Beauty and Intelligence incredibly linked (same level as education)

In a previous post, I show, using an American sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, that physically more attractive people are more intelligent. As I explain in a subsequent post, the association between physical attractiveness and intelligence may be due to one of two reasons. Genetic quality may be a common cause for both (such that genetically healthier people are simultaneously more beautiful and more intelligent). Alternatively, the association may result from a cross-trait assortative mating, where more intelligent and higher status men of greater resources marry more beautiful women….

Mostly the former, as it explains female bequeath too it should be genetic. Assortative mating usually applies to objective attractiveness (the famed 10-scale) for both sexes, skewed relationships rarely last long without something else to make up for the gap.

Regardless of the reason for the association, the new evidence suggests that the association between physical attractiveness and general intelligence may be much stronger than we previously thought.

… Attractive NCDS respondents have the mean IQ of 104.23, whereas unattractive NCDS respondents have the mean IQ of 91.81.  The difference between them is 12.42. This mean difference implies a correlation coefficient of r = .381, which is reasonably large in any survey data…..

Huge IQ bridge, on par with eugenic/dysgenic effects? I’d love to see expanded profiles (marital status at 30, for example).

By pure coincidence, the correlation between physical attractiveness and intelligence in NCDS is exactly the same, down to the third decimal point, as the correlation between intelligence and education. Both correlations are .381. Everybody knows that intelligence and education are very highly correlated. What they don’t know is that physical attractiveness is equally highly correlated with intelligence as education is. 

In other words,

If you want to estimate someone’s intelligence without giving them an IQ test, you would do just as well to base your estimate on their physical attractiveness as you would to base it on their years of education.

oh damn wow ah

I’ll leave these here:

“Privilege” has statistical backing!
The stereotypes, again, are true!

Maybe humans will branch into an Eloi and Morlock scenario? The IQ difference is huge, the SD I calculated for the summary result (both sexes) is 8.78227, population SD is 6.21 with population variance of 38.5641 in IQ. Huge values.

Seinfeld: PC students don’t know what they’re talking about

Jerry Seinfeld has ruled out playing university audiences because they are too politically correct – and he counts the entire younger generation in that.

While Seinfeld was promoting his internet show Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee on a sports radio show, DJ Colin Cowherd said that Chris Rock and other comics steered clear of student audiences because of political correctness.

Seinfeld said, “I hear that all the time. I don’t play colleges but I hear a lot of people telling me they’re so PC.”

When asked if political correctness hurt comedy, Seinfeld replied, “Yes it does.”

He added that comedians like Louis CK, whose Saturday Night Live monologue about paedophilia and racism caused something of a stir last month, avoided problems because he “doesn’t care”.

“Everybody has their hot zone. Their heat map. Those are the jokes you do. For me, I talk about the subjects I talk about because for some reason, I can make them funny.”

Seinfeld described his 14-year-old daughter saying that her mother’s suggestion she might one day spend time with boys on weekends was “sexist”.

“They just want to use these words,” he said. “‘That’s racist. That’s sexist. That’s prejudice.’ They don’t know what the [bleep] they’re talking about.”

what was the first PC term?
Using Jew as an insult or verb, wasn’t it?

Video: A guide to the dark side (how to be PC)

1-infinity. Do everything The Guardian says. Especially when it contradicts. It is your Bible.

‘Danger’, ‘threat’ and ‘violence’ all pertain to your own fear (not evidence per se). Your individual hair-trigger fear of everything. Nothing is not ‘problematic’ (an excuse to whine, bitch and nag). Eschew critical thinking, embrace ‘critical theory’ (BSing about why everything is ‘problematic’, self-justification for being a shit-stirrer getting off on needless provocation). Rationality is evil – if it dares to disagree with you.

n.b. The form of ad hominem he refers to is called Poisoning the Well.

Guardian feminist misses the prejudice and negative stigma of tattoos

It makes her feel less special.

Of course I hate myself too. For what could be more close-minded and short-sighted than passing judgment on what someone chooses to do with their body? I feel like a throwback, obliged to stifle an involuntary shudder when the waitress who serves my flat white reveals a sleeve tatt as long as, well, her arm. “What on earth does your mother think?” I inwardly tut, avoiding the uncomfortable thought that her mother probably has one too.

Of course, anyone with an ounce of intellectual curiosity or emotional openness will know that all this is wild nonsense, socially constructed. Indeed, it’s at this point someone always pipes up that “tattoos used to be upper class”. Winston Churchill had one and so did his mum. However, these days we have Sam Cam with a dolphin just below her ankle while Emma Parker-Bowles is reported to have a kitten on her bottom. By this reckoning, today’s tattoo wearers may simply be social climbers, adopting a status symbol in the way that people 10 years ago would wear green wellies in the King’s Road.

Or you could suggest instead that the current trend for “respectable” young people to get a tattoo is a response to the current crisis in body image; they may simply be kicking back against society’s demands that they should be absurdly slender, shaved or pumped. By this reading, tattooing is not an act of disguised self-harming, but a celebratory turning of the ordinary self into a work of art.

For the political analyst, meanwhile, today’s mild and well-mannered skin inkers are simply playing with nostalgic ideas of rebellion. Since there is nowhere to be an outlaw any more, the best anyone can do is fiddle on the margins. Getting a rose on your upper thigh may be your way of working for the man while signalling to your nearest and dearest that you are not a slave to him.

All these arguments are wearingly familiar, yet they make not a jot of difference to my visceral reaction when I see a Celtic cross marching down someone’s upper arm. In response to a stranger’s body my own starts to respond with waves of nausea. Today’s tattoos make me anxious because they jumble the categories by which I first learned to make sense of the world, the difference between safe and unsafe.

This doesn’t make me proud, but it is worth attending to because this is how prejudice starts, with a fear so deep it cannot be reasoned away, no matter how much we wish it to be. The best we can do, perhaps, is acknowledge it freely to ourselves, then learn to bite our tongues.

We are dealing with children’s minds in adult bodies.

Hard times exaggerate perceptions of race


“When the economy declines, African Americans are more likely to be seen as “Blacker” and to bear stereotypical features, according to a new study by psychology researchers at New York University. Their findings, which appear in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggest that economic duress may spur racial discrimination.”

But they only tested non-black subjects with black and white (literally) reduction of faces. Or they only reported testing non-black subjects. Distinction.

Biased methodology. Questionnaire is a priming agent. No mention of the One Drop Rule.

Harder times are a’comin’!