Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Beefcake, Jan 17, 2011.
Finally! Proof that I'm a friggin genius!
To h*ll with those lying IQ tests I took.
Yeah, very interesting. Will want to see the methodology on this one.
This study is perhaps a good one, so I'm not challenging it, but as a mathematician, I have to say that the literally hundreds/thousands of really brilliant people I have met over the years in a variety of fields from math to literature to computer science have, generally speaking, been pretty darn ugly. In fact, I'd say less than 10% were what you'd call attractive. Of the many attractive people I've met, very few were really smart.
To give you an idea, I am a guy who has slightly "above average" looks. By no means am I even close to model quality, but I am blessed with certain features that people seem to like. Now, being just slightly above average in the looks department has made me a freaking supermodel in the circles I currently run in. It's quite amusing actually, because in the gay and figure skating worlds I was/am 'meh', but in the academic world people go, "Wow." It's pretty hilarious. (I know it sounds like I'm bragging, but I'm really not. If you knew me, you would think it was pretty funny, too. )
Of course, all of that is anecdotal and essentially worthless, but this is certainly one of those studies that is bound to be a bit controversial .
At my high school the attractive, athletic and popular people were also the smartest. And they didn't peak in high school. Most went on to be quite successful.
My anecdotal evidence would suggest attractive people are, by and large, on the high end of normal intelligence with very good social skills. This is the trait set to reach max financial and social success. But I think that super intelligence (like curing cancer intelligence) is not the domain of the attractive.
Once beautiful actress met a famous Irish Playwright, George Bernard Shaw. She told him that if they were to marry and have a child, then the child would have her beauty and his brain.
Shaw, known for his sharp humour, bowed and said without losing a moment, “Yes, Madam, that would be wonderful. But I am afraid what would happen if the child were to get your brain and my looks!"
I guess that my point is, that while I have met lots of people who were both beautiful and smart, I have met even more people who were only beautiful...
I have never heard this before. But good for those of us who are blessed both ways in both looks and brains. Average folks like me got to work a little harder at both traits.
This is what I've seen too. If you figure intelligence as a bell curve, those residing on the far right (very high intelligence) are not a pretty people.
I'd also like to see the methodology of this study, to see if they corrected for the automatic bias of testers toward more attractive people. (Other studies have shown that teachers and employers give more attractive people higher grades and salaries for work identical to that of less attractive people.....so if a hottie and a nottie are being IQ tested by a person, the hottie will probably be gifted a few points here and there.)
It's possible to support almost any claim with supposedly scientific research.
I find this study highly questionable and also wonder about the methodology as well as researcher bias.
Most likely attractive and less attractive people are equally spread out across the IQ spectrum (barring mentally handicapped people with concurring physical deformities). This is rather obvious by just looking around you.
Ok, we already know how to measure intelligence. But, how do you measure beauty? I thought it was subjective.....or in the eyes of the beholder......or some such crap. How do you determine if you fall into this category? Or don't? I consider myself to be of above average intelligence and beauty, but I'm not obtuse enough to believe that everyone feels that way about me, or themselves.
More doors open for beautiful people. They probably have better chance of higher education, and hence higher IQ.
Exactly. And dare I say, most people would be attractive if they cleaned up and polished their appearance. Packaging is a huge part of modern day attractiveness. A true natural beauty, like IMO Natalie Portman who's stunning without makeup and in sweats (and is very intelligent to boot! ) is very very rare.
Most people who are considered very attractive are quite plain when they are not done up. So I'm not taking any stock in this so-called study.
I think it depends where they are measuring success. Maybe in industry (and in certain fields), but in academia....
ITA, as a math student. One of these days I'm going to study if there's a correlation between being a math professor and wearing a huge beard, because it certainly seems like there is one! I wonder if it is that the brilliant people do not care about their appearance - since they have more pressing things - and so even if they are quite beautiful, it is a little hidden.
