PDA

View Full Version : Why beautiful people are more intelligent



Agrippa
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 06:49 PM
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4CHGFN7-1&_coverDate=06%2F02%2F2004&_alid=176870214&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6546&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000022258&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=464575&md5=a21a152ca2fbad5d180ed092a4a6fa31

PDF:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6W4M-4CHGFN7-1-1&_cdi=6546&_orig=search&_coverDate=06%2F02%2F2004&_qd=1&_sk=999999999&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkzS&_acct=C000022258&_version=1&_userid=464575&md5=24c71962ddd250b13225864d92269fbf&ie=f.pdf


Empirical studies demonstrate that individuals perceive physically attractive others to be more intelligent than physically unattractive others. While most researchers dismiss this perception as a "bias" or "stereotype," we contend that individuals have this perception because beautiful people indeed are more intelligent. The conclusion that beautiful people are more intelligent follows from four assumptions. (1) Men who are more intelligent are more likely to attain higher-status than men who are less intelligent. (2) Higher-status men are more likely to mate with more beautiful women than lower-status men. (3) Intelligence is heritable. (4) Beauty is heritable. If all four assumptions are empirically true, then the conclusion that beautiful people are more intelligent is logically true, making it a proven theorem. We present empirical evidence for each of the four assumptions. While we concentrate on the relationship between beauty and intelligence in this paper, our evolutionary psychological explanation can account for a correlation between physical attractiveness and any other heritable trait that helps men attain higher-status (such as aggression and social skills).

Agrippa
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 06:53 PM
I would add that genes and condition which constitute a healthy body are usually good for the intellectual development as well.

The chance that physically defected people are not as intelligent than physically healthy people is just quite high.
Furthermore beautiful people are usually one of the more healthy ones with certain exceptions.

Nordhammer
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 09:48 PM
Empirical studies demonstrate that individuals perceive physically attractive others to be more intelligent than physically unattractive others. While most researchers dismiss this perception as a "bias" or "stereotype," we contend that individuals have this perception because beautiful people indeed are more intelligent. The conclusion that beautiful people are more intelligent follows from four assumptions. (1) Men who are more intelligent are more likely to attain higher-status than men who are less intelligent. (2) Higher-status men are more likely to mate with more beautiful women than lower-status men. (3) Intelligence is heritable. (4) Beauty is heritable. If all four assumptions are empirically true, then the conclusion that beautiful people are more intelligent is logically true, making it a proven theorem. We present empirical evidence for each of the four assumptions. While we concentrate on the relationship between beauty and intelligence in this paper, our evolutionary psychological explanation can account for a correlation between physical attractiveness and any other heritable trait that helps men attain higher-status (such as aggression and social skills).

I agree there is a correlation, also considering that a lot of the perception of beauty comes from symmetry, and biological/genetic health gives better symmetry and also a higher IQ. However, this is mostly applicable within racial groups. For instance, even though Mongoloids may have a higher average IQ than Caucasoids, I regard them as far uglier in comparison. Also the same with Jews, much higher average IQ (supposedly), but on the average much uglier because of their specific traits.

As time goes on though, we see that nonNordish men marry Nordish women at very high rates for their beauty. Such is the case with Jews, who according to statistics, now outmarry at a 50% rate, and mostly with Nordish women from my observation (Sigrun posted about how it happened with her aunts). It's tragic.

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 09:58 PM
Well, this certainly seems to be the case with moi. :halo

Nordhammer
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 10:14 PM
Well, this certainly seems to be the case with moi. :halo

Beauty and intelligence, for sure! Also because of better genetic health, which correlates with beauty and IQ, you will live longer. Although hitting the sauce too hard may influence that.

Agrippa
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 10:23 PM
I agree there is a correlation, also considering that a lot of the perception of beauty comes from symmetry, and biological/genetic health gives better symmetry and also a higher IQ. However, this is mostly applicable within racial groups. For instance, even though Mongoloids may have a higher average IQ than Caucasoids, I regard them as far uglier in comparison. Also the same with Jews, much higher average IQ (supposedly), but on the average much uglier because of their specific traits.

As time goes on though, we see that nonNordish men marry Nordish women at very high rates for their beauty. Such is the case with Jews, who according to statistics, now outmarry at a 50% rate, and mostly with Nordish women from my observation (Sigrun posted about how it happened with her aunts). It's tragic.

