Mo money, mo facials

November 26, 2008 7:54 AM

People who are rich (or comfortable) usually have nice skin texture, look polished and generally look smooth. People who live poor tend to have rougher skin, and look a bit less smooth. What are the richer people doing to their skin/face to get this look? What high end brands are they buying?

I'm not talking of millionaires, I'm comparing people from the upper middle class to people from the lower classes (not laborers). I can look at a persons face, and in a short instance tell you if this person is well off or if this person has had a hard life. Why?

The people I'm talking about do not work in the fields or anything like that - but normal jobs. It's like comparing the security guard of a company to the vice president of sales - you will see that even if they are wearing the same clothes, the vice president has nicer skin, better hair, less wrinkles and so on.

Is there some facial routine that one needs money to do? Do these class of people go regularly for facials? Does the hair make that much of a difference? It can't really be the diet, because nowadays, the diet we get in developed countries is not that awful.

What's the secret for that rich-man smooth skin and hair? Any product or lifestyle recommendations?

posted by ChabonJabon to health & fitness (55 comments total)

My guess that would have more to do with nutrition and a general ability to take better care of themselves physically including lots of sleep etc.
posted by gwenlister at 8:00 AM on November 26, 2008 [3 favorites]

It probably has more to do than simply facial treatment, and (I think, although IANADermatologist) has a lot to do with diet and lifestyle. Being poorer tends to mean less affordability of fresh fruits and vegetables and good foods which lead to healthy bodies (and skin).

on preview: longer version of what gwenlister said.
posted by Planet F at 8:02 AM on November 26, 2008

It can't really be the diet, because nowadays, the diet we get in developed countries is not that awful.

True, but there is still enough of a difference in diet between different socioeconomic strata to impact the way they look. Other factors:

- Higher SES people are less likely to smoke, binge drink, and more likely to exercise.

- Higher SES people are less likely to work at jobs that are highly stressful, require manual labor, expose them to harsh (outdoor) environments and/or toxic chemicals.

What you are noticing is not some miracle skin care product but the accumulated insult of different lifestyles on skin and hair.
posted by googly at 8:06 AM on November 26, 2008 [5 favorites]

How about smoking, drinking, nutrition, amount of sleep, exposure to the outdoors/sunlight (typically under poor conditions, not like days at the beach etc)

The diet we get in developed countries is not that awful??
posted by RustyBrooks at 8:06 AM on November 26, 2008

on postview: even longer version of what gwenlister and Planet F said.
posted by googly at 8:06 AM on November 26, 2008

People probably also lead less stressful lives if they are well off.

I don't think it's just the oil of olay that's helping rich people out.
posted by chunking express at 8:11 AM on November 26, 2008

Yeah, don't eat shit. Personally, there's a direct correlation between my acne/skin maladies and what I've been eating the past month.
posted by notsnot at 8:11 AM on November 26, 2008

In a lot of social settings (but hardly all), the security guard is a lot more likely to smoke than is the bank director, and smoking is terrible for the skin. The security guard is also likely to have spent a few years working for his uncle on a roofing crew, while the director was sitting in college classes.

Stress would play a role, too, because being poor is incredibly stressful. Combine that with nutrition, lifelong access to excellent health care and especially dentistry (because teeth problems will change facial appearance in a big way), and I think you have your answer.

It can't really be the diet, because nowadays, the diet we get in developed countries is not that awful.

I think you need to look closer at the difference between buying your groceries at Whole Foods, and the way you eat if you are a low-paid single parent feeding a family on one inadequate income. Boxed mac and cheese, compared to the arugula salad and pasta primavera, for example. The working poor in the US are not calorically-deprived (in fact it's the reverse, with higher obesity rates as you go down the income ladder), but their diets may be quite nutritionally inadequate.
posted by Forktine at 8:11 AM on November 26, 2008 [9 favorites]

Treating acne costs money, and not treating it can leave scars.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:14 AM on November 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

Hardship and poor diet does stuff to your face. Well off people generally eat well and lead less stressful lives.
posted by fire&wings at 8:18 AM on November 26, 2008

It's not just more facials.

High end skin products (like la Prairie, Laboratoire Remède or la Mer) actually work. The products people buy in the supermarket and drug stores do not. They actually do more harm than good. Look at the ingredients.

Also, botox not only stops wrinkles but smoothes out the skin.

You get what you pay for. Always.

