LifeFuel Intelligence not correlated to attractiveness in large sample

[Inbuddhist]

Posting because some people posted a link of psychology today saying it prooves there is a correlation, forgetting psychology is not a hard science and studies in that area are often contradictory, they even had a scandal of 50%+ studies not being replicated

Study :
NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS IN A LARGE, GENETICALLY INFORMATIVE SAMPLE


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001512

 

[Rensudesu]

All the Chad worshippers can suck it. Genetically superior in everything my ass.

 

[IncelGod]

JFL, how is this a news? If anything, my guess would have been inverse correlation.

 

[Hunter]

thank fuck. at least we arent mogged in one area...

 

[Inbuddhist]

JFL, how is this a news? If anything, my guess would have been inverse correlation.

Did you read my post ? A lot of people were posting a psychologytoday study saying good looking people are actually more intelligent, so it has to be countered.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Did you read my post ? A lot of people were posting a psychologytoday study saying good looking people are actually more intelligent, so it has to be countered.

Yeah, honestly a thread like this should be pinned. I'll never understand what makes someone who ended up here want to valorize beauty, but it certainly happens often enough.

I seriously doubt that anyone who declaims the "good genes" line like a faithful masochist is aware of the architecture of the human genome.

 

[NeiboltStreet]

Posting because some people posted a link of psychology today saying it prooves there is a correltion, forgetting psychology is nit a hard science and studies in that area are often contradictory, they even had a scandal of 50%+ studies not being replicated

Study :
NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS IN A LARGE, GENETICALLY INFORMATIVE SAMPLE


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001512

I would have expected the opposite from the beginning. We barely have any 7+ males on our MINT campus. The only thing that is studied by a vast majority of Chads at our university is Economics. Other than that, I only see Chads at construction sites and car repair shops.

 

[FoidsDeserveCancer]

Posting because some people posted a link of psychology today saying it prooves there is a correltion, forgetting psychology is nit a hard science and studies in that area are often contradictory, they even had a scandal of 50%+ studies not being replicated

Study :
NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS IN A LARGE, GENETICALLY INFORMATIVE SAMPLE


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001512

im also low IQ

 

[Inbuddhist]

I would have expected the opposite from the beginning. We barely have any 7+ males on our MINT campus. The only thing that is studied by a vast majority of Chads at our university is Economics. Other than that, I only see Chads at construction sites and car repair shops.

What makes some blackpilled people think chads have to be more intelligent is because chads get more attention, better treatment, more indulgence, better social interractions, less shyness to ask questions and more eagerness to answer them etc, not necessarily that their attractiveness genes were correlated from the start with intelligence etc etc, but it's still wrong.

 

[Deleted member 6101]

Absolutely shocking! How will the "muh supiriur jeenz" and "muh neychur" fags ever recover?
I just need to take a ~100m walk and I'm right in the puremath and physics faculty where a good part of the intellectual zenith of the country resides- everyone, and I mean fucking everyone is a <5/10 subhuman. It's like watching some stereotypical hollywood nerd scene.

 

[NeiboltStreet]

What makes some blackpilled people think chads have to be more intelligent is because chads get more attention, better treatment, more indulgence, better social interractions, less shyness to ask questions and more eagerness to answer them etc, not necessarily that their attractiveness genes were correlated from the start with intelligence etc etc, but it's still wrong.

I found the opposite to be true, still. The loudest, most obnoxious people get the most attention (especially from foids). Any sub70 IQ Chad driving up to the party in his tuned Audi, belching loudly after finishing his 7th beer bong, usually takes home the 9s. And that is about the furthest from intelligent behavior I can imagine.

 

[Deleted member 126]

All the Chad worshippers can suck it. Genetically superior in everything my ass.

 

[Deleted member 10124]

Posting because some people posted a link of psychology today saying it prooves there is a correlation, forgetting psychology is not a hard science and studies in that area are often contradictory, they even had a scandal of 50%+ studies not being replicated

Study :
NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS IN A LARGE, GENETICALLY INFORMATIVE SAMPLE


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001512

All the Chad worshippers can suck it. Genetically superior in everything my ass.

 

[qwepmi]

Good looking people have more opportunity in life to be intelligent, than an ugly person. However they also have more opportunity to have sex and they would rather do that

 

[A10n3]

Depending on what one consider to be "Intelligence".
I would trade some IQ points for a stable relationship with a loving woman anyday and I'm not even implying I consider myself specially intelligent.
I meant, what good is intelligence if it can't get you the most important thing life has to offer?