From my observation, in some (maybe most, but not all) academic fields, there's kind of a culture of looking as if one doesn't care about one's appearance. And yet... there are certain fashion standards, depending on the field and on the university, and so many people in those fields tend to follow those norms that it's obvious that they do care about how they look. Maybe not about being perceived as "attractive", but they do dress according to the norms of their profession, even if they aren't conscious of having made that choice.
I saw this on GMA this morning. I suspect there is some evolutionary validity as good looking people are likely to get good (read intelligent) mates. What would skew the data are those whose looks are artifically enhanced. So, don't fall for the "trust me, I'm smart" line unless you know that nose, those lips, breasts, and face were born that way.
I can see that. There is certainly a "professorly" image that many people want to emulate and I can't blame them. And then there are those who don't care if they seem professorly, those are my favorite professors!
Mine too! My British Lit professor was on par with Samantha Jones and Stifler's mom in terms of cougarness. She had the most particular strut that highlighted her barely contained breasts.
She was freaking brilliant.
That is all.
A new sales rep walked into our lab today and the grad student's first thought was, "Why is there a hot guy in the lab? He's not nerdy enough to work here!"
That's interesting. I've often read that attractive people are more likely to be perceived as intelligent and talented, but now the conclusion is that they really are? It does make some sense, though. If intelligent men are more likely to be successful, then they're more likely to marry beautiful women, and both of those characteristics may be passed down.
Here's what I'd like to know:
1) Is there really a direct correlation between "success" and IQ?
2) To what degree are traits such as attractiveness and intelligence inheritable?
The next study will have to be on whether the artificially enhanced are smarter too.
There's a lot of truth to that. Reminds me of a professor--well, technically he was an "instructor"--that I had one time. He was pretty scary-looking, with hair past his shoulders. Anyway, the first week of class, he walked into the room, and then immediately asked, "Is this my class?" Someone responded, "Yes." To which he replied, "Whew, that's good, because people are always telling me I have no class."
I've heard of the halo effect too but this is a fun little study.
Well as someone who's worked with lots and lots of models I'd tend to disagree
I'm doomed to be doggy and dumb! (I can live with that)
It says beautiful people have higher IQs, not that they are all geniuses. Quite frankly, I'm not impressed with anybody with a 111-114 IQ. An average IQ is 100, and most people could not tell if somebody is any smarter than average until they have an IQ of 120.
I don't think "IQ" is a particularly meaningful measure of intelligence. It's obvious that there are many different kinds of intelligence, and until the past century, there was never such a simplistic tool as "IQ" to quantify this characteristic. Qualities such as creativity can never truly be quantified. How well would geniuses such as Frédéric Chopin or Thomas Edison have scored on an IQ test?
A few years ago, I read an article that mentioned that modern society is obsessed with quantifiable measures of success. It went on to say that if we cannot quantify what we truly care about, then we start caring about what we can quantify. I have to agree.
I have an IQ somewhere in the "above average" range but don't particularly consider myself to be intelligent. I agree that people don't come off as smarty pants until scoring in the "superior" range.
What I'm curious about is how they measured attractiveness and how many people were involved in the study. If they had participants rate each other, then that sounds like a tedious task.
My theory is that attractive people tend to be well off financially (A), adding to their hotness and giving them a cushion to buy plastic. Financially stable people are more likely to seek an education (B). Educated people score better on IQ tests (C). So based on (my flawed) transitive logic, attractiveness (A) is correlated with IQ (C).
I do think there is a circular effect at work.
-Pretty kids get more attention and opportunities, thereby increasing their dendrite connections.
-People who are fit and athletic have the physical and mental advantages that go along with that good health. (Fit people are going to be perceived as more attractive.)
-Conversely, people who are not on top of things mentally may not be taking advantage of any natural beauty they possess. (We might not recognize someone who is naturally attractive if they aren’t accentuating it.)
This is an important point. IQ test scores can be augmented by education, particularly the non-timed portions.