Lovelyish

That’s not true sometimes..

yep, definitely true. of course there are exceptions, but generally speaking it makes definite sense. go to any college, the people with the good grades also look good

Hahaha whatever 

I think it might have to do with the fact that when you’re intelligent, you’d definitely figure out how to make yourself look good. 

That honestly just does NOT seem accurate to me. I know plenty of good looking people that are, quite frankly, a little slow. Plenty of good looking people that are intelligent. Plenty of not as “attractive” people that are highly intelligent. Plenty of not as “attractive” people that are not as intelligent. Based on experience, I call bullshit.

Also, the entire study is based on something extremely arbitrary: A person’s level of attractiveness.

This is what money is being spent on? Seriously? Good lord.

Let us think about the great minds of our time and of times before. How may of them are objectively attractive?

If you think of one…let me know.

Correlation does not imply causation.

@Xbeautifully_broken_downX@xanga - Exactly what I was going to say.

I think this sounds at least relatively accurate. Let’s take some things into account:

(1) Prettier girls are often the ones most looked down upon for being stupid (as if they were compensating for lack of brains by JUST being pretty). 
(2) More attractive females are also the ones perceived as being more slutty. This mostly derives as a jealousy issue: (a) Boys are innately scared of pretty girls, so it’s easier for them to talk shit than to be humbled by them, and (b) Girls knock other girls who possess tools they never will.
Ipso facto, people (in general) don’t attempt understanding pretty girls as much, mainly out of fear. So — in turn — this is really no surprise. 
They are people that do their own thing, and there are haters. And I am not a hater.

I’d want to know more about the study before I start to believe it. All of this is very vague.

I’m sure this all boils down to evolution somehow. Survival of the fittest sort of thing. 

@BingleBot@xanga - I’m not sure that’s really fair to say. What we think of as attractive changes to fit the society and culture of the time. If you look at portraits of people from 300 or so years ago, we may not find them attractive, but they may have been the stud-muffins of their day. At the same time, I agree with your statement that what is attractive is subjective. But I think intelligence is always sexy.  

Ehhh, for me, some people are attractive because they’re smart.

@Xbeautifully_broken_downX@xanga - Precisely. So what if there’s a correlation? 

woooohooo!

@prettynpink628@xanga - Of course =) But sexy and physically attractive are two different things.

Even a lot of people today who are very intelligent are not objectively attractive. Look at Stephen Hawking lmao.

Pretty people don’t have to constantly worry about their looks or love/acceptance. This allows room for time . . . and confidence to do anything else. Like, school, work, socializing.

But that’s okay. Confidence doesn’t always come with prettiness.

@BingleBot@xanga - This is true as well. 

how about everyone strive to be intelligent?

@Twirly_Red3@xanga -  Just a little something something from a psych graduate. LOL

@BingleBot@xanga - I’m pretty sure they defined attractive as what is most proportioned. Even eye line even ear line things like that.

@Bushy_Tailed@xanga -  You really can’t just go ahead and define attraction. That’s the problem.

I don’t really have too much to say on the study, other than what I already said, and the fact that it disturbs me that it even took place. It honestly just seems like a waste of time and funds, to me. But hey, it’s not my time and it’s not my money, so I’ll get over it. In fact, I already have =P

@disorderedpersonality@xanga – if there is I suspect it would have to do with HOW attractiveness is measured. That’s always a very tricky thing.

@BingleBot@xanga - I would wonder how Hawking would’ve looked like had he not had ALS. 

it probably is true. if your attractive then you dont rely on your smarts or even show it because you can get by without it. but its just one study

eeeeeh. could be true.

I think they should have done a study on the correlation between insanity and intelligence. 

@BingleBot@xanga - So if they said people who are more symmetrical tend to be smarter than less symmetrical people you’d be happy?

This is hilarious. Some of the smartest people I know are also some of the ugliest people I know.

@turnyalightsdownlow@xanga - Intelligence isn’t something that changes over a course of a life time. Unless some kind of accident or disease were to occur.

But I’m super smart, and I’m not very attractive at all! D: This is so confusing!

Yeah. I thought it was established that I’m smarter and cuter than you. Haha! (Kiddin’!)

@WordsandThoughts@xanga - Bitch, are you calling me ugly?

@Queen_of_You188@xanga - Well, you are only 14. It’s going to take time for you.

Way oversimplified.  It may be true.  But I suspect at least a light mess of correlations where an interested investigator would have to follow several tangled strings to find true causes and their effects on what they affect.  Simply put, those who know they’re hot, and shamelessly use it to their advantage, will have a hugely unfair advantage over those of identical IQ and somewhat lesser extent, similarly good looking who actually give a damn about the value of their work and its causes (besides their own personal gain).  Being bubbly, pushy and good looking each have at least as high of value as intellect (a good combination fools enough into seeing intelligence where there’s little), always have, always will.  The eggheads do the labwork, while the bubbly folks with crappy vision lead the company and wonder why the eggheads doing proprietary work are less bubbly than them; or maybe the BoD is the fruity party.

