Beautiful People Are Also Smarter

[Anonymous No.3516805]

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

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

>NEWSER) – Beautiful people really do have it all, a new study suggests: They're also more likely to be intelligent. 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., the New York Daily News reports.

>mfw

[Anonymous No.3516819]

any man can be beautiful with enough effort

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3516833]

>>3516805
Anyone have a link a study that shows that motivation as a child increases the child's IQ by up to 15 points? Or am I remembering a fantasy?

If this is true, then that could explain the observed intelligence correlation as opposed to a genetic correlation between genes for smartness and attractiveness.

[Anonymous No.3516840]

The "researchers" would be remiss if they didn't consider the effect of how ugly people are treated on adult intelligence. Your upbringing can influence your brain structure.

[Anonymous No.3516844]

= Self Esteem
= Motivation
= Improvement in all fields by X points
= More improvement in everything (neural processing) (Sports) (Social Awareness, that's where the need for "beauty" comes from)

Makes sense to me.

[Anonymous No.3516854]

>>3516833
>Anyone have a link a study that shows that motivation as a child increases the child's IQ by up to 15 points?
It would explain OP's article. I mean if you're good looking, chances are you're going to get a lot of positive attention from people, which can translate into motivation. Where someone who is not good looking probably just gets shunned and ignored, thus left to dry and go on with life as nothing more than walking flesh.

[Anonymous No.3516867]

>>3516833

>Or am I remembering a fantasy?

This seems the most likely explanation

[Anonymous No.3516880]

>>3516833
Here's an article about the study you probably were talking about:

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/04/28/motivation-iq-tests-more-than-intelligence/

[Anonymous No.3516883]

>>3516805

The most likely explanation would be that much of what people call beauty is simply being health and people that take better care of themselves are more likely to be intelligent.

Also everybody knows that whites and Asians are the most attractive and have higher IQs.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3516895]

>>3516880
Thank you sir. Saved.

[Anonymous No.3516897]

>>3516880

So kids are less intelligent are also less motivated?

Who would have thunk it.

[Anonymous No.3516921]

>>3516895

I will never take you seriously again

I spoke with you once about a large data set test involving heritability of intelligence in which you said that because you couldn't construct some magic world where black kids didn't know they were black then the test were invalid and yet you are enthused about this "study" as negation of genetic evidence?

WOW!

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3516937]

>>3516921
I'm sorry ... could you more thoroughly explain what you are saying? I think I've always said that motivation affects IQ test results. I fail to see how I've contradicted myself here.

[Anonymous No.3516952]

>>3516921
>genetic evidence

Not him. But there are none. I've looked into the genetics of intelligence. No major genes have been identified for intelligence. Doesn't mean they don't exist; they most certainly do. But presenting statistical/"epidemiological" evidence as genetic evidence (as in research on a gene for breast cancer) is just silly.

[Anonymous No.3516962]

>>3516921
>>3516921
What do you expect from a from a liberal besides cognitive dissonance. They'll lie to themselves and everyone else to believe in their religion of equality. Sure they'll believe in evolution except when it comes to intelligence and people.

[Prin No.3516976]

Well I'm pretty and smart! And I think that anyone under 50 can be too if u work hard enough, like work out, work, and go to school!

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3516981]

>>3516962
If you have any evidence that black people are stupider on average than white people which accounts for the systemic bias against blacks in the US culture, please present it. Otherwise I think the evidence leans towards the "no significant difference" camp.

[Anonymous No.3516988]

>>3516952
I... don't think any specific genes exist that can be attributed to intelligence, more likely a mixture of various genes to produce such a characteristic.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3516990]

>>3516988
Oh of course.

[Anonymous No.3516992]

>>3516962
>What do you expect from a from a liberal besides cognitive dissonance. They'll lie to themselves and everyone else to believe in their religion of equality. Sure they'll believe in evolution except when it comes to intelligence and people.

Do you have anything in your bag except ad hominems? There is a 15 point IQ gap between blacks and whites, and the gap is lessening due to the Flynn Effect. Also, not all of IQ is biological. Take an IQ test and you'll notice your scores can change by at least one standard deviation based on your fleeting mental state. The effect of emotions on cognition is well researched and established in neuroscience.

Sage for off topic and useless nigger discussion.

