[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 65 KB, 400x388, sadfrog.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3452773 No.3452773 [Reply] [Original]

>http://www.newser.com/story/109923/beautiful-people-are-also-smarter.html

>Beautiful People Are Also Smarter
>SE RESEARCHERS FIND ATTRACTIVENESS, INTELLIGENCE CORRELATE

>> No.3452783

Ask Stephen Hawking if attractiveness and intelligence correlate

I believe he'd punch you in the face if he could move his arm.

>> No.3452789

What the hell is the point of this. I think we can all agree that intelligence does not correlate with attractiveness, from experience. Stupid britfags.

>> No.3452790

>>3452783

> implying Hawking was unattractive when he was still healthy

It appears to be true. Especially since most of the respectable scientists chased women like nobody else.

>> No.3452791

This can be explained as a cultural adaptation.

Beautiful are more appealing, so they can have a better chance of reaching their potential.

Prohibitively ugly people don't get any attention. So they may have great potential but never reach it.

>> No.3452796

attraction is cultural, thus relative, and thus constantly changes

thus this study is pseudoscience

also, correlation does not blah blah causation

>> No.3452797

Funny how most pretty girls are dumb as dirt, then.

>> No.3452804

>>3452797
Dumb as Dirt

D as D
DD
DOUBLE D'S FUK YEH

>> No.3452805

>>3452791
no surprise, attractiveness is about symmetry ergo is about the genes. The dumbest people i know of are also the ugliest ones. The ugly but smart stereotype is a myth used as the last resort for fat neckbeared losers. You never see ugly nerds making important contributions, the ones that do so are usually average to attractive.

>> No.3452812

>attraction is cultural

you just went full retard right there. Theres mountains of evidence that suggest that symmetry and health are the main factors for physical attractiveness. Women focus into more abstract concepts like Confidence and status.

>> No.3452816

>>3452805
Attraction cannot be defined by just symmetry. Two girls that are equally symmetrical, one is prettier than the other one. <- this would not be possible if attraction is defined by just symmetry.

It's an evolving process that differs from person to person, and from culture to culture, and so on and so forth

Also, almost all ugly nerds are only ugly nerds during their teenager years, and there are very few teenager world changers attractive or otherwise. When's the last time you saw a 40 year old that you could without a doubt say it was an ugly nerd? Need I remind you that the movie "40 year old virgin" stars an actor that many claim is of the handsomest in the world?

>> No.3452817

just because you are a nerd and sit down and learn doesn't mean you are clever or have a better brain capacity than other people.
normal people just spend less time nerding up, thus you might think they are stupider than you. in fact, if they would spend the same amount of time than you do, they probably would know their shit better than you do.
face it, you are a complete failure.

>> No.3452821

>>3452812
Mountains of circumstantial and subjective evidence does not in anyway insinuate a direct link. Why are you even on /sci/

>> No.3452823

>>3452816
>Attraction cannot be defined by just symmetry.
But symmetry is attractive to people: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/symmetrythe-key-to-attractio
n-473427.html

>> No.3452826

>>3452817
the study measured IQ, not acquired knowledge/skills you fucking dimwit

>> No.3452831

>>3452823
So? Other things aren't?

"Some A are B, therefore all A are B"

that's your logical mind at work

>> No.3452834

>Need I remind you that the movie "40 year old virgin" stars an actor that many claim is of the handsomest in the world?

presenting hollywood movies as facts

>It's an evolving process that differs from person to person, and from culture to culture, and so on and so forth

No shit sherlock, and dont you think that the scientists that are studying this already thought ABOUT THAT in their experiments??

>Attraction cannot be defined by just symmetry.

I didnt say it was only symmetry, i said health is related too, and i said that those two are the main factors not the only ones.


You must be really ugly because your reading comprehension skills are really shitty

>> No.3452842

>>3452823
did you even read your source you stupid fuck?

>Scientists at Harvard University claim that women whose feet, ankles, hands, fingers, eyes, breasts, arms and ears are the same size on each side have an abundance of the hormone oestradiol.