 

[Zyros]

All the Chad worshippers can suck it. Genetically superior in everything my ass.

Aknowledging thay genetics come in packages does not mean worshipping Chad. I hate Chad.

Stop trying to spit the blackpill so hard. Everythibg is about genetics.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Aknowledging thay genetics come in packages

Why do you believe this to be the case? There are 23 pairs of chromosomes in the human genome. Genes determining various traits are necessarily spread across all of them. There is no reason to expect a spatial linkage between a gene controlling the growth of the zygomatic arch and one conferring an advantage in mathematical reasoning. In the multifarious and expansive set of genes determining the esthetic and mental phenotype of human beings, it is fair to expect some nexi by way of pleiotropy. But to believe the two axes to be exactly overlapping is ridiculous.

Stop trying to spit the blackpill so hard. Everythibg is about genetics.

Yes, intelligence is genetically determined, but it is probably not related to facial attractiveness in any meaningful way.

 

[TheIncelStaresBack]

Depending on what one consider to be "Intelligence".
I would trade some IQ points for a stable relationship with a loving woman anyday and I'm not even implying I consider myself specially intelligent.
I meant, what good is intelligence if it can't get you the most important thing life has to offer?

 

[FiveFourManlet]

Literally no one cares because intelligence means nothing.

Stop the cope

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Literally no one cares because intelligence means nothing.

Stop the cope

Plenty of people seem to care enough to want to ascribe it to Chad.

 

[Asianmanletcel]

Ask yourselves this were the prominent scientists like Einstein in the chad spectrum?

 

[Opus132]

Round up all the greatest geniuses, intellectuals and sages across all human cultures, and show me how many Chads do you see.

 

[happiless]

All the Chad worshippers can suck it. Genetically superior in everything my ass.

 

[13k]

This study is extremely unreliable if you wanna draw that conclusion because:

" Using highly reliable measures of facial attractiveness and IQ in a large sample of identical and fraternal twins and their siblings,"

Are you surprised there isnt a significant IQ difference between SIBLINGS ?

Based on that study, there is no attractiveness / iq correlation AMONG twins.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

This study is extremely unreliable if you wanna draw that conclusion because:

" Using highly reliable measures of facial attractiveness and IQ in a large sample of identical and fraternal twins and their siblings,"

Are you surprised there isnt a significant IQ difference between SIBLINGS ?

Based on that study, there is no attractiveness / iq correlation AMONG twins.

Twin studies are done expressly to tease apart genetic/environmental influences. It was not an oversight.

The original research conducted is also supplemented with a meta analysis of previous work. Altogether, I have more faith in this paper than the appraisal that teachers give their prepubescent students.

 

[13k]

Twin studies are done expressly to control for genetic variation. It was not an oversight.

The original research conducted is also supplemented with a meta analysis of previous work. Altogether, I have more faith in this paper than the appraisal that teachers give their prepubescent students.

So far from what I could conclude was the study was to check iq/attractiveness correlation between twins.
they didn't take a big sample size of random people and test their IQ and attractiveness level.

A study done using siblings is useless for our context. there wont be any significant difference between twins.

Do you have full study ?

 

[Deleted member 2798]

So far from what I could conclude was the study was to check iq/attractiveness correlation between twins.

This is standard practice in genetic studies. By comparing identical/fraternal twins you have controlled genetic/gestational backgrounds and can determine the influence of environment (identical) apart from genetics (fraternal). It is also possible, of course, to evaluate a non-related population, as in the (in my opinion, flawed) paper highlighted by Psychology Today. It is my impression that this is the nature of the data gathered in previous work, which the authors have treated using their own analytical methods to reveal a similarly absent correlation between looks and intelligence (even if a correlation was found originally, it is possible to obtain different results from the same data by switching the analytical method used). If you want to read the paper, STEMcel @chudur-budur might be willing to send it to you.

 

[Mahlo]

Makes sense. If Chads were smarter by sizable margin, than we would see average IQs going up in developed countries, but the opposite is the case. (especially in norway)

 

[13k]

This is standard practice in genetic studies. By comparing twins/siblings you have a controlled genetic background and can determine the influence of environment (twins) apart from genetics (siblings). It is also possible, of course, to evaluate a non-related population, as in the (in my opinion, flawed) paper highlighted by Psychology Today. It is my impression that this is the nature of the data gathered in previous work, which the authors have treated using their own analytical methods to reveal a similarly absent correlation between looks and intelligence (even if a correlation was found originally, it is possible to obtain different results from the same data by switching the analytical method used). If you want to read the paper, STEMcel @chudur-budur might be willing to send it to you.

no offense but you sound like you are trying to cope. Of course incels don't wanna hear "looks are correlated with IQ". I get that.