Example (offshoot from main point):  Bubbly pretty or swindling “visionaries” want to create products that last a short term so that consumers will have to buy from them again in a few years, tops.  Put an egghead in charge who values quality and respects other peoples’ time and everything will be properly engineered to span generations, with incremental updates (with all components designed to last and also for simple replacement in case of obscolescence), at a fraction of the cost of repeated full replacements (with retraining costs, and juggling licenses/upgrade timing based on license cost and IT budget, each time added on top) in the same period.

I think there is a fairly simply explanation for this.
People who are more cultured are more likely to score higher on IQ tests and successfully manipulate their appearance to be attractive.

It’s probably not born-in beauty. 
It’s a matter of being able to use what you have.

With my experiences I can’t say this is true enough to be a general fact…

@Xbeautifully_broken_downX@xanga - LOL You took the words out of my mouth!

I do not deny that some attractive people have a high level of intelligence. But, I think this study is bogus. It’s just a link to some website that links the story to another website. Where is the credible source?

MY GOSH I JUST READ THAT.

i need a hot smart husband NOW.

@Bushy_Tailed@xanga - No, I’d be happy if they didn’t waste resources on shit like this to begin with =P But, like I said, I’m over it.

@mZdejavuZ@xanga - 

@Xbeautifully_broken_downX@xanga - Thank-you!!  Could not have made a better word choice.

I know alot of attractive intelligent people. 

@boilingicicle@xanga - Who knows lol. All I know is that his IQ is probably double mine lmao. I love that guy.

@needmoreink@xanga -  Hehe. I think it’s the psych major in me coming out. I was always taught to examine the limitations of studies, and there are a few with this one, I think.

@WhenHateIsTheOnlyOption@xanga - London School of Economics: http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/2011/01/16/2011-01-16_beautiful_men_women_have_high_iqs_too_study.html

i have an above average iq. does that mean i’m pretty? lol. no.

attractiveness gives people advantages in life

More intelligent people probably tend to take better care of themselves. They also would be slightly more likely to have the money to buy items to play up their attractiveness.
Also, intelligence can make someone seem more physically attractive.

To prove how inaccurate that claim is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

ehh who knows, but with my experience.. I’m going to say no. haha I think having intelligence makes you look better–its all about perception.

The claim  “intelligent people tend to be ugly” is stupid in the first place.

I think this means that people who CARE about themselves (hygiene, health, appearance is in that bunch) maybe take care of their brain – perhaps have a better balance. Whereas people who don’t maybe have the means to care for themselves might not have better balance in their lives.

This is a general statement, but it makes sense to me.

this is why i hate so-called economic/statistics studies sometimes. they never explain the whole story. they use their data to skew it all for their own result.

for one thing, they don’t even mention that the two might not be correlated in the least, but that there might be a third factor influencing both. for another, what even were the sample sizes they drew? did they take a homeless person and people from university? did they take all people from university? did they take people with jobs? they really need to tell us more about their data sample for it to seem more believable.

that’s a sweet picture of mrs.fey

Uh yea no. Look at the world’s geniuses. Ugly as fuck.

BAHAHAH! The only fact on this is the Franco thing, no doubt.

There should be better looking people in my engineering classes then… but there aren’t.

How does this work if beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

Maybe more street smart? LOL 

Bulllllllllllllllllshit

This falls under the same category as feminists.  Pretty girls tend to not be as concerned with the feminism movement because they already have everyone’s attention.  Same is true here; ugly people will call this a false statement and good looking people will agree.  I consider myself neither but I do consider myself fairly intelligent.  It stands to reason that if genetics control our appearance, it also controls the chemical and neural make-up of our brains.  Good genes = good looks.  So good genes (should) = good brains.

@BingleBot@xanga - I think they’re doing it by the golden ration & with the information collected from a study where they had a large group of men rate the attractiveness of body types, ect. 

Which is ultimately based on the most fertile being. So I could see how the study could potentially be valid. 

@BingleBot@xanga - dude, you just made a cripple joke

@spiderpigx@xanga - It wasn’t a joke. I am extremely fond of Stephen Hawking. My point is that he is not objectively attractive.

Why do people think citing a handful of nonattractive smart people disproves a general theory? Anecdotes which can be the exception don’t disprove a general theory. And yes there are objective ways of measuring beauty such as facial symmetry and the golden ratio. 

Interesting!! 