[Anonymous No.3516997]

Beautiful people don't need to think to score higher

[Anonymous No.3516998]

>>3516990
Shut the fuck up, you don't know what you're talking about. You only have a bachelors degree.

[Anonymous No.3517011]

So are parents right to tell kids "you can achieve anything"?

[Anonymous No.3517012]

>>3516992
Implying there isn't a difference even with the Flynn effect. I'm sorry but biology is the science that will destroy all of liberalism while psychology and sociology is what sustains it.

[Anonymous No.3517027]

>>3516937

>If this is true, then that could explain the observed intelligence correlation as opposed to a genetic correlation between genes for smartness and attractiveness.

Which is absolutely not true.

Even if you were to take this dubious "study" seriously.

it states

>"For individuals who had above-average scores at baseline, motivation accounted for only about a quarter of a standard deviation, or about four points."
>"But, for those who had below-average scores, motivation made up almost a whole standard deviation."

They didn't say


>"But, for those who had below-average scores, motivation made up almost a whole standard deviation. and brought the test scores up to average

nor, even if it did, it doesn't explain why more attractive people would be more intelligent.

Nor would someone that believed that intelligence had a significant genetic component conclude that genes which, when expressed, selected for physical attractiveness also selected for intelligence when the more reasonable explanation is that these genes shared a co-evolutionary history(just like when considering humanity as a whole skin pigmentation and lactose tolerance can be found to be CORRELATED on average but one doesn't select for the other)

But you were so fucking determined and scared of the genetic implications that you quickly jumped to the quickest , even if least logical, explanation at hand in order to protect yourself from ideas that might conflict with your world view.

You're a religious zealot not a rational thinker

Scientist is a misnomer Dogmatist would be more appropriate

[Anonymous No.3517030]

>>3517012
>biology
I don't think anyone denies the genetic basis of human variation. But it is severely overestimated in its importance as compared to culture, family life, socioeconomics, etc.

[Anonymous No.3517031]

>>3517012
>>3517012
>I'm sorry but biology is the science that will destroy all of liberalism while psychology and sociology is what sustains it.

You're fucking retarded.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3517035]

>>3517027
I repeat what I said elsethread:
>If you have any evidence that black people are stupider on average than white people which accounts for the systemic bias against blacks in the US culture, please present it. Otherwise I think the evidence leans towards the "no significant difference" camp.

[Anonymous No.3517046]

>>3516952

>heritability of a trait can't be determined without knowledge of specific genes for the trait


cool stroy bro, I'[ll get bust telling all the homosexuals that their sexual orientation is a choice because we haven't the specific set of genetics that select for sexual attraction.

[Anonymous No.3517050]

malnutrition affects both appearance and intellectual performance so i would not be surprised if people in bad health were physcially less attractive and considerably less mentally sound.

[Anonymous No.3517060]

>>3517046
Not what was implied at all, retard. Learn to fucking read. I was simply refuting the poster's lie that genetic evidence existed to support his claims.

As I said in the post you quoted,
>Doesn't mean they don't exist; they most certainly do [genes for intelligence]

[Anonymous No.3517077]

>>3517060
it's hopeless, everyone, even many academics, want nothing more than to fap their superiority complex boners.
it's human nature.

[iranus No.3517115]

Once again we get back to square one categorizing people into white black brown yellow red bronze etc etc

The number one thing that prevents acceptance of genetic realities concerning intellectual capacity and every other mental and physical ability is that there are so many people who want to make pointless categorizations based on ancestry as soon as the topic comes up.

The fact is that no population has a monopoly on any genotype, and genotypic frequencies in any population are subject to variance given selection pressures that are dynamic.

Human civilization as a whole will never accept genetic realities until we judge individual capacities instead of categorizing people into arbitrary groups based on ancestry, simply because that's what our tribal instincts tell us to do, as a species with relatively limited social skills.

[Anonymous No.3517125]

>>3517035


Nope

think back further I'm not that guy


Now stop dodging and address your obvious stupidity as pointed in the post you quoted

Why did you come to such ridiculous conclusions about the causes involved in the study OP posted?

Why did you draw links between it and another study that weren't warranted?