If you would think sociobiological and from the view of "egoistic genes" you could say they want to keep their high level of intelligence and get more beautiful.
Although its much more probable that they are just horny and want to "look better", with an higher status with that beautiful women. Like a socially accepted and by all adored playboy.
Like Kissinger who is a typical example of the "ugly Jew" of a degenerated Armenid form (not all Armenids are physically degenerated).


I agree that it is something which is race related in that sence that you know better what is attractive and healthy in your own group, the people you are used to see.

For me East Asians are not much more ugly than Europeans, of course they arent as attractive on average as well.
And even Jews are not all unattractive although its interesting that sometimes the ugliest Jews are the "most intelligent" ones.
Seem to be like this particular group INSIDE the Jewish folk breaks many rules, even in biology.

Nordhammer
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 10:38 PM
If you would think sociobiological and from the view of "egoistic genes" you could say they want to keep their high level of intelligence and get more beautiful.

True, most people are egotistic these days and only care about themselves, so what do they care if they ruin thousands or 10s of thousands of years of divergent evolution. As long as the female can be pampered, live in a nice house, and buy expensive jewelry.


I agree that it is something which is race related in that sence that you know better what is attractive and healthy in your own group, the people you are used to see.

Yes, but also, even less intelligent Caucasoids are regarded as more beautiful than more intelligent nonCaucasoids, by nonCaucasoids.


For me East Asians are not much more ugly than Europeans

Is that your egoistic genes speaking? ;)

Actually I think a lot of the reason Asian women marry Nordish men so much is because they too want to pass on more beauty to their children. Asian women regard fair skin and fair features in men much more highly than Caucasoid or Negroid women it seems (many of them have stated this themselves). I personally have experienced this myself from Asian women, but never the same with white women. While most white women seem to regard blond, blue-eyed men as feminine and less attractive (even though ironically they want to be that themselves), Asian women see it as exotic and beautiful.



Seem to be like this particular group INSIDE the Jewish folk breaks many rules, even in biology.

I've noticed that too, very peculiar. Must be the inbreeding on top of the already ugly Jewish traits. Alan Greenspan and Lenin come to mind. Lenin's father looks extremely Jewish, somewhat Negroid too. Looks like he could star in Planet of the Apes and not even have to wear makeup.

Agrippa
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 10:46 PM
The "egoistic gene" theory means that we want things, we dont even know of and thats the only reason because we exist - to go on with our genes.

Of course self-domesticated humans have still instincts but these can be abused and often going in the wrong direction.

I think you are right with all you said.

But extreme Europid features, like I stated in a posting long time ago, arent beautiful at all, neither for Europids or non-Europids.

F.e. very big nose.

But Europids are on average nearer to the "modern ideal" of a progressive human than most, if not all other groups.
The difference to some (f.e. Sinids) ist just slight but still present.

This ideal is more or less "raceless", but racial types can be nearer to it or further away.

BTW I edited my post above - I think Kissinger is a good example for the "ugly Jew" and his behaviour towards Nordid women.

Nordhammer
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 11:30 PM
The "egoistic gene" theory means that we want things, we dont even know of and thats the only reason because we exist - to go on with our genes.

But it should be in the context of "go on with our genes" in the racial sense, not just reproducing ourselves in any old combination. That's the problem, seeing ourselves outside the collective, being a disconnected set of genes, and all that matters is our pleasure in life and reproducing with anyone irrespective of ancestry. We are sentient beings afterall, we should make responsible decisions.


But extreme Europid features, like I stated in a posting long time ago, arent beautiful at all, neither for Europids or non-Europids.

F.e. very big nose.

I'm referring to Europeans, not Asiatics and mixed "Europids" like North Africans and Indians. NonEuropeans are definitely the exception.


But Europids are on average nearer to the "modern ideal" of a progressive human than most, if not all other groups.
The difference to some (f.e. Sinids) ist just slight but still present.

This ideal is more or less "raceless", but racial types can be nearer to it or further away.

Europeans are the ideal, without a doubt. I don't see how you can call this raceless.

Nordhammer
Thursday, June 3rd, 2004, 11:41 PM
You say Sinids are very close to Europeans as an ideal race or ideal set of racial traits? I don't see it personally.

BTW, are you Chris at Dienekes' site? I noticed the style was similar to yours, like using "^^".

