In a study involving hypothetical job applicants, those candidates described as being «underdogs» — i.e., they were unlikely to get a particular job due to unfair circumstances beyond their control (e.g., their application had been misplaced
by a secretary)-- were rated as especially physically attractive and desirable to date compared to candidates who were (a) unfairly advantaged (i.e., had a friend pressuring the employer to hire them) or (b) were unlikely to get the job due to their own
incompetence (i.e., they failed to
follow directions on the job application).
In my opinion RECO should have two things, and two things only, in its sights, and they are these: 1) Severely limiting the number of newbie entrants onto the playing field via enforcing strict standards to be met prior to registration, and: 2) Increasing the number of registrants being permanently shown the door upon displayed proof of
incompetence and / or malicious malpractice, not just
by way of researching complaints from consumers, but
by way of never - ending random spot checks / audits and
follow - up calls designed to reach out to and find consumers (and registrants) who have had recent negative experiences with registrants which point to registrant - centric conflict - of - interest behind - the - scenes behaviour.