Despite your pious nature you could have logically avoided blasphemy(blasphemy in your religion being the idea that genetics that encode for the growth and development of neural structures involving human cognition vary across individuals and gene pools) by postulating that beauty adds an advantage in social interactions and mate selection thus increasing social connections and economic opportunity
giving beautiful people better access to mates with wealth which is linked to education which is linked to intelligence.

"Looks" of course having a genetic component (providing your religion handle that) this means the wealthier better connected to people are more likely to have beautiful offspring and thus impart those advantages of wealth to them.

Why can't you even rationally support your world view?

[Anonymous No.3517135]

>>3517060

But genetic evidence in the form of twin studies and adoption studies DO exist

which means you're fucking wrong

[Anonymous No.3517136]

>>3517115
are species arbitrary, the fact is races are not an arbitrary measure.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3517141]

>>3517125
>Now stop dodging and address your obvious stupidity as pointed in the post you quoted
>Why did you come to such ridiculous conclusions about the causes involved in the study OP posted?

You overstate my confidence. In the first post, I said:
>If this is true, then that could explain

That's a lot of weasel words. I was making a hypothesis.

As the evidence is best consistent with "no significant deviation between the races" hypothesis, I brought forth a hypothesis with that evidence and background in mind.

I have nothing to apologize for.

[iranus No.3517159]

>>3517136
by modern definition races are pretty arbitrary and based more on geography than ancestry and breeding groups.

We CAN categorize populations into traditionally isolated breeding groups that share relatively unique sets of genotypes.

But that has absolutely no baring on what I said regardless. It serves no functional purpose to judge people by those groups and only generates animosity to measure the average ability of a large population and then making assumptions about an individual instead of simply measuring the ability of an individual.

Without a doubt, these people looking to categorize and judge people by "race" are looking for a reason to be divisive.

[Anonymous No.3517166]

How do they explain dumb blonds?

[Anonymous No.3517176]

>>3517141

>As the evidence is best consistent with "no significant deviation between the races" hypothesis, I brought forth a hypothesis with that evidence and background in mind.

Who the fuck was discussing race?

We were discussing beauty and intelligence and despite disagreeing with you I pulled an explanation for OPs article out of my ass that was more logically supportive of YOUR world view than than your explanation.

In fact your explanation wasn't rational at all.

You didn't even support your claim that more attractive people are more motivated


Which proves you don't want truth or logical empiricism( science )you want narratives that support your world view

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3517196]

>>3517176
Oh, I see. It seems straightforward to me. The beautiful get by on life by being beautiful. Everyone sucks up to them. The ugly get less attention, and have less motivation. I would think that this would be an obvious hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.3517207]

>>3517159
I don't think you understand kinship. Fact is mixing people together from different races and cultures just causes more problems. Individuals will shine through regardless of labeling but the fact remains that the average is lower and we can expect most to be low. Those facts remain and thats the point.

[Anonymous No.3517216]

>>3517166
Women are inherently dumb to begin with

[Anonymous No.3517219]

i think i'm below average in terms of appearance but actually i'm 39 points above average in terms of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.3517236]

>>3517176
As most people know, White people have the most attractive features, so race does play a role in this.

[Anonymous No.3517231]

>>3517196
>>3517196
Yeah brah it has nothing to do with genetics I mean down syndrome kids are just ugly and don't get encouraged.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3517237]

>>3517231
Straw man much?

[Anonymous No.3517243]

>>3517035
>systemic bias against blacks in the US culture

please post evidence of this assertion in modern us society. If not I will assume blacks are just less intelligent based on genetics

[Anonymous No.3517248]

>>3517237
you sure do assert things with no counter evidence brah, only hypothetical bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3517250]

>>3517207
>Fact is mixing people together from different races and cultures just causes more problems.

what an incredibly, immensely general and unscientific point. No doubt, you also put undue weight on genetics as the core reason for this.

>Individuals will shine through regardless of labeling
how do you rationalize this

>but the fact remains that the average is lower and we can expect most to be low.
socioeconomic class also correlates with low intelligence. We could probably find correlations with every testable trait and a thousand different dimensions. Again:
>It serves no functional purpose to judge people by those groups and only generates animosity to measure the average ability of a large population and then making assumptions about an individual instead of simply measuring the ability of an individual.