Chris posted this:

Typical Leptosomic Sinids:
http://stevegarufi.com/china2.jpg
http://www.jacekphoto.com/china/chinese_people03.jpg
http://people.kde.org/images/shyue.jpg

Northern Paladin
Friday, June 4th, 2004, 02:38 AM
But extreme Europid features, like I stated in a posting long time ago, arent beautiful at all, neither for Europids or non-Europids.

F.e. very big nose.

But Europids are on average nearer to the "modern ideal" of a progressive human than most, if not all other groups.
The difference to some (f.e. Sinids) ist just slight but still present.

This ideal is more or less "raceless", but racial types can be nearer to it or further away.

I'd say Europeans even Europeans of the same subgroup have greatly varied nose sizes...It's very interesting what you mean by "Progressive" Agrippa. Somehow all humans recognize "Progressive" features as more human and therefore more attractive. But why have Europeans developed these "Progressive" features to the extent to which they have that they have...surpased other races in possessing them in abundance? And how is it all humans can agree on what is an attractive "progressive" face even though they themselves...could be the "Opposite"?

As for intelligence it's such an interesting thing..something I use to gauge how intelligence someone is, is to pay attention to whether or not they are intellictually curious and capable of deep intellectual discussion. I realize some people are just interested in practical everyday affairs(the Brits made this Observation while colonizing Africa)...it seems that it isn't they don't want to be intellectually "deep" and have a scoping mind but they really lack the capablity to. This may be a bit off topic but I feel people are still evolving both mentality and physically. As there really is no "peak" for intelligence or beauty...Is there?


You say Sinids are very close to Europeans as an ideal race or ideal set of racial traits? I don't see it personally.

They are Intellectually progressive though. But as for say beauty...generally i'd say their quite a bit below the european average though their might be individual exceptions.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Friday, June 4th, 2004, 06:14 AM
Traditions, education, experience and training create brains, but beauty helps. Beauty normally comes from well fed and caretaken children.

Scoob
Friday, June 4th, 2004, 06:56 PM
Very, very interesting.

First one must ask which types of skills are optimal for social/economic success in the context of our Western society. In other words, what type of intelligence is favored.

Many high-IQ people are social dropouts or choose a profession that gives them time or means to focus on intellectual things, rather than practical economic activity.

I would be interested in a study of high-IQ people that measures their beauty against other groups. In other words, give observers a series of faces to rate without knowing any other facts.

It's too bad I can't get to this article. There is an American stereotype that intelligent people are nerds who lack facial and body beauty and style or personal care.

And another good question is: how and why do humans form consensuses on what are the most beautiful features. Is it innate? And if so, why did we not evolve to be more beautiful as a species before?

Glenlivet
Friday, June 4th, 2004, 07:51 PM
Beauty and the Brainy (http://www.psycport.com/stories/washingtonpost_2004_05_30_eng-washingtonpost_wpni_eng-washingtonpost_wpni_000303_1707316765611 477773.xml.html)

I am not sure if beauty and intelligence are related, but at least for women (and sometimes for men too) it is related to economic success. That would be because the person who hire them associate what they see as beauty with intelligence, or alternatively it could even be so simple that people want more beautiful people to be part of their work team. We humans can be that superficial and not everything has a deep explanation.

I think that people who study a certain subject often have or develop a similar look. Some sort of faces (more about expressions than strictly sub-racial) are also represented more or less in this or that profession.

I am not sure if that is just an American stereotype. People in strongly Capitalistic consumer economies might be more superficial but such a stereotype is also found in Europe. One need to make an objective analysis of what a greater number of people find people and then see if those are represented in high positions on the career ladder. However, as you so eloquently mentioned some intellectuals do not compete and struggle to earn the most. They may take a position in the background, or research etc. The worst is if their intelligence is lost because of reservedness.
Intelligence (more so if related to financial status) is important for how women are attracted to a man. Smartness of women is secondary for men.

Beauty is not just the mere physical. The upper classes have the means to take care of themselves. There are beauties in the lower classes whom do not have the money to fix up themselves or to dress in as expensive and stylish clothes.

For a truly "aesthetic" judgement and not only an idiosyncratic one, the person must be adamant that their opinion is consensus. Beauty is a feeling induced by our sense of the world that lies beyond any explicit demonstration. It is not a cognitive judgement that belong to the field of science. It is a reflective judgement.



It's too bad I can't get to this article. There is an American stereotype that intelligent people are nerds who lack facial and body beauty and style or personal care.

Northern Paladin
Friday, June 4th, 2004, 08:40 PM
I think personality plays a larger role into what field a person goes into more so the mere intelligence alone.

