# Study: Good Looking People tend to be Smart



## nevermore

Beautiful men, women are more likely to be smarter with high IQs, too: study

Apparently, according to science, some people are just better than other people in every way...


----------



## MuChApArAdOx

Oh really, i would love to read the article and study on this subject. Looks like you found an interesting site: . If you can, please leave us a link so we call all read it, thanks .


----------



## nevermore

The link's in my post.:wink:


----------



## amanda32

Bill Gates. All I'm gonna say.


----------



## viva

I can't help but wonder how they determined who was part of the "attractive" pool and who was not.


----------



## nevermore

vivacissimamente said:


> I can't help but wonder how they determined who was part of the "attractive" pool and who was not.


That was my first thought. And who was in the "intelligent" pool.

And you can't help think of the stereotype of the ugly, nerdy, but genius scientist.:tongue:

Still, you can't deny it's interesting.


----------



## Happy

I agree with this study. Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein are total hotties.


----------



## Lycrester

Well I'm screwed...

But seriously,that is one of the weirdest correlations I have ever heard/read. What if I find Person _A_ attractive but someone else thinks Person _A_ is as ugly as sin?


----------



## MuChApArAdOx

nevermore said:


> The link's in my post.:wink:


Oh, please excuse, i had a blind moment . Thanks.:mellow:


----------



## MuChApArAdOx

Interesting. Intelligence can be tested and proved, although like the posted above said, attractive
to one may not be attractive to another. For example my brother is totally attracted to red heads. Another brother
thinks red heads are very unattractive. So is there a right or wrong answer. No..beauty is in the eye of the
beholder.


----------



## nevermore

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Interesting. Intelligence can be tested and proved, although like the posted above said, attractive
> to one may not be attractive to another. For example my brother is totally attracted to red heads. Another brother
> thinks red heads are very unattractive. So is there a right or wrong answer. No..beauty is in the eye of the
> beholder.


Depends on what features you mean specifically. Some are pretty much universal, but many not are not only cultural but also biologically varied. Men find plumper women attractive when there are food shortages...women are attracted to more masculine facial features when they are fertile. Waist to hip ratios vary across culture, the breast isn't fetishized in all countries the way it is in the West..a lot of it really depends.


----------



## NoirAddict

I get the stuff about beauty as subjective and that it depends on the eye of the beholder, blah, blah, blah...

But I think this explanation (from the article itself) seems fairly reasonable: (In fact I have thought about this idea before too :wink


_"Since intelligent men are more inclined to achieve more success, they are "more likely to marry beautiful women," Kanazawa said. "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."_


Yes, it's a bit sexist, being men being valued for their intelligence, so they can pick the best female mate based on the latter's physical attractiveness. It's the way much of the world has been, well, before the feminist revolutions, that is. I'm not imposing my own convictions here, just stating a fact. :crazy:


----------



## sprinkles

1. Not science.
2. Even the picture is biased. Almost anyone who isn't a complete trainwreck can look good in a makeover.

Edit: to make myself clear.



> Beautiful men, women are more likely to be smarter with high IQs, too


The title itself implies a correlation which simply does not exist. It implies formally that people are likely intelligent _because_ they are beautiful.

Perhaps Kanzawa was _actually_ implying that 'beautiful' and intelligent men and women who have children may tend to have beautiful and intelligent children, which in itself is not far fetched. This does NOT correlate beauty and intelligence, however.

This is exactly why media spin does not belong in science.


----------



## PistisSophia

I've known plenty of good looking dumbo's in my life....that's for sure. No way this data is for real nor can be quantitated, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Raichan

Good looking is purely subjective.


----------



## Woody

izzie said:


> Good looking is purely subjective.


Not always. There are many girls who are attractive to literally every man. I don't know if it's the same with men but I guess there is a bunch of guys who are good-looking to most women.

I think this study might be partly right. There are some people who are both attractive and smart at the same time. But on the other hand everybody has some drawbacks and if one is pretty and smart, might have a tendency to be depressed or shy. The point is: looking good and doing great in school/work will not always lead to happiness.


----------



## sprinkles

Woody said:


> Not always. There are many girls who are attractive to literally every man. I don't know if it's the same with men but I guess there is a bunch of guys who are good-looking to most women.


