to be friends with people who mug me. So yeah I guess honesty helps me avoid you but if you somehow think that reflects good on you....

In case you missed the entire analogy, the act here of mugging is a metaphor for something that 100% of people do.

[Anonymous User]

^ (2/2)

And the thing is-you won’t consciously notice it either. You may be like “Oh I just felt like Jessica was *genuine*/being sincere” whereas Bertha was “making excuses”, even if their body language, tonality etc is the exact same.

^yup.

[Anonymous User]

This mugging analogy is... it's insane right? You cannot subconsciously mug someone. The entire comparison makes no sense.

Every single human has subconscious biases in some way shape or form and people to varying degrees try to compensate for those biases.

There can be virtue in recognizing and acknowledging those biases, but that is different than openly acting on those biases.

[Anonymous User]

This mugging analogy is... it's insane right? You cannot subconsciously mug someone. The entire comparison makes no sense.

Every single human has subconscious biases in some way shape or form and people to varying degrees try to compensate for those biases.

There can be virtue in recognizing and acknowledging those biases, but that is different than openly acting on those biases.

I mean, imagine you are a Biglaw senior associate with an absolutely miserable and dreadful job. That senior has the choice of two junior associates to staff on a deal - one of them he finds attractive, likeable and fun to spend time with. The other one he finds unattractive, unlikeable and is horrified to spend time with.

In what universe should he not pick the person he actually looks forward to spending time with?

[Anonymous User]

This mugging analogy is... it's insane right? You cannot subconsciously mug someone. The entire comparison makes no sense.

Every single human has subconscious biases in some way shape or form and people to varying degrees try to compensate for those biases.

There can be virtue in recognizing and acknowledging those biases, but that is different than openly acting on those biases.

But that's exactly the point. Creepy staffing OP didn't say "I realized at some point that I end up staffing people who are better looking". They said "I staff better looking people" and then proceeded to double down repeatedly. So they aren't acting on subconscious biases.

[Anonymous User]

Thankful for my tax group, where, judging by partner's/senior associate's appearances, people seemed to be valued by, you know, their actual skill as a tax lawyer. Maybe the above is true for practice groups that involve little-to-no lawyerly ability and therefore people can afford to staff their deals based on appearance, as opposed to competence.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, imagine you are a Biglaw senior associate with an absolutely miserable and dreadful job. That senior has the choice of two junior associates to staff on a deal - one of them he finds attractive, likeable and fun to spend time with. The other one he finds unattractive, unlikeable and is horrified to spend time with.

You just changed the parameters by adding in things that arguably actually matter, like likeability. You cannot lump those in with attractiveness and then use that to claim that attractiveness-based discrimination is all dandy.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, imagine you are a Biglaw senior associate with an absolutely miserable and dreadful job. That senior has the choice of two junior associates to staff on a deal - one of them he finds attractive, likeable and fun to spend time with. The other one he finds unattractive, unlikeable and is horrified to spend time with.

You just changed the parameters by adding in things that arguably actually matter, like likeability. You cannot lump those in with attractiveness and then use that to claim that attractiveness-based discrimination is all dandy.

So let me understand.

You are fine with staffing by intelligence, which people have no control over, if it means better work product. So basically intelligence-based discrimination (or is that not a thing?).
You are fine staffing by personality, even if no impact on work product, because it makes things more pleasant for the senior.
But you are virulently opposed to staffing by attractiveness, even if it makes things more pleasant for the senior.

And what if the senior finds attractive people more likable?

Law firm life is all about cliques and politics and personal relationships. Pretty insane to demand that attractiveness be the one prohibited metric, but all other preferences are fine.

[Anonymous User]

You are fine with staffing by intelligence, which people have no control over, if it means better work product. So basically intelligence-based discrimination (or is that not a thing?).

No, I am not. I would rather discriminate based on competence, which is directly oriented at the work product.

You are fine staffing by personality, even if no impact on work product, because it makes things more pleasant for the senior.

I would not be fine staffing by personality at the expense of the work product, no. I was assuming that we were adopting no-fuglies OP's assumption of all else being equal.

But you are virulently opposed to staffing by attractiveness, even if it makes things more pleasant for the senior.

Yeah. I see no contradiction.

And what if the senior finds attractive people more likable?

What does that even mean? "Likeability" is generally defined with reference to personality traits, not appearance. If we are incorporating physical appearance in, then I retract my statement.

Law firm life is all about cliques and politics and personal relationships. Pretty insane to demand that attractiveness be the one prohibited metric, but all other preferences are fine.

Why would that be insane, and why are all other preferences fine? I would not be okay with people favoring associates from their same geographic region, undergrad, or law school (e.g.) either.

[Anonymous User]

This mugging analogy is... it's insane right? You cannot subconsciously mug someone. The entire comparison makes no sense.

Every single human has subconscious biases in some way shape or form and people to varying degrees try to compensate for those biases.

There can be virtue in recognizing and acknowledging those biases, but that is different than openly acting on those biases.

But that's exactly the point. Creepy staffing OP didn't say "I realized at some point that I end up staffing people who are better looking". They said "I staff better looking people" and then proceeded to double down repeatedly. So they aren't acting on subconscious biases.

Apart from the mugging analogy, I think you two are basically agreeing, and I agree with you as well.

Like I get that someone will staff a matter with people they like over people they dislike (assuming skills/competence are exactly equal, which of course they never are and our assessments of those things aren’t objective), but it’s stupid to assume that picking attractive people actually nets you more likeable people. Some pretty people are jerks. It’s fair to acknowledge that humans tend to be drawn to (based on their subjective assessment) more attractive people, but it’s dumb to claim that’s a worthwhile factor to base staffing on, in part because you are always going to have at least SOME other information about them. You’re not picking out of a photo lineup.

[Anonymous User]

Thankful for my tax group, where, judging by partner's/senior associate's appearances, people seemed to be valued by, you know, their actual skill as a tax lawyer. Maybe the above is true for practice groups that involve little-to-no lawyerly ability and therefore people can afford to staff their deals based on appearance, as opposed to competence.

Fellow tax lawyer here. Have noted the bolded in my personal experience.

[Anonymous User]

If senior associates are staffing junior associates based on attractiveness, do clients pick firms based on the attractiveness of partners and associates?

I believe we can empirically test this by assessing the attractiveness of top firms on down.

[Anonymous User]

If senior associates are staffing junior associates based on attractiveness, do clients pick firms based on the attractiveness of partners and associates?

I believe we can empirically test this by assessing the attractiveness of top firms on down.

None of this makes sense.

[Prudent_Jurist]

If senior associates are staffing junior associates based on attractiveness, do clients pick firms based on the attractiveness of partners and associates?

I believe we can empirically test this by assessing the attractiveness of top firms on down.

None of this makes sense.

Probably a Kirkland junior looking to start a fight.

[Anonymous User]

[/quote]

It's just tedious, ridiculous, vapid, and fratty to choose candidates for doc review on the basis of who you want to fuck or would most want to look like. It makes you sound like a petulant boy that wears conch shell chokers and thinks liking American Psycho / Wolf of Wallstreet is a personality trait.
[/quote]

Imagine making an overdone American Psycho/WoW joke and thinking it's a banger