Gareth
Friday, June 4th, 2004, 11:18 PM
I think personality plays a larger role into what field a person goes into more so the mere intelligence alone. I agree, even if personality is biological determined too. I wouldn't call it -inherited- though, because as elsewhere mentioned, the two x chromosomes aren't identical given, but merged to the mother's offspring. Children always differ from the parents, despite similarities.
I would add that genes and condition which constitute a healthy body are usually good for the intellectual development as well.
An old roman saying.

It has it's limits in my opinion. Yet I think the degree of intelligence someone can achieve, lies in a certain range, what has to do with genes as visualized in bell curves, etcetera. I also think that different sorts (http://www.happychild.org.uk/acc/tpr/amz/0002mult.htm) of intelligence exist, as there are different sections in our brains (scoob was faster with this point).

The chance that physically defected people are not as intelligent than physically healthy people is just quite high. Maybe, but that's in no way an evidence for the other way around, namely that all geniuses were extremely beautiful.

You put -being ugly- on a level with suffering btw. But not everyone suffers. How people perceive themselves differs greatly. Some get an inferiority complex for tomfoolery, others are due to whatever factors balanced enough. It depends how independent you are.

(It may be prejudice, but I think southerners - Orientaloids e.g. are often people, that fear to admit any sign of weakness. They rather overact it with brutality, asceticism or arrogance. A noble-minded person is able to admit weaknesses, so he or she can learn.)

Depressed people even regard intelligences to cause suffering. What is wrong, because what they associate is brooding and worrying. True thinking is a condition of mental strength and crystalline.

I remember a Jesus quote here, "Blessed are the poor in spirit" or Schopenhauer, "The genius suffers the most". I disagree with them. Suffering can one cause to go another pathway then the average, but it's not a requirement for being intelligent. Negative feelings disadvantage, they prevent you from real creativity. In contradiction satisfation can make you stagnative. So mental strength also shows in dealing with misery and leisure.

- - -
I think the common view most people have on this topic is quite correct: Highly intelligent people are more "spiritualized". Either they got focussed on intelligence and had the tendency yet before or they became it succeeding, since intellect is a long procedure of work, a manner of living. I mean, you don't seat in front of your desk and make up brilliant things right away, without anything before. A higher level of intellectual achievement has it's preconditions. You cannot go to partys in a hedomatic way and go to libraries for being well-read in a specialized way, at the same time. Mere mediocrity, as a result, is not desirable.

Being faced with pressure, a person that is not overly attractive can devote oneself to applied intelligence, whether of strict parents or not (awareness of the own skills etc.), it's about the image of their role in society. Surpassing beauty people on the other hand are what they are, that is their problem here, they don't have to become another role (which of course is enforced too (jobs) but the quality depends on the society and it's beliefs credibility). Compensation is a slight factor thereto.

Another point - if you go by negro-esthetics, there exist very fine black, if you go by asian-esthetics, there exist very fine asians. There wasn't pop culture advertising the whites some time ago, so there was no selection factor that made negroes less intelligent, because they felt ugly ... Without us, their standards were completely normal to them. Interpreting into it would be too simple.
Beauty and the Brainy
Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics and his colleague, Jody L. Kovar, assert that beautiful people also tend to be smart people -- and vice versa.
(...) Clearly, professor, you're very intelligent. So it follows from your theory that you must be one fine-looking man, right?

"No, I am not at all good-looking," Kanazawa wrote in an e-mail. "Given the imperfection in assortative mating, the correlation between intelligence and beauty should be far less than perfect. Beautiful people are more likely to be intelligent, and intelligent people are more likely to be beautiful. The correlation goes both ways, but is not perfect. There are always exceptions. I am one of them." I wouldn't consider most american businessmen as intellectuals (what this article was mainly about). They rather seem apolitical and pragmatic ("what's good in practice is good in theory too" idiocy) to me.
- - -
See my attachments for various portraits I had near hand (Chemielexikon, Autoren in Wort und Bild, Philosophen usw. ).

Northern Paladin
Saturday, June 5th, 2004, 01:27 AM
what does the acronym e.g. mean?

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Saturday, June 5th, 2004, 01:29 AM
what does the acronym e.g. mean? exempla grata? Great Example?