Not trying to knock your opinion but... that actually makes it _more_ subjective, not less. :laughing:



> I think this study might be partly right. There are some people who are both attractive and smart at the same time. But on the other hand everybody has some drawbacks and if one is pretty and smart, might have a tendency to be depressed or shy. The point is: looking good and doing great in school/work will not always lead to happiness.


It might be _statistically probable_. But it is not "right" in the scientific sense of what it is trying to say. a.k.a. they are not causally linked. I think it was probably hijacked by creative editing to get site traffic.

Science should never say what this article is apparently trying to say.


----------



## sprinkles

Put simply, anything which is expressed as "<adjective> according to <agent>" is _automatically_ subjective.


----------



## Ecky

Sure, the article was worded poorly, but if there's a correlation, there's a correlation. It also stands to reason.

I believe I remember reading about this (or a similar study) several years back.


----------



## sprinkles

Ecky said:


> Sure, the article was worded poorly, but if there's a correlation, there's a correlation. It also stands to reason.
> 
> I believe I remember reading about this (or a similar study) several years back.


If there is, there is. But there isn't. So there isn't. There's a difference between correlation and coincidence, even though they some times appear to converge.

A chemical increasing the likelihood of cancer is a correlation. Beauty does not increase, nor effect, intelligence. That is what I am trying to say.

It may very well be that intelligence increases due to the progeny of intelligent parents, and if they are also beautiful, beauty will coincide with - _but not relate to_ - intelligence; even if we end up with more intelligent people because of beautiful people pairing up.

This may seem overly technical but it is important so that people do not make wrong conclusions.


----------



## Ecky

"Correlation does not imply causation"

I see nothing wrong with the logic that intelligent (read: rich, successful) men will tend to have more beautiful wives, or coming from the opposite direction, that beautiful women will tend to find rich, successful (read: likely intelligent) husbands. The genes will therefore tend to be found together. 

I agree that it's probably in nobody's best interest to be spreading this, but that doesn't mean there isn't some truth to it.


The article never claimed that beauty caused intelligence, or vice versa.


----------



## lirulin

I read a study about this a while back - and they talked about how they both correlate to_ health_. Things like facial symmetry reflect fewer infections &c and good nutrition helps your brain.

Not improbable that there would be a correlation.

If I find the link, I'll post it later.

EDIT: Here's something although I don't think it's what I originally read and there is also this.


----------



## sprinkles

Ecky said:


> "Correlation does not imply causation"


That's referring to statistical correlation of variables. Correlation in that sense can be applied to _anything_ and is not very useful, which is exactly why this phrase was created.

I'm referring to correlation in the sense of linear relationships. Saying things correlate based on statistics alone is hogwash, and I think the term should be abolished in that usage. If the price of cheese and the birth rate in New Guinea both increased, that would technically be a statistical correlation but to connect the two would generally be utterly stupid.



> I see nothing wrong with the logic that intelligent (read: rich, successful) men will tend to have more beautiful wives, or coming from the opposite direction, that beautiful women will tend to find rich, successful (read: likely intelligent) husbands. The genes will therefore tend to be found together.


They could have just said that.



> The article never claimed that beauty caused intelligence, or vice versa.


Bringing up statistics is pointless unless they are claiming something other than the obvious. What they are saying is not new. This study was entirely unnecessary as far as I can tell, and the way it is presented is not in any way informative. Anyone should be able to deduce the conclusion reasonably well on their own. Therefore I question their motivations.


----------



## sprinkles

lirulin said:


> Things like facial symmetry reflect fewer infections &c and good nutrition helps your brain.


_This_ I find more likely. Facial symmetry is also by far more appropriate to consider as a variable as opposed to "beauty". 

The fact that such a subjective word was used in the same article which is supposedly scientific actually makes me ill.


----------



## NoirAddict

I don't know why some of the people here are irritated by the fact that beauty causes intelligence or vice versa. That "causation and correlation are not the same"... surely, most of the people here know about that.

_The article clearly does not say anything about these lines. _ It just says that according to its findings, these traits tend to come together. Period. No further implication on how they are caused by one another. Well, except the statement about successful and intelligent men marrying beautiful women, but nothing beyond that.


----------



## Lokkye

I believe no intelligence test is rightfully accurate because they test for a certain intelligence, some people would be better with other intelligences than other people.
And what is considered "intelligent" and "attractive".. I believe that these things are subjective.