"Our results suggest that symmetry is related to higher levels of oestradiol and, thus, higher potential fertility. As a consequence, men attracted to more symmetrical women may achieve higher reproductive success," said the researchers.

>> No.3452847

>>3452831
Well mathematically, that logic is correct.

>> No.3452848

>>3452816
symmetry is totally overrated.
attractivity can rather be measured by the profile of your face and your jaw/cheekbone structure.
notice how most attractive actors have a very prominent jaw? a good example is brad bitt or even angelina jolie

>> No.3452849

>>3452821
>implying their studies are subjective
>implying the scientists that work on this field arent careful and serious about their jobs

its too fucking late and im not patient when dealing with high schoolers just goolge it or something, i dont care

>> No.3452851

does anyone even bother reading sources? this place is academically fucking pathetic

>Researchers at the London School of Economics found that intelligence correlated strongly with physical attractiveness. Men judged by others in the study as handsome had IQs 13.6 points higher than the average, while beautiful women had IQs 11.4 points above the average.

>Researchers at the London School of Economics

>School of Economics

>Economics

Oh. That explains everything.

>> No.3452853

And by commutation, intelligent people are beautiful.

>> No.3452854

The fact /sci/ is getting butthurt about this bothers me

>> No.3452855

Possibilities:
unattractive people don't reach their potential for some reason relating to their looks.
attractive people for some reason have a better chance at becoming smarter than unattractive people.
Smarter people for some reason tend to become more attractive.
intelligence and looks are wanted traits so their kids are more likely to have both these traits.
Some other things I'm not thinking of maybe.

Yup there is obviously only one possible conclusion from this survey.

>> No.3452862

>>3452849
>does not know how to recognize a proper experiment

>> No.3452865

>>3452851
>>3452851
>>3452851

.thread

>> No.3452869

why are you posting this garbo in /sci/? please keep them in magazines where they belong

>> No.3452871

>>3452862
GEEE i wonder, whos better at science. PhDs from the london school of economics, one of the most prestigious universities in the world, or some anonymous faggot that is in high school having trouble with calculus

>> No.3452873

>Intelligence and beauty are both malleable...
I think the first comment on the page does a good enough job to explain why this makes no sense.

>> No.3452878

>>3452851
Oh, that one almost got me.

>> No.3452881

>>3452871
not a problem really, I get my doctorate in 2013, this study wouldn't ever be accepted in any academic journal

>> No.3452883

>>3452854
Generally, people have a hard time coping with the idea that some people can have it all with no drawbacks. Its mainly just jealousy though. And this is coming from an ugly person.

>> No.3452888

>>3452878
>>3452865
>>3452851

stop samefagging

that university has a lot of top tier matematicians, besides this study uses statistical analysis; a basic tool in economics.

The fact that you try to discredit the study just because you guys are ugly is beyond pathetic.

>> No.3452889

>study
>London School of Economics
>stopped reading.

>> No.3452891

>>3452888
I am intelligent and attractive. I also still have a problem with this study.

>> No.3452893

ITT: raging frustrated nerds

>> No.3452897

>>3452888
I'm >>3452865

no samefag, sorry

also sorry that you're simple little mind cannot understand that this study showed correlation and publicized it in the same sensationalist mode as would causation

>> No.3452898

>>3452881
>>3452881
SO MUCH BUTTHURT, dude i feel sorry you are ugly as fuck and need to lie to get some cred in an anonymous board, but it wont work here so stop it. The researcher is an authority in the field and he is constantly published in prestigious journals. Just look it up

>> No.3452904

>>3452898
Are you going to just keep tossing random assumptions about me? When did I ever discredit the researcher? Why is it so hard for you to understand that I am critiquing the basic elements upon which this study is made? Who is really butthurt?

>> No.3452906
File: 11 KB, 237x212, lw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3452906

>Researchers at the London School of Economics

>> No.3452907

>>3452904
>trolledsoftly.jpg

please stop responding to the trolls

>> No.3452909

>>3452897
No scientific study is definitely conclusive. But theres already a lot of evidence from different studies that suggest that intelligence and attractiveness are related. This study has controls, its peer reviewed and it provides more evidence than just a weak correlation.

