Beauty → Intelligence

[Aramis]

I think this 'study' is total crap.

I've seen your photo! You have a high IQ, get over it.

[Heimmacht]

Well, that's a little bit short - care to explain?

Why should it be crap if favourable genes meet, favourable living conditions and of course the health factor?

Intelligence does not automaticly make a person beautiful, I know quite a few people who are very intelligent and (pardon me if I say so) they are just average looking (and some even lack people skills).
I'm talking about IQ's starting with 140.

The point is also that beauty really is subjective, one person might favor psychical appearance more than intelligence and another person values intelligence more, so in the light of that last person that makes an intelligent human being more attractive compared to the fine looking specimen without the brains to back it up.

Intelligent people will always need an about equally intelligent partner to start a fundamentally good relationship with, so about the connecting of favourable genes they're always going to be more attracted to a person who they can talk with and share ideas with (or understand them at least) to a person who just doesn't get them.

So I think the intelligence factor for those people is more important, ofcourse there are good looking intelligent people, but hey we usually cannot have the whole package right?

[Agrippa]

[B]Intelligence does not automaticly make a person beautiful, I know quite a few people who are very intelligent and (pardon me if I say so) they are just average looking (and some even lack people skills).
I'm talking about IQ's starting with 140.

If they are average, that's fine already, because among the mentally retarded, below average is more common.

And you correctly state that:

Intelligence does not automaticly make a person beautiful

That's common sense and nobody said so, because a statistical correlation ≠ automatism.

The point is also that beauty really is subjective

Only to a certain degree, because there ARE objective standards.

one person might favor psychical appearance more than intelligence and another person values intelligence more, so in the light of that last person that makes an intelligent human being more attractive compared to the fine looking specimen without the brains to back it up.

Now you are talking about completely different things. What you are talking about is partner value and partner selection. Obviously, for the latter things there are more traits to consider than a clear skin, healthy hair, good body proportions etc., especially if you want a longer term relationship. I myself know that VERY WELL and don't consider the physical attractiveness to be the most important factor for me neither.

Yet you can say: I find this person valuable as a partner DESPITE being physically unattractive - but that's what we are talking about here: The correlation of physical attractiveness with intelligence - on average, as slight as it might be, but it is there!

Intelligent people will always need an about equally intelligent partner to start a fundamentally good relationship with, so about the connecting of favourable genes they're always going to be more attracted to a person who they can talk with and share ideas with (or understand them at least) to a person who just doesn't get them.

Right. But if you have the choice between two intelligent partners, one has favourable physical traits, the other not, what do you chose? You would be not reasonable if favouring the less attractive one, just to prove your point

It would be alright, if you do so for other traits of course, but it is rather unlikely and irrational otherwise...

And I guess after some adjustments, I could present you people which are preferable for their physique alone - attractiveness it that sense is the "first look" factor.

So I think the intelligence factor for those people is more important, ofcourse there are good looking intelligent people, but hey we usually cannot have the whole package right?

Well, why not?

Obviously not all get the whole package, unfortunately, but that is something we can work at (Eugenic and Euphenic measures) and I might add, statistically, the correlation of attractiveness with above average intelligence is positive.

I wouldn't be so sure in the highest ranks, as there might be more often certain "nerdish" tendencies related to "genetic specialities", but for the whole population it is certainly true.

I just have to compare the average students at the university with the average population of the same age, the comparison makes the point 100 percent clear and I can't imagine it is so much different in any more or less homogenous population, unless your farmer boys are healthy Nordoids and the students mostly Ashkenazic Jews with a certain background or the like...

[Heimmacht]

If they are average, that's fine already, because among the mentally retarded, below average is more common.

And you correctly state that:


That's common sense and nobody said so, because a statistical correlation ≠ automatism.



Only to a certain degree, because there ARE objective standards.



Now you are talking about completely different things. What you are talking about is partner value and partner selection. Obviously, for the latter things there are more traits to consider than a clear skin, healthy hair, good body proportions etc., especially if you want a longer term relationship. I myself know that VERY WELL and don't consider the physical attractiveness to be the most important factor for me neither.

Yet you can say: I find this person valuable as a partner DESPITE being physically unattractive - but that's what we are talking about here: The correlation of physical attractiveness with intelligence - on average, as slight as it might be, but it is there!



Right. But if you have the choice between two intelligent partners, one has favourable physical traits, the other not, what do you chose? You would be not reasonable if favouring the less attractive one, just to prove your point

It would be alright, if you do so for other traits of course, but it is rather unlikely and irrational otherwise...

And I guess after some adjustments, I could present you people which are preferable for their physique alone - attractiveness it that sense is the "first look" factor.



Well, why not?

Obviously not all get the whole package, unfortunately, but that is something we can work at (Eugenic and Euphenic measures) and I might add, statistically, the correlation of attractiveness with above average intelligence is positive.

I wouldn't be so sure in the highest ranks, as there might be more often certain "nerdish" tendencies related to "genetic specialities", but for the whole population it is certainly true.

I just have to compare the average students at the university with the average population of the same age, the comparison makes the point 100 percent clear and I can't imagine it is so much different in any more or less homogenous population, unless your farmer boys are healthy Nordoids and the students mostly Ashkenazic Jews with a certain background or the like...

Aah, I think I misread the first post, I was thinking in extremes and not in average, beauty in my opinion doesn't mean average looking and when people say intelligence I tend not to think of 13 points above average.

But I can understand it now from a populations point of view.

You must excuse my English though, I usually have a hard time expressing my opinion through it.