[ 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: 893 KB, 1200x1800, 1369643728481.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5788826 No.5788826 [Reply] [Original]

Hypothetically, say we take three instances of the world:
>One with only the attractive men and attractive women
>One with only attractive women and intelligent men
>One with only intelligent women and intelligent men
Unfortunately we will have to qualify those based on conventional mainstream beauty and IQ tests (I'm out), but which planet would thrive the best?

>> No.5788832

Probably the first one (assuming intelligence and attractiveness don't overlap). Because attractiveness, by definition, is the quality that attracts mates.

>> No.5788834 [DELETED] 

In all three cases mates would be selected on other criteria than beauty or intelligence.

The world with intelligent everyone would probably be preferable. But I don't think that's what your question is about.

>> No.5788835

>>5788826

That entirely depends on the planet and about 1 million other variables... some of our most succesful species are both 'unintelligent' and 'unattractive' seen with human eyes.

>> No.5788840

>>5788826
Option C. Option A only entails beautiful people incapable of technological development, once sickness and privation of resources come into account, they're fucked. Option C would entail that one of the main factors actually causing people to reproduce would be null and void, meaning hormones and instinctual urges (something those of superior intelligence are already unlikely to experience to the extent of the norm) would be lessened, however, knowing the conscious decision of reproducing regardless of aesthetics could be made, assuming any one has the time as I'm presuming that most would be researching, inventing, working on complex stuff, etc.

I would've said option B, but ~90% of one's intelligence is derived from the mother in males, meaning we'd end up where we are today.

>> No.5788842

In all three cases mates would be selected on other criteria than beauty or intelligence. When every male/female is intelligent/beautiful it's not a useful criteria. And we have to assume that they're all equally intelligent or we would just raise the bar for what's considered intelligent/beautiful.

The world with intelligent everyone would probably be preferable. But somehow I don't think that's what your question is about.

>> No.5788865

what would happen if the most beautiful woman and the most intelligent man colisionate?

>> No.5788868

>>5788832
It's past your bed time.

>> No.5788873

>>5788840
>90% of one's intelligence is derived from the mother in males

[citation]

>> No.5788893

>>5788840
>(something those of superior intelligence are already unlikely to experience to the extent of the norm)
Citation needed

>> No.5788898

>>5788842
I was wondering if the world with purely attractive people would be the most healthy but progress the lease and if the world with purely intelligent people would decrease in population from some lowered sex drive.

>> No.5788900

>>5788873
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/brainy-sons-owe-intelligence-to-their-mothers-1339099.html
>>5788893
http://machineslikeus.com/news/neural-link-between-intelligence-and-self-control

>> No.5788908

>>5788900
>1000 now or 4000 in 10 years.
what a shit scenario, in 10 years you can 10-double capital, so obviously you take the 1000 now, if you use nothing of it ypu will have 10 000 in 10 years. The question should have been 1000 now ir 20 000 in 10 years.

>> No.5788910

b because I only care about myself