I have a theory about “dumb blonde syndrome”, the idea that beautiful women are dumb. Folk psychology says that everybody gets the same number of character points to distribute among their attributes, so some people get intelligence while others get beauty. But reality says that beauty is correlated with health, which is correlated with intelligence. Beautiful people should tend to be smart. I think there is some positive beauty/intelligence correlation.
But I remember taking a class with a stunningly beautiful woman, who every week would loudly make some inane comment or question, and not realize it was inane because no one would tell her so. And I developed the theory that beautiful people don’t learn to self-censor, because they don’t need to. Anybody else would get ridiculed when they said something stupid, and learn to be more shy.
Maybe this also applies to smart people. They’re more likely to be correct, and so less likely to be made fun of when speaking their mind, and so less needful of learning how to phrase a question in a way that reduces their chances of being made fun of.
I’m stunningly smart and I loudly make inane comments all the time. This is because I am also stupid.
(Now that I’m older and fatter, I’m realising just how much shit I got away with by being pretty when I was younger. It would have been worse if I hadn’t been oblivious to it.)
It is quite important to be aware of one’s stupidities, particularly when smart, or one will never be able to even start to alleviate them.
Just the other day, Robin Hanson quoted a paper that showed a 0.3 correlation between people’s judgements from photos of beauty and intelligence. So people seem to not believe in dumb blonde syndrome. It cited a survey [broken link] that, if I read the abstract correctly, also observes this correlated judgement, but denies that there is an actual correlation between beauty and intelligence. RH also linked to a study which not only claims that beauty and intelligence are correlated, but that this explains the wage premium for beauty. You may recall the study a few years ago that intelligence explains the wage premium for height.
I am surprised that there is disagreement in the psychological literature about whether beauty and intelligence are correlated.
I think kids learn to specialize, to some extent. I was a goofy-looking kid who specialized in reading, while my cuter sister specialized in people-pleasing. (More of this might have to do with birth order.) But I think it’s plausible that more attractive children lean towards social rather than intellectual pursuits.
My understanding is that beauty and health are correlated in a very broad, do-all-your-limbs work, are-you-malnourished sense. I would be surprised to learn that higher cheekbones are correlated with health.
Especially since there is a cultural part in “beauty”. In some African cultures, a “fat” woman is considered beautiful, because (unconsciously) it means someone who has access to lots of food. In Western culture, the fashion shows and TV series tend to propagate the opposite : a very slim, even anorexic woman (to the point of being unhealthy) is considered beautiful.
That’s an interesting possibility, but do you have more than one data point to base it on? I don’t think it’s clear that beautiful people having a general tendency to behave in an inane manner is an actual phenomenon requiring explanation.
But I remember taking a class with a stunningly beautiful woman, who every week would loudly make some inane comment or question, and not realize it was inane because no one would tell her so.
But I remember taking a class with a stunningly beautiful woman, who every week would loudly make some inane comment or question, and not realize it was inane because no one would tell her so.
Just the other day, Robin Hanson quoted a paper that showed a 0.3 correlation between people’s judgements from photos of beauty an intelligence. So people seem to not believe in dumb blonde syndrome. It cited a survey that, if I read the abstract correctly, also observes this correlated judgement, but denies that there is an actual correlation between beauty and intelligence. RH also linked to a study which not only claims that beauty and intelligence are correlated, but that this explains the wage premium for beauty. You may recall the study a few years ago that intelligence explains the wage premium for height.
I am surprised that there is disagreement in the psychological literature about whether beauty and intelligence are correlated.
But reality says that beauty is correlated with fitness, which is correlated with intelligence. Beautiful people should tend to be smart. I think there is some positive beauty/intelligence correlation.
“is correlated with” is not transitive, the conclusion is true, but it doesn’t follow from the premises.
I guess this is exactly the sort of comment that the original post was supposed to be warning people against making—does the fact that I’ve noticed this, and am pointing it out here in apology help to mitigate it?
But reality says that beauty is correlated with fitness, which is correlated with intelligence. Beautiful people should tend to be smart.
That is a surprising mistake to make in reasoning. Did you somehow get the causality arrows reversed in your mind when writing this? Temporarily imagine that fitness was causing brains and beauty, rather than the other way around?
