|
Good looking people are more intelligent
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Swamper |
LINK
A new study out of the UK has turned the "dumb blonde" stereotype on its head by revealing attractive people have an IQ up to nearly 14 points above the average.
The London School of Economics study, which is based on findings from the UK and the US, suggests that both beauty and intelligence tend to be inherited from couples blessed with both.
"Physical attractiveness is significantly positively associated with general intelligence, both with and without controls for social class, body size and health," lead researcher Dr Satoshi Kanazawa wrote in the journal Intelligence .
"The association between attractiveness and general intelligence is also stronger among men than among women."
The UK findings are based on the National Child Development Study, which followed 17,419 people since their birth in 1958.
From childhood to early adulthood, the subjects were given a series of tests for academic progress, intelligence and they were also marked on appearance.
The study found that physically attractive men had IQs an average 13.6 points above the norm while women were about 11.4 points higher.
The US results were taken from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a similar study of 35,000 young Americans.
"If more intelligent men are more likely to attain higher status," Dr Kanazawa wrote, "and if men of higher status are more likely to marry beautiful women, then, given that both intelligence and physical attractiveness are highly heritable, there should be a positive correlation between intelligence and physical attractiveness in the children's generation."
He also warned that the findings were statistical. "It goes without saying that our contention that beautiful people are more intelligent is purely scientific," Dr Satoshi Kanazawa told News Ltd. "It is not a prescription for how to treat or judge others."
--------
oh rly? |
|
|
| Lira |
| I was tempted to say "I'm screwed", but why does Kanazawa's name sound so familiar? Hmmm.... never mind. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| Plus, you have to think about how people favour the good looking. I'm sure that better looking kids are favoured in school when they are young, thus being better nurtured intellectually and having better early learning/formative learning experiences. |
|
|
| Zyklon_Jay |
| i dunno...chinese people look kinda funny. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| I'd say the obvious question is: just how do you measure physical attractiveness? |
|
|
| Zyklon_Jay |
| the mario test. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| Symmetry of facial features, clear + healthy complexion, straight teeth/good smile, healthy hair, fit body. Pretty simple. |
|
|
| Lira |
It's all about the bonkworth: they grab a bunch of page 3 stunners and see who's had most the most success in file sharing networks. The more wank banks a person is featured in, the more attractive she is. That and cup size.
Blokes are unattractive by default. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Miss Pie
Plus, you have to think about how people favour the good looking. I'm sure that better looking kids are favoured in school when they are young, thus being better nurtured intellectually and having better early learning/formative learning experiences. |
Thats why I am so smart...
I was a damn cute kid...
WTF HAPPENED! :( |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Miss Pie
Symmetry of facial features, clear + healthy complexion, straight teeth/good smile, healthy hair, fit body. Pretty simple. |
Yes. Physical attraction is objective. Simple! |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Miss Pie
Symmetry of facial features, clear + healthy complexion, straight teeth/good smile, healthy hair, fit body. Pretty simple. |
Fit body? 200 years ago being fit and tan, qualities of attractiveness now, were not considered attractive at all.
Attractiveness is totally subjective, its not scientific. It can be analyzed and statistics and trends derived from data, but in the end it varies 100% from person to person and the only thing that can be reached is large generalizations. |
|
|
|
|
