I recently came across a picture of some local students who competed at a national mathematics competition, doing pretty well. To nobody’s surprise, none of these teenage boys and girls, of which there were much fewer than boys, would score high in the Looks Olympics. However, as IQ and physical attractiveness are positively correlated, it may seem superficially puzzling why geeks look like geeks and not like Greek gods. We would also expect a few Chads and Stacies but for some reason they never bother to sign up.
It may be controversial that physical attractiveness and intelligence are linked, or that IQ tests measure intelligence. However, opposition to such ideas normally comes from a very particular corner in the marketplace of ideas. As USAID funding has recently dried up, we will have to see if academic research will start to paint a clearer picture in the near future. However, even if you look at the last few decades of relevant research, there are plenty of studies that show a correlation between such traits. This is even acknowledged in mainstream papers that try to dismiss this approach altogether, for instance in Zebrowitz et al.’s “Looking Smart and Looking Good: Facial Cues to Intelligence and Their Origins”. They are puzzled why “people come to associate attractiveness with intelligence, particularly because it appears that such associations can be self-fulfilling”. (The paper can be found on Minecraft, but I am not going to provide a link.) Well, prejudices are generally correct. They are simply heuristics. If these heuristics were not useful, they would not be passed on.
If people have “good genes”, they are healthier and they can consequently develop aesthetically pleasing symmetries. Their bodies also need to expend less energy to fight of diseases, ensuring better brain development as a consequence. Before discounting this sketch of the argument as simplistic, I recommend reading books like Dutton’s “How to Judge People by What They Look Like”, which summarizes existing research on this topic. However, if physically attractive people are, generally, more intelligent than physically less attractive people, why does this relationship seem to break down at the upper end of the bell curve of intelligence?
The correlation between looks and intelligence is not perfect. There are surely some attractive, dumb people, just as there are unattractive, smart people. By and large, intelligent people are more attractive, and these people have many more options in life. Put yourself in the shoes of a highly attractive but also mathematically gifted pre-teen girl: she is used to everyone being friendly to her. A lot of people simply fawn over her. Her parents may even have been approached about modelling gigs for their daughter. Also, looks are heritable, so she may be used to seeing her mother enjoying the life of non-working wife to a successful man. She is aware that people have to work, but based on how society treats her, she may, and rightly so, develop the view that she inhabits a different plane of existence to which her female peers cannot relate to, as they lack in looks, intelligence, or both.
Good looks tremendously help with your career, no matter what field you are going to get into. Thus, a very attractive woman may be happily picked up by an investment bank and given a client-facing role. The hard number-crunching and deep numerical analysis is done by others. Her job is to be charming and good looking. For any client or public-facing role, attractive women (and men) have a tremendous leg up, at least under a non-leftist regime. This advantage even persists as people age. Just look at blonde bombshell Pam Bondi, the current Attorney General of the United States. Her looks most definitely played a role in her getting to the very top of her profession. Sports are another area where looks pay outsized dividends. My favorite example is Anna Kournikova. She never won an important Tennis tournament, retired from her sport at the age of 21, yet made more money that almost every other female tennis player. For men, looks also matter. If you look up pictures of random CEOs and other business executives, you will probably find that a lot, but clearly not all, of these people look far better than the average person.
If your looks are in the top 1% you may be able to live off your looks in one way or another. In any case, you will have opportunities normal people can only dream of. Paired with high intelligence, such looks can pay enormous dividends. It arguably is the reason between some models being worth dozens of millions in their 40s and others filing for bankruptcy at that age. On the other hand, if you do not have the looks but your IQ is in the top 1% you do not really have that many options. Well, obviously you have many options. I mean that compared to someone with a 1% IQ and 1% looks, possibilities are much more limited. As a consequence, these people are much more inclined to dedicate time and energy on intellectual pursuits like chess, mathematics, or physics.
High intelligence enables you to succeed in life, no matter how you personally may define success. Good looks, on the other hand, open many doors but if you are not intelligent enough, you may make suboptimal decisions. For someone who is really intelligent and really good looking, however, it seems quite reasonable to assume that the prospect of studying advanced mathematics when you could enter a world that is completely closed off to your smart but unattractive peers is not a tempting proposition. There is also the aspect of people segregating themselves based on looks, and smart, attractive people may not want to be associated with math geeks. They rather get their A’s, earn an MBA degree later in life, and end up as the manager of some of the geeks who worked so hard in school, yet never reached a level of success that would be commensurate with their IQ.
Those students might not work hard enough on developing themselves through physical activities?
Many of them should be quite alright in their adulthood if they choose to work on that part.
Lastly, I don’t think Math Olympics is a measure of mathematical ingenuity. A lot of gifted students in my country resent those years wasted on practicing and drilling a set of problems. They find solving different kinds of canned inequalities much less appealing than to a lecture on higher math. Most students of recent generations opted for Linear Algebra or Abstract Algebra.
Math Olympiad should be a fun activity and should stay true to that spirit.
“Many of them should be quite alright in their adulthood if they choose to work on that part.”
