Prejudice, Beautiful Prejudice

February 25th, 2006 by Ben Goldacre in alternative medicine, bad science, independent, statistics, very basic science | 46 Comments »

Ben Goldacre
Saturday February 25, 2006
The Guardian

Okay, here’s an idea: let’s see if we can gather experimental evidence to assess our prejudices. First up, prejudice number one. “Sometimes you see beautiful people with no brains. Sometimes you have ugly people who are intelligent, like scientists. Our pitch is a bit like that. From the top it’s a disgrace, but the ball rolls at normal speed.”

So said Jose Mourinho this week. Who, you may ask, is Jose Nourinho? I had no idea, but according to Dr Katy Turner, an infectious diseases epidemiologist who sent in the quote along with a photograph of herself, he is something to do with football, which explains why, after the bit about girls, the quote degenerates into incomprehensibility.

Now, Dr Katy Turner and her friends are actually quite fit – the glamorous Ms Bad Science notwithstanding – but they, as any scientist could tell you, were a selected and biased sample. In search of population data, I went straight to www.amihotornot.com and set to work. For anyone with a life, Am I Hot Or Not is an extraordinary and untapped mine of self-generating attractiveness data that could easily fuel five social psychology papers in return for one good week’s work.

The premise is this: you see a picture of a boy or girl, you click to give it a mark out of 10, and then you get to see the next picture. It’s strangely addictive, and second only to the dizzying www.ratemypoo.com for interactive image rating pleasure. The marks are collected and pooled, and eventually, we might assume, settle down to a representative population judgment on the individual’s overall attractiveness.

Here’s the important bit. Amihotornot started out as an exercise in narcissism, but now (inevitably) it has a dating element. For that, they’ve added in the facility for people to list their interests. This means you can now also search by interest. And so, dear reader, I have made for you three links, to images of people listing science, sport, and Jesus as their interests, for you to see for yourself:

www.hotornot.com/keyword/sports
www.hotornot.com/keyword/science;
www.hotornot.com/keyword/jesus

My grand plan was this: to collect hundreds of scores from the science, sports, and Jesus people; then stick them into a stats program; and then see if there was a statistically significant difference between the attractiveness scores for each group.

But my experimental aspirations were torpedoed when I discovered that the attractiveness scores are blanked out when you search by keyword. I have no idea why, but this sort of problem often occurs when you try to crowbar population datasets into purposes for which they were not originally devised.

Then I had a thought: it’s not like I’m a noble undercover epidemiologist, trying to steal factory records on asbestos exposure from companies who don’t want me to show they cause cancer. Why don’t I just email Amihotornot HQ? So I did.

But they haven’t got back to me. I think they’ve just assumed I’m some kind of weirdo.

And here is prejudice number two: British newspapers just cannot help themselves, they have to run stories which say that miracle cures work, regardless of the evidence. In January, the journal Cancer (cheery) ran a paper on the survival of patients with proven, very bad, lung cancer, who had been given palliative radiotherapy, not to cure, but just to ease the symptoms a little: they found, perhaps unexpectedly, that about 1% survived for five years, when you’d have thought all would be dead by then. That’s what they found.

The study also, briefly, at the end, said this: “This is a very small proportion, but lung cancer is a very common malignancy. It is important that the frequency of this phenomenon should be appreciated, so that claims of apparent cure by novel treatment strategies, or even by unconventional medicine or faith healing, can be seen in an appropriate context.”

In the Independent newspaper, this research paper became: “MIRACLE CURES SHOWN TO WORK: Doctors have found statistical evidence that alternative treatments such as special diets, herbal potions and faith healing can cure apparently terminal illness, but they remain unsure about the reasons.” No. I have no idea either.

· Please send your bad science to bad.science@guardian.co.uk

[Addendum 7/3/06: The Independent had run a correction to their Miracle Cures story, four weeks after it originally ran, on 17/2/06: the Miracle Cures article, and that correction, have been deleted from their website. It said that the erroneous content was due to a "production error".]


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you like what I do, and you want me to do more, you can: buy my books Bad Science and Bad Pharma, give them to your friends, put them on your reading list, employ me to do a talk, or tweet this article to your friends. Thanks! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

46 Responses



  1. interbreeding said,

    February 25, 2006 at 4:34 am

    Have you ever heard of this guy called Noam Chomsky? He has a very simple theory about the media: the media are businesses and will put out stories that their audience like to make money. This is why the papers will keep publishing tripe. The end.

