Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, has recently wrapped up an interesting series of posts on his “Psychology Today” blog about the supposed correlation between intelligence and good looks. First, are people who are attractive also smarter than the average bear? According to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health carried out in Chapel Hill,NC the answer is a resounding “yes.” Here is a chart of the results taken from Dr. Kanazawa’s blog:
Conducted in 2000-2001, the experiment required participants to take the “Peabody Picture Vocabulary” IQ test. Then an objective observer who was unaware of the IQ scores rated the participant’s attractiveness on a scale of 1 to 5. As you all can see, there was a strong positive correlation between good looks and intelligence.
Dr. Kanazawa offers two theories that could potentially explain why this is the case. First, the correlation might just be a reflection of Geoffrey Miller’s “f,” or general fitness coefficient. According to Dr. Miller good looks and intelligence are both indicators of overall genetic health, hence the positive correlation between the two.
The second explanation, and the one which Dr. Kanazawa seems to be more fond of, is based on observable mating behaviors. More intelligent men are more attractive to women than less intelligent men because they tend to have higher status. Similarly, attractive women are more popular among men than not-so-attractive women because, well, they are more attractive. Because both intelligence and looks are hereditary, the offspring of the intelligent man/attractive woman pairing often has qualities of both. Interesting, eh?
Then why are geeks always portrayed as dorky looking people and pretty girls as dumb blonds?
actually there are studies in social psychology that say the reason attractive people seem intelligent is because of the self fulfilling prophecy. we think attractive people are smarter for the simple fact that we are attracted to them.
I think that super attractive people tend to realize at a young age that they’re better looking than most, and they become really confident as a result. Confidence can also lead to intelligence in some respects.
Abbas and Laura: While what both of you are saying is true to an extent, you are ignoring the fact that the IQ tests taken by the individuals in the study test intelligence independent of what other people think. If you want to take up the debate of whether “intelligence,” is a real, measurable quality, that is certainly a valid argument to make, and I would be happy to discuss.
Bindhu, your point is a fascinating one. In fact I was also thinking about this while I read Dr. Kanazawa’s post. There are a few conceivable explanations for this cultural phenomenon. The first, most obvious one is that not all good look people are intelligent and not all intelligent people are good-looking. The correlation between the two is one that is observed in a large sample. Perhaps this is why the few particularly unattractive individuals who happen to be intelligent (but also happen to wear huge, taped glasses and watch star trek) are so humorous to us. The same argument could apply to the dumb blonde stereotype, though I would also add that intelligence does not always imply common sense and/or the ability to express oneself without excessive use of “like,” and “um.” I certainly know that in my own experience I have been surprised by the intelligence of several individuals who I had initially judged as “dumb blondes.” I hope this answer is satisfactory- will get back to you if I find a better answer.
To Laura,
I kind of wonder how you would explain most pageant girls…
Bindhu,
I actually emailed Dr. Kanazawa about your concern and he was gracious enough to respond with this explanation which I am sure you will find much more convincing:
“The stereotype, just like all stereotypes, is true. At least in the ancestral environment, where there were no hair dyes and other means of artificially changing hair colors, blondes were on average dumber. It does not mean that they were less intelligent, but it means they were more naive and inexperienced. Blonde hair is a sign of youth, so on average blondes are younger than brunettes, and younger people are usually naive and less experienced. Think about it. The average age of light blondes in the ancestral environment would have been 13. The average age of brunettes would have been 30. 13-year-olds (of any hair color) are bound to be more naive and inexperienced than 30-year-olds (of any hair color).
Geeks don’t just mean intelligent people. They are usually intelligent people who are socially inept. I think it is the socially inept part that makes them unattractive, not their facial symmetry (or lack thereof). Part of their social ineptitude includes not dressing well or fashionably, and that adds to their unattractiveness as well.”
Hope that helps!
