godly than ever it might as well be infinite. I am protected by my absolute will power that I can see the novikov principal and warp it to my liking…..
Normies, Chad, foids, simps…. All of their actions when around me will be reverted to zero
godly than ever it might as well be infinite. I am protected by my absolute will power that I can see the novikov principal and warp it to my liking…..
Normies, Chad, foids, simps…. All of their actions when around me will be reverted to zero
Erenyeager requiem can be felt even miles away
@Fantasea erenyeager requiem has been born
I can sense whenever whoever is a normie and a foid in this site
This nigga has reached enlightenment.
I have reached the truth while others will never reach the truth
P
That means you know that i am the only trucel in the universe
I can sense who is a retard and who isn’t a retard by their texts, my iq has risen higher within the next hr, I can compete against Donald trump in terms of godliness and he too can be reverted to zero..
That’s not what you think it means
you must keep evolving
I am infinite so you gotten your wish before you made that comment
Excellent
Truly a golden day
IQ and Physical Attractiveness: What the Research Shows
The relationship between intelligence and physical attractiveness has been debated for decades, with studies yielding surprisingly contradictory results. The most rigorous recent research suggests no meaningful correlation exists between IQ and physical attractiveness in adults, despite earlier studies reporting positive associations. This conclusion emerges from examining correlation coefficients ranging from near-zero (r = 0.018) to moderately positive (r = 0.381), with methodological quality proving to be the critical factor explaining these disparate findings.
The evolution of findings reveals a clear pattern
Early meta-analyses painted an optimistic picture of the intelligence-attractiveness relationship. Langlois et al. (2000) analyzed 18 studies and reported a small but statistically significant positive effect (Cohen's d = 0.07). Jackson, Hunter, and Hodge (1995) similarly found small positive correlations in their meta-analysis, supporting theories that attractive individuals might possess slight intellectual advantages. These findings seemed to validate common stereotypes about the relationship between beauty and brains.
However, the landscape shifted dramatically with the publication of more methodologically rigorous studies. The watershed moment came with Mitchem et al. (2015), who conducted the largest genetically informative study to date with 1,753 participants. Using highly reliable, independently collected measures of both IQ (via WAIS and WISC tests) and facial attractiveness, they found no evidence for a phenotypic correlation (β = 0.018, p = 0.50). Their genetic analysis revealed no shared genetic or environmental factors between the traits, fundamentally challenging earlier assumptions.
The contrast between studies is stark. Kanazawa (2011) reported some of the strongest correlations in the literature, finding r = 0.381 in a UK sample of 17,419 individuals, with attractive children scoring 12.4 IQ points higher than unattractive ones. His US sample showed a weaker but still positive correlation (r = 0.126). Yet these findings suffer from a critical methodological flaw: the attractiveness raters (teachers) were familiar with the participants' academic performance, introducing potential halo effect bias.
Publication bias emerges as the smoking gun
Mitchem's team uncovered compelling evidence of publication bias in the intelligence-attractiveness literature. They found that correlation strength decreased significantly with sample size (r = -0.41, p = 0.03), suggesting smaller studies systematically overestimated effects. The median sample size in previous studies was just 83 participants, compared to their sample of over 1,700. When examining 41 previous correlations, only 17 (41%) reached statistical significance, and 22% were actually negative—facts often overlooked in literature reviews favoring positive findings.
This pattern suggests a classic file drawer problem, where null results remained unpublished while positive findings, however spurious, made it to print. The median correlation across all studies was r = 0.09, but this likely represents an inflated estimate given the publication bias evidence.
Methodological quality determines results
The relationship between methodological rigor and effect size is remarkably consistent. Studies with independent raters—where those judging attractiveness had no knowledge of participants' intelligence—typically found weak or null correlations. Kleisner et al. (2013) exemplified this approach, using standardized IQ tests and independent attractiveness ratings from 160 raters evaluating 80 Czech students. They found no significant correlation for either men (η² = 0.045, p = 0.139) or women (η² = 0.024, p = 0.346).
Different measurement approaches yielded dramatically different results. Studies using teacher ratings, where the same person assessed both traits, showed the strongest correlations. Those using photograph-based ratings by independent judges showed weaker effects. Studies employing geometric morphometric analysis of facial features found no relationship between objective facial characteristics and measured intelligence.
The choice of intelligence measure also mattered. Research using comprehensive IQ batteries (WAIS, WISC) generally found weaker correlations than studies using academic performance proxies. When Scholz and Sicinski (2015) examined facial attractiveness and SAT scores in a large Wisconsin sample, they found "only weak links" between the variables.
Gender and age moderate the relationship
Consistent patterns emerged regarding demographic moderators. Men showed stronger intelligence-attractiveness correlations than women across multiple studies, though even these effects diminished with improved methodology. Age proved equally important: correlations appeared stronger in children but became negligible in adult populations. Zebrowitz and Rhodes (2004) noted that positive correlations existed primarily among individuals below the median in attractiveness, suggesting the relationship might reflect developmental abnormalities rather than a general association.
Cross-cultural evidence remains limited but revealing. Kanazawa's comparison of UK and US samples showed dramatically different effect sizes (r = 0.381 vs. r = 0.126), despite using similar methodologies. This variation suggests cultural factors may influence how intelligence and attractiveness are perceived and measured, though both correlations likely suffer from rater bias issues.
Current scientific consensus points to no relationship
The weight of evidence, particularly from recent large-scale studies with rigorous methodology, indicates no reliable correlation between IQ and physical attractiveness in adults. The most comprehensive genetically informative study found no phenotypic, genetic, or environmental correlations. Meta-analytic evidence reveals significant publication bias inflating earlier estimates. Studies with the highest methodological quality consistently report null findings.
Effect sizes from the most reliable studies cluster near zero. When independent raters assess attractiveness without knowledge of intelligence, correlations typically range from r = -0.02 to r = 0.10. These values fall well below conventional thresholds for even small effects and likely reflect measurement error rather than true associations.
Conclusion
The apparent relationship between intelligence and physical attractiveness in adults appears to be a methodological artifact rather than a genuine phenomenon. While early studies and those with methodological limitations reported positive correlations, improvements in research design have progressively weakened these findings. The most rigorous evidence, including large-scale twin studies with independent measurements, finds no meaningful association between IQ scores and attractiveness ratings in adult populations. Previous positive findings likely resulted from publication bias, small sample sizes, and rater bias effects rather than reflecting a true relationship between intelligence and physical appearance.
The OP is coping real good. So are you telling us that you are a genius or something?
I’m god that can see 10 different dimensions. I can dethrone Chad and Stacey and fuck with normgroids in ghost mode. Defying incels, you’re doing that on your own since it’s reset to zero.
I don’t have to do anything
Cope
It’s frightening that many users don’t realize erenyeager requiem has been activated. No amount of textslop or Jewish studies can defeat me.
Over for Diavolo/King CrimsonCels
Incelist hss retired and decided to get a new avi for the erenyeagerian movement
Nigger is beyond an infinite-dimensional being.
When erenyeager speaks, the crowd goes silent.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