My girlfriend spends a small fortune here. That's how I knew about these brands. I see them in her medicine cabinet.
posted by Zambrano at 8:19 AM on November 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

More controversially: it might be the case that good looks influence social success.

See, for example, the section on 'Money' in this article. The basic argument is that tall people are more successful, even when social background is controlled for. I suppose the same might apply to people with smooth skin, nice teeth, etc.
posted by mattn at 8:25 AM on November 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

Another contributing factor (not a full explanation, to be sure) may be that the person with better skin, nicer hair, and less wrinkles is more likely to get the better position in the first place.

Pointy-Haired Boss: Dilbert, I'd like you to meet Ben, our new fast-track manager.
Dilbert: Hi.
Pointy-Haired Boss: Ben has no real experience but he's very tall, so we know he'll go far.
Ben: I also have executive-style hair.
Pointy-Haired Boss: We think it will turn silver.

posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:29 AM on November 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

[Didn't preview, obviously--basically what mattn said]
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:30 AM on November 26, 2008

It's not the products. It's the self-care. Most people can afford a tube of Clearasil. Most people can choose to eat well, get enough sleep, refrain from smoking and consuming too much alcohol. Not all people do. The people that eat McDonalds and stay up all night aren't going to look as vibrant and healthy as the joggers who eat organic salads. As it has been said upthread, people that have a higher level of education usually have more money. People that have more education usually don't bake in the sun and smoke. People that spend money on products put a high value on looking good. It's not that the products actually work (retinol is the only thing scientifically proven to treat wrinkles) it's that they are actually using a product. They're removing grime and cosmetics, cleansing and applying, going to bed early, taking their vitamins, going to the dentist, and getting their hair done professionally rather than dying it at home.
posted by Fairchild at 8:34 AM on November 26, 2008 [4 favorites]

It's lifestyle but it's also products- especially products like botox. More people get injected than you think. I'm sure Barack Obama has had a few shots to the forehead.

Also, the sun is good for you, believe it or not. It's not PC to say, but it's true.
posted by Zambrano at 8:43 AM on November 26, 2008

Three more factors:

1) If you're rich, you can afford to pay a dermatologist to remove that wart/mole/scar/birthmark/whatever. You can get those stray hairs lasered out. You can get a crooked nose fixed or a missing tooth replaced. All these things contribute to that sense of facial smoothness and perfection you're talking about, even though they aren't strictly speaking about skin care at all.

2) If you're rich, you can afford good makeup, and can afford to buy it at a high-end beauty supply store where they teach you how to apply it right. A lot of the people you're looking at, you're not seeing their skin at all.

3) There's probably a certain amount of selective perception going on here. A man with stylishly cut, jet-black hair, a $3000 suit, and a huge facial scar looks "striking." A scruffy gray-haired man in a sweatsuit with the same scar — he's the one who looks like he's got bad skin.
posted by nebulawindphone at 8:47 AM on November 26, 2008 [4 favorites]

I have just what you're looking for. It's a product of interpretations based on your preconceptions and I call it confirmation bias. What's that you say, you already have some of that. My mistake.
posted by trueluk at 8:48 AM on November 26, 2008 [3 favorites]

• Lack of affordable healthcare (including dental, vision, etc.) leads to people "toughing it out" through injuries and illnesses.
• General unspoken worry and depression over wages and jobs.
• Many jobs require one to work in unhealthy environments or, simply, outdoors all year long.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:53 AM on November 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

It's like comparing the security guard of a company to the vice president of sales

I can think of few explanations:

1. Environment/Social:

Because in high-level roles there is a huge expectation of being overly presentable. That includes good suits, good hair, perhaps a tan, etc. A VP of sales probably takes a few vacations and get some sun, is overly occupied with looks, buys nice clothes, may be more receptive (for a man)to use facial products, get dental work done, etc.

2. Genetics/Health:

Good looking people, especially naturally good looking people, is evolutions way of telling you that this person is probably pretty healthy. Sickly people dont have good skin or good looking hair. A healthy person has a lot of advantages in life. They have more energy/motivation than some who might be prone to illness (both physical and mental). Not to mention, good looking people have been found in studies to just be generally liked more. This helps with job interviews and promotions. So an uglier person may never reach the status of VP of sales even if she is just as qualified.

