|
Post by Agrippa on Dec 2, 2005 13:22:57 GMT -5
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. Not only were you live, its a well known fact that many positive factors are obviously more common in students in general. Its a sieving from the countryside often, just the "better and best" elements go in the cities MORE OFTEN (statistical correlation) - thats a major reason for contraselection because those with higher intelligence, height, beauty, intelligence and education have, especially in the cities, significantly less children. But the correlation is interestingly sometimes not that obvious in the highest levels me thinks, where you find more often "fanatics" which means usually Asthenics, and strong Asthenic (very-extreme Leptosomic) individuals can be beautiful as well, very beautiful even, but are on average not more beautiful especially if its about body posture and certain more extreme facial features in which even small disproportions look more unfavourable. Some look even "sick". But if looking at the whole population, at the normal people, the correlation to what I said is obvious and what I said about those extreme Asthenics refers more to their combination of intelligence+other personality traits, others are often as or even more intelligent but lack the personality traits important for certain scientific successes, though thats a minor factor and in practically all areas the correlations I meant are present - at least statistically.
|
|
|
Post by jameswhite on Dec 5, 2005 13:58:49 GMT -5
Features, no. I think it's human to associate regular features to intelligence, but all the attempts (and there have been some) to find a link between look and IQ have failed. Facial expression, I think ivyleak is on to something with the laughter, people who laugh often and aloud usually are dumber than people who don't (but there's also a big cultural factor here). We all know the empty stare, then, that's definitely not the mark of the genius. I have sorta suspect people who mumble or move their lips when reading are the scum of IQ universe, but can't prove it. actually it's a bit more complex than that i find. 1. dumb people laugh at stupid things (things that are very direct for the neurons, for instance someone tripping over). whereas normal/intelligent people wouldn't laugh at such direct things. 2. very smart people also laugh (in fact fits of laughter) over things that most normal/dumb people wouldn't laugh over because they cannot grasp the complex humour of the situation. as a result both groups find themselves at odd's with the majority crowd. this is also the same with people being 'impressed with something'. dumb people are impressed by many simple devices, for instance the function of a tin can opener, whereas everyone else would see it as a simple device. then we have the smart people that are impressed by far more complex devices, for instance the workings of a space shuttle, or a piece of software, whereas most mundane people are not impressed. an example. (i've heard this many a time). a computer programmer writes 100 lines of code, runs his program which shows a little man on the screen that can be moved left/right/up/down by a joystick. he runs to tell his wife "hey look what i did", she looks at it and is like "you did *ALL* that and all it does is that???". intelligent features are hard to measure, although i suspect there is a bell-curve effect with the edges Genius/Insanity wrapping around to meet eachother. for instance the least inteligent in society can't even dress themselves, are a scruff, and dont care for their appearence, can't work, and the most intelligent in society also are a scruff, and dont care for their appearence, and don't work - they're so intelligent that they dont see the point in dressing up for others, they're so intelligent that they'd rather have an easy life, than work 20 hours/day just so they can get a nice car/house/family - which all can be argued as just hedonistic materialistic things.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 6, 2005 10:57:01 GMT -5
I agree on this, also the disgyenic bit, but the correlation beauty-intelligence could be just a result of "smart marrying beautiful" and of upper classes giving more attention to fitness-elegance.
The fact that within this selected group there's no correlation between beauty and intelligence could be interpreted in the sense that there is no intrinsec correlation, but only the effect of above mentioned causes.
An inverse correlation instead could be explained by the simple fact that beautiful people don't have to try very hard to succeed, so less beautiful strive more and can appear more intelligent or at least more successful. The introvert thinker you (seems to me) consider the apex of humanity if extremely introvert would not put effort in his appareance and this could affect the perception of his beauty.
Well, I agree dumb appreciate dumb jokes but smart appreciate smart, the difference (but is not like I have anything to back this theory, just experience) is dumb laughs more often and more visibly.
Actually laughingh is more a form of communication than the reaction to a comic stimulus, as research proved that when alone people laugh much less if not at all at the same jokes that tear them up in company. It's also proved (all by Ekman) that people who tell a joke laugh usually more than the listeners, and that often the talker laughs without telling anything funny. The highest rate of laughter is when a women talk to a man (hihihihihihi then I went shopping hihihihih).
Of course extrovert will laugh more than introvert, which is consistent with laughter being a form of communication. It is my impression that is a very instinctual and primitive form of communication more employed by the dumb than by the smart, who will find, say, Gombrowitzc very funny but hardly laugh aloud reading. Also, gross and banal stimuli are to be found everywhere, more refined are more rare, hence the laughter should be less frequent too.
Nothing new in what I say, latin version of a Menandro (playwriter, Greece 342 b.c.) quote: "Risus abundat in ore stultorum".
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Dec 7, 2005 0:30:45 GMT -5
I notice that intelligent people often have a quiet dignity about them and the eyes are bright, the speech eloquent, words are carefully chosen.
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Dec 9, 2005 14:22:50 GMT -5
Is there a correlation between progressive traits and iq within the same race or sub-race? Or that would make the discussions in this forum about who is more progressive to have too much sense?
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Dec 9, 2005 14:51:32 GMT -5
There is in my opinion a correlation both between AND inside groups - at least as a tendency.
F.e. in studies about Afghanistan, Pakistan and India it was shown that groups of soldiers and students of the same region had a higher stature, face, nose and lower NI and FI. That sieving effect shows that certain variants are more prone to get into certain professions and to be more efficient in general. For height a correlation with IQ is more or less proven inside a racial group though we could discuss about the cause - environmental, social type.
|
|
|
Post by Liquid Len on Dec 27, 2005 9:43:45 GMT -5
I've read that in Poland, university students tend to be more paedomorphic than the average population.
|
|