Kotaku mentions a study which finds a correlation between attractiveness and IQ.
Let’s leave aside questions of the validity of the study and assume, for the moment, that it’s results are indicative of a real world correlation. Also, we’ll leave aside question of definition (what is “attractive” or “intelligent”); I can guess they used some attractiveness rating system for the participants and then issued IQ tests or looked up publicly available IQ scores.
Instead, let’s examine hypotheses explaining this correlation. The authors, effectively, make a causal claim; specifically, that intelligent males tend to be successful, attracting attractive females to mate with them, which then tends to produce both attractive and intelligent children. This is…
Well, I was going to say something diplomatic, but fuck it. What a retarded explanation. Seriously, they basically just asserted that intelligence IS attractive. Sure, they draped “success” on the intellect to pretty it up, but seriously, that’s what they said. They then managed to infuse the entire explanation with a pretty blatantly sexist overtone. No mention that hot guys might be attracted to successful women, nope.
Also, it fails to mention that, in pretty basic evolutionary theory less successful traits tend to go away or find new niches wherein they are successful. Basically, they have put forth that the by definition giant chunk of humans who aren’t smart/attractive somehow continue to breed just fine without these qualities. They aren’t being out produced. How is this?
The real failure here is that this correlation could mean fucking anything. It could mean attractive children grow up into attractive adults, and attractive children tend to get more attention in school, making them better, ultimately, at taking tests. Or attractive kids are more confident (by dint of their attractiveness), which improves test taking. Or fucking intelligence shines through your eyes and creates an aura of hotness (so a purely causal description).
But why is it then, that we have so many stereotypes of cute, dumb people? Is this because cute people stand out in the cultural memory and society just forgets the hordes of average, ugly folks (who get married and continue to breed like rabbits, irregardless of the cute smart people shacking up off in their own world)? Is it because we see hot people, expect (or hope) they’re smart and are continually disappointed when they don’t met our expectations and this stands out? Conversely, are we all somewhat surprised when someone ugly is smart?
“What a retarded explanation. Seriously, they basically just asserted that intelligence IS attractive. Sure, they draped “success” on the intellect to pretty it up, but seriously, that’s what they said. ”
Is it retarded because you’re so serious about it, or for some other reason? If the latter, you neglected to mention that other reason. To me, the hypothesis that intelligence is attractive is a reasonable, non-retarded hypothesis.
“They then managed to infuse the entire explanation with a pretty blatantly sexist overtone. No mention that hot guys might be attracted to successful women, nope.”
Studies have shown that women pay more attention to success, men to looks, when considering mates. is that sexist? Is mentioning that men are larger and have higher testosterone levels sexist? It feels like you are using a definition for ‘sexist’ that reasonable people are used to, but abhor.
“Also, it fails to mention that, in pretty basic evolutionary theory less successful traits tend to go away or find new niches wherein they are successful. Basically, they have put forth that the by definition giant chunk of humans who aren’t smart/attractive somehow continue to breed just fine without these qualities. They aren’t being out produced. How is this?”
You have conflated evolutionary success with contemporary societal success, producing fatal equivocation. Consider the movie “Idiocrasy” as a an example wherein this conflation is quite exploded.
Your penultimate paragraph offers several reasonable alternative hypotheses, although your repeated use of the word “fucking” therein make them seem less reasonable at first glance. It would be much more useful for you to try to determine what about this subject has you so angry, than to offer these obvious alternative hypotheses. Imho.
“But why is it then, that we have so many stereotypes of cute, dumb people?” I have a hypothesis about this, that I fear will anger you as much as the earlier one. To wit, people who are both smart and attractive avoid interaction with the masses, sifting themselves out adroitly. The smart but ugly, and the attractive but dim, fall through the cracks of this sifting process, perpetuating the stereotype in the reject heap they fall back into. Perhaps you spend all day hanging out with rich, intelligent and beautiful CEO’s and supermodels, despite the fact that all of society is just one giant obvious system of stratification run by successful people to keep them away from everyone else. Hmm, it’s like the hypothesis of the study’s authors could have been obtained without the statistical study they did, just by opening their eyes to look at how society is run… perhaps the fact that you already know this subconsciously is why the study has you so angry?
The actual “research” article is ridiculous. They make four core assumptions (straight from the actual article):
Assumption 1. More intelligent men are more likely to occupy higher status than less intelligent men.
Assumption 2. Higher-status men are more likely to mate with more beautiful women than lower-
status men.
Assumption 3. Intelligence is heritable, such that sons and daughters of more intelligent men are more
intelligent than sons and daughters of less intelligent men.
Assumption 4. Beauty is heritable, such that sons and daughters of more beautiful women are more
beautiful than sons and daughters of less beautiful women.
The authors then state that if assumptions 1-4 are true, then the fact that beautiful people are more intelligent “logically” (emphasized by the authors) follows. Nowhere in their discussion of the first three assumptions (or their references therein) is physical attractiveness even mentioned, leaving one to wonder what sort of logic they are applying.
The study was released in 2004 so I’m annoyed that no apparent effort was made by the reporter to look at citing articles. One of which, from the parent journal Intelligence, addresses the spurious claims in detail. The authors come to the (polite) conclusion “This paper argues that KK’s claim is theoretically suspect and that the evidence that is claimed to support it is, in fact, weak and inconclusive.” I have tried to find a reply by the authors, but so far haven’t and am content in my judgment of their research.
Oh and in regards to cute and dumb people, there’s this wonderful footnote
“Critics have noted that people have the opposite stereotype that extremely attractive women are unintelligent. We do not believe such a stereotype exists, however. We instead believe that the stereotype is that blonde women and women with large breasts are unintelligent, both of which, just like the stereotype that beautiful people are intelligent, may statistically be true. In the ancestral environment without any artificial means of altering appearance (such as hair dyes and plastic surgery), both light blonde hair (Ridley 1993, pp. 293 – 295) and large firm breasts (Marlowe 1998) were honest indicators of youth, and thus” naı¨vete´ and inexperience, which can sometimes be interpreted as a lack of intelligence.”
Hahahaha.
That footnote is awesome.
Ok, now that I’ve read the abstract and that footnote I have to admit, I’m angry too. Not that they are sexist, but just at the general idiocy of their statements. I still believe that beauty and intelligence are genetically correlated, although it seems highly likely that beauty is more heritable than what we tend to measure as intelligence. I would contend that the single dominant reason that inherited beauty is not stereotypically later expressed is environmentally induced obesity, whereas the environment shapes the developing intellect through stimulation and nutrition in countless different ways, leading to an overestimation of the genetic impact on intelligence relative to other factors. I would even go so far as to say that abstract deserves the label retarded…but even a retarded clock is right X number of times a year, where X is found by multiplying (365/1440) into how many minutes slow per day the clock is
guess you’re just dumb, ugly and envious of perfect people like me who got acknowledged with that article.
One top Starcraft player said they don’t have any overweight people at the highest levels of play. Because they don’t have the mental energy to do it.
Illness is unattractive, and makes it harder to think.
Excessive overweight is unattractive, and makes it harder to think.
Diabetes and other body malfunctions disrupt thought as well.
Attractiveness and intelligence are both positively correlated with BEING HEALTHY.
For everyone who is healthy, there may very well be no correlation at all between intelligence and beauty.
Many people in America have serious health problems.