3. Our old friend confirmation bias. Perhaps you are noticing the handsome security guard or handome UPS guy. Perhaps you are not noticing the aging VP or unattractive CEO.

These are not mutually exclusive.
posted by damn dirty ape at 9:00 AM on November 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

High end skin products (like la Prairie, Laboratoire Remède or la Mer) actually work. The products people buy in the supermarket and drug stores do not. They actually do more harm than good. Look at the ingredients.

Zambrano, I know you like to trot this out -- this is at least the second time I've seen you claim this -- and it's just as false here as it was in the other thread. Every dermatologist I've ever been to has said the better drugstore brands are perfectly fine, and that the crazy expensive stuff is basically a racket. I've been using Neutrogena for 20+ years and, at nearly 40, have virtually wrinkle-free skin to show for it. By contrast, I have a friend who is exactly my age, spends a small fortune on her skin care, and has far more lines and wrinkles than I do -- in fact, the last time I saw her, she even joked about it ("how is it that I'm spending $200 a jar for night cream and you're the one who looks like it?"). The primary difference in our lifestyles is that she eats crap (fast foods, no fresh fruits or vegetables, etc.).

Also, botox not only stops wrinkles but smoothes out the skin.

This, on the other hand, is entirely true.
posted by scody at 9:04 AM on November 26, 2008 [12 favorites]

To counter Zambrano (and on preview - back up Scody) here is the link to the Newsweek article about the waste of money that is expensive skin cream.
I'll also agree with others that it probably has to do with differences in smoking rates and general availability of free time to take care of one's self.
posted by Wolfie at 9:20 AM on November 26, 2008

Keihl's. If you walk into their East Village store, you will see some of pinkest, smoothest, middle aged gay men ever working there.
posted by StickyCarpet at 10:03 AM on November 26, 2008

When I got insurance I was able to afford a trip to the dermatologist for a special cream that improved my skin 4-ever.
Wealthy people have insurance?
posted by kristymcj at 10:05 AM on November 26, 2008

I'd love to see what you thought of me ... Most people (both strangers and people who have known me casually for years) think I am 10-15 years younger than I am (I'm getting close to 40). I have no lines or wrinkles and smooth skin. I don't eat much greasy food (but I don't eat overly healthy either), I don't excercise (except for normal walking), and I don't wear makeup (or botox). I am hardly upper middle class. I have never used any kind of moisturiser, go out in the sun without sunscreen, and don't even wash my face with soap or even had a facial. I am a pretty happy, contented person though and I think I have good genes.
posted by saucysault at 10:10 AM on November 26, 2008

I don't think it's really skin-care products. I know a fair number of upper-middle-class people who have nice skin and -- especially in the case of men -- certainly aren't using any "products" beyond aftershave. They're certainly not getting facials or Botox. Having nice skin has been a sign of a comfortable lifestyle for a long time, much longer than it's been socially acceptable for men to get professionally buffed and puffed.

I'd posit that the difference is due to several major factors: they're not spending a lot of time outside, especially in the sun or in very dry/windy environments, and when they do spend time in the sun, they wear sunblock or hats; they typically don't smoke; and they have reasonably good diets, at least in the sense of not being malnourished in any way.

My gut is that it's the smoking and sun exposure that really make the difference that you'd see between different groups of people in the U.S.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:12 AM on November 26, 2008

You get what you pay for. Always.

Yes, always.

Nthing diet, proper hydration (cumulative levels of low hydration cause all kinds of early aging issues), stress levels, sun exposure, and smoking. I'd also go out on a limb and say that sometimes it can be genetic. It's a hard fact of life that a good looking man/woman with naturally good skin can get ahead easier in the corporate world.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:22 AM on November 26, 2008

1. Accessibility to doctors, dermatologists, and skin specialists to remove scars, lines, sun spots, freckles, etc.
2. Accessibility to skin care products and prescriptions.
3. Accessibility to good hygiene.
4. Genetics
5. Accessibility to living well, eating well. This is the least important, as we all know wealthy people who eat & live their lives poorly.

IMO, doesn't have anything to do with confirmation bias or expensive high end skin care products.
posted by artdrectr at 10:27 AM on November 26, 2008

Do US men regularly use skincare products? This is news to me. I would have thought that any difference you see in men could not be explained by skincare products.

I think differences in diet, alcohol and tobacco use, exercise, etc are much more likely to explain this.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 10:54 AM on November 26, 2008

Also Nthing that more expensive products don't necessarilly mean better skincare. Beauty Brains often posts about it.