Northern Paladin
Saturday, June 5th, 2004, 01:49 AM
Gratia...Takk

RusViking
Saturday, June 5th, 2004, 02:04 AM
Quote:
Empirical studies demonstrate that individuals perceive physically attractive others to be more intelligent than physically unattractive others. While most researchers dismiss this perception as a "bias" or "stereotype," we contend that individuals have this perception because beautiful people indeed are more intelligent. The conclusion that beautiful people are more intelligent follows from four assumptions. . (1) Men who are more intelligent are more likely to attain higher-status than men who are less intelligent. (2) Higher-status men are more likely to mate with more beautiful women than lower-status men. (3) Intelligence is heritable. (4) Beauty is heritable. If all four assumptions are empirically true, then the conclusion that beautiful people are more intelligent is logically true, making it a proven theorem. We present empirical evidence for each of the four assumptions. While we concentrate on the relationship between beauty and intelligence in this paper, our evolutionary psychological explanation can account for a correlation between physical attractiveness and any other heritable trait that helps men attain higher-status (such as aggression and social skills).

(1) Men who are more intelligent are more likely to attain higher-status than men who are less intelligent.

Is that today? What about the past when physical strength and cooperation might have meant as much? Do we really know what intelligence is? Creativity? Attraction? Beauty? Status? I am not sure we would all be talking about the same thing here.

Northern Paladin
Saturday, June 5th, 2004, 02:17 AM
1) Men who are more intelligent are more likely to attain higher-status than men who are less intelligent.

Is that today? What about the past when physical strength and cooperation might have meant as much? Do we really know what intelligence is? Creativity? Attraction? Beauty? Status? I am not sure we would all be talking about the same thing here.

Strength still accounts for something there are still a lot of things that strain the body despite modern conviences so it isn't something that is much less important these days.

Co-operation would by syn. with social skills. There are plenty dimensions to what intelligence is...there is spacial...social...mathematical...verbal ...if you ask me creativity falls under intelligence.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, June 5th, 2004, 07:26 AM
Jews are always telling us quite the opposite. They have tried to equate the word "Jew" with the word "intellectual" for years and years. Jews are not pretty people, and they know it. In response, they tell us that people who wear glasses "look smarter". They tell us, through their humor, that blonds are stupid and made up a whole genre of "blond jokes" a few years back. They told us Andre Sakarov and his girl friend were the smartest people on the planet for, first discovering the Soviet hydrogen bomb (which was a lie) and then being good Refuseniks and protesting over its employment (these people MUST be Jews). If pretty people are smarter, the fact is in active dispute.

Scoob
Saturday, June 5th, 2004, 09:16 AM
Gareth brings up a very good point of pragmatic intelligence (easily seen in successful businessmen, etc.) vs theoretical intelligence.

A memorable piece of "man on the street" wisdom I've heard is that "Any good looking adult with a personality must have been an ugly child." This goes along with the idea that beautiful people tend to be rather shallow.

I have known some beautiful people who have very high IQ's and also a great deal of social privelege and success. Yet they seem quite shallow to me in some ways. They seem to have much more of the pragmatic type of intelligence, yet lack what I'd call moral intelligence or knowledge/appreciation for life. They are more materialistic.

My gut reaction to such people is that life has been too easy for them. I think pain is a great teacher, it forces the mind to probe deep questions. Suffering gives meaning to pleasure that is otherwise just utilitarian fluff.

But I also wonder whether the "moral intelligence" is really just all hogwash, the failed mental meanderings of unsuccessful people, including ugly people. I have heard pragmatic type thinkers espouse this kind of view.

I'm not sure.

Berchta
Saturday, June 5th, 2004, 12:02 PM
hah, yeah right. einstein and stephen hawkins are both sooooo hot! sizzling even. LOL

Agrippa
Saturday, June 5th, 2004, 04:40 PM
I'd say Europeans even Europeans of the same subgroup have greatly varied nose sizes...It's very interesting what you mean by "Progressive" Agrippa. Somehow all humans recognize "Progressive" features as more human and therefore more attractive. But why have Europeans developed these "Progressive" features to the extent to which they have that they have...surpased other races in possessing them in abundance? And how is it all humans can agree on what is an attractive "progressive" face even though they themselves...could be the "Opposite"?

The reason is that the main selection can be different trends like f.e.:
.) sexual selection - further distinguished by male or female "first choice".
.) by social circumstances
.) enviroment like cold, hot, high-low UV etc.

If we look at EXTREME Mongolids, they are mainly an adaption to cold.

