/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5676938]

Is it true when they say that people who are more attractive are also more intelligent?

[Anonymous No.5676940]

Sounds reasonable to me. I'm ugly and unintelligent.

[Anonymous No.5676942]

Yes. The more attractive a person naturally is the better genetics they have.

[Anonymous No.5676945]

>>5676938

Usually. Our evolution and milennia of our best and brightest fucking each other has happily bundled together pretty much all our desirable traits (intelligence, moral behavior, physical attractiveness).

[Anonymous No.5676952]

There is at least some truth to it. Genetic disorders or fetal malnourishment doesn't seem to produce the best and the brightest.

On the other hand, I'm not quite sure the reverse is true.

[Anonymous No.5676955]

>>5676938
It's the opposite actually

[Anonymous No.5676956]

[Anonymous No.5676989]

>>5676956

10/10 would bang

[Anonymous No.5677004]

>>5676956
Stephen Hawking wasn't that bad before als got him.

[Anonymous No.5677072]

>attractive.jpg

[Anonymous No.5677076]

>>5676938
Not necessarily

[Anonymous No.5677188]

>>5676942
I forgot what I was going to say because I've had this reply window open for several hours after I got distracted and did something else.

So have this pic instead.

[Anonymous No.5677192]

I can confirm this by anecdotal evidence. I am the smartest and the most attractive girl on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.5677199]

>>5677192

and by 'girl' you mean drag queen

[None !!BJiYgff8zf2 No.5677206]

>>5676945
>moral behavior

As a recent introductory textbook in social psychology (Kunda, 1999) remarks,
there is surprisingly little consistency in people’s friendliness, honesty, or any other
personality trait from one situation to other, different situations. ...[W]e often fail to
realize this, and tend to assume that behavior is far more consistent and predictable
than it really is. As a result, when we observe people’s behavior, we jump to conclusions
about their underlying personality far too readily and have much more confidence than
we should in our ability to predict their behavior in other settings (page 395).
These conclusions are uncontroversial and a similar account can be found in almost any recent
textbook in the social psychology. Such conclusions are are supported by a very large amount of
disparate evidence.
These conclusions and the evidence for them have significant implications for business ethics. In
an extremely interesting and useful account Solomon (forthcoming) notes that one implication is
that “We need less moralizing [about character] and more beneficent social engineering.” But,
while praising an important new book that elaborates the philosophical implications of the results
of social psychology, written by the philosopher, John Doris, (Doris, 2002), Solomon defends a
version of business virtue ethics (partly in response to Harman, 1998-99), arguing that I and Doris
overstate what Doris calls the “fragmentation of character” implied by the scientific results.
In this note, I want to suggest that Solomon underestimates the force of the threat to his version of
business virtue ethics and I want to say a bit more about how the evidence from social psychology
implies such “fragmentation.”

[Anonymous No.5677212]

>>5677206

Didn't I just read this somewhere else?

[Anonymous No.5677228]

>>5677226
>psychology

I would of expected better from you.

[None !!BJiYgff8zf2 No.5677226]

>>5677212

Repetition improves recall.

[Anonymous No.5677230]

>>5677226

Repetition does improve recall.

[Anonymous No.5677233]

>>5677230
Repetition improves recall.