I think there is some positive beauty/intelligence correlation.
Quite possibly true. But surely not for the reason you suggested above.
Isn’t beauty a set of built-in fitness testing heuristics?
As far as I can tell, beauty is a combination of health heuristics and status markers which are developed in particular societies—some of the status markers are about rarity and others are about costly signals.
That is a surprising mistake to make in reasoning. Did you somehow get the causality arrows reversed in your mind when writing this?
There are no causality arrows in my reasoning.
Perhaps you think that by “fitness” I meant evolutionary fitness, and that both beauty and intelligence cause fitness. But by “fitness” I meant health. Sorry, poor choice of words.
Fitness meaning health. That works. But I think that your model does involve causality—from health to both beauty and intelligence. And, of course then beauty and intelligence will be correlated. I apologize for not anticipating that possible meaning. Since you post about evolutionary theory so often, that denotation of “fitness” never entered my mind.
With correlations it isn’t necessarily clear which way the causality arrows are pointing—or even if they run between the correlated items at all. In this case, one of the most obvious way to draw the arrows is from genes to all of these traits.
He only talked about correlation, not causation. The most likely causation is indeed the one you posited.
EDIT: ignore the following.
But two things that are both (positively) correlated with a third are (positively) correlated with each other, no matter the the direction or even existence of causal relations.
But two things that are both (positively) correlated with a third are (positively) correlated with each other, no matter the the direction or even existence of causal relations.
I don’t believe this is the case. Two things things both being positively correlated with a third are more likely to be correlated with each other, all things being equal. Yet there are causal relations which could make those things negatively correlated with each other while both positively correlated with the third. The most obvious examples would be of partisan behaviors where the ‘third’ is a generic factor that encourages someone to pick a side.
I don’t think “are generally” applies “no matter the the direction or even existence of causal relations”.
If A causes E and B independently causes E, then there will be correlation between A and E and between B and E, but no reason to expect correlation between A and B.
You’re right, and I really should have known better. This is one of the examples used in Judea Pearl’s Casaulity, about how to assign plausible causation structures given only correlations.
I have a theory about “dumb blonde syndrome”, the idea that beautiful women are dumb. Folk psychology says that everybody gets the same number of character points to distribute among their attributes, so some people get intelligence while others get beauty. But reality says that beauty is correlated with health, which is correlated with intelligence. Beautiful people should tend to be smart. I think there is some positive beauty/intelligence correlation.
But I remember taking a class with a stunningly beautiful woman, who every week would loudly make some inane comment or question, and not realize it was inane because no one would tell her so. And I developed the theory that beautiful people don’t learn to self-censor, because they don’t need to. Anybody else would get ridiculed when they said something stupid, and learn to be more shy.
Maybe this also applies to smart people. They’re more likely to be correct, and so less likely to be made fun of when speaking their mind, and so less needful of learning how to phrase a question in a way that reduces their chances of being made fun of.
I’m stunningly smart and I loudly make inane comments all the time. This is because I am also stupid.
(Now that I’m older and fatter, I’m realising just how much shit I got away with by being pretty when I was younger. It would have been worse if I hadn’t been oblivious to it.)
It is quite important to be aware of one’s stupidities, particularly when smart, or one will never be able to even start to alleviate them.
Just the other day, Robin Hanson quoted a paper that showed a 0.3 correlation between people’s judgements from photos of beauty and intelligence. So people seem to not believe in dumb blonde syndrome. It cited a survey [broken link] that, if I read the abstract correctly, also observes this correlated judgement, but denies that there is an actual correlation between beauty and intelligence. RH also linked to a study which not only claims that beauty and intelligence are correlated, but that this explains the wage premium for beauty. You may recall the study a few years ago that intelligence explains the wage premium for height.
I am surprised that there is disagreement in the psychological literature about whether beauty and intelligence are correlated.
The most surprising thing to me about that link is that it indicates beautiful women are disadvantaged when seeking employment.
Robin also mentioned an interesting recent study on that counterintuitive finding.
I think kids learn to specialize, to some extent. I was a goofy-looking kid who specialized in reading, while my cuter sister specialized in people-pleasing. (More of this might have to do with birth order.) But I think it’s plausible that more attractive children lean towards social rather than intellectual pursuits.