  2. Anthony Cox said,

    February 25, 2006 at 8:04 am

    Yes Chomsky does get in the papers a lot.

    He’s the Andrew Wakefield of politics.

  3. interbreeding said,

    February 25, 2006 at 8:23 am

    And you’re the Oliver Kamm of this comments thread. Congrats.

  4. Terry Hamblin said,

    February 25, 2006 at 9:27 am

    Last week I saw a patient whose small cell lung cancer had ben treated palliatively with radiotherapy more than 5 years previously. We were astonished that she had lived so long and depressed that she now had an aggressive non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Until we thought to look at the histology of the original cancer.

    The confusion between small cell lung cancer and lymphoma (a very radiosensitive tumour) is a well recognised example of misdiagnosis.

  5. Frank said,

    February 25, 2006 at 12:00 pm

    Yeah, yeah, keep stealing my ideas, Ben. :)

  6. pv said,

    February 25, 2006 at 2:36 pm

    Noam Chomsky. There’s a name to conjure with. That so many people seem to think the man is some kind of inellectual or great thinker indicates what a parlous state the world is in. Chomsky might welI be right about this but make the same observation about the news media all the time, from my own experience – it’s hardly a revelation and doesn’t require any special insight. Chomsky is eloquent, which many mistake for intelligence or insight. But he’s merely an eloquent, prevaricating and sometimes dangerous fool. If I may paraphrase Francis Wheen, most of Chomsky’s ramblings can be summed up in the words of George Orwell, thus: “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”

  7. Ithika said,

    February 25, 2006 at 4:20 pm

    A Cox, pv: have you any real criticisms of Chomsky, or just ad hominem attacks – “fool”?

    I’ve only read one of Chomsky’s books (“Hegemony or Survival”) and it read like a far more academic text than I’ve come to expect from most political analysis. A lot less in the way of pontificating and a lot more in the way of facts. Is that what you mean when you say he lacks intelligence or insight? That he sticks to the facts?

    I make no claims about his linguistics as I am no expert in the field outside being familiar with the Chomsky hierarchy. Maybe that is where your animosity towards him lies. I do not know.

  8. Idolator said,

    February 25, 2006 at 11:26 pm

    “That so many people seem to think the man is some kind of inellectual or great thinker indicates what a parlous state the world is in.”

    That someone is dumb enough not to realize that having questionable political opinions does not negate decades of brilliant work as a psycholinguist indicates what a perilous state the world is in.

  9. David said,

    February 26, 2006 at 1:05 am

    Chomsky, eloquent? What a joke. He is extremely boring and clumsy with his words.

    The trouble is that Chomsky is convincing because he is right. Since you can’t deal with that fact, you have to fabricate reasons for the ring of truth in what he says, and throw in some random insults.

    Back to the point. A Chomskyian analysis (the simple realisation that the papers print sensational stuff regardless of accuracy because it makes them money) is so self-evident (along with the rest of his Propaganda Model) that it is irrefutable.

  10. interbreeding said,

    February 26, 2006 at 4:08 am

    Chomsky’s political stuff – as opposed to his academic stuff, which is on linguistics and largely unconnected from the political – just consists of him stating facts that are generally ignored, wrongly denied or otherwise glossed over. In itself, an invaluable service.

  11. Teek said,

    February 26, 2006 at 12:30 pm

    chomsky’s language theory is brilliant and scientifically sound, and yes he is eloquent and intelligent – those of you that say in the posts above that he is clumsy and/or a fool musn’t be familiar with his work in any way. ithka, i’ve read hegemony… too, it’s a well-written and superbly sourced critique of American political, economic and military dominance, nothing short of greatness.

