There is a correlation between height, looks and intelligence. Taller people are more intelligent on average and so are good looking people.
There was even a study from 1942 which showed a small correlation between body type and intelligence; ectomorphs were slightly more intelligent. Another study done on schoolchildren showed that ectomorphs were more reflective, while endomorphs were more impulsive.
And then then there's MBTI and somatype. This chart shows the correlations between somatypes and MBTI types.
Needless to say, largely more intelligent types are more often ectomorph than mesotome or endomorph. Taking MBTI into account, IxTx is usually the most favourable overall for a population, INTx as well, but it is much more rare, yet overall (perhaps by far) the most intelligent. This is largely what ectomorphs tend to be.
Intelligent people are on average much more likely to use drugs, be self-destructive, depressive and unhappy, etc. Intelligent people are also more likely to become mentally ill.
This study basically describes people that are INTx (we can at least be very sure in saying INxx) as more creative and intelligent (both correlated).
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...reativity.html (very good read actually)
Actually when speaking of intelligence, psychologists usually refer to the habits of intelligent people as evolutionary novel; "mental progressivity". As already explained, people who are more physically progressive are also more intelligent on average and "mentally progressive".
So if we accept that largely progressive types tend to be the following: introvert (maybe intuitive and thinking as well), intelligent and creative; the answer might be easier to come to. There are the already briefly explained reasons, but there is also the fact that we live in a society which idolizes the opposite traits. We live in an ESFJ worshiping society (studies show that this is the type most preferred by women, INTP the least; woe be me). With that comes every other trait preferred; extroverted, careless, life-enjoying, hive-minded, shallow, superficial and unintelligent society.
Our preferences reflect society. We are only supposed to consume and simply not give any interest about something that is beyond simple and uninteresting commodities of modern society. Even in fields associated with intelligence, we are only supposed to (and most do) only get an education so you can get a job and do work so that you can further the consumer society. It's not for development of the intellectual, rather it is simply to conform to society. Life has become "droneish", for a lack of a better term. Life is predictable, (too) comfortable and uninteresting; get education (not necessarily), get job (more necessary), get kids, grow them up, retire, die. We are simply just part of an economy in these days and there is no intrinsic value to modern society.
I think any unintelligent person can live with that, he doesn't think, he is (like the extrovert) often quite superficial, conformist, uncaring and he only cares for trivial matters. Since our society is trivial, the unintelligent person fits in perfectly well.
To the intelligent and creative minded person, it will more often not be so. He needs more, a deeper reason and meaning, something untrivial, something that challenges and is not (too) comfortable and he needs to use his brains for something else than simple, trivial matters. Our society is trivial, hence the intelligent person doesn't fit as well.
In my mind, it's especially the intelligent introvert who doesn't fit and cannot fit completely with modern society. It's the intelligent introvert who is "endangered" by society the most. If we accept that progressive people fit into this the most often, and seemingly he does, then it should be part of the reason.
I believe that our world is somewhat similar to the world of Brave New World; a trivial culture.
Impressive post, Horten
I agree with you.
It could be correlated to health and social status; rich people are smarter and therefore their children have the benefit of proper nutrition. It could be selection; smart people have more opportunities to select mates, which also could be part of the reason smart people are better looking on average as well. It's probably several factors.
This is why I think comparisons should only be made inside a population and not between several of them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)