When I quit smoking, my skin changed so much that people would stop me to ask what I started doing to look so much better.

Also, being in the habit of putting on sunscreen or products with sunscreen helps skin.

Drinking lots of water, and yeah, vegetables and fruit, not chemicals and salt.
posted by ugf at 11:08 AM on November 26, 2008

Priorities are a factor as well. When I was struggling financially, I was infinitely more worried about food/rent/child care/transportation than the appearance of my skin.
posted by Space Kitty at 11:18 AM on November 26, 2008

the diet we get in developed countries is not that awful.

I've spent a lot of the last couple years in non-developed countries. You know what they don't have there, that I couldn't be tempted with? McDonalds. Taco Bell. Arby's. Long John Silver. Pizza Hut.

Instead of processed crap I was mainly forced to eat fresher and more natural foods. I drank a lot more water because of the dry, dusty climate as well, which I think also helped. And I've gotten more than a couple compliments on my skin since returning (although that's probably due more to the tan than the overall quality of it).
posted by allkindsoftime at 12:16 PM on November 26, 2008

I think it's more about social, educational, and lifestyle factors than any particular product.

F'r'instance: I never considered myself upper middle class. In my 20s, still suffering from acne and employed by a labor union office, I used my health benefits to pay for a visit to the dermatologist. He told me to use benzoyl peroxide on the breakouts (cheap OTC, although I also had an RX paid by my benefits). He told me wash my face a couple times a day with Dove and use a good inexpensive moisturizer at least once a day (Purpose, from the drugstore). I've done this for over twenty years now. I haven't had acne but the skin on my face looks great with minimal cost.

When I moved to California my third job there was programming for a fitness-oriented company. Almost everyone who worked there (except the programmers) were beautiful. Even the customer service reps who answered the phone took great care of themselves. They weren't paid very much, but they were part of a culture of paying attention to your body and your looks.

Pretty much the only ones I saw who had bad skin were the ones 40+ who had spent too much time in the sun over the years and had that Southern California tanned-leather look to their faces. Guess they can't all afford skin peels, although sunscreen would have prevented this...
posted by Robert Angelo at 12:51 PM on November 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

Most everyone in this thread is either lying, hopeful, or doesn't want to admit that they do in fact pay for shit like microdermabrasions, laser facials, botox etc. I'm pretty sure that having a dermatologist from a young age helps too. Oh if only I were raised richer, i would probably look 18 today.

Yeah eating well helps, but rich people completely begin low level plastic surgery at a young age. Few admit it, but what can I say, I make people comfortable.
posted by shownomercy at 12:53 PM on November 26, 2008

Most everyone in this thread is either lying, hopeful, or doesn't want to admit that they do in fact pay for shit like microdermabrasions, laser facials, botox etc.

Sorry. Not lying, not rich, have never had any work done (and the one facial I ever got -- which was a birthday gift, incidentally -- made me break out), have seen dermatologists maybe half a dozen times or so over 20 years, and my skin looks great. Your assertion that we're all lying, rich assholes reminds me of the people who insist that the only possible way I can wear a size 4 is either by starving myself or making myself puke. I disappoint them on that score, too.
posted by scody at 1:30 PM on November 26, 2008 [2 favorites]

shownomercy: it does not follow that because many clients of skin specialists are rich, many rich people are clients of skin specialists.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:40 PM on November 26, 2008

Hats and sunscreen also make a huge difference. Perhaps considered middle-class affectations by many... but certainly in an Australian context, I suspect you see more of their application in the more affluent suburbs... on adults. Most schools in Australia have a "no hat, no play" policy fo the kiddiwinks.
posted by taff at 2:01 PM on November 26, 2008

scody, I was just thinking the same thing about Zambrano's comment.

Also, photoaging exists. It's not a PC construct. Acknowledging its existance doesn't negate the acknowledgement of the sun's health benefits.

(Side note: Can't the world just freaking retire "PC", like the limp and meaningless attempt-at-a-smug-insult that it is?)

Anyway, everybody's making good points, here. However, just because rich people can keep throwing money at their looks, doesn't mean they keep looking better than the rest of us forever. Eventually, age catches up with them -- and when they start trying to tack their face back where it used to be, they often end up looking truly bizarre.
posted by Coatlicue at 2:12 PM on November 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

I can look at a persons face, and in a short instance tell you if this person is well off or if this person has had a hard life.

