Fantastic tales from 9/11

Six year later, the press has figured out that the story of a "survivor" of 9/11 was completely bogus.

Just click on the link above and look at the photo of the woman. It's so obvious that she does not look like someone who graduated from Harvard and Stanford as she claimed.

Yet another example of how the press doesn't really do any sort of investigation of the stories it prints. This is also reminds me of a rule I go by: if someone tells a story that sounds even just a little bit on the fantastic side, he or she is probably lying.

Comments

[Peter]

SO all women who graduate from elite universities are slim and hott, and therefore a woman who claims to be a Harvard and Stanford graduate but is neither slim or hott must be lying? That is rather convoluted "reasoning."

[Devil]

Obviously she is good at imagination. She should choose a career of fiction writing. Who knows. She might be next famous fiction writer as `harry pottery'

[David Alexander]

SO all women who graduate from elite universities are slim and hott, and therefore a woman who claims to be a Harvard and Stanford graduate but is neither slim or hott must be lying? That is rather convoluted "reasoning."

This is anecdotal, but my observations from visiting Wellesley seem to prove the stereotype that all Ivy League women are slim. IIRC, the only non-thin white girl that I saw on campus was my Wellesley Queen, and I suspect her weight loss which she claimed was for "medical reasons" was probably so she could finally get white men to date her and so she could fit in with the rest of the girls on campus.

Maybe she is looking to write for the NY Times. They do some of the best fiction out there today.

[Turambar]

Frankly thats ridiculous to say that she couldn't have graduated from Harvard based on her looks. And I can really forgive the press from demanding proof of her relationship with her dead finance.

But the report says that she isnt scamming any money out of this. So what is she doing for support? They are holding meetings in her apartment in Manhattan so how is she supporting herself? It doesnt sounds like "investment banking" so what is going on here. Are there speaking fees or something?

[Gannon]

SO all women who graduate from elite universities are slim and hott, and therefore a woman who claims to be a Harvard and Stanford graduate but is neither slim or hott must be lying? That is rather convoluted "reasoning."

Frankly thats ridiculous to say that she couldn't have graduated from Harvard based on her looks.

No, it's not impossible but makes it more unlikely that she is lying. I would have my suspicions. The average difference of attractiveness between high class and low class girls is huge.

[harvard and stanford girls look different?]

I had to read that twice to make sure I read it properly. She doesn't LOOK like a girl from an elite school? Am I missing the joke?

[Peter]

It's surely true that women from upscale background tend to look better than those from the wrong side of the tracks. Point is, "tend to" doesn't mean "always." You will surely find some Roissy-esque warpigs on Ivy League campuses and some 10's working at Wal-Mart.

[Gannon]

Beauty is like IQ: the high class has more of both on average, because they have been selecting for it for centuries.

[Jim Beam]

She looks like Michael Moore.

I agree with HS. She looks like one of those "chatterbox ladies" you would commonly find in low-status jobs like Wal-Mart or a call-center office.

You would not find people like that in an Ivy League setting or even a low-level state school.

I wonder why that is? My guess is that the better looking you are, the better people treat you thus, you feel better about yourself and are more likely to pursue collegiate studies and be hopeful about the future?

[Jim Beam]

She looks like Michael Moore.

I agree with HS. She looks like one of those "chatterbox ladies" you would commonly find in low-status jobs like Wal-Mart or a call-center office.

You would not find people like that in an Ivy League setting or even a low-level state school.

I wonder why that is? My guess is that the better looking you are, the better people treat you thus, you feel better about yourself and are more likely to pursue collegiate studies and be hopeful about the future?

[SFG]

I'd argue that beauty tends to substitute for competence in the case of women. Not that women can'tbe competent (ugly women certainly are quite often as they have no choice!) but that pretty women don't have to be. Similarly, between two competent women, the pretty ones will get better grades, recommendations, etc., due to subliminal sexism on the part of male authority figures. So by the time you get to the Ivy League, people who got in have had so many things going for them (and that definitely includes advantages bequeathed by wealthy parents) that statistically, women are likely to be pretty (just as men are to be athletic, the male correlate of beauty).

That still points out that HS should have weakened his argument somewhat, and he would have been right: an ugly woman is statistically unlikely to be an Ivy graduate. But there are no absolutes in life. I went to an Ivy undergrad, and knew a short, chubby, unattractive girl.

I'm not so sure about selection for beauty, Gannon; the same features don't look good on men and women. Traits like height and intelligence that operate on both genders are a different story...

[Gannon]

"Gannon; the same features don't look good on men and women. Traits like height and intelligence that operate on both genders are a different story..."

