The Power of Attraction: How Beauty Influences Startup Investments

Same is true for interviews. As a woman who isn't super attractive, nor do I really try to be, some interviewers just have a weird expression when they meet me, and I know it's over from there. Just had this happen last week interviewing for a job where I've done PRs on the tools they were using and have been using the tools they were using for years. By the end of the interview he said he enjoyed talking with me but they won't be moving forward. He said I would struggle in the job due to technology but did not ask any technical questions.

It is what it is I guess. But I also wouldn't want to work for such shallow people either. Note, the person was found on the HN who's hiring, so it's not just random people but also what I'd consider more thoughtful people who should know better as well.

> "It is now up to the venture capital scene to become aware of this challenge and take appropriate measures to create a fairer and more balanced investment environment."

Won't the VCs' thinking be that the same cortisol-boosting effects on them will also apply to other people with whom the founders interact, increasing likelihood of startup success?

Race is a big factor whether folks on HN/YC wants to admit it or not.

That link has 100% broken scrolling on my device. The actual journal link works better: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01492063241249699

If you know that attractive founders will do better down the road at other rounds/sales/etc, then it is logical to give preference to and invest earlier in such founders. Blame the game, at least in the large part.

It's already well-known that attractive women also do well at sales.

This is the same thing.

What's actually needed by investors is knowing whether this is correct in economic terms, i.e. whether it predicts who will ultimately be IPO'd successfully (make money for VC's and friends then bombs) or whether the company ultimately goes on to be be a win for pension funds and (pushing it to the next level) is ultimately better for the planet and those who live on it.

Definitely something investors should be aware of so that they can further optimize their decision making.

However, scores of physical attractiveness are going to be strongly influenced by the character & charisma of the speaker. And I think it’s undeniable that a highly charismatic and compelling speaker should have a better chance of success in leadership, public relations, and sales.

I would prefer to see independent readings of attractiveness based on photographs alone, so that the attractiveness score is purely visual. Still visual attractiveness may count for something in later success but I would agree with the authors that in an ideal world, we’d be blind to someone’s physical characteristics because that is something you’re born with.

Also true for male founders. Perusing many of the companies in any YC batch, the founders, especially the nontechnical ones, appear to be far more attractive than average.

It's a mixture of beauty bias (even the smart YC evaluators are not immune), the fact that more attractive people are more willing to take risks because they have a higher chance of ending up on their feet in the event of failure, and the eugenic "smart thus rich/high status dad/mom can marry hotter spouse" effect compounding over generations. Often YC founders come from privilege and physical appearance is certainly a correlate.

So... hire the most attractive pitch people possible? The goal of any startup is to survive. It's get the investment dollars or close up shop. The practical outcome of this article is for startups to recognize the effect and maximize it to their benefit. Onus is on the investors to stop acting like pigs. They should recognize when they are being played. Just look at those who backed Holmes/Theranos, largely older men like Murdoch, Ellison, and Kissinger. They should have spent more time reading and less time listening to pitch people.

I mean it's human nature. Much like how most CEOs of Fortune 500s are over 6ft tall (https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/2d8jwd/til_t...), youre not going to correct for this.

If the decider doesnt have many data points, they're going to find points to support their hunch. This person works out super hard, the did a marathon, super good at chess, being hot will open some doors, anything goes.

The reality is most of the deals are made through friendly intros, and vet you for a certain lingo and overall fitness to be fundable.

Good luck correcting this culture. Are you going to evaluate the deals you missed, and go "eh to be fair the guy was a slob and came from a no name school, and we under estimated grit / timing"?. It's not like the data that shows youre bad at data driven evaluation is going to sway someone who isn't data minded.

“The participants were randomly shown a video pitch of the same startup idea, but with some presented by a more attractive actress and others by a less attractive one.”

What objective measure of female beauty have they used? I thought it was a basic axiom of progressive thought that no such thing exists.

It feels like this sort of thing is heavily ideological. A classic "nerd world vs. jock world" thing. But the reality is somewhere in the middle.

Basically, if you take the axiom that physical appearance and genetic qualities should not matter at all, then we need to minimise its' influence.

But you could also easily make the argument that beauty is a proxy for a lot of things that we _do_ want to maximise. It makes sense to reward those that are beautiful, fertile, strong, etc.

Just not above all else. You wouldn't pick a romantic partner, or a friend, or a colleague _solely_ on those qualities, but to not incorporate them at all seems odd.

I mean, on a basic level, you have to be able to get on with your colleagues. A lot of people would find it difficult to get on with someone who's ugly, doesn't shower, has no social skills, etc, even if their code is great and their stock picks too. It's not arbitrary.

Isn't that an advantage rather than a disadvantage for female startup entrepreneurs?

Cursory glance at any MAANG recruiters on LinkedIn will tell you that

Why do we need a study to explain common sense to adults?