  12. pv said,

    February 26, 2006 at 5:08 pm

    When refugees started pouring out of Cambodia with stories of the killings perpetrated by the government Chomsky insisted that it wasn’t true. He’s full of this type of “fact”. When foreigners went into Cambodia and discovered that the refugees were after all correct, Chomsky insisted it was nothing to do the Pol Pot regime.
    If I might quote Francis Wheen again (his words are so much more compelling than mine), “Noam Chomsky has always given the benefit of the doubt to ‘Anti American’ regimes such as Pol Pot and Slobodan Milosovoc, strenuously downplaying the scale of their terror and doubting even the most carefully verified evidence. Withe the United States, by contrast, no proof is required. In October 2001 he stated as a fact that the Pentagon strategists were planning ‘the slaughter and silent genocide’ of three or four million Afgans during their Military campaign against the Taliban. What was Chomsky’s source for theis shocking information? Answer came there none: by the time the Taliban fell – with no genocide, silent or otherwise – he and his army of disciples had already changed the subject again.”
    He was also dead set against any intervention in Kososvo. He has stated that all American interventions are about oil. What oil would that be in Kosovo? What oil in Somalia? So, yes, Mr Chomsky is eloquent. As for facts, it depends on what constitues a “fact”. For my part, having read a bit of his stuff here and there, and the comments of his idolaisers and critics, I come down firmy in the camp of the critics. He is a fool. He is eloquent rather than intelligent or insightful. I take him for a purveyor of fashionable untruths.

  13. Organic Potatoes said,

    February 26, 2006 at 7:47 pm

    on Chomsky’s Language theory: language.home.sprynet.com/chomdex/rea44.htm

  14. Idolator said,

    February 26, 2006 at 11:04 pm

    “Withe the United States, by contrast, no proof is required. In October 2001 he stated as a fact that the Pentagon strategists were planning ‘the slaughter and silent genocide’ of three or four million Afgans during their Military campaign against the Taliban.”

    Link (to something written by Chomsky)? Or is this just a fashionable untruth?

  15. Mrs Trellis said,

    February 26, 2006 at 11:36 pm

    I spent a boring afternoon going through one of Chomsky’s political essays. The much-vaunted “facts” he quoted ad nauseam were my task: I checked each and every reference through to the original source. The original source, in most cases, was an earlier work by… Noam Chomsky. The man’s a political simpleton with a fanbase of cretinoleftist cheerleaders.

  16. pv said,

    February 26, 2006 at 11:52 pm

    The reason I responded to the original reference to Chomsky in this thread was that I thought quoting him to be somewhat ironic when writing about prejudices. Here is a man, venerated for his supposed insightfulness, who is apparently not above editing and manipulating evidence to support his prejudices. And he’s good at it. He’s also good at stating the blindingly obvious as if it was some kind of revelation, and his supporters (for want of a better description) lap it up. Chomsky says the news media are businesses and they publish the crap stories the public likes because that’s how they make money. So it must be true then. It doesn’t matter that any vaguely intelligent, half-awake person could have made the same observation; the world’s finest mind and deepest thinker, Noam Chomsky, said it. Compared to a precise and clear mind like that of the late Bertrand Russell, a giant of philosophy in my view, Noam Chomsky appears to be somewhat of a tunnel-visioned midget and more of a sophist than a philosopher or political commentator.
    Speaking of irony, it seems to me to be somewhat ironic that David Irving, currently sentenced to 3 years in prison for Holocaust denial, and Mr Chomsky both share the same attitude towards the convenience or otherwise of evidence when propounding their theories. I guess one could say I’m not a Chomsky groupie.

    Organic Potatoes, thanks for the link to Forty-Four Reasons
    Why the Chomskians Are Mistaken
    I’d call that a particularly thorough demolition of Mr Chomsky’s language theory. The theory would be fine… if only the real world wouldn’t poke its nose in.

    One need look no further than Reason 1 to discover that Noam Chomsky really is an Emperor out and about with no clothes on. I am particularly happy that the idea of a universal grammar and is given such short shrift so early on in the piece. Maybe if Noam Chomsky had ever taught a foreign language to students in different foreign country he might have taken a different view. The idea is absurd, as is the idea that grammar precedes language. Frankly I have a hard time when it comes to teaching English to Italian students, with regard to explaing much of that ephemeral thing that is English Grammar. I’d be interested to know what the “great” man thinks of Chinese.

  17. pv said,

    February 27, 2006 at 12:08 am

    Idolator, I shall refer you to Francis Wheen’s book, “How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered The World”, since that is where the quote comes from. Francis Wheen is a left-wing journalist who has also written a much appreciated biography of Karl Marx. Mr Wheen, unlike Mr Chomsky, is not known for the habit of omitting inconvenient “facts”.
    Not all supporters of the Left are convinced of Chomsky’s “god-like” qualities. Some of us think he is indeed rather overhyped and overrated.

