/lit/ - Literature

>>2740205
Btw, yes, I know this is some "babby's first thought" shit, but the reality is this has been on my mind for years and I've never been able to resolve it.

>Why do we value personality more than physical appearance?

Oh, that's easy to answer. We don't.

Glad I could help you with your dilemma, OP.

>>2740213
>>>>>>>>>>>>HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHuRRRRRRRRRRR

This is a slow board but thanks for the bump anyway

>>2740205
No one cares that you can't get laid.

>Why do we value personality more than physical appearance?

Not all of us do, perhaps not even many of us, but those of us that do do so because a bright mind is far more interesting than a pretty face (though there's much to be said for both)

>these aspects are not their conscious doing

Whether or not brilliance is innate or comes about through hard work differs from person to person, though most people who are naturally gifted won't be able to flesh out their gifts properly without a fuckload of effort and determination.

>Secondly, is personality really something we have control over?
>aren't we just creating a facade to appear a certain way?

I think, to an extent, we have control over who we are and how we act, though it's often through some level of dishonesty and cessation of our instincts/urges etc. I don't know that its being a facade renders it 'false', necessarily. That facade, the way we choose to behave, is, in many ways, inseperable from who we really are. I think. We all have darkness in us, but in choosing to ignore it, we're separating ourselves from baseness.

Then again, I haven't really into philosophy, so all of what I'm saying could be utter bullshit

Don't listen to these guys OP. I think it's a perfectly valid question to have and I agree, cognitive ability is valued more than beauty in our society in some ways. More people that can think reasonably well get jobs than models. I think this is because they can provide a service to society. It benefits from them. Beautiful people are a dime a dozen. Honestly, I think there are more hot chicks than ugly ones.

>>2740226
But don't you *feel* dishonest when you fake a smile or dispense an empty compliment?

death is all that is good
life is immoral
and it must be destroyed

>>2740227
In my opinion, that's not a very good reconciliation. "Intelligent people provide a service to society" is not necessarily a good thing to begin with. Society is filled with scum and retards. Why would you want to indulge them? Secondly, I understand why employers would value mind over body. But in day-to-day interactions, why do people value mind over body?

DEATH TO THE CIS SCUM

>>2740233

Sure, sometimes, but it depends on who I'm smiling at and what for, and who I'm giving the complement to and for what reason. If the alternative, being honest, could be detrimental in some way, then there might be something said for dishonesty in such a situation. It depends entirely on the context of what's happening. It's often true that honesty is the best route, but I don't think it's always so

you're a bunch of spooks

>>2740240
>It depends entirely on the context of what's happening. It's often true that honesty is the best route, but I don't think it's always so
Definitely. Let me give an example though: A man with a very explosive temperament tries to be more tolerant and calm. But really, will he ever change, truly? I know this is a hot topic and has been explored in many movies/works of literature.

I think most people who value "mind over body" believe that it is truly possible to change the nature of a man (zing). Because if people can't truly change themselves, then personality is no different from looks.

Also,
>a bright mind is far more interesting than a pretty face
This is the simplest answer to OP's question yet.

>Why do we value personality more than physical appearance?
who is we?
>The "classical" answer is this: while we are in conscious control of our actions and thoughts, we have no control over how we look.
What? so I suppose people don't exercise or diet or get plastic surgery?
>But why do we cherish people who are more talented than others?
Because they are talented.
>Why do we embrace those who are more witty/funny, or academically adept?
They entertain us.
>After all, these aspects are not their conscious doing, but rather nature's gift to them, just like other peoples' good looks.
So?
>Secondly, is personality really something we have control over? Yes, we can control how we act, but if we aren't acting/saying what we really think, aren't we just creating a facade to appear a certain way?
No, and no.

>Help me /lit/, I'm having a crisis here. Everything I used to believe is crumbling before my very own eyes.
You're having a stupid crisis.

