3 ms·

They aren't. I am very smart and, of course, stunningly beautiful. But seriously, surely looks are a very subjective thing?

Udo 15y ago
Genetically, looks and brains shouldn't be linked at all and I do believe there is no serious (anti-)correlation here. There are, however some factors dependent on attractiveness that probably influence the personal development of a person to a great deal. For example, I think there is a huge ratio of assholes among beautiful people due to similar processes that inspired the German proverb "money corrupts the character". Along those same lines, good-looking people often don't have to work very hard - so they usually don't enter academic careers, leading to a disproportionate amount of ugly people in academia.
- dextorious 15y ago
  """Genetically, looks and brains shouldn't be linked at all and I do believe there is no serious (anti-)correlation here.""" How did that "should not" come about? How about creatures with worse looks (less attractive to their species), cope up by being smarter to turn sexual selection in their favor? The notion of "looks" has not just come about in the last century or so, it exists even in totally foreign species, like flowers (attractiveness to bees by features/colors/smell/etc). And looks have been shown to correlate strongly to sexual selection (from big tits to body fat).
  - Udo 15y ago
    Because neither "looks" nor "smarts" are simple real numbers that can be adjusted up and down. It's not like eye color or ear lobe size. Both are complex phenomena with many different parameters, and there is no evidence to suggest that those myriad parameters are linked in a way to suggest worse looks lead to inherently smarter brains. The null hypothesis is that they don't and that's what we should stick with. On a more anecdotal note, I don't think inheritance is a strong factor for bad looks over many generations (which would be necessary for the kind of adjustment you're describing). Ugly parents can have beautiful children. And stupid people can have smart children, too. There is a genetic predisposition, yes, but the simple mixing of genomes over a few generations seems to be enough to sufficiently randomize a child's outlook.
- powertower 15y ago
  > that probably influence the personal development of a person to a great deal. How the world treats a beautiful person and an ugly person is absolutely and totally drastic! A well looking individual (especially a female) will be assumed to be an angle, will have every door opened, will have smiles given, will usually be considered above all others. An ugly individual will be ignored completely; almost like that person does not exist. When someone that's attractive speaks, every word is listened to. When the ugly person speaks, no one even hears them. To get ahead, an ugly person must actually produce something or make something of him/herself. Work is required, and from that work experience is gained, and from that experience, good judgment and knowledge comes.
dextorious 15y ago
"""But seriously, surely looks are a very subjective thing?""" Subjective as in: "the beauty (or lack thereof) of a person X is not a law of nature, different people can have different opinions on the matter", yes. But subjective as in: "statistically people don't tend to agree to what's beautiful/ugly", then no. I could be finding person X beautiful, and you could find it ugly. But showing him to, say, 100,000 people, the opinions won't be 50-50 or close (=totally subjective). People tend to agree. Only if the person is rather bland looking the statistical results will be totally random and not skewed towards ugly/beautiful. Consider an experiment of showing a picture Anjelica Jolie to 100,000 males to mark as ugly/beautiful. I bet I can predict the results.
- Craiggybear 15y ago
  I don't really care what the majority think. The "majority" regard reality TV as interesting and spiders, insects and snakes ugly. Or Fox News objective and accurate. I can't share that. Personally I find Jolie too extreme to be described as beautiful. But she certainly isn't ugly either, far from it.
  - dextorious 15y ago
    """I don't really care what the majority think.""" Which is beside the point. The question was whether looks are subjective. Well, in the aggregate statistical sense they aint.
powertower 15y ago
There are aspects (cultural and personal) of beauty that are subjective, but overall, it's all about facial symmetry and certain patterns that show health and fertility (psychical attractiveness is mostly all about breading, and a few other things for the more enlightened).
naqabas 15y ago
Not only are looks subjective, but so is intelligence. What makes someone smart? I noticed a few comments on this post are assuming that celebrities for example aren't smart, but on the contrary I think most of them are very intelligent to get where they are.

Udo 15y ago

Genetically, looks and brains shouldn't be linked at all and I do believe there is no serious (anti-)correlation here. There are, however some factors dependent on attractiveness that probably influence the personal development of a person to a great deal. For example, I think there is a huge ratio of assholes among beautiful people due to similar processes that inspired the German proverb "money corrupts the character". Along those same lines, good-looking people often don't have to work very hard - so they usually don't enter academic careers, leading to a disproportionate amount of ugly people in academia.

dextorious 15y ago
"""Genetically, looks and brains shouldn't be linked at all and I do believe there is no serious (anti-)correlation here.""" How did that "should not" come about? How about creatures with worse looks (less attractive to their species), cope up by being smarter to turn sexual selection in their favor? The notion of "looks" has not just come about in the last century or so, it exists even in totally foreign species, like flowers (attractiveness to bees by features/colors/smell/etc). And looks have been shown to correlate strongly to sexual selection (from big tits to body fat).
- Udo 15y ago
  Because neither "looks" nor "smarts" are simple real numbers that can be adjusted up and down. It's not like eye color or ear lobe size. Both are complex phenomena with many different parameters, and there is no evidence to suggest that those myriad parameters are linked in a way to suggest worse looks lead to inherently smarter brains. The null hypothesis is that they don't and that's what we should stick with. On a more anecdotal note, I don't think inheritance is a strong factor for bad looks over many generations (which would be necessary for the kind of adjustment you're describing). Ugly parents can have beautiful children. And stupid people can have smart children, too. There is a genetic predisposition, yes, but the simple mixing of genomes over a few generations seems to be enough to sufficiently randomize a child's outlook.
powertower 15y ago
> that probably influence the personal development of a person to a great deal. How the world treats a beautiful person and an ugly person is absolutely and totally drastic! A well looking individual (especially a female) will be assumed to be an angle, will have every door opened, will have smiles given, will usually be considered above all others. An ugly individual will be ignored completely; almost like that person does not exist. When someone that's attractive speaks, every word is listened to. When the ugly person speaks, no one even hears them. To get ahead, an ugly person must actually produce something or make something of him/herself. Work is required, and from that work experience is gained, and from that experience, good judgment and knowledge comes.

dextorious 15y ago

"""But seriously, surely looks are a very subjective thing?""" Subjective as in: "the beauty (or lack thereof) of a person X is not a law of nature, different people can have different opinions on the matter", yes. But subjective as in: "statistically people don't tend to agree to what's beautiful/ugly", then no. I could be finding person X beautiful, and you could find it ugly. But showing him to, say, 100,000 people, the opinions won't be 50-50 or close (=totally subjective). People tend to agree. Only if the person is rather bland looking the statistical results will be totally random and not skewed towards ugly/beautiful. Consider an experiment of showing a picture Anjelica Jolie to 100,000 males to mark as ugly/beautiful. I bet I can predict the results.

Craiggybear 15y ago
I don't really care what the majority think. The "majority" regard reality TV as interesting and spiders, insects and snakes ugly. Or Fox News objective and accurate. I can't share that. Personally I find Jolie too extreme to be described as beautiful. But she certainly isn't ugly either, far from it.
- dextorious 15y ago
  """I don't really care what the majority think.""" Which is beside the point. The question was whether looks are subjective. Well, in the aggregate statistical sense they aint.

powertower 15y ago

There are aspects (cultural and personal) of beauty that are subjective, but overall, it's all about facial symmetry and certain patterns that show health and fertility (psychical attractiveness is mostly all about breading, and a few other things for the more enlightened).

naqabas 15y ago

Not only are looks subjective, but so is intelligence. What makes someone smart? I noticed a few comments on this post are assuming that celebrities for example aren't smart, but on the contrary I think most of them are very intelligent to get where they are.