You mean you think you can. I have bad skin - wrinkles, acne, bags under the eyes - because I smoke heavily, drink too much, and used to do a lot of drugs when I was younger. I also have bad teeth (homeless person bad, by American standards!), and look pretty scruffy whatever I'm wearing. So if you spotted me, you'd think I was of the 'security guard class'. But I'm pretty posh by any standard, have led an easy life, eat a good diet. And most of the upper middle class people I know either look lovely, or look like shit, or are... somewhere inbetween. Same goes for the working class people I know. Same goes for the really posh people I know (er, actually, they're much more likely to look like death warmed up, because they've never had to give a fuck, and get sunburned a lot while ski-ing!).

So, as others have said: confirmation bias.

rich Nouveau riche people completely begin low level plastic surgery at a young age.

Fixed that for &c.
posted by jack_mo at 2:14 PM on November 26, 2008 [2 favorites]

High end skin products (like la Prairie, Laboratoire Remède or la Mer) actually work. The products people buy in the supermarket and drug stores do not. They actually do more harm than good. Look at the ingredients.

Not true. Bliss has nothing special in their products; they are just remarkably overpriced. Goggle their special ingredients, and they come up in numerous cosmetics that range from low priced to high.

But Francis Le Cates Jr., a cosmetics analyst at Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, estimates that on average only 80 of the cosmetics sales dollar goes to pay for ingredients. The extra cost of the better ones used in prestige products comes nowhere near accounting for the difference in selling price. The real difference is in fancier packaging, splashier promotion, and the fact that the swankier cosmetics are made in limited quantity for sale through prestige stores, which raises the manufacturing cost per unit.

till, unusual ingredients aren't necessarily any more effective at moisturizing your skin or reducing wrinkles. "If you want to pay so that when someone walks into your bathroom they see a $400 jar of face cream on your shelf, that's what you're paying for," says Dr. Vesna Petronic-Rosic, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Chicago. "[But] if you put Cetaphil on your skin every day, twice a day, it's going to achieve the same effect."
posted by oneirodynia at 2:38 PM on November 26, 2008 [2 favorites]

The products people buy in the supermarket and drug stores do not. They actually do more harm than good. Look at the ingredients.

Through work, I have access to clinical testing data, ingredient lists and independent consultant views on almost every mass-market skincare product. No cream will make you younger, fresher or more beautiful - the majority will have a cosmetic effect ie. until the stuff is washed off - but they at least do what they claim to do in the ads.

Incidentally, I got an overnight cream on prescription which made my spots vanish. In the US where healthcare is expensive, I doubt this would be easy to get hold of for someone on minimum wage. (It would have cost me £7.)
posted by mippy at 3:20 PM on November 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

Oh, and yes, Kiehls is good stuff. But it worked about as well as my prescription cream.
posted by mippy at 3:23 PM on November 26, 2008

Even if you want to discount diet, drinking water, smoking, etc., it's still not going to come down to a fancy skin cream. Almost all of them have been shown not to do much, especially not more so than drugstore products.
However, what can be very effective, perhaps too effective, are things like botox, skin peels, and plastic surgery.

I'm still going to go with lifestyle choices as a huge factor. Smoking and drinking are especially hard on the skin. If you don't get enough fluids, your skin becomes dry, etc.

It seems that those who are saying otherwise are taking the tone of trying to defend or rationalize their own choices to spend lots of money on wonder creams. No need to feel that way, the marketing of those products is pretty deceptive.
posted by fructose at 5:54 PM on November 26, 2008

What gwenlister said. Except the sleep part.

I think that in general people who try harder in their business pursuits will also care more about their appearance or personal pursuits.
posted by MaxK at 7:58 PM on November 26, 2008

There are studies that show that attractive people are more likely to get hired, get promotions, and marry up in the SES.

And - lo and behold! - the SES tend to be more attractive than the "lower classes". Amazing.

