[NOTE FROM PUMPKIN PERSON: The following is a guest article by Zeitgeisterfahrer and does not necessarily reflect the views of Pumpkin Person. PLEASE PLACE ALL OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS HERE. THEY WILL NOT BE POSTED IN THIS THREAD]
I discovered this image that shows the average faces of of many countries.
The average face of each country looks much better than a random person
from that country. If I had to rate the attractivity of 100 people in 100 rounds against the country’s average face, the the latter would likely win in most cases.
Averageness equals attractivity.
Attractive people are average.
Attractive people represent the average of a country or race.
Their behavior and IQ are more average and their standard deviation is smaller.
What is the reason why we prefer beautiful people?
Natural selection!
We prefer beautiful people because we are the descendents of people who prefered attractive (who we now consider attractive) people and mated with them or were beautiful themselves.
They had more offspring and their offspring prefered people with similar faces.
Those who didn’t prefer them had less offspring.
Unattractive people don’t resemble our ancestors that much.
Their package wasn’t very successful and people who considered them okay or attractive were sorted out.
That’s why we have a preference for some faces and and an aversion to other faces.
On the bell curve, average people are the most numerous.
If average people represent the average of a race and averageness equals attractivity, attrative people represent their race in IQ, body, face and behaviour.
Attractive people are the best representation of our ancestors. Their body and mind shows us, how the abilities or our ancestors were and
how and if we diverge from them.
The most attractive people are the mean of the bell curve of our ancestors.
They are less likely to be very dumb or very smart.
They show us how our generation compares to them.
Especially interesting is the comparison of a whole country vs a selection of attractive people.
According to Satoshi Kanazawa, the average IQ of attractive people (american) is 104,23.
The IQ for men is 105 and for women it’s 103,64.
I don’t know if it’s based on a mean of 100 or 98 (american IQ).
According to my theory, americans are 4-6 points less intelligent than their ancestors.
Selection of course has an effect on the perception of attractivity. That means attractive people are a bit less smart than our ancestors,
because the people who are less average and who have more offspring become more average over time.
To get the most representive IQ our our ancestors, you have to first choose a bunch of attractive people.
But we won’t measure their IQ. They will now choose among a new list of attractive people.
The average IQ of the latter group is the best represenation of the intelligence of our ancestors.
If beautiful people in a society have an above average IQ, that means the society is dysgenic and selects for less intelligent people.
If beautiful people in a society have a below average IQ, that means the society is eugenic and selects for more intelligent people.
It’s highly likely that attractive people are smarter in all western countries, which means that we have become more stupid.
Pumpkin Person 
Your old blog says reaction time for a decrease in 5 IQ points would be a decrease of one-tenth of a second. An increase in 1/100th a second being an increase of 0.5 IQ points.
I do not believe the looks of the average person has increased in averageness by 13 percent which is the population between IQ 100 and 105 (the 5 point decrease in intelligence from our ancestors)
average looks is not something that can increase 13 percent by IQ decreases so fast in such large populations. We need standards to tell up what face shapes make that 13 percent up. A 5 point decrease in IQ does not make the shape of the average face 13 percent different. Beautiful or ugly.
“If beautiful people in a society have an above average IQ, that means the society is dysgenic and selects for less intelligent people.
If beautiful people in a society have a below average IQ, that means the society is eugenic and selects for more intelligent people.”
There is no relationship between ‘intelligence’ and facial attractiveness. So your argument is false.
http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(14)00151-2/abstract
the mathematician/model dealwithherpes wants inside her: Pietro Boselli.
to the extent that attractiveness is affected by exercise, diet, etc., then smart people will be less attractive than they could be, because they don’t care about being attractive.
to the extent that IQ is part of general fitness, then retarded people should be ugly.
It could be that IQ and attractiveness represent different parts of fitness
But general fitness is divided in sexual and natural sectors. Intelligence specially not-social and or emotional ones, is more derived from natural than from sexual.
Seems on avg smarter people, based on general and cognitive aspects, tend to have averagely good looking but they tend not to be beautiful ones.
Only men select by beauty, eg youthfulness and health. Women select by social status only, all other factors are irrelevant.
That’s interesting Zeitgeistfahrer !
Does you hypothesis of a negative correlation among beauty and IQ sd to the mean is backed up by some data or is it just an intuition ? It’ s bizarre to think that the more you average every factor, the more exceptional you are for reproduction .
