Source or it wont be discussed.

But aside from that, and the inherent assumption that beauty standards are universal and biological which is a pretty big assumption.

A slight societal preference does not lead to the conclusions people drew from the article.

To give an example, taller men have a higher chance of being promoted. Fortune 500 CEOs are disproportionately tall compared to the general population. As a society we still promote meritocracy, and working hard. Not telling people who are 5'4 to just give up and be unemployed cause they will never be the CEO of Ford Motor company.

> To give an example, taller men have a higher chance of being promoted. Fortune 500 CEOs are disproportionately tall compared to the general population. As a society we still promote meritocracy, and working hard. Not telling people who are 5'4 to just give up and be unemployed cause they will never be the CEO of Ford Motor company.

Now you're moving the goalposts, which shows you knew your original claim was wrong. "It didn't happen, and if it did they deserved it" indeed.

It's a first principal in liberal ideology that all races and genders are equally attractive , intelligent, and are equal in any other positive attribute imaginable and only differ in skin color and gender identity. Further, all people are roughly equal in all characteristics and the only thing that differentiates them is upbringing, access to opportunity and systemic discrimination toward or against them.

No amount of empirical data matters because it is a first principal which the whole rest of the political ideology relies upon. If someone does not accept this as a first principal and is willing to examine empirical data that contradicts it and draw the conclusion that all people are not equal, then they are no longer a liberal.

That’s not it at all. What people are saying is that attractiveness is subjective, and nobody’s preferences are more or less valid than others’. Where people get into trouble is when they start making blanket statement that the world does / should operate according to their preferences, at which point people who prefer differently start rolling their eyes.

It’s not acknowledging differences that are the problem. It is things like the assignment of value judgements and other stuff that people erroneously attribute to those differences.

Strangely, There doesn't have to be just one with a lower score than the others.

One of the weirdest things about being human is that our preferences are neither rational nor consistent. The classic example in behavioural economics is with ice-cream flavors. If I prefer chocolate to strawberry and strawberry to vanilla, it doesn't follow that I prefer chocolate to vanilla. The preferences aren't transitive, and there doesn't exist a total preferences order.

Thats a very interesting point that I've never considered. Where can I read more about that? Is there a study you can link me to?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11483173/ is one such study.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/preferences/#Tra has an overview, note especially the paragraph about pair-wise comparisons.

But economists assume that preferences have a total order otherwise there wouldn't be a utility curve.

Economists assume a utility curve in the same way that physicists assume spherical cows. They are a useful abstraction which help explain many things, but don't reflect reality completely.

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/BehavioralEconomics.html