>determine the influence of environment (twins) apart from genetics

yes, but we are trying to measure effect of GENETICS not environment.
unless yo do it among non-related population, you CAN'T use that study to draw conclusion of "intelligence is not correlated with attractiveness". It was done AMONG TWINS. Is anyone surprised there isn't significant difference among twins ?
so far studies SUPPORT it.

https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/i2011.pdf

here's a blackpill4u

"Both in the British and American samples, physical attractiveness is significantly positively associated with general intelligence, both with and without controls for social class, body size, and health. Both in the UK and in the US, the association between physical attractiveness and general intelligence is stronger among men than among women. In the UK, physically attractive men have higher IQ by 13.6 points, whereas physically attractive women have higher IQ by 11.4 IQ points. These mean differences imply bivariate correlation coefficients of r= .351 among women and r= .414 among men. Physical attractiveness is more strongly associated with general intelligence than any other variable included in the equations"

You have no study that support what you wanna believe so desperately.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

no offense but you sound like you are trying to cope. Of course incels don't wanna hear "looks are correlated with IQ". I get that.

>determine the influence of environment (twins) apart from genetics

yes, but we are trying to measure effect of GENETICS not environment.
unless yo do it among non-related population, you CAN'T use that study to draw conclusion of "intelligence is not correlated with attractiveness". It was done AMONG TWINS. Is anyone surprised there isn't significant difference among twins ?
so far studies SUPPORT it.

https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/i2011.pdf

"Both in the British and American samples, physical attractiveness is significantly positively associated with general intelligence, both with and without controls for social class, body size, and health. Both in the UK and in the US, the association between physical attractiveness and general intelligence is stronger among men than among women. In the UK, physically attractive men have higher IQ by 13.6 points, whereas physically attractive women have higher IQ by 11.4 IQ points. These mean differences imply bivariate correlation coefficients of r= .351 among women and r= .414 among men. Physical attractiveness is more strongly associated with general intelligence than any other variable included in the equations"

You have no study that support what you wanna believe so desperately.

It is necessary to control for environmental variation when evaluating the strictly genetic origin of the purported looks/intelligence relationship. Maybe one person received better nourishment growing up, giving them an advantage in the both the forward growth of facial bones and in the development of mental acuity. Obviously, it is important to mitigate the influence of such confounding factors on your results, hence the inclusion of identical twins (almost exactly the same genotype - what differences are seen here?) and fraternal twins (only as closely related as two non-twin siblings - how much more difference is seen here?)

I'm not the smartest man in the world, but I'm not stupid. I don't need to cope. I'm just sick of Chad getting his dick sucked everywhere, including incels.is.

You have no study that support what you wanna believe so desperately.

We are posting in a thread dedicated to such a study.

Regarding the other study:

https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/i2011.pdf (same one you linked)

"attractive children"

A lot happens during puberty. And academic performance/classroom etiquette may well impact a teacher's perception of their own, incompletely developed students' attractiveness.

People here, for what ever reason, want to lash themselves on the back with this study. Problem is, it's spun from the most delicate of yarns.

 

[Deleted member 1060]

This is standard practice in genetic studies. By comparing twins/siblings you have a controlled genetic background and can determine the influence of environment (twins) apart from genetics (siblings). It is also possible, of course, to evaluate a non-related population, as in the (in my opinion, flawed) paper highlighted by Psychology Today. It is my impression that this is the nature of the data gathered in previous work, which the authors have treated using their own analytical methods to reveal a similarly absent correlation between looks and intelligence (even if a correlation was found originally, it is possible to obtain different results from the same data by switching the analytical method used). If you want to read the paper, STEMcel @chudur-budur might be willing to send it to you.

Yea sure, just send me the link to the paper, I will download and pm. @13k

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Yea sure, just send me the link to the paper, I will download and pm. @13k

Looks like it's linked in the OP.