>>2740205
>Why do we value personality more than physical appearance?
We don't, it's just a socially desirable thing, so we pretend to, same as loving children or going to church.

Would you rather be entertained/engaged with a person whenever you're around that person, or would you rather have hot sex for 2 hours (ha) and then be irritated/annoyed whenever you're around that person? The answer is simple, really.

>>2740205
>"Why do we value personality more than physical appearance?"
>Ok, by "we" he obviously means "why do people who think this think this?"
>scroll down
>every other post is "HUR LOL WHO IS WE" "IMPLYING WE"

>MOTHER

>FUCKING

>SUMMER

>>2740246

>But really, will he ever change, truly?

I have no idea. I'll have to read more and find out.

>if people can't truly change themselves, then personality is no different from looks.

Well, people can change there looks, but only to a certain point. The same might be said for a man's nature, but again, I don't really know the answer to this.

>This is the simplest answer to OP's question yet.

You seem to be implying I can into dialectics.

>>2740261

their*

be gentle.

>>2740253
Listen up, forever alone kissless virgins:

Just because you're waiting for "the one" with a brilliant and vibrant personality doesn't mean the rest of the world hasn't already jumped into a pool of fun with pretty people whose intellects aren't all that razzle-dazzling.

Not everyone prizes a personality over beauty--in fact, I bet you that most don't. Beyond that, we all have our own definitions for what comprises a "good" personality. A girl who laughs at fart jokes seems, to some, to have an amazing personality.

Your perceptions of the world are horribly limited and funneled through that dearth of experience. You're not a powerhouse of philosophical thought; you merely misunderstand the world because you spend all your time smelling in your bedroom.

>>2740268

>You're not a powerhouse of philosophical thought

Yes I am

>>2740253
>not going for the 10/10 that is also a genius
enjoy your low standards faggot

>>2740253

Hot sex. I can only be engaged with a person through their face, genitals, rippling abs or great tits. Dialogue is tedious - monologue is for me. I possibly have a personality disorder of some kind.

>>2740275

i take it you're a homo?

>>2740268
>Just because you're waiting for "the one" with a brilliant and vibrant personality doesn't mean the rest of the world hasn't already jumped into a pool of fun with pretty people whose intellects aren't all that razzle-dazzling.

the "world", heh.
you bumptious spook, go worship your idols, i am free and unique and an individual of utmost importance
I WILL CRUSH YOU

>>2740278
Yeah, all women suck hurr durr.
fuck off misgonist.
go suck on that faggot roissy's cock

>>2740205
>The "classical" answer is this: while we are in conscious control of our actions and thoughts, we have no control over how we look.
No, it's jsut the answer you thought you had until you stopped being a kid.

Personality is valued over appearance, because personality gets things done, while appearance is only useful in the first five minutes of interaction. Even in sexual relationships, people get used to both beauty and homeliness in under quarter of an hour. After that, only personality and ability has any sort of lasting value.

I could really use an emotionally strong woman.

>>2740282
>I could really use an emotionally strong woman.
I could really use an emotionally strong human in general. But the only one I've ever known was me.

>>2740280
i didn't say they suck. point out a 10/10 genius woman though. or are you just idolising your 7/10 half-bright girl?

>>2740288
I'd rather be alone if I cant have perfection.
then again, i am perfection.
so perfect i am special, i have a destiny.

>>2740290
are you >>2740280 ?

>>2740282
make yourself strong first

>>2740292
You are my subservient now.

>>2740294
only if you answer the question...;)

>>2740290
>I'd rather be alone if I cant have perfection.
You don't deserve it anyway, and perhaps you don't deserve company.

Because you're underage. Teenagers are disgusting.

>>2740296
And you're a stupid know it all college kid.

>>2740298
I've graduated four years ago.

>>2740301
>he went to college

Because in our society, appearance does not say anything about how healthy you are. At least in comparison to 10,000 years ago where medicin wasn't that developed.