You dont want to believe that? Too bad the scientific theory says it might be true. i thought this board was about science and not religion.

>> No.3452918

>>3452904
>circumstantial and subjective evidence

Check his experiment, it has proper controls, its peer-reviewed and there are other studies done by other researchers that back it up. You just come here and discredit the study for no reason

>> No.3452925

Smart guys get rich, bang hot bitches. Children get smart and attractive. Not that much of a suprise.

>> No.3452929

>>3452773
Why not re-write it like this: Smart people are also more beautiful.

I'm smart, therefore I'm beautiful. Feels Good Man.

>> No.3452930

>>3452925
lol pretty much this. also >Researchers at the London School of Economics

>> No.3452932

Golden ratio + symetry = attractive

>> No.3452936

>>3452932
if this is true why would some people prefer a specific asymmetrical girl to a specific symmetrical one

>> No.3452938

>>3452909
>>3452918
Please read...
>>3452791
>>3452796
>>3452855
>>3452873

If after reading ALL of these you feel like pretending the results make sense, go right ahead.

>> No.3452945

>>3452936
Nobody prefers the asymmetrical crop. They SETTLE because they can't fetch them some prime rib

Pic related

>> No.3452946

>>3452834
>presenting hollywood movies as facts
I like how you took a small comment in his entire argument and used it in an attempt to discredit the whole argument

bye /sci/, you never had anything to offer

>> No.3452947

I don't have trouble believing this. In modern western society intelligen people ar the most likely to be successful, successful people have a better chance of selecting a desirable mate, and most people find physical attractiveness (for our purposes defined as facial symmetry, certain facial ratios and other general traits found models and actors and actresses that are widely beheld as beautiful) desirable. Their progeny will likely possess some genes bestowing intelligence and some genes bestowing beauty.


What's the matter with this? Why are you getting butthurt about it? It's why we all worked or are working so hard in education isn't it? So that the proof of our mental ability can be used to get a good job so we can become affluent and have access to all the benefits of wealth.

>> No.3452948

>>3452945
prove it; else, null.

>> No.3452949
File: 55 KB, 330x357, Feelsgoodmangreen.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3452949

lol'd at this thread

>> No.3452950

i dont understand? some people find some people are attractive and intelligent therefore attractive people are intelligent or intelligent people are attractive

i dont see where this study is going.

>> No.3452952

lol
ITT people assume intelligence MUST be hereditary...

attractive people get positive reinforcement for everything they do, including learning.

being told you're smart all the time can add up.

>> No.3452954

>>3452948
The dude who settled with the cunt that bore you. You are living proof I'm correct

>> No.3452955

>>3452936
jesus, is this really so difficult?
facial symmetry is a good INDICATOR. just an INDICATOR. you know whats an indicator, right?
there are several other indicators, and then everybody has different tastes. are you really that stupid or are you just pretending to be?
another good indicator is the jaw structure. like a prominent jawline and big cheekbones.

>> No.3452956

>>3452773
Nice, I like it. Good for me, bad for all you ogres out there. You all suck and now we have scientific confirmation.

>> No.3452958

>>3452952
intelligence is hereditary

>> No.3452960

I was easily the most read person in my highschool and among the most read at my university. I was also very pretentious and pulled it off quite well. I am also quite easily among the most handsomest person there, although I have no sex drive or desire for relationships whatsoever.

The amount of envy that people who only have intelligence to value is amazing when directed at the "perfect" people. People who are highly intelligent I knew, but actually prize what they were learning rather than the sake of learning to appear intelligent didn't care.

tl;dr: only losers who care about intelligence are hurt by it. smart people who just enjoy learning don't care.