 

[Total Imbecile]

Doesnt matter if youre high IQ if youre ugly

 

[13k]

It is necessary to control for environmental variation when evaluating the strictly genetic origin of the purported looks/intelligence relationship. Maybe one person received better nourishment growing up, giving them an advantage in the both the forward growth of facial bones and in the development of mental acuity. Obviously, it is important to mitigate the influence of such confounding factors on your results, hence the inclusion of identical twins (almost exactly the same genotype - what differences are seen here?) and fraternal twins (only as closely related as two non-twin siblings - how much more difference is seen here?)

I'm not the smartest man in the world, but I'm not stupid. I don't need to cope. I'm just sick of Chad getting his dick sucked everywhere, including incels.is.



We are posting in a thread dedicated to such a study.

Regarding the other study:

https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/i2011.pdf (same one you linked)

"attractive children"

A lot happens during puberty. And academic performance/classroom etiquette may well impact a teacher's perception of their own, incompletely developed students' attractiveness.

People here, for what ever reason, want to lash themselves on the back with this study. Problem is, it's spun from the most delicate of yarns.

I didnt call you stupid or nothing. Just stated you dont have empirical evidence on your side to draw OP's conclusion.
Notice how none of your arguments is actually based on big datas and studies from respectable institutions. Instead;
>this might be , that could be, a lot might happen during puberty

I'll change my position GLADLY in light of EMPIRICAL evidence.

I'll do further reading on this matter and open a big thread on truecel. prolly next week.

I'm just sick of Chad getting his dick sucked everywhere, including incels.is.

100% agreed, I hate chad more than I hate stacy. This forum need to wipe chad's cum off their faces.
https://incels.is/threads/you-are-literally-a-cuck-if-you-dont-hate-chads-more-than-stacies.52245/

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Just stated you dont have empirical evidence on your side to draw OP's conclusion.
Notice how none of your arguments is actually based on big datas and studies from respectable institutions.

The matter is far from settled and doesn't appear to be exhaustively covered in the literature. Admittedly, I only skimmed this paper a while ago and have not read it in depth. I have very little background in statistics and couldn't independently validate their methods anyways (I don't really imagine many here could tbh tbh). But at this point, we are at the point with one study supporting the correlation (your link) and one against it (OP), at which point it becomes necessary to do a little bit of methodological critique along the lines of:

Instead;
>this might be , that could be, a lot might happen during puberty

It is a good thing to be skeptical of LE FUCKING RATIONAL SCIENCE

and question the conclusions the authors have drawn. Of course, I can't prove anything - it's mostly about finding out what the investigators failed to address; should we believe them based on the information they have furnished?

I'll do further reading on this matter and open a big thread on truecel. prolly next week.

Looking forward to it.

100% agreed, I hate chad more than I hate stacy. This forum need to wipe chad's cum off their faces.
https://incels.is/threads/you-are-literally-a-cuck-if-you-dont-hate-chads-more-than-stacies.52245/

 

[11gaijin]

I have never believed in this attractive people are more intelligent bs.

 

[Inbuddhist]

Literally no one cares because intelligence means nothing.

Stop the cope

Again i give 0 shit about that, i'm just correcting people who believed a study saying the opposite.

 

[Deleted member 1252]

High IQ.

Hell I can see this from my own empirical evidence. Chads are no smarter on average than any other group of men. Foids don’t give a fuck about intelligence, they care about PHYSICAL FEATURES.

Cucks that think foids like intelligence are as bluepilled as Personality™ copers.

 

[anon]

Makes sense considering IQ is 100% useless when it comes to physical attractiveness (the only kind of attractiveness that matters.)

 

[Kirito3]

Posting because some people posted a link of psychology today saying it prooves there is a correlation, forgetting psychology is not a hard science and studies in that area are often contradictory, they even had a scandal of 50%+ studies not being replicated

Study :
NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS IN A LARGE, GENETICALLY INFORMATIVE SAMPLE


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001512

Does it matter though? Facial attractiveness is so much more important than intelligence in life whether a correlation exists or not is almost irrelevant.

 

[Inbuddhist]

Does it matter though? Facial attractiveness is so much more important than intelligence in life whether a correlation exists or not is almost irrelevant.

Does it matter to correct false studies ? Yes

Did i say that facial attractiveness wasn't the mkst important thing ? No[/QUOTE]

 

[i_a_m_i]

Here is the full study if anyone can't use Sci-Hub.
https://my.mixtape.moe/jttvbe.pdf
After reading it, I'm still convinced IQ and attractiveness are correlated, especially among low attractiveness individuals.

 

[Deleted member 5861]

just google "harvard math classes" then go to images.

 

[_wifebeater_]

thank fuck. at least we arent mogged in one area...