I don’t think this is generally the case. Things like physical attractiveness are largely set by genetics. Then, there are the things you can work towards such as muscle development, for example, which the potential for is largely genetic. Side note: not even all roiders have decent enough frames to look good with lots of muscle, and might even go bald or develop nasty acne.
Then there is the genetic component of being consistent enough to work on physical development. So, even having the willpower to do so is to a great degree genetic. If one is not physically/kinesthetically gifted to begin with, then it will be incredibly difficult to find the motivation to pursue this path in any meaningful capacity.
I recall coming across pictures of guys who chose to “gym-maxx” or even “roid-maxx”, hoping it would improve their chances of success with women. Some of these guys looked comical, i.e. short guys with a lot of muscle and an ugly face, or tall guys with a chin so heavily recessed that you just do not care what the rest of his body may look like. There is also the widely held belief that your face trumps muscles, which seems to be correct.
But you haven’t seen their picture lol 🙂
Also the current standard of male beauty is rather unnatural. It has been impressed upon us to alter our perception. Based on an interview I saw, women in mid 1960s felt muscles disgusting, and a lean and trim body was preferred.
Yet nowadays, it was all about looking big. Primary indicator such as height was still important, but women didn’t seem to judge men entirely based upon physical attractiveness and opted for long term bonding.
I need more evidence to corroborate that women found muscles “disgusting” in the 1960s. In fact, I think the opposite is true, considering that the beauty ideals of the Ancient Greeks and Romans is very similar to ours. If women tell you that they do not really like muscles, or big dicks, or rich guys, then you can be reasonably certain that they only say this because they believe it is the socially acceptable response. Just imagine the outcry in the 1960s if a woman would have said, “I want nothing more than getting fucked day and night by rich, a 6’5″ athlete with a dick so big I can barely take it.”
This is only partially true. Environments and parenting plays a great role in shaping determination and will-power, so is training yourself. For example, millions of North Vietnamese males determining to carve a path towards liberations amidst American bombings were the result of mass state propaganda. So were Japanese soldiers in WW2. The state nurtured such collective determination.
There are various disabled children who show utmost determination that lifts them out of their miseries and towards success, these cannot be purely genetic, nor even related to genetics. By far the mother of determination is adversary and desire to overcome it.
We have a lot of theories about genetics being a the true cause of many things, but none of us are genetists who understand intimately genetics of humans and its implications.
“Also the current standard of male beauty is rather unnatural.”
Correct, but what about Greek statues? This is a standard that is out of reach for many men. I only even brought the example of roiders, btw, as a side note to exemplify that not even that can help the most genetically ungifted in terms of becoming attractive.
“We have a lot of theories about genetics being a the true cause of many things, but none of us are genetists who understand intimately genetics of humans and its implications.”
Lol. What is a woman?
“For example, millions of North Vietnamese males determining to carve a path towards liberations amidst American bombings were the result of mass state propaganda.”
How would West Africans fair all things equal?
“There are various disabled children who show utmost determination that lifts them out of their miseries and towards success, these cannot be purely genetic, nor even related to genetics.”
This is the, “hey guys, I know an ugly dude that gets hot chicks” argument. This is the exception, not the norm.
I find your reply completely unreadable.
Then make it the norm through state propaganda, indoctrination and social programming.
I am Vietnamese, and that is what we are raised to believe in. Obviously you have not seen children being raised in abject poverty yet rise up to become an important person. Are they exceptions or norms? Unimportant, because from personal perspective, it has no significance. The point is you are inspired and take action.
What else do you have? Cursing God and throw your hands up in the air. You guys are obviously living in a comfy life. Here, in this corner of earth, giving up means wallow in misery for the rest of your life.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LvGgYcpSi8U&pp=ygUYV29tZW4gaW4gMTk2MHMgYWJvdXQgbWVu
Here is the video, which I posted before.
I was also imprecise by saying “muscles are disgusting”, what girls back then said was that overtly muscular, or big, or roid etc.
They said some muscles are fine, so.
I remember movies like Revenge of the Nerds from the 80s instilled this sort of belief that physically undesirable people somehow had these amazing and redeemable qualities that the desirables could not fathom. The jocks were always painted in a bad light in comparison. There was even a scene in the first movie where one of the nerds effectively rapes a Stacy, but she ends up staying with him because “jocks only thing about sports, while nerds only think about sex.” All HB9 needed was to give the sub 5 a chance. On that note, some of the best head and pussy I can remember was not only skill-based, but also amplified by the fact that I was super into the chick on a physical level.
Very astute comment and observations!
The same is true for women. Some sub-5 guy can have the best “technique” in the world, whatever that may mean, and it would not amount to anything. In contrast, they get dripping wet at the mere thought of being Chad’s plaything for one night.
I have always been very curious about the origin of the “nerd” vs “jock” in American culture? Is this a thing unique to the US, or is it representative in Western Europe as well? I notice French males tend to dress rather elegantly and are thinner, representing a somewhat softer side of masculinity. But Russian culture seems to view intellectual guys in a rather negative way. They have a term for bookworm, ботаник (Botanic, botanist).