>> No.3452961

>>3452955
and there are countless examples of why it is a bad indicator

what is your point exactly, besides being unable to have a pragmatic mode of thought

>> No.3452962

>>3452947
see
>>3452938
>>3452950
the study is trying to say that because attractiveness and intelligence are both desired traits, this has caused offspring with a direct correlation of attractiveness and intelligence. The are saying that this survey shows this to be true.

>> No.3452963

>>3452958
sure, in a very broad sense.

the little differences we dwell on in individuals are probably at least as much environmental as genetic though.

>> No.3452965

wow the amount of blatant assumptions in this thread violates every thread of philosophical thought upon which science was founded

>> No.3452966

>>3452947
That's no longer the case though. The amount of lonely engineers and science majors I know is quite drastic.

However, I have yet to see a lonely guido or wigger. They all net some pretty attractive girls.

Probably the reason for that is that social status is no longer as quite drastic and severe and valued since people often have the same relative amount of wealth.

>> No.3452968

>Researchers at the London School of Economics

>> No.3452972 [DELETED] 

>>3452961
I never said it's a good indicator. i wasn't the same idiot that you chatted to before.
now shut up your stupid nerd cunt and go fuck a niggerduck.
I hate you and hope you die on cancer, also your point is invalid because I was just trolling.
by reading this you lost couple seconds of your life, and i'm sending you hereby hate which might very well have a negative butterfly effect in your life and turning everything bad or even worse in your pathetic life.

>> No.3452971

>>3452966
Engineers belong to sexual minority and science majors are probably not interested in guidettes.

>> No.3452973

That Satoshi Kanazawa guy has some pretty stupid papers. Seeing his papers elsewhere I find them pretty retarded, social-science level science where any piece of paper with enough dazzling numbers gets published.

>> No.3452974

>>3452952
>ITT people assume intelligence MUST be hereditary...

It isn't assumed you fucking moron. Learn yourself some twin studies, dipshit.

>> No.3452976

Why's everyone off topic and not understanding the point at all? This article makes no sense. Again I will link this post because everyone seems to be ignoring it.
>>3452938

>> No.3452977

>>3452971
True most probably don't want to settle for someone vapid as guidettes.

The one's that tend to date the most are overtly pretentious humanities majors. Something about females being able to fool and the fact that humanities is less boring.

>> No.3452978

>>3452972
what doesn't kill me blah blah me stronger

>> No.3452980

>>3452977
My bad, the ones at my university that tend to date often.

>> No.3452982

>>3452974
would you say the twins in those studies are probably nearly equally attractive?

do you see where this is going yet?

>> No.3452983

>>3452977
>overtly pretentious humanities majors
my face,
my palm.

>> No.3452985

>>3452973
> enough dazzling numbers gets published.

Well yeah, that is the whole point. What, you think a paper with substantial data and should get rejected purely because it offends you? You're what's wrong iwth society. It's because the scientific community has to kowtow to ignorant, bigoted people like you that our scientific and technological progress is slower than it could be.

>> No.3452986
File: 30 KB, 591x463, 1231715563393.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3452986

Actually, I noticed this to be the case more so in females. I've known a lot of academically intelligent beautiful girls. They usually have wealthy parents and probably went to good skills and can afford to make themselves look good with better clothes and monthly salon visits.

Ugly girls (like the really ugly or fat ones, not just the homely-but-fuckable kind) tend to be more stupid, or at least anti-academia. They often gravitate to some subculture like gothic, vampirism, cosplaying, gaming, ect. Hot girls go for that stuff too of course, but they're also less-intelligent than their Zara-wearing counterparts.

>> No.3452991

I'm going to keep posting this until people acknowledge it. (sage)
>>3452938
>>3452938
>>3452938
>>3452938
>>3452938
>>3452938
>>3452938
>>3452938
>>3452938
>>3452938
>>3452938
>>3452938
>>3452938

>> No.3452994

>>3452991
Baby needs attention.

>> No.3452995

>>3452985

No, not really, Kanazawa published some weak papers earlier is commonly criticized because of his poor methods and logic.

>> No.3452996

>>3452982
No, I don't. Whatever point you're alluding to is irrelevent and factually wrong.