----------



## SuperDevastation

From what I've seen, most unattractive people tend to have above average intelligence, and most attractive people tend to have average or below average intelligence.


----------



## nevermore

SuperDevastation said:


> From what I've seen, most unattractive people tend to have above average intelligence, and most attractive people tend to have average or below average intelligence.


That's definitely a stereotype. For me I'd say that (and take this the wrong way all you like, it's just a personal, "subjective" observation) most really unintelligent people I've met have not been good looking, although I have also met my fair share of attractive people who never had to develop their intelligence _because_ they were good looking.

The correlation seems to be stronger on the lower end of the spectrum, based on my personal observations. A lot of really unintelligent people just so happen (for whatever reason) to be "ugly". Not that all are. On the other hand, smart people can be all over the place.

Just my personal, "subjective" observations - please don't shoot me.


----------



## angularvelocity

*Checks mirror* *Checks college transcripts* Yep, confirmed and true.

LOLOLOL IM TOTALLY KIDDING. :crazy:


----------



## PistisSophia

This is an average looking woman; but she isn't average in intelligence. Marie Curie is one of the smartest women that ever lived, having won not one but two Nobel Prizes in Physics.


----------



## Cman

Lokkye said:


> I believe no intelligence test is rightfully accurate because they test for a certain intelligence, some people would be better with other intelligences than other people.
> And what is considered "intelligent" and "attractive".. I believe that these things are subjective.


It's always nice and fuzzy to say that everything is subjective and everyone is amazing, but that just doesn't hold up. _Some_ elements of attractiveness are subjective, but many are not. Things like facial symmetry are universally attractive. Sure, someone might be attracted to someone with poor symmetry, but that does _not_ make it subjective. Instead, that person's other features (both physical and personal) probably made up for it, so they are attractive as a whole.



PistisSophia said:


> This is an average looking woman; but she isn't average in intelligence. Marie Curie is one of the smartest women that ever lived, having won not one but two Nobel Prizes in Physics.


One example does not negate a trend.


----------



## Aßbiscuits

Beauty is not subjective. It's hard-wired into us, culturally it can change slightly but saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is just...idealistic. 

Universally, most people will agree that exhibit A is fugly:










Universally, most people will agree that exhibit B is smexii:










If it was subjective there'd hardly even be a basis for what people consider beautiful, it would be far less consistent.


----------



## SyndiCat

i see no rational explanation as to why intelligence and beauty would go hand in hand. because if that is possible, then it is also possible that you could get dumber by reading. speaking of which, i think this thread made me dumber.


----------



## PistisSophia

Good looks and intelligence have nothing to do with each other. It's all variable and looks are subjective but intelligence can be quantitated.


----------



## Ecky

MikeAngell said:


> i see no rational explanation as to why intelligence and beauty would go hand in hand. because if that is possible, then it is also possible that you could get dumber by reading. speaking of which, i think this thread made me dumber.


^ That made no sense. 




lirulin said:


> I read a study about this a while back - and they talked about how they both correlate to_ health_. Things like facial symmetry reflect fewer infections &c and good nutrition helps your brain.
> 
> Not improbable that there would be a correlation.


After some thinking, I agree this is probably most likely. Children raised in poor homes are more likely to have developmental problems, both mentally and physically. So much is developmental, nobody is genetically stupid.

It still stands to reason, however, that the genes from those who are beautiful and those who are intelligent will tend to mix.


----------



## nevermore

PistisSophia said:


> Good looks and intelligence have nothing to do with each other. It's all variable and looks are subjective but intelligence can be quantitated.


Did you not see Aßbiscuits' pictures?

As I said in another post, I very much agree that beauty can't be measured perfectly, but anyone can tell the difference between a 1 and a 10, 5 and a 10, even a 7 and a 10. It's pretty instinctual and developed for very good evolutionary reasons. 

And how can you conclusively say they have _nothing_ to do with each other? Perhaps you have a problem with this empirical study; for all I know it may simply not have been done well. But at least it's trying to offer some evidence! What evidence do you have?

Many people are also assuming this is a purely genetic matter. I think it has a bit to do with it, but lirulin made a good point about the environment and health playing a huge role as well. It has also been shown that raising babies near industrial environments or places with lots of loud throbbing (factories, train stations) and where there are more toxins decreases their intelligence. Do you wish to challenge this?