>>2740205
Actually intelligence is very heritable, just like fysical features, height, beauty etc.

Personality is also about ~50 heritable (five factor).

>>2740252
>church

what decade (or for that matter century) do you think we're in?

>>2740320
He's American. They clap at sermons.

>>2740317
go back to /sci/ faggot
explain how a genius is born from two people of average intelligence.

>>2740334

Why should he be able to do that? Everything has its exceptions and we don't know shit about the brain, really.
We do know that it IS heritable, but there are many factors involved in determining the intelligence.
Idiot.

>>2740342
Intelligence is not heritable.

>>2740342
Look at this non-ashkenazi crying about his intelligence and heritability.

stupid goy

>>2740345
>>2740347

What the fuck are you even talking about? There is a clear link between your intelligence and the ones your ancestors had.
Are you saying there is just a great probability that our next science genius will be a monkey? I'm a white guy with a MENSA membership.
Yeah I'm a asspergers cunt for mentioning it but Jesus you guys are petty.

As a Psychologist, these posts are quite frankly hurting my bones. 'Personality', 'Physical Appearance', 'Intelligence' and other such terms used here can be reduced further.

e.g Physical Appearance can split into heritable physical appearance (i.e symmetrical face, height) and non-heritable physical appearance (i.e Musculature, weight). Some people find the former attractive, others are more interested in an unsymmetrical muscled body. Then within that there are different theories (EvoPsych says hunter-gatherer, others say it could simply be an inference of discipline and hard work, in which case it relates to 'Personality' anyway)

Please, everybody, cut the crap.

>>2740355
>white guy with a MENSA membership

watch out guys

you might cut yourself on this dude's edges

>>2740353
>evopsych
>science
pick 1 nerd

>>2740363
Neither. I'm completely aware Psychology is a protoscience. I don't even like EvoPsych.

What you're thinking about is how people form their opinions and why.

And your premise is wrong. I'll just ramble through your examples.

Physical appearance and body language is how people make first impressions, and "first impressions matter", as does physical appearance. People who are very good looking (according to the norms of their society) have the possibility of enjoying certain benefits: People will initially respond more positively to them which can be a great benefit in many situations, they are more likely to be coveted by others which often increases confidence in all matters of life, they can become career models, etc..

People who are funny again make good impressions on us. They make us laugh, something that universally appreciated by humans, it sets off the right sparks in our brains, and we like to be around those people. Some of the most successful young men I know who work in an corporate setting are good looking and funny (this is early in their careers).

Academic adeptness is appreciated because we value knowledge and as our world increases in complexity, the requirement for knowledge to build upon that complexity generally increases.

The above are just quickly the three examples you chose. You could have picked any number of things people can have extraordinary talent in: Playing a musical instrument, leading people, various athletic endeavours, aesthetics, etc. etc.

Those gifts of nature are all appreciated for various reasons and your premise that, say, physical appearance, is not, is wrong.

>>2740377
Regarding physical appearance and personality, and which one is weighted more. I said that physical appearance does matter in the initial instance but for long term interpersonal relations personality is what maintains them and builds them up. If you are to lead people being pretty may make them notice you, but you can not count on your good looks to make them follow you. That will generally require some force of personality or authority.

As for your final question, yes, personality is something you have control over. If you reflect upon your current personality, why is it the way it is. You may have some natural inclination towards being of a particular mood (brain chemistry and what not), but your personality has been affected by the people around you your entire life. Your parents, grandparents, close friends, siblings, TV personalities, book characters, comic book characters, anything that has consciously and unconsciously mattered to you.
I know this is probably a point of debate, but working on the assumption above that your personality has been shaped by your surroundings, is it a façade when you consciously choose what should shape your personality? I would say no. Repetition of behaviour begets habit, once you have habitually changed your behaviour, it is effectively a change a in your personality.

>>2740355
>Yeah I'm a asspergers cunt
>a

2/10