Identical twins raised in different environments have far higher correlations in terms of intelligence than siblings raised in different environments. => a large part of intelligence is determined by one's genes => intelligence is hereditary

Why is this new to you? You should have been taught about it in highschool.

>> No.3452997

>>3452995
don't feed the troll/moron, any half dignified academic can recognize a philosophically flawed experiment

>> No.3452998

>>3452996
>No, I don't. Whatever point you're alluding to is irrelevent and factually wrong.

>don't understand his point
>claim whatever point he attempted to make is wrong

sure is /sci/ in here

>> No.3453000

>>3452851
The london school of economics has departments of social sciences.
By your logic, any non-maths/physical sciences/engineering papers coming out of MIT should be ignored.

>> No.3453004

>>3452998
> disregard that twin studies have provided a wealth of evidence supporting that intelligence is destermined in a large part by one's genetic make-up and is therefore inheritable.

Sure is retard who needs to gtfo /sci/ in here

>> No.3453009

>london school of economics

they've probably just been reading too much ayn rand again

>> No.3453012

>>3452773
this is probably due to the fact that (statistically speaking about a whole population) firstborns tend to be more intelligent, beautiful, larger & stronger, have better immune-system.

Google it for sources. as I can't be assed to.

>> No.3453014

>>3453000
It's not about being related, it's about non-scifags being dumb as bricks, and their ideas irrelevant.

>> No.3453016

>>3452994
I don't want attention. I want people to stop being idiots. I just linked all the posts explaining why this article makes no sense. All the posts were completely ignored for some reason though. so again....
read this.
>>3452938

i also like how the only thing you can say is trying to throw a random unrelated insult while ignoring the legitimate points that were made.

>> No.3453018

>>3453012
Could it actually be that younger parents produce better offspring? I'm not very familiar with this subject, so it's just an uninformed idea.

>> No.3453028

>>3453018
I don't know the underlying mechanics, but it has been suggested that it has to do with the female body as the effect is unchanged when comparing children that have same mother but different fathers, and families with same father.

It may be that it is a biologically sound strategy to put alot of resources into the first child to ensure its survival. Once that has been accomplished, the priority may not be creating "the best" but creating variation as this would be a sound adaptive strategy for a species. That would also explain why second and third children have a much higher incidence of homosexuality.

>> No.3453033

>>3452851
love u

>> No.3453035 [DELETED] 
File: 1.12 MB, 1920x1200, ariel atom darth vader.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3453035

NITT: define "beauty"
>mfw

>> No.3453046

you guys get caught up on a few peoples stupid mistakes or logic flaws and completely ignore the point.

>> No.3453075

>>3453035
define intelligence

>> No.3453095
File: 350 KB, 461x424, lolwolf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3453095

>>3453035
>>3453075
These two posts resume perfectly the relevance of that study OP

>> No.3453103

Intelligence is the capacity to understand the relationship between two functions or the observation of one single object.

>> No.3453126

>ITT: liberal arts fags who do not understand modern science.

FYI: there are several operational definitions on both intelligence and beauty. Most of them convergent (within their own range).


I have been on /sci/ for quite some time now. And it is quite sad that /sci/ has become a place not for discussion on science, but a place where the uneducated come to scoff at things they do not understand.

I don't think I will come back here in some time.

>> No.3453257

>>3453035
I meant the non-existence of such comment was good.
I should have been more clear.

Beauty can be defined given it consists of signs and values.
I'm aware of a few studies with satisfactory results.
Besides, the research is not about "beauty", a general, unclear term.

I agree with the findings of this research.
It makes perfect sense when you think in terms of natural selection as it has been pointed out.

>> No.3453283
File: 168 KB, 375x500, 2083485999_3742694857.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3453283

>>3452805
>africans like fat women
>gooks think crooked teeth are kawaii

>> No.3453300

>>3453283
>British also like crooked teeth since its pretty frequent there
>Southerners in America like fatties because 80-90% of them are fat.

>> No.3453302

Toldja.
Uglies just got pwned.