In East Asia, there is a very strong culture of intellectualism which deeply roots in Confucianism and the imperial civil service system. The term 書生 (book-student/book-scholar), 書蟲 (book termite), 書呆子 (passionate book lover) has a very positive connotation, though can be used to mock someone who rigidly adheres to books and completely lack real life experience. There is no jock vs nerd dichotomy, and well raised and well-mannered girls usually have a thing for a rather tall (1m75) and intelligent guy. In Korean and Chinese drama, you can see the male actor in a romantic movie being rather intelligent, considerate and successful.
I wonder if Western tradition is rooted in an exaltation of physical fitness. This starts with Greek and Roman culture, then although male bodies were not exposed nude in Medieval times, martial valors of knights were highly revered in vernacular poetry.
Continue above so my post is not too long.
But I mean from physical exaltation to idolatry of a brawny, dumb and stupid “jock” is quite a mutation. I am currently reading a very absorbing biography of Henry II, and he was an epitome of a Medieval Western male. A man of above average height, broad chest, extremely skillful in the art of war yet was highly intelligent, well read for a layman, enjoyed engaging in lively intellectual debates with Church scholars.
Clearly, male archetype in this age and even, I guess, up till the 19th century, has always been a masculine yet intelligent and well-mannered male.
So why the sordid “jock” come about?
I have a hunch that Hollywood screenwriters and directors with a deep-seated inferiority complex played a role in the creation of the “dumb jock” stereotype. Presumably, these were the guys who could never get the girls the smarter and fitter “jocks” banged in high school and college. The closest they could come to that was having their own casting couch, but they still could not overcome the resentment that women only had sex with them on a transactional basis.
My conjecture based on watching many classic movies is that the origin of “jock” in cinema must start in the 1950s.
Before that, you could name many male superstars at the time, like Humphrey Bogart, Cary Grant, Clark Gable, etc. These leading actors exuded class and sophistication, impeccable mannerism, etc. But by the 1950s, you have Marlon Brando who decidedly upturn Hollywood male archetype by appearing raw and macho (just watch Streetcar named desire), a kind of brutal masculinity. Then you also have James Dean who played a rebel. From this decade on, you start having terms like “greases”.
So my view for now is that “jock” seems to come from this particular venue of entertainment.
Another observation is the unique strong sport culture in the US, where you can play sports at a national level and wins scholarship in the university, thus studying like any normal student.
Then you also have a military culture where military men were revered and respected.
Most recently, the fitness industry pumps fake info into the market as well.
All these create a permanent dichotomy between nerds and jocks.
May I ask if a girl has a boyfriend, not an absolute type, not her lover type, does that mean she will never experience orgasms with him. The boyfriend is reasonably attractive, a 6-7, but not a 10.
I do not see why she could not experience an orgasm. However, there surely will be a qualitative (and quantitative) difference compared to when a 10/10 guy rails her.
For se Tschörman länguitsch speakers:
Some of you folks may recall the case of 1990s German celebrity Verona Feldbusch, who had quite a hot body and face, and marketed herself during her heyday as a somewhat simpleminded, stupid girl. When in reality she is/was quite a clever person. Back then she deliberately and purposefully used her hot looks and “stupid girl” persona to garner as much money and publicity as possible (e.g. by short-time marrying famous German music producer Dieter Bohlen and then exploiting the subsequent divorce out in the public to its fullest possible tabloid and late night TV extent), and when her high time was over eventually married happily and stepped out of the limelight.
She surely handled the monetization of her genetic assets a lot more cleverly than blonde ex-bombshell model Toni Garrn…
This is a great example! I just looked up this woman. According to estimates, she has a net worth of $20m, which is not bad at all for not having any real qualifications besides looks, and obviously an above-average level of intelligence. Toni Garrn, on the other hand, was an international celebrity and she has not been doing nearly as well.
Aaron,
“If your looks are in the top 1% you may be able to live off your looks in one way or another. In any case, you will have opportunities normal people can only dream of. Paired with high intelligence, such looks can pay enormous dividends.”
Did you have any opportunities in your 20s or early 30s to live off your looks and intelligence?
I have an impression he was talking about females, no?
In many places he wrote that women could coast through life with looks, while men had to work for it.
Good-looking and intelligent men can also afford to coast, relatively speaking. Think of high-powered business executives and politicians. They often amass riches but they certainly do not work 100 to 1,000 times harder than the average employee or government official.
@Cuong Quoc Vu
I meant to ask if Aaron had any opportunities like modeling or acting where he can make a living off his looks and intelligence.
I am not that good looking. Occasionally, nightlife photographers came up to me, asking if they could take pictures of me. I was also once offered some money in exchange for stripping on stage, which would have been recorded on video. Needless to say, I turned down that offer.
I remember he used to be a nude model for art class.
But to be a model, the look threshold is really high.
Live modelling was not really a paid gig. At best, you get a token amount of money. It is more interesting as an opportunity to socialize and meet female art students.
I was not talking about myself here but arguably, coasting on doing a bit of PUA coaching here and there may even qualify. I do not think that I am in the 1% in terms of looks, but my height certainly has benefited me throughout my life.