|
Post by nymos on Dec 1, 2005 21:37:51 GMT -5
I see nothing strange about Sidis' looks.
|
|
Oldbrit
Junior Member
Infidel
Posts: 67
|
Post by Oldbrit on Dec 2, 2005 8:44:08 GMT -5
I beleive IQ has been positively correlated with facial symetery and overall rating of attractiveness so contrary to popular opinion smart does not equal unatractive or vice versa. However I would be curious to see if the correlation holds for the outliers on upper side of IQ curve. IQ has also been correlated with longevity (irrespective of income, which on my psychology course of 35 years ago has an negative correlation with IQs above 125) and hence general health. The stereotyped weedy nerd is not that accurate. In my area the handful of schools that select on IQ (130+) also come tops in athletics/sports much of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Dec 2, 2005 11:04:27 GMT -5
Taller than average, bigger braincase than average, progressive facial features and, though that correlation is weaker, leptomorphic body build.
|
|
|
Post by penetratorx on Dec 2, 2005 11:05:25 GMT -5
It seems the modern trend is towards portraying types such as these as being the typically low IQ racial type. But according to sources both Marilyn Monroe and Sharon Stone had/have iq's in excess of 150. I guess it's fine in a politically correct environment to claim all blonde's as stupid but a rather large barrel of dogshit will descend rapidly upon the head of anyone daring to suggest something like this example below as a low iq type:
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 2, 2005 11:22:52 GMT -5
Intelligence is not inversely correlated to beauty, but there is no proof at all it is positively correlated also. Actually in the 1939 Stuart Cook make an experiment, gave IQ test to 150 university students, and took their pics under equal condition of setting. Then he asked people to estimate the intelligence of these students. The estimated intelligence was "completely unrelated" with the actual result in IQ tests. However the result of estimated intelligence were constant, i.e. people tended to agree with each other. Actually estimated intelligence was correlated with symmetry and tidiness while intelligence was not. Cook, S.W. (1939) The Judgement of Intelligence from photographs, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 34, 384-9
Sharon Stone may be pretty and intelligent (but when did she ever say or do these intelligent things?), but that's only chance. You have also ugly but intelligent people as Woody Allen. Or beautiful and really dumb as Bekham. Or dumb and ugly as Mike Tyson. So I would say at present there is no way to correlate intelligence and facial features.
|
|
|
Post by penetratorx on Dec 2, 2005 11:29:45 GMT -5
You have also ugly but intelligent people as Woody Allen. Or beautiful and really dumb as Bekham. It was the schooling that made Beckham dumb, I went to the same junior school as him and realised pretty soon that I was far too intelligent for the place and so decided to limit my contact with it
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Dec 2, 2005 11:46:06 GMT -5
Looks intelligent+progressive and is it - played mostly "intelligent roles" as well.
Btw, the 1939 experiment is totally outdated.
Whats partly as, or even more important than physiognomy is the facial expression - clearest is speaking in the own mother tongue. I heard that if you give people the same text to read it loud most people can estimate the intellectual level - though they all read just the same text.
|
|
|
Post by ivyleak on Dec 2, 2005 11:54:08 GMT -5
An interesting article about genius- there is a correlation with allergies, myopia, and speech disorder
[ftp]http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2001/08/31/165571.html[/ftp]
|
|
|
Post by ndrthl on Dec 2, 2005 11:56:02 GMT -5
I think it is easier to spot the mentally retarded than the extremely intelligent.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 2, 2005 12:02:05 GMT -5
Btw, the 1939 experiment is totally outdated. No, it's just old. Still it's quoted as the last word on the subject by Vicki Bruce & Andy Young, In the eye of the beholder, 1998 Oxford University Press. Well such test would be handicapped by a huge cultural factor. Any actor or lawyer would result of extreme intelligence, any person not much literate, and/or used to talk, stupid. Also quickness and easy response to stimuli is not enough of a clue, someone can be still because he is slow, but also because he is thinking something more interesting than what goes around (Schopenauer considered a trait of stupidity and emptyness the quick face and eye reaction to stimuli). I suggest we all do this experiment: ask ourselves, were the prettiest the smartest and the uglyest the dumbest in school? Not in my school for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Dec 2, 2005 12:07:51 GMT -5
If, we are speaking about statistical correlations, mainly over other features than beauty alone and health - there are always exceptions though. However that are some of the more important traits as I said: Taller than average, bigger braincase than average, progressive facial features and, though that correlation is weaker, leptomorphic body build. Usually those people are slightly more attractive, but their is a difference between "non-progressive", f.e. infantile appear and "low class beauties" which look partly different from average students.
In any case, if looking at the students on the university, what I said is 100 percent true and the attractiveness level is higher as well than in the average population.
Interesting is the length of the head as well, most students have on average significantly longer heads than the average and especially low class people in my city at least...together with what I mentioned above.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 2, 2005 12:15:55 GMT -5
Btw Sharon Stone never starred in a quality movie except maybe with Woody Allen. She is mostly known for not wearing underpants, something most of us are capable to do, I bet, and I still recoil with orror remembering when I was trapped in a cinema watching Sphere, a movie with big squids and little psichology. Never go to a movie with oversized animals or people flying, I say.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Dec 2, 2005 12:17:30 GMT -5
Btw Sharon Stone never starred in a quality movie except maybe with Woody Allen. She is mostly known for not wearing underpants, something most of us are capable to do, I bet, and I still recoil with orror remembering when I was trapped in a cinema watching Sphere, a movie with big squids and little psichology. Never go to a movie with oversized animals or people flying, I say. *lol* Yes, "Sphere" was an awful movie. Sharon was good in "Total Recall" ;D
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 2, 2005 12:30:59 GMT -5
In any case, if looking at the students on the university, what I said is 100 percent true and the attractiveness level is higher as well than in the average population. This could be due to other reasons than intelligence, but among the students is there a correlation beauty - intelligence? I don't remember such correlation in university, althoug I see a rough correlation between being being student/urban-more beautiful worker/rural - less beautiful where I live.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Dec 2, 2005 12:31:28 GMT -5
|
|