  18. Mr Magoo said,

    February 27, 2006 at 8:57 am

    Chomskyism aside, I reckon that we’re not far off the point where scientists put particular phrases in papers specifically so that they can be taken out of context and used as publicity…

    Just like how film reviews in the Sun can be truncated from ‘this is a very long way from being the finest fil mever made’ to ‘the finest film ever made’ on the promo posters, maybe we’ll also see ‘the study shows a miracle cure for cancer will never be found’ turned into ‘the study shows a miracle cure for cancer’ …

  19. WireTrip said,

    February 27, 2006 at 9:45 am

    BTW, the first couple of people who came up under science definitely were fit – but then so were the sports and even the Jesus ones (I am extremely tempted to submit a picture of Richard Dawkins under that keyword :-))! The only thing about this kind of site however, is in the days of Photoshop, how do you really trust the pictures anyway?

  20. Squander Two said,

    February 27, 2006 at 2:22 pm

    > The theory of evolution is still not ‘proved’.

    Yes it is, for any reasonable definition of scientific proof. Every single prediction based on it has come true. No evidence against it has been found. That’s as close to proof as science ever gets.

  21. Squander Two said,

    February 27, 2006 at 2:28 pm

    > Seems to me the ‘Forty-Four Reasons Why the Chomskians Are Mistaken’ is full of ad hominem and strawman rants.

    OK, I didn’t read the whole site, but, since you say it’s full of ad hominem and strawman rants, I shouldn’t need to in order to find them. Yet I didn’t. As far as I can see, it’s just fairly standard discussion of liguistics. Where are these rants and ad hominem attacks?

  22. pv said,

    February 27, 2006 at 5:46 pm

    imagineyoung, I didn’t introduce Mr Chomsky into this thread. But as I wrote previously, it seemed to me somewhat ironic to quote him (his theory about the news media) in a thread about prejudice. Maybe it is my prejudice and I am completely unjustified (I don’t think so), but I find his political views inhumane and bordering on insane. That he has been idolised by so many for so long, as some kind of intellectual giant, just beggars belief. His hypocrisy and contempt for humanity, as far as I am concerned, place him beneath contempt. Ad hominem insults? I don’t think so.
    Here’s just one of many useful insights into the “great” man’s idiocy.
    www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm

    My prejudice, if anyone cares, is in favour of universal human rights

    I’d love to have a chat about TEFL. Here in my part of Italy, the Province of Treviso, the place is inundated with TEFL and ESL teachers yet the standard of English demonstrated by Italian students and businessmen, both spoken and written, is quite appalling. But perhaps here isn’t the place to discuss that. :)

  23. WireTrip said,

    February 27, 2006 at 6:35 pm

    Oh my God James L, was your supervisor the Aphex Twin :-)?

  24. imagineyoung said,

    February 28, 2006 at 12:47 am

    Squander Two
    ‘Where are these rants and ad hominem attacks?’

    From the first reason, first sentence: ‘Their naive reliance on “grammar.” – is not ‘naive’ a value judgement about the quality of ‘their’ thinking.

    Second sentence: ‘…one encounters repeatedly the unspoken assumption that by basing them on something resembling a formal grammar, one will come closest to certainty about the nature of language.’ – at least the authors are admitting that no one has made the argument that they want to demolish in this particular instance.

    That’s just in the first reason.

    pv – the New Criterion article has a lot of similar stuff – though again with valid points.

    There was an interview with Chomsky in the Guardian a month or so ago, and the interviewer basically did a hatchet job on him, with some claims that Chomsky could demonstrate were not true. The Guardian has withdrawn the interview from it’s web site (it’s decision, Chomsky was happy for it to remain along with corrections).

    The amount of prejudice that he arouses on all sides is a very good case study. This forum has probably one of the most clear-thinking memberships on the net, yet as soon as Chomsky comes up …..

    ‘Okay, here’s an idea: let’s see if we can gather experimental evidence to assess our prejudices.’

    How does this work – words are seen as attacking;/challenging/dissing our own beliefs/assumptions and cause such a reaction?

  25. imagineyoung said,

    February 28, 2006 at 12:52 am

    pv – yes, TEFL would be a good thing to discuss. Click on my username.

  26. aquoibon said,

    February 28, 2006 at 10:01 am

    Hi Ben,

    I’m not convinced your experimental aspirations are doomed. HotOrNot gives you the opportunity to access the picture’s profile (click here to meet me) after you’ve voted for it. You are then be able to count the number of keywords belonging to your categories and obtain the picture’s score for each category along with the “hot or not” rating.