I brought the example that if the Mongolid men have the choice they might always prefer longer-legged women, but in such extreme conditions, people with such features just didnt survived on the long run.

So their selection for attractiveness, for fine features was weaker than the natural selection for cold adaptation.

The reason why Sinids are in general more beautiful is because they live in a more temperate climate zone.

Of course I PERSONALLY DO NOT SAY that they are as beautiful as Europeans, but the difference is not that big, expecially if compared to more primitive or extreme paedomorphic groups. (f.e. Palaenegrids, Australids etc.)

So more beautiful must always mean that (best thing is both) men and/or women are quite picky, THEY LOOK after beauty and beauty is an important factor for reproductive success.

The environmental influences must work for this or at least not against such a sexual selection.

Temperate climate seems to be the best for a balanced type with no EXTREME specialization.

For the intelligent people we should only take pictures of people in YOUNG AGE!
It makes no sence to show a picture of Schopenhauer in his last years when he was already diseased f.e.

Furthermore there are two things: Statistic and individuals. Single exceptions do not speak against the rule.

And yes, I think too that for the final success other features of the personality than overall intelligence can be as or even more important.
So if we speak psychologically, maybe from the more intelligent people, the most motivated one might be the less attractive ones, less healthy and less sporty ones.

Because that somebody has a very high potential has not to mean that he use it to the full extent.

I know very beautiful people which are very intelligent too, but they developed very superficial traits. They will have success, but they will never be an intellectual genius although I think they would have had (with another personality) the potential to be one.

If we speak about attractiveness we should keep in mind the average, so not being beautiful is no argument, the question is if someone is more attractive than the average of his age group.

I know people which worked on that subject and how they worked and what the results were, and yes, there can be no doubt, at least if its about "modern Western forms of intelligence", more attractive people are more intelligent also.

@Nord:

Yes, I posted under the name "Chris" at Dienekes.

If you look at Sinid people, they are for sure not more attractive than Europeans, but they arent that much uglier than Europeans as well.

And of course not everytime progressive = attractive, thats something I should add.

I personally dont like liberal Social darwinism or the extreme theories about "egoistic genes", even on the contrary, I believe in a form of group selection.

Of course in the end just individuals are selected, but group cohesion and success can determine how successful lines/lineages and individuals are.

I hate people which suppress this truth and argue with the "egoistic genes" and sociobiology for a liberal society and liberal social Darwinism.

For more answers I dont have the time atm but they will come... :D

Gareth
Sunday, June 6th, 2004, 12:32 AM
sociobiology for a liberal society and liberal social Darwinism.You say a group of people, that is nearer to ideal beauty is also more intelligent due to coupled selection, ergo in both ways higher developed. The rest is a remnant of lacking selection, so considered the poor, underdogs, good looking and bad looking average persons and thereto, economical and/or cultural less developed subraces and races (those you confess their own mastergroups). What's not Darwinistic about that?

I agree with you that liberalism is despicable. But it's not always linked with Social Darwinism, there are "social" liberals too. They say everything is nurture, people will change if you tolerate them long enough, offhanded majority decisions are always reasonable, all ideologies are dead except their own (capitalism), etc.

They are pseudo-egalitarian, because despite all of this, they think people are naturally egoistic, only inclined to satisfy their needs and the main factor in live is the individuals acknowledgement (status, ... attractiveness, personality). Someone who didn't achieve their social status will be suspected to have a "spoiled socialization" when he was two years old or something like that which is a heavy insult to the mother/parents. I doubt this connotation is true. Einstein as a child had to hunger for some time, Kaspar Hauser became very intelligent after his release from impoundment etc. (though I don't know when exactly he was put away). People are different. It's the society's values that aren't ok, people will never adapt to it better and better with time, as the liberal ideology proclaims.
...
In fact the liberals dogma is an all non-intellectual excuse for never having tried something progressive in their lives.

The middle and upper classes don't even have much children, what's a requirement, if they would really act sociobiologistic.

Agrippa
Monday, June 7th, 2004, 07:51 PM
You say a group of people, that is nearer to ideal beauty is also more intelligent due to coupled selection, ergo in both ways higher developed.

Things are more complicated, but there is some truth in it.



The rest is a remnant of lacking selection, so considered the poor, underdogs, good looking and bad looking average persons and thereto, economical and/or cultural less developed subraces and races (those you confess their own mastergroups). What's not Darwinistic about that?