I think it’s probably less about innate attractiveness and more about being presentable. Many intelligent people are very goal-oriented and want to be successful in their fields. Being intelligent, they know that first impressions matter in job situations and that networking is important. So they are likely to put more effort into their appearances. That’s my initial theory anyway. Now, I’m going to click the link and read more about the study.

Oh, wow. The theory mentioned in the article makes even more sense. If you’re intelligent and successful, you’ll only accept an attractive mate because you think you deserve one. Then your kids just have sexy and smart genes. lol.

Jessica, you look so sophisticated in your picture! I can’t tell which one I liked more, though–the old one or the new one. (This has nothing to do with the post).

This seems completely inaccurate. I am 80 pounds overweight, makeup doesn’t work with my face, I have a disgusting copper hair color, etc. and my IQ is 157. There’s a girl who is absolutely gorgeous and everyone wants to be just like her who is in the intensive classes. Also, Jessica Simpson is pretty but she can’t tell the difference between chicken and tuna. I believe my point has been made.

A study is just a study. A new one will come out next week, or even tomorrow, probably telling you the opposite of everything you found out today.

Would you do Stephen Hawking?

@Xbeautifully_broken_downX@xanga - And yet, we have established correlation.

have cake and eat it too

@suicide_king23@xanga -Correlation, perhaps. Causation, no.  Saying this is true is like touting a study that says the more churches there are in a city, the higher the crime rate will be. Are these things correlated? yes. Do the amount of churches in an area directly affect and contribute to the increase the crime rate? Probably not.  Generally the more churches you have in the area, the larger the city will be; hence, higher population, hence, the higher crime rate. Additionally, they’ve done studies on topics of this nature and what they’ve found is that people assume that because someone is “attractive” to them, that they’re also smart or intelligent, which, obviously, isn’t always true. 

Sorry for the angry less-attractive folks, but unfortunately I’ve found this to be very true. From what I’ve seen, attractive people tend to be far more broad-minded, accomplished, and less keen about digging into other peoples’ businesses because they are *usually* preoccupied with their own interesting lives. The angry people on this post are just admitting to themselves that they do not consider themselves attractive (therefore other people also don’t). Just shut up. You ugly people annoy me. And even if you think in terms of evolution, it makes so much sense. Of course good-looking people are smarter, and it’s because they come with better genes. People who carry better genes must also be more aesthetically appealing to promote their chances of reproducing. Think about it. It’s just cold, hard, science, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

(Half sarcasm, half complete sincerity.)

This study is also only defining “intelligence” by the measure of an IQ test, which really only can show your ability to take tests and reason through abstract problems.
It’s only a fraction of what the overall human intelligence is capable of.

How was this study conducted?  After all, what is perceived to be attractive varies from person to person.

@Xbeautifully_broken_downX@xanga - Yes, I understand the fundamental principles of logic.  I’m just saying that this article makes no attempt to establish causation — only correlation — which they seem to do successfully.

You say “correlation vs. causation.”

I say “strawman.”

Because causation is not the point.

@suicide_king23@xanga – I was referring to the study rather than the article itself.  The article doesn’t have to establish causation because it isn’t a scientific journal, of course.

@BingleBot@xanga - his current assistant however is hot as all out

How does that explain the phenomenon of frat boys? 

(Not to suggest that I find typical frat boys remotely appealing, no matter how godlike their facial symmetry.)

You had me at James Franco

This is absolutely true. My wife is far, far more more attractive than I am. She has exclusive control of all our money, is in charge of the house, and I only do what she says.

oh my GOD i didn’t realize xangans like to bitch so much.  why is everyone so offended by this?  and why does everyone seem to think that knowing a few people who contradict this STATISTICAL CORRELATION automatically invalidates the entire study?

and ffs, it’s the lse that did this study!  are you people seriously that cocky that you think the author’s an idiot?  if you’re going to argue with everything you think could possibly be wrong with this study, have the decency to read the original paper first.  it took me 3 clicks to find it:  one on the link provided by the op, one to type in the first author’s name into my search bar, and one to get the article itself.  but since it’s clear that people are more concerned with unjustifiably criticizing the paper, i’ll save you the extra difficulty (roll eyes).  http://personal.lse.ac.uk/KANAZAWA/pdfs/I2011.pdf

save statistics for the statisticians.  there are few people who commented here, if any, who seem qualified to be making any arguments.

@pure_dasani@xanga - well i’m glad someone seems to think so

What a myth.  When children (little kids) were surveyed about looks, most said prettier women were smarter.  Another media B.S. tactic.  I do not buy this one for one second.  Research is so easily manipulated and skewed.  ’There’s real lies, true lies and then there is statistics.’

I think it’s just a mere coincidence that some attractive people just also happen to be smart.  There also happens to be big fat ugly geeks who are really smart as well…and some attractive people just happen to be stupid.

lol @ all the comments Ya’ll are so funny and cute and make me smile…