But then if it were true, I believe your deduction works very well. Even if high IQ people – let’s say though money – are able to buy beauty, children would be – by virtue of your law – more intelligent but uglier – and only the most average loaded would stay beautiful . So for each generation, the difference in IQ between them and the rest, would give you the evolution in IQ through time of society.
Your hypothesis is so strong and undocumented that it makes your theory a bit ethereal ….
Beauty is racism.
Kanazawa likes HBD topics. I read his paper asking why people dont find black women as attractive and he stated the complete obvious that its because they have more testosterone.
I think hes been excommunicated from psychology academia because of that article.
I guess it never occured to our guest blogger that the researchers touched up the faces so as not to offend anyone.
I mean, being very brutally honest – in all my travels, the average women in most of the nations Ive been to is not as good looking as the women in the picture.
Can you imagine what the Papua New Guinean ‘representative’ woman would look like? I bet the researchers had a heart attack and spend 3 hours on photoshop.
Each face is the avarage of many faces in one nationality. So its not an avarage face in rank ordering within an country (in other words 5/10) but the avarage of many faces of different looks, that so magically seem to be good looking.
Pumpkin things the girl from the exorcist looks like the average person.
the average is by definition perfectly symmetric.
this is why average faces are more attractive than average.
there is NO other reason.
and this does NOT apply across populations. the world average face is NOT more attractive than the average face of SOME populations.
If you identify beauty with symmetry, then the average face would be midly symmetrical and not that beautiful. That’s why the hypothesis is paradoxical and would need some data to justify it .
”the average is by definition perfectly symmetric.”
the ONLY way the average of so many faces would not be perfectly symmetric is IF the population were asymmetric in ONE DIRECTION, left or right.
if the asymmetry were random, then the average of a lot of faces would be perfectly symmetric, and symmetric faces are in general judged more attractive. there was an article in Time about this. it compared lyle lovett with denzel, the black man every black man wants to be.
it’s interesting how when i was 13 i did look a lot like andrew mccarthy but now we look nothing alike. and it’s not alcohol peepee-the-prole. mccarthy was a way bigger boozer than me.
looks are an example of how “the child is the father of the man” is NOT always true. so it must be even more true of IQ.
matt miller looks nothing like mccarthy.
if matt miller and christoph metzelder had a baby with blue eyes it would be me.
matt miller of bloomberg of course. the guy who dropped out of high school yet scored in the 1500s on his SAT and did mensur but has no schmiss.
Its a pity Stephanie Ruhle went to NBC. I thought she was quite provocative when interviewing people.
Bloomberg get very good guests on. Much better than CNBC or Fox Business.
You must watch a lot of ‘soccer’ to know who metzelder is. Do you support a team?
#Saccer.
Thanks PP for publishing it.
@ Bruno:
No it’s not backed up. Someone has to test it if they are really more average.
They are two examples of peoples who are not known for their good looks, but for their achievements.
Ashkenazi Jews and the English.
But even if the SD is not smaller, it’s still likely that they are a good representation of a race.
Here are more average faces!
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/faces-of-tomorrow-2011-2#this-is-what-people-look-like-at-bondi-beach-sydney-1
The average face of women and men seam to be based on only 25 people.
If you compare the average face and the individual faces, it’s hard to believe that’ it’s based on them.
My guess is, if you combine the faces of attractive people, you will get the most beautiful person.
@ oh my!:
Do you consider cockroaches attractive?
Do you consider neanderthals attractive?
No?! Not even the ones with a symmetrical face?
So what makes humans with a symmetrical face attractive?
“Do you consider neanderthals attractive?”
We don’t know what they looked like.
Interesting the universities where students are not ”diverse”/globalists…
These average faces don’t represent real average faces [which are more diverse on shape and combination], the author of this post seems misinformed about it.
😉
The created average faces are often good looking but real random faces of students shows a greater fluctuation in appearance…
and because human beings tend to be quite individually diverse in appearance, specially caucasians and mixed-caucasians, averageness must be verified in more individual way than collective…
So facial attractiveness is a proxy for other factors, such as health, intelligence, social status, etc, and isn’t solely valued for sexual selection. Correct?
If average faces are the most beautiful because they are symmetrical.
The bell curve of symmetry places most people away from the center just as 97 percent of people have IQs away from IQ 100. just about 95 to 90 percent of people do not have symmetrical faces meaning the average face at 50 percent of people is not beautiful.
The composite average face picture is symmetrical but 90 percent of the real people in those pictures were not symmetrical. They all add up like any average. The average height of men being 6’3″ does not make 90 percent of men 6’3″.
or even 50 percent of men 6’3″