  27. Organic Potatoes said,

    February 28, 2006 at 10:39 am

    “From the first reason, first sentence: ‘Their naive reliance on “grammar.” – is not ‘naive’ a value judgement about the quality of ‘their’ thinking.”

    But it’s not saying they are wrong because they are naive, it’s saying they are wrong (and naive) because they rely on grammar.

    It might be a straw man, though – I don’t know enough about what ‘Chomskians’ believe.

  28. Organic Potatoes said,

    February 28, 2006 at 10:55 am

    Isn’t it an ad hominem argument to suggest that people who criticise Noam Chomsky are prejudiced?

  29. Fi said,

    February 28, 2006 at 1:39 pm

    “It’s strangely addictive, and second only to the dizzying www.ratemypoo.com for interactive image rating pleasure”

    Nah, sorry Dr Ben, nothing is as much fun as kittenwar.com/

  30. imagineyoung said,

    March 1, 2006 at 12:31 am

    ‘Isn’t it an ad hominem argument to suggest that people who criticise Noam Chomsky are prejudiced?’

    Yes:-)

    And never meant to – was commenting on all parties and the nature of prejudice.

    I am kind of thinking that ad hominem and straw man arguments might indicate some prejudice (negative emotional reaction? Ever had a row with a partner?). Those articles still had valid comments and questions about Chomsky’s theories.

  31. Adam said,

    March 1, 2006 at 9:43 am

    Anyone think the Jesus girls were surprisingly hot?! When I get home from work i think I’ll ratemypoo too ;)

    Noam Chomsky has what now to do with rating attractiveness or the attractiveness of faecal matter or miracle cures?? Ok the first reference was a quote but the rest is …. tripe.

  32. Organic Potatoes said,

    March 1, 2006 at 10:20 am

    Is there a site where you can rate the attractiveness of different language theories/theorists?

  33. Squander Two said,

    March 2, 2006 at 9:07 am

    Imagineyoung,

    Go and look up the definition of “ad hominem”. It doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

  34. Sockatume said,

    March 3, 2006 at 1:33 pm

    I seem to have taken a wrong turning on the web, I was looking for Bad Science but I seem to have wandered into the forums of Stupid Politico-Philosophical Internet Argument Monthly.

  35. Marcelo Greco said,

    March 4, 2006 at 3:22 am

    You’re looking for attractive scientists? Check this out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Silvia_Helena_Cardoso.jpg

  36. sockdrawer » Blog Archive » Am I hot prejudiced or not? said,

    March 5, 2006 at 2:20 pm

    [...] An amusing post, Prejudice, Beautiful Prejudice, by Ben Goldacre from his Badscience column in The Guardian newspaper, where he attempts some statistical analysis of the data captured at Am I Hot or Not?. I especially like: …my experimental aspirations were torpedoed when I discovered that the attractiveness scores are blanked out when you search by keyword. I have no idea why, but this sort of problem often occurs when you try to crowbar population datasets into purposes for which they were not originally devised. […] Then I had a thought: […] Why don’t I just email Amihotornot HQ? So I did. But they haven’t got back to me. I think they’ve just assumed I’m some kind of weirdo. [...]

  37. roGER said,

    March 6, 2006 at 2:31 pm

    Years ago, I was lucky enough to be invited to a “proper” Hollywood party, which featured (gulp) some real stars and lots of starlets.

    There was a huge and a very obvious division at this event.

    If you were young, and beautiful and insufferable you were in front of the camera.

    If you were ugly and fat and relatively sane you were on the production side of things.

    Everyone assumed I was on the production side of things… :-(

    - roGER

  38. Roger Macy said,

    March 8, 2006 at 12:31 am

    A correction was published in the Guardian on March 6th that related to this article.

    I have posted it up at post 46 on the ‘It’s a Miracle’ Thread.