Give me a situation in which it makes sense to judge someone by testing a population you group them into and then judge them based on a resulting probability rather than simply testing the individual's ability and judging them.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3517255]

>>3517243
My brother is the one with the links and he showed it to me. I have nothing offhand. The best I have is this one youtube videos from Beyond Belief 2006 or 2007. If you want, I can scrounge that up, but I suspect you'll laugh me out of the argument for the lack of sources.

So, I'll go with "I don't have the sources handy", and I failed to carry my side of the argument.

If you try to conclude that it is genetic, you still fail, because you haven't demonstrated that there isn't such a systematic bias in the US culture.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3517258]

>>3517248
At least I don't straw man.

[Anonymous No.3517292]

>>3517255
You have the burden of proof to prove there isn't. We can't just assume some great white evil that white people themselves aren't aware of forcing black people to fail miserably. Your beliefs on the systematic bias of black people borders on the religious. You believe without any evidence. Do you believe black people would succeed in the absence of white people?

[Anonymous No.3517318]

>>3517250
>what an incredibly, immensely general and unscientific point. No doubt, you also put undue weight on genetics as the core reason for this.

Once again kinship which is based on genetics determines cooperation between individuals.

>how do you rationalize this
Because the person will have done something to differentiate themselves from the average.

>Give me a situation in which it makes sense to judge someone by testing a population you group them into and then judge them based on a resulting probability rather than simply testing the individual's ability and judging them.

Generally I don't walk up to lions in the wild based on the generalization that they are violent creatures, I don't approach them individually because this would be a dumb thing to do.

[Anonymous No.3517325]

>>3517196

See once again you didn't even understand the study you used as an explanation.

It said that kids that scored lower on IQ tests were more likely to just mark random shit and not care thus scoring even lower than what they normally would. It didn't say that being highly motivated made them score above average or equal. It even stated that above average test takers didn't vary their score much with motivation.

In OPS article attractive people we above average this imply's(by YOUR article) that motivation isn't a factor in their scores.

You can't even make consistent arguments.


Thousands of years ago when mankind had neither letter nor number groups of human beings would sit huddled together by their greatest and most powerful tool to date; camp fire. They would sit together awe struck and scared while observing some meteorological phenomenon they had no way of understanding. Maybe thunder. Eventually some wordy member of the group would, using reason by analogy and the memetic frame work of the group, craft an explanation, jump up and tell everybody.

And that one scared guy setting closest to the fire, that guy, he'd feel better; his world made more sense now. He'd then proceed to go around and tell everybody about that story. "No!" he'd say "my dead ancestors cause thunder!"

And every time he'd tell other people this story he was really telling himself, and he felt better, less scared.

Eventually he'd come across something else he didn't understand; let's say lighting.

This would scare him to no end at first. He would cower in fear not just at its presence, but at the mere thought. But one day, when confronted with the concept, he'd gather himself summons up all his courage stands up and triumphantly declare


"NO! MY DEAD ANCESTORS CAUSE LIGHTING!"


That's you. You're that scared guy.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3517341]

>>3517325
>See once again you didn't even understand the study you used as an explanation.
>It said that kids that scored lower on IQ tests were more likely to just mark random shit and not care thus scoring even lower than what they normally would. It didn't say that being highly motivated made them score above average or equal. It even stated that above average test takers didn't vary their score much with motivation.
>In OPS article attractive people we above average this imply's(by YOUR article) that motivation isn't a factor in their scores.
>You can't even make consistent arguments.

I'm sorry. I'm not understanding what you're saying. Could you explain this part please:
>In OPS article attractive people we above average this imply's(by YOUR article) that motivation isn't a factor in their scores.
?

[Anonymous No.3517406]

>implying beauty isn't subjective
>implying correlation is causation
>implying the only intellectuals that would be considered 'beautiful' are Feynman and Sagan

[Anonymous No.3517407]

Survival of the fittest at play. Its sad but true. just less than 100 years ago babies were dying everyday because they were retarded.

[Anonymous No.3517460]

>>3517318
>Generally I don't walk up to lions in the wild based on the generalization that they are violent creatures, I don't approach them individually because this would be a dumb thing to do.

you're comparing differences between Human populations, none of which have a monopoly on any genotype, and all of which are subject to varying prevalence of any given genotype over the course of generations, to different species. There is no hope of lions ever doing better than humans no matter how many generations pass. Not true with any human population.
The difference between different populations of humans and different species is functionally so enormous that it can't be used in such a comparison.

