intelligence v beauty

out of an intelligent and a beautiful looking person how do you go about deducing which is the more valid member of society? Or what characteristics in general determines a persons worth? I guess the average human basically just comes up with a criteria that best suits his ego. For example a beautiful person will not really need to worry about intellect because their looks will earn them all they need, so they will develop a personality around their appearance. An ugly person, however, will turn to internal things like intellect to get them ahead. this sort of person will also be found decrying all the stupid people around him, and declare “looks” a frivolity, to further validate himself. Likewise the beautiful person will focus on the ugliness of others. I myself as both a beautifully looking person and an incredibly gifted thinker am able to be a little bit more objective about the situation. personally I find that nature decides fairly well for us. everybody seems to be able to do their own thing fairly well. But if we had to determine what qualities deserve most merit it seems to me the most logical way is to consider what our nature is, and how well we realize it. The realization of ones nature is just about the highest achievement a man can make. To me humans are fundamentally motivated by the biological urge to find good partner and reproduce. It takes on abstract and unusual forms, but this desire seems to me to underlie everything we do. therefore I think sexual charisma and potency is pretty much mans (or woman’s) most important attribute. Of course there is room for overlap; some would appeal that “sexiness” is a subjective notion in itself, and thus say that intelligence can be sexy. there is some truth to this line of thinking..but in the end it is obvious to me that intelligence is usually a secondary manifestation of sexiness behind basic genetic qualities. Things like good white teeth, strong physique, vitality, …people usually only appeal to smarts as a mode of beauty when the others are lacking. I’m always amused by the smug presumptiousness of intellectuals who pit themselves anove all other men. firstly for the cited reason that being an intellectual is no more meritorious that any other form of existence, and secondly most people posing as intellectuals are complete pseudos who are likely really not naturally more intelligent than any other average drone, they are just forcing themselves to be intelligent in order to garner the admiration they cant get any easier way. these sad-spirited losers are usually found on the internet. Its pretty hard for them to be convincing in real life because genuine smartness cannot be faked, it requires spontaneity. on the internet, however, its easy to sound like a genius even if you’re not. I’m not saying any of you are specifically, but I get the impression many of the posters about this web forum fit this build. There is a definite soliloquy feeling about many of your posts, and theverbose way many of you chose to convey things makes me think that you post with your thesaurus in one hand and your dick in the other. Don’t get me wrong, many of you are very smart, but your words betray a very deep sadness of character.

*edit to add*

I don’t mean this to be an insult to anyone on this forum, or TO this forum, I’m just interested in what individual qualities people deem most valid.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By whichever of them benefits society more. People whose sole redeeming quality is attractiveness, unless I am mistaken, are of absolutely no benefit to society whatsoever. However, those who are solely intelligent have the potential to work for the governing body in a position that doesn't have much public interaction, e.g. a civil engineer, thus the intelligent person is of more benefit to society.

Not unless they have the modicum of intelligence necessary to utilize their advantage.

False assumption. If your assumption was true, there would be no unattractive, slow-witted people (Not intended as a reference to the mentally retarded, but to those who purposefully avoid intellectual pursuits out of laziness.) which there are.

Fallacious extention of argument based upon examples.

Again, a fallacy as above.

It's nice to see that you remain humble as well. (For those who can't tell, that was a use of sarcasm)

Then you most likely would have died of a common childhood illness that ravaged past generations, unless you are fortunate enough to possess ancestors who survived such ailments without incident, due to a roll of the genetic dice.

Again, a fallacy, due to extension of an above incorrect statement, unless you see your death as beneficial in some way.

In your opinion, which is not universal.

Then you have not examined life closely enough, since there are many counterexamples to your statement.

If this were true, the vapid beauty would always be more desirable than the plain intellectual, which is not the case for everyone, or even a majority of people.

I find such condescension rather repulsive, since I have always believed that truly great intellectuals are wise enough to be humble, and, to my chagrin, this belief has been affirmed by reality time and again.

Here is where you start letting your emotions cloud your judgment.

Your previous words seem to contradict this new statement. I suggest that if you are truly sincere, you should remove the last section that I have excluded when quoting your post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

that just depends on what goals we set for society.

i dont see how that proves anything. of course a persons natural ability/genetics will come along and overarch everything..im only talking about peoples general motivations.. if we had the choice of what we are we would all just choose to be genius’s and models..

as said, youve misunderstood what i was saying...so nothings fallacious. i dont think an "assumption" is strictly a "fallacy" anyway.

