Attractiveness and IQ

Read the studies. Attractiveness was predominantly the judgment of others along with symmetric tendencies of bodily features, and intelligence was tested for in a variety of different ways. Even with only approximations of the definitions of these things, the correlation is still apparent across these many approximations.

>into politics or become high level managers in big corporate entities.
i believe you are confusing intelligence with sociopathy

I doubt that linear fit is proper in this case. The lower end of the spectrum is riddled with genetic and developmental abnormalities during infancy and childhood. Many of these will negatively impact intelligence, but also appearance. So it makes sense for the lower end of the IQ to correlate with the lower end of a beauty scale. But the higher we go, the less these misfortune heaps occur. And it is comparatively less likely for there to be a fortune heap - there is probably no "superhuman gene" that makes you better at everything, for example, and increasingly optimized environmental conditions will reap diminishing returns. The real fit should therefore probably be asymptotic.

Still not objective

>About where would her IQ be?
>8ch net/roze/res/4063 html
...
Yeah, okay.

I wouldn't place her as any more intelligent than myself. She's smarter than your average bear in common parlance but doesn't really bother to show much in the way of technical skills, well-cited opinions, or critical thought. If her physics bachelor is anything to go by, though, she's capable of solving some problems. She's been creative before and demonstrates a degree of self-awareness that's rare among women and among Veeky Forums.

I've never been very actively interested in her, so there might be something out there that could narrow it down, but for my money, I'd hover her IQ range between 120 and 145. If I had to guess one number, she's probably at about 130.

People want to believe that beautiful people are more competent. It's a psychological fallacy.

In reality beautiful people get more for free with less effort, which should make you think that someone who is not so beautiful would have had to actually apply themselves and work hard to get where they want.

But the correlating factors are blind to one another. They take a bunch of random people, give them all a cognitive test, and have other people measure their attractiveness without actually knowing what their test scores were, and they still got that correlation. There are a lot of citations there for a reason, user.

If smart people are attractive then how come I don't have a gf? Checkmate Veeky Forums

Do you even see how crappy that R^2 value in the plot is?

So you don't believe in natural selection? if smart people are more successful and successful people have more availability of partners and both looks and intelligence are hereditary.....

Beautiful children encounter lots of positive reinforcement, interaction and encouragement that also helps in intellectual development. To measure increased IQ at a later date and correlate it with beauty is not really surprising.

But then, you have the number of studies that corroborate it further and drive down uncertainty in the results. If you have ten times as many data points and they're still a crappy fit but the correlation is still roughly the same, then the results probably do hold some water.

What does natural selection have to do with that plot?

Mate selection in nowadays' media landscape has become rather artificial. It is not about who is smart, it is about who looks smart.

Does not have to be true. Kids who have to fight harder to get acknowledged sometimes get better than spoiled beautiful kids. People may not want to believe it, but that's another thing since that is biased by what they see in media.

>What does natural selection have to do with that plot?
Are you some sort of imbecile who believes human behavior is not natural? also the rest of your post reads like an incel rant

So now you get angry because you can't beat me with arguments so you switch to insulting and semantics. Same old classic.

>it is about who looks smart
And why do you think who looks smart even factors in? Humans are wired to desire an intelligent mate. If we weren't, we wouldn't have developed such massively complex brains because natural selection wouldn't favor it. The human brain is an obvious result of there being a positive feedback loop when to comes to mate selection and intellect.

It is obvious that it factors in because media don't like to broadcast ugly people no matter how smart they are, not mass media, not social media.

Result is people think smart people look good because they have seen that on TV.

It's like you didn't even bother to read anything from the OP.

Just drop out from the discussion until you do, mate.

Why should I? Any discussion needs some common sense and not only publishing industry propaganda.

>social intelligence
No such thing brainlet.

You evaded the point about the human brain evolving because of people selecting intelligent mates. That's independent of mass media and begs for an explanation if you're saying that the smart attractive archetype is the mass media's doing, especially when the OP mentions that the smart UGLY archetype is what he grew up with.

You almost sound like the ancap from that 8ch roze board blaming society for your own shortcomings instead of accepting it and growing as a person.

Maybe if you could filter by race and gender you'd be right.
Blacks being both dumb and ugly would skew the results.

WHY DID YOU FUCKING POST THIS???
WHY AM I WASTING SO MUCH TIME LOOKING AT HER VIDEOS NOW???

>Human brain evolving because of people selecting...

Has that even been proven? It is still not independent of mass media if people watch the telly and then start wanting a smarter mate.

I don't have many shortcomings. I'm taller and more impressive than most. Double uni degrees in technical subjects so there's nothing wrong with the brain either.