[Anonymous No.3517551]

fuck it, I'm ugly AND stupid

[Anonymous No.3517566]

why is the average noble prize winner ugly

[Anonymous No.3517580]

Well I believe jesus said that "all men are created equal"

So if you have +x intelligence and +y attractiveness you probably have -x charisma and -y athletic or something similar. Or else everything is just unbalanced and not fair

[Anonymous No.3517585]

>>3517341


>2011

>thinks that statistically unimportant outliers dictate the overall trend of a study like this.


yes. people who do not complete the tests properly are factored into the design of all sociological and psychological experiments. Forever. Since the begining of this field of study/"science."


You do not get published without presenting the rigors of your experiment in the paper. The paper does not get published if the rigors are not up to the standards of KNOWN science.


people do research on how to do this type of large scale experiment accurately. It is well established. It works. This type of thing has no statistical significance. You are an idiot.


supporting info....

how does it work?

[Anonymous No.3517620]

>>3516854
or it spurs them forward to compensate for their physical apperance with raw mental fortitude

[Anonymous No.3517625]

>>3517580
>all men are created equal
>Jesus

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3517656]

>>3517585
>yes. people who do not complete the tests properly are factored into the design of all sociological and psychological experiments. Forever. Since the begining of this field of study/"science."
I think we have different undestandings of the implications of study #2. You make it sound as though it's only outliers who purposefully fuck up on the test.

I recall seeing evidence somewhere which clearly indicates that IQ scores are affected by upbringing, and not in a racial way. Just parents who helped motivation their children vs not. We can extrapolate that the same phenomenon is happening with black kids who receive negative reinforcement from the culture.

[Anonymous No.3517799]

>>3516952
>height, hair color, eye color aren't genetic because we haven't determined the exact genes that determine said characteristics

[Anonymous No.3517827]

you stupid fucks.

when will you realize that practice, especially starting from an early age, is the key to being a fucking beast.

Perelman isn't some fucking amazing prodigy? You know what he is? A lucky motherfucker who was born to a mom with a graduate degree in math and practice math from the age of 8 in a special math school.

oh, and he's ugly as fuck.

so stfu all of you asburger fucks

[Anonymous No.3517843]

>>3517827
perelman only accomplished what he did because of 1. his mother's genetic intelligence and 2. his mother providing an evironment for him to learn

if you put a random black kid in said environment he wouldn't even get a bachelors in math

[Anonymous No.3517924]

>>3517843
source on which genes control for intelligence?

[Anonymous No.3517928]

>>3517924
We don't know, but we can quantify the heritability.

[Anonymous No.3517955]

It makes sense. Them desirable genetic traits compound with eachother over time.

Mostly due to good looking women marrying smart and wealthy men.

[Anonymous No.3517961]

>>3517928
most of the twin study tests do not control for social interaction.
for example, being black will probably mean you have black friends, you will be treated differently by employers, teachers may give you different opportunities, &c.
we culturally look for different things from blacks and whites. It's almost unavoidable in the course of every day life.

i think you are a little too eager to default to genetics before considering all alternatives.

[Anonymous No.3518028]

>>3517924

The going rate is 75%. Most psychologists believe that IQ is seventy five percent determined by genetics and 25 percent by environment. There have been plenty of studies you can google it up.

[Anonymous No.3518035]

>>3517961

>disregard Occams Razor

>embrace delusion

If you were well versed in this subject, you'd realize adoption studies aren't the only hard data supporting the hereditarian explanation.

[Anonymous No.3518042]

>>3518035
enlighten me please

i have really never seen any other study cited on the matter.

[Anonymous No.3518044]

>>3517843

Your right they would have a masters instead!

[Anonymous No.3518048]

>>3518028
'google it' isn't a reliable way to source any study.
please source something for your statistics.

[Anonymous No.3518073]

>>3518048

phaggy scholar is too good for google...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/magazine/23wwln_idealab.html?ei=5090&en=2c93740d624fe47f&e
x=1311307200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

[Anonymous No.3518081]

>>3518073

>ny times
>magazine

Are you kidding?

[Anonymous No.3518090]

>>3518081

I dont have access to this shit.

http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/13/4/148