Again, as above.

i feel great and happy that humans have overcame those natural obstacles..
my commentary is aimed only at modern society.

the compulsion of people to label anything they dont agree with as a "fallacy" is really annoying because you claim an authority that you really done have. its only an opinion i state, it certainly cannot be deemed a fallacy in any sense since im not appealing to formal logic. the scope of this topic doesn’t accommodate that.

of course not. but, neither is yours.

nothing holds absolutely true. i form my opinions by observation of patterns and phenomena

well it depends. but those are very rigid terms youre using. if it came down to an an attractive genius and a blindingly beautiful dumbass..then most people would go for former..but i suspect that if given the choice between an ugly genius and a brainless beauty, most would go for the latter. i only said that beauty is more important than intelligence to most people whether they admit it or not.

couldnt agree more. but in my experience the truly great intellectuals are very few.

i never do that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well if im a beautiful dickhead then im still one step up from you. smile sista

 

Unless you set a goal of society as "valuing the presence of beautiful people", I doubt that people whose sole quality is beauty will be of any benefit to society. I assumed, in my earlier post, that civil works projects were of benefit to society, which I doubt that many would contest, and since you have implicitly contested this point, I ask that you supply a reasonable example of people whose sole "skill" is physical beauty benefiting society.

Let me clarify. You made the generalization that "ugly people" will invariably turn to academia. I supplied a counterexample, suggesting that you either need to simply concede the point, or concede and refine your original statement.

Then clarify.

If one assumes that all physically unattractive people will try to better their minds, that is a fallacious assumption, since it is a universal quantification to which counterexamples exist, and I supplied one. To refine this idea, you would have to only consider the subset of "ugly" people who pursue academic avenues. That type of assumption, in general, can not be deemed fallacious, since disproving it would require surveying all existing people who satisfy the criterion.

Then you must refine your idea of nature's influence on modern society.

I explained my reasoning for calling the argument is flawed, so I claim no unwarranted authority. If I said, "your argument is flawed" with no supporting evidence, then I would be assuming that I possessed some implicit authority.

Assuming that "all ugly people try to be smart" or "all beautiful people are manipulative" is not an opinion, for it is not a subjective judgment.

Then, what do you hope to accomplish with this thread if you do not allow logic to be used? Unilateral agreement/disagreement with your views?

I never claimed it to be.

You can form opinions based on such things, but the ideas I have criticized are not opinions.

Initially, possibly, but does staying power have no bearing? If one goes on a date with a vapid beauty but marries the hideous intellectual, does that not factor into the evaluation?

I made that statement since I did not believe that the section I omitted from my post would come from one who was currently unbiased by emotions, due to the crass language used. If this is not the case, then the aforementioned passage reflects rather poorly upon your character.

 

.Maybe I should stop with dissecting your post and replying to little bits, because it really obfuscated discussion, and we soon end up debating things that have no relevance to the original topic. Clearly I'm not going to be providing "supporting evidence" for a proposition like this. There are no compilations of data that reveal anything about how people want to be beautiful. Clearly things like human interaction are n the realm of the subjective. Science cannot touch it, so it’s best to leave it at the door. I just notice things about the way people interact with each other, its not scientific, but its empirical, its not certifiable and never can be, but It can be just as obvious because like Bob Dylan says, its "Blowin' in the Wind".

 

What? Like there are no fine-ass smart people? Intelligence and beauty are mutually exclusive? Well, I did not know that.

 

I think about the only thing I agree with in your opening post is that "intellectuals" are not necessarily "intelligent" or even smart.

Well, the viewpoint that "sexiness" comes from white teeth and strong physique is incredibly shallow and immature, in my opinion.
However, it actually does support your assertions, in a round-about way, since the majority of people I meet are shallow and immature.

"Sexiness" is not something you wear.
It is not the same as being aesthetically pleasing. Not at all.
Sexiness comes from self-esteem, intelligence, wisdom, charm, honesty, vitality, humor etc...
Just about anyone can be "beautiful", just as just about anyone can be intellectual, but sexiness...
Sexiness comes from the essence of who you are as a person.
Sexiness does not fit in your closet or on your bookshelf.

You may be physically attractive, I have never seen your picture.
I have some doubts about your intelligence, but I am just basing it on this single thread, so the jury is out.
I can say, that you certainly are not sexy.
But, like I said, this is just my opinion.