Pingback: What about Geeks and Dumb Blondes? « Vishal Ganesan’s Blog
word vishal, i think you are ignoring the evolutionary theory that goes into this. which holds my point valid, that this study is bogus.
why is this bogus? to say that 1. attractive people are inherently smarter and 2. this is a comment of our ancestral pool, i.e., that intelligent men mated with attractive women, and then hybrids were born is problematic. this study cannot comment on our evolutionary past, for several reasons:
1. genetically, evolution happens over generations and there is a change in the frequency of certain traits that make those generations survive and so forth. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15262401] and to say that over time attractive women were drawn to intelligent men which led to the phenomena that the study tests is to say that these traits helped them to survive better in society. However to make that statement is to ignore that certain combinations of mates or features might result in various different frequencies that might result in inbreeding. if there is a small population of attractive females and intelligent males, then this population will be reduced in size over successive generations resulting in a population bottleneck. (could lead to extinction of that group). if extinction happens then what we define as attractive or an ideal trait of survival can only emerge via mutation etc., otherwise that population could not survive.
2. kanazawa argues that the reason why such is true is evolutionary linked that a. beauty is linked to genetic overall well being. or b. because both attractiveness and intelligence is heritable
to point a.) not necessarily, we could just be attracted to them for the sake of being attracted to them. physical attractiveness does not necessarily mean genetic well being (if you want literature on this i can provide it). Also we could be be attracted to attractive people because they lack other qualities, and use their attractiveness to obtain mates. kanazawa acknowledges this “then the association between intelligence and physical attractiveness should disappear once genetic quality is controlled” [http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200904/why-beautiful-people-are-more-intelligent-ii] this is because inbreeding causes homogeneous populations and lead to inbreeding depression which is a barrier to survival
to point b. thats debatable. this assumes that breeding in regards to physical attractiveness and mental ability can be paired as hybrids, similar to breeding a red flower with a white and you get a pink. sometimes its one or the other, as in dominant or recessive, other times its suppressed in development and might show up later, overall, we dont know how genetically this mix of brain power and physiology link up. kazanawa claims that intelligence is heritable. (which i can agree to some extent) but is this not an epistemological question? retaining information verses having knowledge, or episteme?
what i did like about kanazawa is this:
“So which theory is correct? We don’t know yet for sure. ..more research is necessary to adjudicate between the two theories. Or perhaps both theories are wrong and there is a third explanation for the association between intelligence and physical attractiveness. ”
thats why my point still holds vishal, from the phone call before my phone died.
this does not comment on our evolutionary past by any means. it provides us with the now, because like kanazawa said that intelligence as a marker for survival is something that is in the “modern environment”
i think what we can speculate about is the now and the future, maybe attractive smart people will inbreed and die out.
PWNed.
Pingback: The Uncanny Valley of Female Intelligence « Evan Lisull
To B:
Pageant girls? Not all of them are unintelligent, believe it or not. I don’t think there is a direct correlation between looks and intellect. Someone can be ridiculously smart and attractive, some people can only have one or the other, and some have none. I do believe that someone who knows he is more attractive than most figures it out at a young age and uses it to his advantage.
A lot of girls do this. For example, I have a few friends who are movie star quality beautiful, and they take advantage of guys because they know they can get away with being rude, inconsiderate, and thoughtless. This isn’t intellectual behavior, but it shows that the person has some recognition of what her looks can do for her.
But this is independent of her actual IQ.
Laura:
Good answer. But is the taking advantage of guys by being inconsiderate part what you meant by “intelligence in some respects” from earlier?
B:
Yes.
Given the way IQ works, isn’t the few point difference between the average looking people and the very attractive people relatively insignificant?
Probably- I would be cautious about claiming anything more than statistical significance in this case, though that might change after I finish reading “Bell Curve.”
Remember Bernard Shaw who was asked why he didn’t marry his beautiful mistress and have beautiful, clever children. Shaw replied’What if they got my looks and her intelligence?”