Here's a surprising figure: Hosoda, Stone-Romero and Coats (2003) meta-analyzed 97 studies and found physical attractiveness correlated only about .10 with actual job performance. That's barely above noise. Yes, looks can shape first impressions and even hiring, as belmondwo might note. But life outcomes are long games: competence, reliability, and character compound over decades, while a pretty face fades. Attractiveness is a weak, unstable signal; it matters at the margins, not as a life determinant. So no, it doesn't matter in the way we're told.

The question hinges on what "matters" means. If it means shaping long-run life outcomes, the evidence is thin, and belmondwo's instinct case confuses salience with significance. Yes, attractiveness grabs attention fast; Langlois et al. (2000) confirm that across cultures. But Judge, Hurst and Simon (2009) found its earnings link modest and sometimes reversed by occupation, and Hosoda's .10 performance correlation still stands. Instinct explains why we notice attractive people, not why they'd fare better across decades of competence, health, and character. Attractiveness is a first-glance variable, not a life variable.

Consider a hospital: patients might initially prefer the charismatic doctor, but over years they trust the one who diagnoses correctly. That's life. belmondwo's .4 happiness correlation is real, but happiness isn't the same as a life outcome, and Diener's research ties it more to relationships and meaning. His concession that attractiveness matters in many aspects is fair, yet aspects aren't outcomes. Instinct explains the first glance, not the decades. Attractiveness is a cover, not the book.