----------



## azrinsani

When you say attractive you mean thin and skinny right?

Makes sense cause Geeks are normally thin...


----------



## nevermore

azrinsani said:


> When you say attractive you mean thin and skinny right?
> 
> Makes sense cause Geeks are normally thin...


Lol, guess I'm stupid then...I could stand to lose a few pounds!:laughing:

I was thinking of this. It was partly why I think this study is much more reliable on the lower end of IQ than on the higher. I think if you look at the higher end, there are more exceptions. But exceptionally unintelligent people tend not to be very good looking, in my experience. This is perhaps because they grew up in an environment that stunted their development. No matter what you have to work with, you'll turn out Whereas an average looking person who is smart may not have exceptional "beauty genes", but has developed in an enriching environment. Their bodies and minds have developed properly because they were not deprived of basic needs. Both beauty and intelligence, two factors both dependent in part upon the environment, were not stunted.


----------



## SyndiCat

Ecky said:


> ^ That made no sense.


neither does this topic, but it exists still.


----------



## Mr.Xl Vii

I think I can solve the entire issue in this thread with one edit to the title of the study.

"Stereotypically Good Looking People Tend to be Smart"

Problem solved.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis

Please don't tell me that this is going in the race/height/MBTI direction like the last <insert descriptor here> group is smarter.


----------



## Pyroscope

'We're lyk scientists nd we've dun tests nd stuffs' is what this articles gives off an air of...
You can't yell 'SCIENCE' as a convincing argument of why a hypothesis is true.
Surface science is surface science, and probably pops just as easily as a balloon held together by the same principle...


----------



## nevermore

Pyroscope said:


> 'We're lyk scientists nd we've dun tests nd stuffs' is what this articles gives off an air of...
> You can't yell 'SCIENCE' as a convincing argument of why a hypothesis is true.
> Surface science is surface science, and probably pops just as easily as a balloon held together by the same principle...


I suggest you read the actual paper and not just the article covering it. I linked to the latter because it summed it up nicely for people, but those wishing to explore these findings in more depth should consult the study itself.

Its flaws have already been noted (poor method of gauging attractiveness) but there exists a bulwark of evidence for universal standards of beauty, and this study has been repeated elsewhere.


----------



## lirulin

noz said:


> oh damn really? I didn't even check that heh, I just presumed they would have used the objective measures of facial symmetry, good ratios/portions etc. you're right, that really does make their effect problematic.
> 
> actually, now that you mention it, why the HELL is the London school of *economics* rehashing OLD topics of intelligence that's already been examined extensively by psychologists? Someone's manufacturing impact factor!


I would assume the measures they use have some correlation with symmetry etc. since subjective measures of attractiveness were how they figured out the consistency in liking those more measurable factors in the first place - I mean, there's definitely going to be some similarities - but it would have been presented better had they used the other factors.


----------



## Pyroscope

nevermore said:


> I suggest you read the actual paper and not just the article covering it. I linked to the latter because it summed it up nicely for people, but those wishing to explore these findings in more depth should consult the study itself.
> 
> Its flaws have already been noted (poor method of gauging attractiveness) but there exists a bulwark of evidence for universal standards of beauty, and this study has been repeated elsewhere.


You're right, I overreacted there :bored: Those kind of pseudo-science articles tend to irritate me all too easily, but the actual paper was a lot better.
The different between the american and british studies got me wondering what the reason for disparity was - is the american one deficient in its ability to address effective methods of intelligence or is the lack of rigid criteria for determining attractivity in the british one painting skewed relationships that don't actually exist?
I'd be in agreement with the people mentioning facial-symmetry being the likely relevant factor though, I wondered when I first encountered evolution what value 'attractivity' had to the survival of the species and it being an indication of healthy genes seemed the most sensible explanation.


----------



## sprinkles

Pyroscope said:


> You're right, I overreacted there :bored: Those kind of pseudo-science articles tend to irritate me all too easily, but the actual paper was a lot better.
> The different between the american and british studies got me wondering what the reason for disparity was - is the american one deficient in its ability to address effective methods of intelligence or is the lack of rigid criteria for determining attractivity in the british one painting skewed relationships that don't actually exist?
> I'd be in agreement with the people mentioning facial-symmetry being the likely relevant factor though, I wondered when I first encountered evolution what value 'attractivity' had to the survival of the species and it being an indication of healthy genes seemed the most sensible explanation.


