Think for a bit about how extremely improbable it is for an athlete to be the best at what he does and also the handsomest man in his sport. By chance this shouldn't have ever happened, but it's actually common.pic.twitter.com/4Bf46UYu5U
-
Reversing causality perhaps? It’s hard to be a white American in basketball, and being good looking might mean getting more referee calls and tolerance from teammates. Patrick Ewing was a #1 draft pick; Reggie Miller was a Hall of Famer. But also Hayward isn’t that good looking?
Oh come on, this is too much, give up this doomed unholy crusade against the handsome! I know that being good looking isn't as important as having a Patrick Ewing's 7'6" reach, but if we had a skilled quant examine this from every angle do you really think this will be chance?
-
-
What’s the precise hypothesis for the quant to measure and how do you separate confounding factors? E.g., handsome people are more likely to be leaders, good QBs are good leaders, QBs will always be the stars. Once you say “Well, Ewing had skills” this is a just-so story.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.