[edited - no personal attack please]. When we are talking about attribution biases like those mentioned in the OP, it is important to understand the functions of the Orbital-frontal lobe and that this function is lacking in psychopathy. It adds a nuance to the subject that your overly simplified models can't account for.
Yet, the feminists had this crazy idea about women breaking out of the mold of "woman as sex-object" and many today decry the "objectification" of women in media.
But, who is buying and wearing the halloween costumes? The feminist idea was crazy because it meant that women had to stop promoting the objectification of themselves, and that's not happening.
What they are not telling you is that we are in the middle of a zombie apocalypse and we are the zombies. Zombies who refuse to accept that they are really zombies. Our fascination with zombies arises from our projecting our essential nature as zombies onto an external enemy.
All one has to do is produce a LOLCat or Zombify something and boom, we are all jumping on the bandwagon like a pack of lemmings (or zombies, sheep, etc..).
But this "Zombie" craze will fade, as predictably as every other fad, and people will form a new group identity around some other triviality and the whole process will continue. Such predictability of behavior is only really becoming of a Zombie!
Psychopaths have decreased activation of the orbital-frontal cortex, which can help explain their behavior (if one understands what each part of the brain does and how they relate to each other).
Not surprisingly, psychopaths can be extremely humanitarian and become leaders in many positive social movements. They tend to be better suited for the task than most people. However, they lack "intimacy" and are generally not reliable for emotional support.
Most psychopaths are "successful" or "pro-social" psychopaths and are not murderers, these are the people we vote into office.
The famous "dot test" checks if an animal is aware of its own reflection (as its own reflection) and only 3 species have passed this test Chimps, Dolphins and Humans. Most animals are completely unaroused by their reflection. This one is probably just staring at a shiney bit of light.
"Use all your well learned politesse [politeness, formal etiquette] or I'll lay your soul to waste [call you a troll]" - Sympathy for the Devil, The Rolling Stones
It was once said "The punishment for sin is sin itself"
The Bible reads "If any man looks at a woman with lust, he has commited a sin in his heart."
Spend some time lusting after people and pay attention to the way in which your own psychology changes. Notice how your propensity to notice visual sexual imagery increases. Notice the heightened level of arousal and importance that is continually added to the act. Now notice how empty and worthless you feel.
You know logic's dirty little secret? Without enough background information, operating on faulty premises, it is easy to draw perfectly logical conclusions which are nevertheless completely wrong.
I feel what DJ Parker is saying, maybe he doesn't understand it the way I do, but I certainly feel like that is an apt description. In the time after the fall of Sodom and Gommorah people were forced to consider the basis of their desires and the consequence of their actions. They then referred to the past era of lustful indulgence as "The past times of ignorance".
Now, here we are in the new millennia discussing what is the best course of action, and we all seem to be caught up on lustful desires, asserting them axiomatically as the main premise from which our logic follows. But what if this premise is wrong? What if doing what you want is not really the same as being happy, and what if doing what you want subtlely affects your wants, such that doing what you want only makes you want to do it more. Like a drug addiction.
The same can be applied to sociocultural paradigms that affect global social change. You just have to think when you haul off and beat up a pillow; is this venting my anger going to make me more prone to anger in the future? Well yes it is! And is that sleeping around going to make you more lustful? absolutely!
The awesomeness of marriage is not in being sexually satisfied or appearing good or even always getting along, the power lies in the intimacy, something that develops over time. You have to get to know someone, over a long period, such that you know all of their idiosyncracies and faults, and love them anyway.
A good scene from the movie Good Will Hunting illustrates this:
"I'd ask you about love, you'd probably quote me a sonnet. But you've never looked at a woman and been totally vulnerable. Known someone that could level you with her eyes, feeling like God put an angel on earth just for you. Who could rescue you from the depths of hell. And you wouldn't know what it's like to be her angel, to have that love for her, be there forever, through anything, through cancer. And you wouldn't know about sleeping sitting up in the hospital room for two months, holding her hand, because the doctors could see in your eyes, that the terms "visiting hours" don't apply to you. You don't know about real loss, 'cause it only occurs when you've loved something more than you love yourself. And I doubt you've ever dared to love anybody that much." - Sean, Good Will Hunting
If that is right; it means that her competency rating is not solely determinable by her expertise at applying make-up, but we must also take into account the psychology of the judge. Perhaps the judge, being a woman who is affected with jealousy, would outwardly judge the woman to be less competent. Because the judgment is pushed through this jealousy-filter.
This would explain why attractive people are generally judged to be better at everything. Not because they are better, but because the judge is biased in favor of their own affective lens. They derive a sutble visual-consumptive pleasure from laying eyes on and receiving the image of something beautiful and subconsciously aim to preserve that relationship.