The actual paper I read (the technical one) talks about physical attractiveness (it's a more specific definition, actually). Now that I've read it, I don't see any horrible problems with the study.

What I find interesting, however, is that what it does _not_ show, is attractive people being significantly _above average._ That's right, it shows that most attractive people are still _average,_ and not even a standard deviation above. 

So basically, attractive people may tend to be smarter than unattractive people generally, but _that only_. Which is about what I had expected. I don't think it is nearly as impressive as the news article tried to make it out to be, when it is really saying that unattractive people tend to run _below average_ (and usually not by much, by the looks of it)

Edit: I have to correct myself, it shows unattractive people as average too, since they are within the standard deviation. The news article has a screwup where it mentions attractive people being 13 or 11 points above average, when it is meant to say they are 13 or 11 points above those who rate as average for _attractiveness_. They are not 13 or 11 above average IQ.


----------



## sesiotrot

The halo effect is beautiful.


----------



## Sanskrit

Miss south carolina.
'Nuff said.


----------



## yhwhchild7

ummm...okaaaay....go with me here...we become beautiful, as we love ourselves and each other (like, seriously, the way we would rate each other and be rated changes when love and the emotions tied to it is introduced-self-love and between people). I have my own personal action reseach/ethnography involving a few folks (hardly scientific but entertainingly supportive of my theory!)


----------



## SenhorFrio

well could be: person is smart=they get moneys=they can get an attractive looking mate=smart genes and pretty genes mix. and smart people are more self aware=better self care


----------



## noz

SenhorFrio said:


> and smart people are more self aware=better self care


that's a really great point actually.

won't higher intelligence yield better, healthier decisions throughout life? It's hard not to say yes....


----------



## mrkedi

again, assets doesn't gurantee better opportunities, and good personality.


----------



## noz

who said anything about guarantees? its about probabilities. The probability that I decide to quit snorting meth everyday because my life is in ruins is a function of my intelligence, no? Cessation of drug use is just one realm where intelligence could have an impact on variables affecting attractiveness.


----------



## mrkedi

noz said:


> who said anything about guarantees? its about probabilities. The probability that I decide to quit snorting meth everyday because my life is in ruins is a function of my intelligence, no? Cessation of drug use is just one realm where intelligence could have an impact on variables affecting attractiveness.


^ well, i find people are very sensitive about asset and probablity and constatly bind them together (in PerC and IRL). a lot of the post did gave me the impression that "if A is good looking, she (could be a he too, but women seems to affected a lot more by this) must have everything duh!" or "how can he/she didn't nail whatever since he/she is so smart..." whatnots.


----------



## PseudoSenator

But do smart people tend to be good looking? :tongue:

Intelligence is its own beauty. If they're smart though, they probably know what's good for their health and eat right/exercise--which will contribute to their physical appearance. If they are smart they likely can get technical, high-paying jobs--which can pay for any cosmetic surgeries to alleviate ugliness. Just throwing scenarios out there rofl.

Many brainy people I know are actually easy on the eyes...in the eyes of this beholder.


----------



## sprinkles

noz said:


> that's a really great point actually.
> 
> won't higher intelligence yield better, healthier decisions throughout life? It's hard not to say yes....


Well, yes. But are we going by intuition or by the results of the study?

If we only use the study to affirm our intuition, that is already a bias. 



> The mean IQ is 94.2 for those rated “very unattractive,” 94.9 for those rated “unattractive,” 97.1 for those rated “about average,” 100.3 for those rated “attractive,” and 100.7 for those rated “very attractive.” Due partly to the large sample size, the association is highly statistically significant.


Yes, 100.7 is the mean. "You are pretty and of 'normal' intelligence. Congratulations!"

Seriously. Average is nothing to be proud of in my book. A handsome corporate CEO for example is not necessarily a genius. They aren't necessarily even 'smart'. No undue asskissing from me, sorry - people are what they are and that is it. Some times what we are is adequate, some times not, and some times more than, but most people are merely adequate. That's why average is average.


----------

