I think this a myth that stems from a sort of defense mechanism the less attractive develop.
I used to believe it when I was in school, but as I got older I began to notice
that good looking people usually have better personalities than unattractive people.
You could be right, but there is way too much to investigate here. I would have to evaluate all of the studies referenced in these links, and that’s unlikely to yield anything conclusive. Even in the summary of them there are qualifying comments like
the symmetrical ones garner significantly higher ratings of attractiveness, dominance, sexiness, and health, and are perceived to be more desirable as potential mates
So are they good mates, or just perceived to be? You would need extended studies.
That does not surprise me at all. From your logic republicans usually have better personalities.
Your experience and mine could not be more different. It lends credence to the many worlds theory of quantum physics. Perhaps when I have lived as long as you have I will come to your level of understanding of superficiality.
Fair enough, but this dorky answer could be proof of my point.
That is a totally different question.
The point of this discussion is that what we consider physically attractive is not nurture, it’s nature. And the Leftist concept of attractiveness is wrong, most likely because Leftists are not attractive themselves.
That is so middle-school.
That’s three things. The first one could be true, but nothing you’ve posted is definitive. The second is a stretch and don’t see much in your links about it. The third is way out there.
Please tell us. What is the Leftist concept of attractiveness.
So are you speaking universally wrong,
Or simply wrong in yo head?
Besides, as a lefty I have to wonder,
what do you have against nice fit bodies and pleasant faces with pleasant personalities and attitudes - and a touch of intelligence for some icing?
Then I look at professional models, or those MAGAs, now neither of those are very attractive, to me. 
Most people would look at this thread I started and find it bizarre that you’re asking me what I have against good looking people.
Reread the first post.
Your denial of reality is admirable in a weird way.
Maybe, but most of humanity cares about attractiveness.
Many things in nature are about attractiveness. It is another survival mechanism favored by natural selection. This is especially apparent in the specialization of “attractive” properties for being recognized via vision, scent, taste, touch, and sound in biology.
The greatest flower experts are the pollinating insects that live in symbiosis with flowering plants and learn to recognize the species they prefer by all these sensory “attractors”.
Flowering plants are dependent on pollinators for reproduction. Pollinators, such as bugs, birds, and mammals, help to transfer pollen from one flower to another. Plants utilize a number of methods to entice pollinators.
These methods include producing sweet smelling fragrances and sugary nectar. While some plants deliver on the promise of sweet success, others employ trickery and bait and switch tactics to achieve pollination. The plant gets pollinated, but the insect is not rewarded with the promise of food, or in some cases romance.
You say this doesn’t exist. But it does. While the world you look at appears to be very superficial, you ignore - at least in your posts - everything else.
Of course there are people who are superficial. Many. Advertising depends on this fact. But superficiality by definition is shallow thinking. The world does appear to be painted with this veneer. But to assume there is nothing beneath the veneer is, well, shallow. You have to completely ignore the tragedies that people experience either first hand or witness in others that deepen their world view.
When people experience hardship they tend to gain empathy. Empathy deepens a person’s world view. It causes them to feel more for others and to want to help others.
Now, if as your posts imply, good-looking people are treated better than most, then perhaps they don’t gain depth in their world view. Perhaps they ignore the hardships of others or believe those hardships are their own fault. These people are likely not to gain any liberal values.
In your OP you ask, “So what direction do you Leftists take now?”
My answer is, we will continue in the direction we reason will help the most people.
Yes, hardship can make us more empathic, not to mention more realistic about what hardship is. For example, unattractiveness is not a hardship except in extreme cases like The Elephant Man, and the unattractive don’t demonstrate an unusual level of goodness. Nor do leftists, although they think they do.
Learn from Natural Selection. The natural world is beautiful because in nature survival depends on “individual selection” and as with any “choice”, the individual will always select for “symmetry” and “ability”, i.e. exterior evidence of strength, fitness, physical skills .
Nature selects for these assets and therefore it can be used as proof of evolution toward “durable excellence”.
I am very well versed with natural selection. This is not that.
Edit to add: It’s complicated
That doesn’t make sense.
Where was it stated that unattractive people demonstrate an unusual level of goodness?
It’s nature selecting for survival based on brutal, mindless laws. Nature doesn’t decide to enforce gravity one day and not another. Whatever it is, it is not the type of selection humans think of when they are choosing a breakfast cereal.
