I get your point and I'm with you. We shouldn't judge people by their looks and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But, sadly, people do judge others using superficial metrics. After all, it's often the only thing to go by when you're just meeting someone for the first time.

In any case, you can substitute beauty for any other shallow attractiveness measure like wealth, fame, social status, etc. I could just as well have talked about rich jerks, poor jerks, rich sweeties, and poor sweeties. Similarly, you can substitute jerkness for any other negative trait, such as laziness or tendency for drama. The argument works the same way.

The article is really about the fact that if you have 500 strangers standing in front of you and you have to choose a handful to go on a date with, you have to apply some filter. You can't go on a date with 500 people after all. So, whatever your filter is (and it doesn't need to be looks) you will be left with a skewed sample--unless you do true random sampling and just go on dates with random people.

Thanks for reading!