Happy New Year to Everybody on ATS
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
Answering your points in detail entails more work than I feel up to on a lazy New Year's morning, so, very quickly: sexual selection is a form of
natural selection and has nothing to do with royal matchmaking, which was mostly about military alliances and territorial consolidation. But you and I
aren't talking about royal
matchmaking; we are talking about the tendency of aristocrats
--who became aristocrats through martial
prowess, i.e. beating the stuffing out of the weak--to marry one another (while producing any number of bastards as insurance) and then put the
legitimate offspring of these unions, as well as a few adopted bastards, through a difficult and dangerous education to weed out the unfit and those
lacking the martial virtues. That
has been going on throughout human history and even prehistory (the paradigm being Sparta) and its products
have always been thought beautiful and/or sexually attractive – a point we do not need to belabour unnecessarily.
Your description of chimp behaviour from Wikipedia fits perfectly with the thesis I am expounding here. It would be surprising if it did not, since it
is such ethological observations as these that gave rise to it. Due to the differential energy investment required by parents of either sex to bring
offspring to adulthood, different reproductive strategies are adopted by each sex. The upshot of this is that males compete with each other to be
chosen as mates by females. The ultimate arbiter of status among social animals – chimps and birds alike, as well as humans – is sexual success.
This doesn't mean 'taking orders from females' as you make out; it simply means making oneself as attractive as possible to them. Among social
animals, one way to do this is to show dominance over other males. Which brings us back to aristocracies and martial elites again.
reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment
I dealt with the objections you raise before you even arrived on the thread. See
Simply put, if a test accurately measures IQ (that is, it gives results comparable with other types of IQ test), it is legitimate – even if the
methodology has to do with juggling balls.
Anyone with a minimum of half a brain (or who wasn't an agenda-laden liar) would have used a test that tested for more than one measly facet
Why don't you look up the actual study (its home page is linked in my post mentioned above) and judge the intelligence and agenda of the researchers
If one purports to seek out the intelligence of another, one would presumably cover as many bases as possible, right?
Yes, indeed: and if one happened to be testing tens of thousands of adolescents in a nationwide survey that is repeated annually, you would, for
practical reasons, adopt a quick, simple and sufficiently accurate test that could be administered easily by schoolteachers and others without the
need for special training. Hence the use of the Peabody test in the survey concerned.
Do you not admit that there are tests available which measure more than vocabulary?
The Peabody test uses vocabulary to measure IQ. Go and look at it. There's a link to that, too, in my post.
The concurrent validity of PPVT has been established using comparisons with other vocabulary tests. For example, the correlation of PPVT scores
with that of the Stanford-Binet Vocabulary Subtest ranges between 0.68 and 0.76. The reliability of the PPVT was measured in two ways, the split-half
and the test-retest. For the former, the reliability ranges from 0.60 to 0.80. For the latter, the range is from 0.70 to 0.90. The only caveat is that
the population used to establish the norm did not include examinees that suffered from a physical handicap.
If you are blindly relying on statistics of ANY SORT, without doing the legwork to check their methodology and reasoning, then you are woefully
uninformed as to the nature of the world in which we live.
Well said. I take it you realize that this is precisely what you
have been doing? I have long since looked at the survey homepage, checked out
methodology and investigated the nature of the test used. You, on the other hand, are merely speaking from ignorance. Follow your own precepts.
You are merely arguing what you already believe.
Do you expect me to argue for what I don't
reply to post by Brood
An accusation of prejudice isn't personal? What is it, then?
Look: IR1984 is a decent ATS member who has let himself get a bit hotter under the collar than he intended. I know he does not mean
so I am not offended. But he really does need to clean up his posting etiquette. One should never offer insults unintentionally. Insult should only be
deployed for good reasons of policy, and with a clear understanding of the likely consequences.
reply to post by bigrex
What a difference in content, tone and manner from your earlier post! Allow me to express my warmest appreciation – and no, I am not being in the
I have responded to yours with points concerning how beautiful people can be as dumb as any physically unattractive person.
You are right, they can be. Any high school sports team can provide plenty of examples. But taken all in all (meaning, taken statistically) there is a
tendency for intelligence to correlate with physical attractiveness. And it makes sense if you think about it – smart animals are more likely to
survive and breed successfully than dumb ones, right? And animals that prefer smart animals as mates will obviously do the same, because they're
making babies together. So, over time, the preference for smart mates will spread through the animal population. In other words, they'll find smart
animals attractive. It really is as simple as that.
It isn't so much that good-looking equals smart; it's that smart equals good-looking. Some
of the time. As I said, it's statistical.
How do you account for all the pornography on the Internet? Did these physically "attractive" women just decide they would rather do that
although they were perfectly capable of being brain surgeons and theoretical physicists?
Their circumstances probably made it impossible for them to follow academic careers and hurdle the very stiff barriers to entrance in those fields.
But they were smart enough to make the best of what they had, without letting petty considerations of morality and convention hinder them. The same
goes for the young woman who just married Hugh Hefner. Do you think it's easy
to become Hugh Hefner's wife? The competition must be terrific.
People do not achieve such things without being exceptional. The same goes for Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and all the so-called bimbos who have been
slandered on this thread. They are women of ability, whatever their IQs are measured at.
Please include photos of beautiful scientists in your next response or do not respond. Using your own medicine, your words are nothing to me,
we are talking about physical beauty so let's see some physical "visual" evidence of it.
Since I am propounding an argument based on evolutionary biology, it would be appropriate to begin with a photo of Leda Cosmides, one of the pioneers
of the field:
Here's the very gorgeous Michael Faraday, who has been called the exemplar of all a true scientist should be:
Ada, Countess Lovelace, a pioneer of computer science and information technology:
Hedy Lamarr, inventor of the radio-controlled torpedo and spread-spectrum radio communications (without which your mobile phone wouldn't exist):
Controversial physicist (and surfer) Garrett Lisl:
Carl Sagan needs no introduction:
Richard Dawkins, scourge of the believers:
And here's Deborah Berebichez, a physics Ph.D who works on Wall Street...
...from an article about 11 sexy physicists who ought to be working there.
Of course, none of this means a lot. As I said before, we're talking about a statistical correlation, not individual cases. And scientists –
obviously – have no monopoly on intelligence. But... ask and ye shall receive.
edit on 1/1/11 by Astyanax because: it's a long post.