I wonder how much of that was confidence changes.

Damn, that's kinda fucked up. We all know there are (mostly) subconscious biases against people we find unattractive. But that's harsh that it shows up as such a big gap.

Makes me wonder how biased the study was and how much of Harvard’s portfolio is wrapped up in pharmaceutical stocks.

There's also studies that show height is also a predictor of salary. As well as skin color being a predictor of those who get promoted.

DEI was implemented based on those studies because educated black women were constantly passed over, even if they outcompeted their rivals in work competency.

I don’t read this one as a total plant, but I don’t think the methodology is great. Using a ucla cohort study that’s been in progress since 2024 (quarterly questionnaires) the author compares two groups.

1. People who received treatment
2. People who didn’t receive treatment but indicated that they would like to in future (control group)

Clearly not an excellent control group for the kind of claims she wants to make.

She puts effort into statistically ‘matching’ a bunch of parameters to try to make it a better control group. She also discusses this as a possible issue in the text and tries to give some statistical evidence but I don’t find it very convincing. Doubt it will ultimately get published.

Patriarchy Society

Lol it's hilarious being even sightly aware of the reality of things and reading "water found to make objects wet" articles. Fat and ugly people are treated worse. Full stop.

Clearly not an excellent control group for the kind of claims she wants to make.

You're claiming p-hacking without any proof or qualifications stating why this is so clear to you.

The control group setup is to remove people who have no need for the drug.

Did they include data on whether or not and when those women were looking for work and how actively, etc? In other words, might it also be that the women feel better and that this better positions then for increasing a job?

I meant to imply the author was in good faith and not an industry plant like other white papers in the journal have been. I actually read the paper and don't feel the need to prove my identity to you in a forum in order to have an opinion. I think it’s obvious and most people in adjacent fields would think so. The author acknowledges it as well which I mentioned. Also said nothing about p-hacking, I definitely don't think that.

This is an unreviewed white paper, they’re putting it out looking for feedback.

Confidence does wonders on top of pretty people being treated better. Not surprising at all

The very simplest of applied psychology.

"...nice."

"That's fucked up. Like, we all know that obviously fatsos are universally fucking ugly but I didn't think it would have such an impact".

How a thing talking about weight immediately switched to being about attractiveness. That is fucked up indeed.

Fat and ugly people are treated worse. Full stop.

You would know.

I'm sorry, I had to. I'm sure you're a beautiful soul.

Note, dear viewer, that said "beautiful soul".
Double-tap.

I'm a guy. Back when I was really healthy and in shape (after not being) it was super obvious how much better and easier "pretty people" have it.

Attractive people are also more confident. This is an important factor in many roles.

I work at a larger company. I'm a tall guy (0th percentile) and there's over a dozen people taller than me in the building. For the amount of people who work here, that number should be between 0 and 8 people taller than me.

It's true.

they aren't. they are perceived as more confident.

Actually, attractive people are more confident when the moon is waxing but are perceived as more confident when the moon is waning.

all folks have to do is all change their DOB on their job application to Leo or Aries, because those are the most confident star signs.

there is a 10K/yr+ year premium on your height too. we love tall hot people. they get paid the most.

shorties get salary shafted

I'm a woman. Over the last 5-10 years I went from ~160-180 to 234 this Jan.The difference in treatment has been staggering. Now down to around 219. Hoping I can continue to lose. Not on a glp-1, though I've definitely considered it.

Evidence found at the scene point to a professional hit. Our psychological profilers are looking for a comedian with at least two Netflix specials.

Might as well give it a shot (pun intended). Like Half my department and half the spouses are on it. Couple people it didn't work for because they had side effects. I'm not on it, but anything I know it is that if you don't have side effects you can stay on it indefinitely and if anything, it's healthier for you.

I'm only a bit overweight at the moment. My issue is that I need energy and more time at a gym. And a lower back that's 20 years younger.

strangely this study (https://sopuli.xyz/post/49431591) didnt find any mental positive effect after GLP1 use.

This headline and article misrepresent the study's findings, and overstate the evidence for its conclusions. From the abstract, by the study's actual author:

Single women’s marriage/cohabitation rates rise by 29 percentage points and employment among baseline non-employed women rises 27 percentage points after six or more quarters. Existing partnerships do not dissolve, and already-employed women show no upward job mobility. The pattern suggests that part of the female obesity penalty operates at new-match formation rather than only through health or incumbent productivity.

As the overwhelming majority of women in the labor force are actually employed, an effect that is seen only on the unemployed may not be appropriate to extrapolate across the entire population.

In another longitudinal study, also published by the NBER, reports a slight trend that already-employed women have a slight drop in employment when going on GLP-1s, and when evaluated over the entire population, the study's authors conclude that GLP-1s do not have a meaningful effect on employment rates.

Overall, the evidence is much, much weaker than the article's tone suggests.

Thank you!

I have nothing but a hunch to back this up: I'd be weary of the potential bias introduced by the medicine price vs available cash in the general unemployed population. The households that can afford glp-1s will likely be socio-economically stronger, thus the unemployed women will be better educated and more likely to be re-employed.

Do the post-metoo PR-repair ones count? 🙈🙉

Can confirm

FWIW, if it's not a musculoskeletal injury/concern (and their possible neuropathic symptoms), maybe focusing on core & lower back strength at a gentle but regular pace could help you like it has for me.

My spine's survived through 3 rollovers/tumbling crashes, ~10 auto collisions (7 while I was parked/stopped!), a 90ft cliff jump (never again), and teen years @ a McDojo to band a few. I've room for improvement, certainly, but the 237lbs I was at 10/24 is now down to ~170lbs, and I more often feel 20 again!

... until I look at the world around me, ofc. Then, I'm old AF & tired of fighting the Sisyphean battles toward common decency and compassionate "civilization". 😅😶

I thought Aries was the "baby of the Zodiac", though?

I've no real idea, I avoid that bullshit at every chance. Hell, I've politely left a first date for that. It only belies deeper-held beliefs in even more exploitive superstitions/cons. Best to move along. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Looking at you, Apollo project...

Given the cruelty of this comedy murder, I would say they're the only ones that count

Thanks. It's some of both for me, really. Exercise definitely helps, but at the end of the day, I got a messed up back. It's not bad enough from butting me down and out very often at all, so I'll keep exercising and stretching and make it last as long as I can.

babies can be confident

Sounds like the plan, for sure. 😅🤷🏼‍♂️

On the inside. Deep, deep down inside...

^(kidding)^