I dont oppose Social Darwinism, I oppose individual and liberal Social Darwinism which is in my opinion both asocial and ineffective. In (post-)modern societies even contraselective.


I agree with you that liberalism is despicable. But it's not always linked with Social Darwinism, there are "social" liberals too.

I know that. Those Linksliberale in German or left liberals are influenced by Neomarxism or religious and pseudoreligious (mainly Christian) views.

I strongly oppose and want to fight all sorts of Liberalism although left liberals are at least idealistic and human in a way, the Neoliberals with their liberal Social Darwinism are nothing but destructive egoists.



They say everything is nurture, people will change if you tolerate them long enough, offhanded majority decisions are always reasonable, all ideologies are dead except their own (capitalism), etc.

The adopted (Neo-)Marxistic views, especially in the 60s with the egalitarian Milieutheorie etc.


They are pseudo-egalitarian, because despite all of this, they think people are naturally egoistic, only inclined to satisfy their needs and the main factor in live is the individuals acknowledgement (status, ... attractiveness, personality). Someone who didn't achieve their social status will be suspected to have a "spoiled socialization" when he was two years old or something like that which is a heavy insult to the mother/parents. I doubt this connotation is true. Einstein as a child had to hunger for some time, Kaspar Hauser became very intelligent after his release from impoundment etc. (though I don't know when exactly he was put away). People are different. It's the society's values that aren't ok, people will never adapt to it better and better with time, as the liberal ideology proclaims.

I agree.



In fact the liberals dogma is an all non-intellectual excuse for never having tried something progressive in their lives.

The middle and upper classes don't even have much children, what's a requirement, if they would really act sociobiologistic.

Thats why I said in modern societies Social Darwinistic views contradict the needs of the family and community and are therefor both inhuman and ineffective.
Such a social construct is highly destructive and contraselective in many ways.

But of course you see why individual thinking, modern Neoliberalism is nothing else but a justification for the plutocrats and certain parts of the middle class to act asocial and egoistic, to destroy all standards and the the rest of collective spirit.
You can argue that in a sociobiological way if you say there is "no group selection" and the "fittest always survive".

Because if then certain populations will die out its not problem, because there is "no group selection" and if some people die because of starvation they were "asocial".

The Neoliberals took from the past what they want, from both the Marxism, Left side the and the liberal, conservative side THE WORST!

Euclides
Thursday, June 24th, 2004, 12:59 AM
Why beautiful people are more intelligent

Satoshi Kanazawa, a, , and Jody L. Kovarb

a Interdisciplinary Institute of Management, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK
b Department of Sociology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA

Received 22 September 2003; Revised 20 March 2004; accepted 26 March 2004. Available online 1 June 2004.




Abstract
Empirical studies demonstrate that individuals perceive physically attractive others to be more intelligent than physically unattractive others. While most researchers dismiss this perception as a "bias" or "stereotype," we contend that individuals have this perception because beautiful people indeed are more intelligent. The conclusion that beautiful people are more intelligent follows from four assumptions. (1) Men who are more intelligent are more likely to attain higher status than men who are less intelligent. (2) Higher-status men are more likely to mate with more beautiful women than lower-status men. (3) Intelligence is heritable. (4) Beauty is heritable. If all four assumptions are empirically true, then the conclusion that beautiful people are more intelligent is logically true, making it a proven theorem. We present empirical evidence for each of the four assumptions. While we concentrate on the relationship between beauty and intelligence in this paper, our evolutionary psychological explanation can account for a correlation between physical attractiveness and any other heritable trait that helps men attain higher status (such as aggression and social skills).

Author Keywords: Intelligence; Physical attractiveness; Stereotypes; Correlation

Taras Bulba
Thursday, June 24th, 2004, 01:08 AM
Well this certainly helps explains why Im both good looking and intelligent :P

I dont know, from personal experience I see a 50/50 divide. Half the intelligent people I meet are fairly good looking while the other half could use some freshing up.

Agrippa
Thursday, June 24th, 2004, 02:00 AM
I already made a thread about that issue here:

http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=12843

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Monday, May 28th, 2018, 11:10 AM
It's not true that brains and beauty are necessarily complementary, because everyone always lists the two characteristics as separate and either desirable or not in a mate. Many people consider males to be intelligent and females to be beautiful. Some men don't want smart women and some women don't want "pretty boys". Usually, children inherit one defining trait from each parent that sets them apart from both parents, because neither has both features alone.