  39. Ben Goldacre said,

    March 8, 2006 at 12:49 am

    yup, just seen it, happy to reproduce here, there’s no shame in it, it’s a classic correction, they’re for when an aggrieved individual complains. it said this:

    In our Bad Science column, page 13, February 25, the writer drew attention to an item in the Independent newspaper headed Miracle cures shown to work, which had said incorrectly that doctors had found statistical evidence that some alternative treatments could cure apparently terminal illness. The Guardian story failed to acknowledge that the Independent had published a correction on February 17 which made it clear that the error was not the fault of the bylined author of the article. Apologies.

    i found this puzzling since i deliberately didn’t mention the name of the bylined author who complained, specifically because i thought the error had nothing to do with him. i’m amazed he felt aggrieved, because not only did i not name him, but the independent’s article and the independent’s correction (which appeared four weeks after their “miracle cures” article) have been deleted from their site, so a reader would have a job on their hands finding out who the bylined author was, even if they really wanted to.

    let me be absolutely clear, however, that i didn’t mention the independent’s correction (which appeared four weeks after their “miracle cures” article) for two reasons. firstly, because the independent’s correction (which appeared four weeks after their “miracle cures” article) appeared suddenly in the independent after i blogged about their “miracle cures” error, rang them about it, and emailed the author. however i am quite happy to suspend grandiosity and assume that the independent were going print their correction anyway. if you’re really interested you can watch the chronology of this miracle cures story developing over a few days on the original blog thread here: www.badscience.net/?p=204#comments

    but secondly, and more importantly, i don’t care if the independent did print a correction (which appeared four weeks after their “miracle cures” article) and say it was a “production error”. the story is: they concocted a miracle cures story out of nothing. the story is that all newspapers routinely dress stories up to be something that they’re not, miracle cures or deadly threats. like most readers, i have no interest in whether it’s a “production error”, or one reporter at fault, because even when it is one reporter’s “fault” they’re only reflecting the systemic problems in news reporting of science and health, which are demonstrably so severe that the papers simply aren’t even worth considering as a reliable source of information on those subjects.

  40. Stever said,

    March 8, 2006 at 3:30 pm

    agree completely Ben

  41. FC said,

    March 13, 2006 at 9:21 pm

    Do the Independent or Jeremy Laurance deny that the correction had anything to do with your contacting them? Just been looking through old columns and remembered that happened once before!

    www.badscience.net/?p=177#comment-351

  42. Robert Carnegie said,

    March 20, 2006 at 12:53 pm

    Late note on Chomsky: I think it is an oversimplification that to make money, newspapers print only stories that readers enjoy. For one thing, newspapers print stories that scare the pants off readers, including a lot of media Bad Science. For another, national newspapers often make a loss but serve their owners’ other interests, such as a satellite television business or political disharmony in Europe. I do expect that he knows that, really.

    Of course the first point only indicates that stories will be what readers /want/ to read but not necessarily what they /like/ to read. “The Hidden Killer In Your Home”. “How Paedophiles Use Pets To Trap YOUR Children”. “A Country Thousands Of Miles Away From Us, With No Aeroplanes, Has Dangerous Weapons” – waell, that shades over into the “other interests”.

  43. Eddy said,

    March 20, 2006 at 7:34 pm

    But my experimental aspirations were torpedoed when I discovered that the attractiveness scores are blanked out when you search by keyword. I have no idea why,

    I would offer a hypothesis: amihotornot want you to rate the people your search has found you, so won’t show you their scores until you’ve contributed your opinion to the pile. They naturally don’t want you, when rating someone, to know what their existing scores are – folk are apt to adjusting their opinions in response to what they’ve heard of others’ opinions.

  44. MattLB said,

    March 31, 2006 at 1:05 pm

    Interesting that if you further limit the amihotornot science searches to England-Southeast , one of the women lists this very site as her favourite. It can’t be Ms Bad Science, though, as she claims to be single.

  45. Being Funny « Ishmael Hedar Talks said,

    June 23, 2007 at 6:38 am

    [...] A recent study regarding ‘Prejudices and what we look like’ can be found at www.badscience.net/?p=219. It supports the obvious in that we are attracted to beautiful people, but that is partly because – as those of us in the movie business know – the good are beautiful and the bad are ugly. Disney made a mint out of it; and anyone working in the Animation industry is aware that a Cartoon’s face is its fortune. [...]

  46. jiangjiang said,

    December 8, 2009 at 3:37 am

    ed hardy ed hardy
    ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
    ed hardy shop ed hardy shop
    christian audigier christian audigier
    ed hardy cheap ed hardy cheap
    ed hardy outlet ed hardy outlet
    ed hardy sale ed hardy sale
    ed hardy store ed hardy store
    ed hardy mens ed hardy mens
    ed hardy womens ed hardy womens
    ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids

You must be logged in to post a comment.