But I'm not gonna lie and say I don't think the reason for people thinking smart people look good isn't because of mass media. It's so blatantly obvious to me that it is the cause. People want to think that good looking is good. Even rather smart people want to believe that.

He's asking for the randytaylor69 board here He used the same image and everything.

>people watch the telly and then start wanting a smarter mate

Has that been proven? Can you cite any studies that say so? The OP certainly can, and you've been asking questions that can be answered just by reading the abstracts of the papers he's citing. Beauty is a product of good health, and intelligence is also linked to good health. People want healthier mates, ergo they find intelligence attractive. This concept exists in the absence of mass media.

>
>Retards are unattractive
>News at 8
The higher end of the graph is flat. Unless you think Einstein, Newton, and Euler were studs.

Ashkenazi jews helped set that stereotype, breeding for intelligence with no regard to attractiveness for 8 generations made a whole bunch of highly intelligent troglodytes

>weight 400lbs
>iq 138
>explain

An outlier, obviously.
Don't act so fucking proud though. Even if it's not stupidity there's clearly something mentally wrong with you.

But most blue collar workers are both fucking ugly & retarded.
>Such as truck drivers, welders/car mechanics, sewage worker, Coal miners & construction workers.
Handsome but dumb Chads works in Business or Entertainment. As Managers, Salesmen, Artists or Sportsman. Economists can be ugly though.
Many Engineers, Scientists & Economists are ugly. But the are exceptions such as Richard Feynman & Elon Musk. These 2 got the pussies they wanted. These 2 are pretty Chad, & not so ugly as other Physicists & Aerospace Engineers.
Feynman was a Handsome Jew Chad. He had both the big Brain PHENOTYPE Ashkenazim girls crave & the Chadiness that Normie girls crave.

He believe could buy sex with sandwich

i buy sandwich sex every day

much mayonnaise for yum

>Richard Feynman & Elon Musk
You have to be quite the worshiper of their personalities to consider them beautiful especially musk who looks extremely ugly. They are below average but since you're so used to them you think they are beautiful, they aren't.

Its a coping mechanism, you see it not just with IQ-attractiveness, but a lot of things
>oh, hes very good at sport, hes probably a retarded jock and not even as intelegent as me
>oh, hes smart, hes probably even more unattractive than me
>oh, hes very charismatic, too bad he will never have real close friends like me
>oh, hes good at art, hes probably coudnt handle the hard science I do
>oh, hes good at science, hes probably very uncreative

I think its part of the trend to tell people no one is better than anyone else, you just have different talents or some shit, when in reality all the people that were top of the class in my university classes were charismatic, athletic, creative chads so theres probably a slight correlation between most good attributes a person can have.

>especially musk who looks extremely ugly
Musk is perfectly average, even before the plastic surgery, I don't think you can fairly call him "extremely ugly" at all.

you should've known better, but now it's too late
Rose claims another soul

He is not and if it was even just 50 years ago he would look like a freak. And he got what, a spoiled whore of wife for all the wealth he got.

look at literally any physics or mathematics faculty of any university and you will find most are clearly less than average.

just because someone is autistic does not mean they are smart

IQ 155, 12% bf, 6'2" 8/10 here. Anyone who believes this is a mid-sigma autist whose only excuse not to kill themselves is that they are a "misunderstood" "nerd."

What's a good free online IQ test?
Does it matter how quickly you do it? Last time I tried one, I left the computer to go do other things between questions.
Is there a way to be better prepared for the test?
If you take an IQ test in your early 30's, and are healthy, is it a reliable indicator of what your IQ would have been at its peak?

People deformed so badly that their brain is impaired would also skew it.

Reddit

There literally is no good online iq test for "free". I had to take one from my therapist to get an accurate score. I scored 128 on it when I would usually score between 86 and 170 on online IQ tests.

Thanks, that's useful to know.
How expensive is a good one?
And what about the age issue? I'm 31 and haven't been a student in years (I finished an engineering degree in 2008), so I guess I'll never know what my peak IQ was, but will a test done at my age be close? (I'm hoping I can crack 120)

dat heteroskedasticity

You literal retard, what you wrote implies the exact opposite. You can only make correlations with a good data set, if you have 10 inconclusive data sets for a correlation then it means that the correlation itself is flawed. Consistency in the frequency of inconclusive data sets suggests that the correlation which you are trying to prove has no/very little basis.

i was pretty dumbfounded when i learnt this girl was in her 30s. wonder if we'd get the secret to immortality if someone took a genetic sample. some obsessive user probably has it, too, the stingy bastard.

By that logic neither is physics, so what's your point?

>there is probably no "superhuman gene" that makes you better at everything

Good genes become entrenched with one another through sexual selection. Mainly as a function of class.