(Also, a recent study confirmed a theory that wealthier parents would tend to have more daughters than usual. Essentially, the hypothesis was that their DNA would be more likely to be propagated via attractive mates than direct producers. Here begins a new flame war...)
posted by IAmBroom at 9:26 PM on November 26, 2008

I totally agree with those that say that more expensive skin creams (except maybe some by prescription) aren't really worth it, but I think more expensive makeup does do a better job of covering up bad skin. If you know what you are doing you can really pile on good foundation and it will cover anything and look natural.
posted by whoaali at 10:39 PM on November 26, 2008

Also, a recent study confirmed a theory that wealthier parents would tend to have more daughters than usual. Essentially, the hypothesis was that their DNA would be more likely to be propagated via attractive mates than direct producers.

Can you flesh that out a bit? I and my five daughters are interested, but I just can't make sense of your second sentence.
posted by BinGregory at 11:35 PM on November 26, 2008

Well off people generally eat well and lead less stressful lives.

That's not true at all; I'm sure some of the guys at Lehman Brother's would have been classified as well-off, however I'm sure no one would contend their lives are less stressful.

The idea that well off people sleep more is also similarly problematic; I'm sure we all know of senior managers, associates, partners, etc that sleep a handful of hours a week. And smoke, drink, and all the rest.
posted by oxford blue at 1:29 AM on December 1, 2008

All I have to say is look at the ingredients. You're doing more harm than good with the cheap stuff.


And as usual, the PC police here would never dare say that the wealthy have problems and stress, too.
posted by Zambrano at 12:43 PM on December 2, 2008

the PC police here

You keep saying this. I don't think you know what you're talking about.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:18 PM on December 2, 2008 [4 favorites]

All I have to say is look at the ingredients.

All righty, then! Let's take a look at the cheap stuff:

Queen Helene Mint Julep Masque
primary ingredients: Water, Kaolin, Bentonite
$3.79 / 8 oz. = 47 cents per ounce

And now the posh stuff:

SkinCeuticals Clarifying Clay Masque
primary ingredients: Water, Kaolin, Bentonite
$40.00 / 60 ml (2 oz.) = 20 dollars per ounce

If simple arithmetic is PC, then sign me up.
posted by scody at 4:03 PM on December 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

(And also: didn't flinging "PC" around as an all-purpose snide putdown go out with Dinesh D'Souza in the mid-90s?)
posted by scody at 4:08 PM on December 2, 2008

I think there are probably some cultural differences at play too, especially for men. It's far more ok for wealthier professional men to put some time into self care, such as exfoliating and moisturizing, while I think such "unmanly" habits are still looked down upon to some extent in more working class circles. Although, this is obviously a gross generalization.
posted by whoaali at 8:33 AM on December 3, 2008

What are the richer people doing to their skin/face to get this look?

Makeup can help, but the vast majority of caucasians were born that way.

(Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

I would guess that it's hard to separate the wide variety of cues that we use to judge SES. Are you looking at naked, sleeping people? Shoes frequently make SES obvious. A person who has enjoyed moderate athletics throughout his or her life tends to have a different posture than a person who's either had little access to exercise or has frequently worked to exhaustion. Likewise, it's usually pretty clear if a person has been taught to stand up and make an impression, or if a person has instead learned that the nail that sticks out gets hammered. Were you taught to look a person in the eye? Were you taught to smile broadly even if you didn't feel it, or did you learn to keep an emotionally neutral poker face?
posted by nathan v at 4:14 PM on December 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

A late response to BinGregory at 2:35 AM on November 27:
Can you flesh that out a bit? I and my five daughters are interested, but I just can't make sense of your second sentence.

Ignore that nonsense - I was misremembering the reasoning.

6. Beautiful people have more daughters

Quoting some of the relevant parts:

One of the most celebrated principles in evolutionary biology, the Trivers-Willard hypothesis, states that wealthy parents of high status have more sons, while poor parents of low status have more daughters. This is because children generally inherit the wealth and social status of their parents.... (The biological mechanism by which this occurs is not yet understood.)

...

The generalized Trivers-Willard hypothesis goes beyond a family's wealth and status: If parents have any traits that they can pass on to their children and that are better for sons than for daughters, then they will have more boys. Conversely, if parents have any traits that they can pass on to their children and that are better for daughters, they will have more girls.

Physical attractiveness, while a universally positive quality, contributes even more to women's reproductive success than to men's. The generalized hypothesis would therefore predict that physically attractive parents should have more daughters than sons. Once again, this is the case. Americans who are rated "very attractive" have a 56 percent chance of having a daughter for their first child, compared with 48 percent for everyone else.
posted by IAmBroom at 1:57 PM on December 7, 2008 [1 favorite]