But, hey these are just my thoughts, not the Gospel.
There was something else I wanted to say, which is that I don't think the psychology can be predicted like; If a woman wears more make-up, then she will be judged more competent. But there is a missing step, which is that the judge is globally affected by her appearance. By "global" I mean that all of his judgments are affected by her appearance, not just her competence. And by "affect" I mean that he is emotionally AFFECTED by her appearance.
Now, I say "he" but the judge could just as well be a woman. It is important that we are always "affected" by our environments, even in subtle and imperceptible ways. This affect informs, or one might say clouds, our judgments.
I read a quote once, and wish I could remember who it was that said it or what exactly they had said, but it went like this:
Just as the theory of evolution provides a wealth of explanatory power to biologists, I believe everything [psychological] can be explained by egoism. - Unknown
But, who is buying and wearing the halloween costumes? The feminist idea was crazy because it meant that women had to stop promoting the objectification of themselves, and that's not happening.
All one has to do is produce a LOLCat or Zombify something and boom, we are all jumping on the bandwagon like a pack of lemmings (or zombies, sheep, etc..).
But this "Zombie" craze will fade, as predictably as every other fad, and people will form a new group identity around some other triviality and the whole process will continue. Such predictability of behavior is only really becoming of a Zombie!
Jetzt wird in die Haende gespueckt / Now we spit into our hands (To prepare for doing work)
Indem ich den Globus dreh und mit dem Finger drauf zeige / Rotating the Globe with a Finger on it (To plan a vacation)
Not surprisingly, psychopaths can be extremely humanitarian and become leaders in many positive social movements. They tend to be better suited for the task than most people. However, they lack "intimacy" and are generally not reliable for emotional support.
Most psychopaths are "successful" or "pro-social" psychopaths and are not murderers, these are the people we vote into office.
The Bible reads "If any man looks at a woman with lust, he has commited a sin in his heart."
Spend some time lusting after people and pay attention to the way in which your own psychology changes. Notice how your propensity to notice visual sexual imagery increases. Notice the heightened level of arousal and importance that is continually added to the act. Now notice how empty and worthless you feel.
I feel what DJ Parker is saying, maybe he doesn't understand it the way I do, but I certainly feel like that is an apt description. In the time after the fall of Sodom and Gommorah people were forced to consider the basis of their desires and the consequence of their actions. They then referred to the past era of lustful indulgence as "The past times of ignorance".
Now, here we are in the new millennia discussing what is the best course of action, and we all seem to be caught up on lustful desires, asserting them axiomatically as the main premise from which our logic follows. But what if this premise is wrong? What if doing what you want is not really the same as being happy, and what if doing what you want subtlely affects your wants, such that doing what you want only makes you want to do it more. Like a drug addiction.
The same can be applied to sociocultural paradigms that affect global social change. You just have to think when you haul off and beat up a pillow; is this venting my anger going to make me more prone to anger in the future? Well yes it is! And is that sleeping around going to make you more lustful? absolutely!
The awesomeness of marriage is not in being sexually satisfied or appearing good or even always getting along, the power lies in the intimacy, something that develops over time. You have to get to know someone, over a long period, such that you know all of their idiosyncracies and faults, and love them anyway.
A good scene from the movie Good Will Hunting illustrates this:
"I'd ask you about love, you'd probably quote me a sonnet. But you've never looked at a woman and been totally vulnerable. Known someone that could level you with her eyes, feeling like God put an angel on earth just for you. Who could rescue you from the depths of hell. And you wouldn't know what it's like to be her angel, to have that love for her, be there forever, through anything, through cancer. And you wouldn't know about sleeping sitting up in the hospital room for two months, holding her hand, because the doctors could see in your eyes, that the terms "visiting hours" don't apply to you. You don't know about real loss, 'cause it only occurs when you've loved something more than you love yourself. And I doubt you've ever dared to love anybody that much." - Sean, Good Will Hunting
This would explain why attractive people are generally judged to be better at everything. Not because they are better, but because the judge is biased in favor of their own affective lens. They derive a sutble visual-consumptive pleasure from laying eyes on and receiving the image of something beautiful and subconsciously aim to preserve that relationship.
But, hey these are just my thoughts, not the Gospel.
Now, I say "he" but the judge could just as well be a woman. It is important that we are always "affected" by our environments, even in subtle and imperceptible ways. This affect informs, or one might say clouds, our judgments.
Just as the theory of evolution provides a wealth of explanatory power to biologists, I believe everything [psychological] can be explained by egoism. - Unknown