Why not? Remember, people had tons of children back then. So even if a rich suitor could only choose between the daughters of another rich family, isn't it likely that he would have chosen the prettiest of the siters, while the less fair girls would have married somewhat lower status men or become nuns?
Isn't it possible that the wealthiest men tried to marry the most beautiful girls, although I agree that marriage was also a business. But personal empirical tells me umistakenly that high class girls on average are much prettier than low class girls.

[SFG]

Of course rich guys marry pretty girls. But pretty girls don't always have handsome sons; delicate versus rugged features and all that. And it was the sons who had to keep the money in the family.

Don't assume genetics is everything. Rich people have more time and money to spend on baubles, makeup, exercise, and whatever the fancy of the day is. Don't let the lies of my genetics-does-not-exist colleagues on the left blind you to the fact that it's not everything.

[APH]

"Just click on the link above and look at the photo of the woman. It's so obvious that she does not look like someone who graduated from Harvard and Stanford as she claimed."

^^
That's the kind of stuff I love reading on this blog - Obviously there are outliers, but that's definitely the truth. In the building I work in (in the Financial District) the only fat girls are secretaries...Power women with jobs in finance, investing, and law are thin or average size. There's also some Indian girls downtown that do programming or networking stuff and they certainly don't wake a deuce and a half like this broad.

[David Alexander]

So there are no smart, successful chubby white girls? It seems like my choice is limited to thin and sometimes anorexic smart women or stupid, unsuccessful chubby white girls? :(

[Brandon Berg]

Rich people have more time and money to spend on baubles, makeup, exercise, and whatever the fancy of the day is.

Rich people, unless they're just living off their (or their parents') savings, generally work more than poor people.

[SFG]

A lot of working-class people work two jobs.

Certainly when it comes to jewelry and clothing the rich have the edge. And don't forget we're talking about women, who if rich may be supported by their husbands.

[Gannon]

Don't assume genetics is everything. Rich people have more time and money to spend on baubles, makeup, exercise, and whatever the fancy of the day is. Don't let the lies of my genetics-does-not-exist colleagues on the left blind you to the fact that it's not everything.

I agree with you, environment is important too. But the average difference in beauty between high class and low class girls is very noticeable.

[David Alexander]

I agree with you, environment is important too. But the average difference in beauty between high class and low class girls is very noticeable.

I don't know if this counts for anything, but what I've noticed is that beautiful lower class girls tend to look more sexual than their upper class counterparts. One could describe the difference as a "beautiful porn star" versus a "beautiful model". Both would deemed to be beautiful, but the lower class girl tends to have a raw sexual look that comes out naturally and is exaggerated sometimes by various other traits.

[Amy]

I agree completely with HS about the woman's looks.

When Harvard or Stanford girls are overweight, they are maybe 10 or 20 pounds overweight. They are never 100 pounds overweight with huge fat faces and double chins.

[Peter]

Earlier this year one of the most stunning women you can imagine - a 10, for sure - worked for a while in my building as, believe it or not, one of the evening cleaning staff. A janitor, in other words. She was a tall Hispanic woman in her early 20's who surely could've been a model.

[SFG]

Don't forget that a statement doesn't imply its inverse. We're not saying there are no pretty poor women, just few rich ugly ones. ;)

[Peter]

Don't forget that a statement doesn't imply its inverse. We're not saying there are no pretty poor women, just few rich ugly ones.

Very true.
Actually, the stunning young lady was almost surely not poor, despite having a rather humble occupation. Most office cleaners in New York are unionized, and earn a decent living.

[johnny five]

24 comments, and no one has commented on the utter ridiculousness of the association between Harvard/Stanford and 'hott chix.' Are you guys nuts?

I transferred to Stanford from a no-name state school back in the mid nineties, and it was an unimaginably huge step down in terms of the average hottness of the chix. It reminded me of the stories of how warpigs were the darlings of mining boomtowns like Gillette, WY - okay, maybe it wasn't THAT bad, but plenty of chix who wouldn't have turned a single head at No-Name State were being pursued and treated like beauty queens at Stanford.

[Rob]

Johnny,

What were the sex ratios at no name and Standford? It stands to reason that much less attractive girls will be pursued when the sex ratio is 50/50 vs two girls for every boy.

[SFG]

You're thinking of MIT. ;) Stanford's like any other Ivy, just on the West Coast. :)

Were the chicks at my college hot? Given my nerd fetish, I'm not qualified to answer, but perhaps HS, who went to Penn, may chime in. Macho guys who had transferred from state schools said the same thing, though, so there may be a differential here.

It could be that rich women are ugly but never fat.

[Peter]

Stanford's undergraduate gender breakdown is currently 52% male/48% female. That is somewhat more male-dominated than at most colleges, so it's possible that the less-attractive chix are in relatively higher demand than usual.