My understanding is that beauty and health are correlated in a very broad, do-all-your-limbs work, are-you-malnourished sense. I would be surprised to learn that higher cheekbones are correlated with health.
Especially since there is a cultural part in “beauty”. In some African cultures, a “fat” woman is considered beautiful, because (unconsciously) it means someone who has access to lots of food. In Western culture, the fashion shows and TV series tend to propagate the opposite : a very slim, even anorexic woman (to the point of being unhealthy) is considered beautiful.
That’s an interesting possibility, but do you have more than one data point to base it on? I don’t think it’s clear that beautiful people having a general tendency to behave in an inane manner is an actual phenomenon requiring explanation.
The Emperor’s New Clothes? If only… ;)
Beauty affects development of social skills; perception of others as smart is influenced as much by social skills as by ‘raw’ intelligence?
The Emperor’s New Clothes? If only… ;)
Just the other day, Robin Hanson quoted a paper that showed a 0.3 correlation between people’s judgements from photos of beauty an intelligence. So people seem to not believe in dumb blonde syndrome. It cited a survey that, if I read the abstract correctly, also observes this correlated judgement, but denies that there is an actual correlation between beauty and intelligence. RH also linked to a study which not only claims that beauty and intelligence are correlated, but that this explains the wage premium for beauty. You may recall the study a few years ago that intelligence explains the wage premium for height.
I am surprised that there is disagreement in the psychological literature about whether beauty and intelligence are correlated.
“is correlated with” is not transitive, the conclusion is true, but it doesn’t follow from the premises.
I guess this is exactly the sort of comment that the original post was supposed to be warning people against making—does the fact that I’ve noticed this, and am pointing it out here in apology help to mitigate it?
That is a surprising mistake to make in reasoning. Did you somehow get the causality arrows reversed in your mind when writing this? Temporarily imagine that fitness was causing brains and beauty, rather than the other way around?
Quite possibly true. But surely not for the reason you suggested above.
Isn’t beauty a set of built-in fitness testing heuristics? If so, fitness really does cause beauty.
It’s worth pointing out that beauty also really does cause fitness. The runaway cycle is the peacock effect.
As far as I can tell, beauty is a combination of health heuristics and status markers which are developed in particular societies—some of the status markers are about rarity and others are about costly signals.
Also known as Fisherian Runaway.
Evolution’s Goodhart Law.. Man, there is just no escaping it, is there?
By “fitness” I meant “health”.
There are no causality arrows in my reasoning.
Perhaps you think that by “fitness” I meant evolutionary fitness, and that both beauty and intelligence cause fitness. But by “fitness” I meant health. Sorry, poor choice of words.
Fitness meaning health. That works. But I think that your model does involve causality—from health to both beauty and intelligence. And, of course then beauty and intelligence will be correlated. I apologize for not anticipating that possible meaning. Since you post about evolutionary theory so often, that denotation of “fitness” never entered my mind.
Say X and Y are two independent random variables. X is correlated to X+Y is correlated to Y, but X and Y are (by hypothesis!) not correlated.
With correlations it isn’t necessarily clear which way the causality arrows are pointing—or even if they run between the correlated items at all. In this case, one of the most obvious way to draw the arrows is from genes to all of these traits.
He only talked about correlation, not causation. The most likely causation is indeed the one you posited.
EDIT: ignore the following.
But two things that are both (positively) correlated with a third are (positively) correlated with each other, no matter the the direction or even existence of causal relations.
I don’t believe this is the case. Two things things both being positively correlated with a third are more likely to be correlated with each other, all things being equal. Yet there are causal relations which could make those things negatively correlated with each other while both positively correlated with the third. The most obvious examples would be of partisan behaviors where the ‘third’ is a generic factor that encourages someone to pick a side.
You’re right. I should have said “are generally”, rather “are”.
I don’t think “are generally” applies “no matter the the direction or even existence of causal relations”.
If A causes E and B independently causes E, then there will be correlation between A and E and between B and E, but no reason to expect correlation between A and B.
You’re right, and I really should have known better. This is one of the examples used in Judea Pearl’s Casaulity, about how to assign plausible causation structures given only correlations.
A pair of correlations between A and B, and between B and C, is correlated with a correlation between A and C. :P