Munts are stupid too then?

Grades students receive in class are supposed to be based on their academic merits, but a new study has revealed Unattractive women get lower marks in exams and coursework compared to their more physically appealing counterparts.

This does not happen for men.

Makes sense: what we consider “attractive” in females is genetic fitness. Symmetry and so on. Genetic fitness and intelligence being related isn’t a completely outrageous idea either.

Still, no worries, the munts will still have their lovely personalities.

13 thoughts on “Munts are stupid too then?”

  1. Makes perfect sense, over the generations, the smartest and hence generally richer blokes can get the fittest totty, and so the gene pool will gradually conflate good looks with intelligence.

    Your correspondent despite his intelligence and good looks regrettably doesn’t fall into this (generally richer) category, but hey, every rule needs an exception.

  2. Still, no worries, the munts will still have their lovely personalities.

    Ouch, Tim. 🙁

    I’m not convinced pretty girls are smarter though. Or at least, they don’t try as hard at being clever.

    Marie Curie was no looker. Jane Austen didn’t turn heads like Elizabeth Bennett. And the Blessed Margaret – much as I love and respect her memory – was never gonna win Miss England.

  3. It’s a very small measured difference. Could be any number of third variables, ranging from lower self-esteem to eating instead of studying (ouch) to less attention from teachers who are subconsciously more attentive to the pretty girls, sort of inverted Princess Syndrome.

    Not quite an excuse for rushing to a causal genetic relationship.

  4. I read ‘have’ in that final sentence as ‘shave’ and was impressed by the new euphemism I thought Tim had coined.

    “He’s an utter personality” may stay in my vocab anyway.

  5. In other news: Boobs tend to influence males’ reactions…

    But seriously, besides the fact that the research article itself can’t be found, There’s too many questionmarks open: which form of assessment was used, is there any form of anonimity bias based on the form in which the exams were taken, what was the subjective component, if any, in each of the examinations?

    As for a genetic link between intelligence and looks…
    Maybe.. but as with all things biological it’s never as clear-cut that you’re able to point at it and say “this is it.”
    You’re talking a fair number of physical features and mental features, each of which may be genetically coupled, and may be subject to secondary and tertiary factors influencing expression, and that’s *before* the whole “nurture” thing comes to play.
    “Nurture” brings you to the veryfiable fact that various cultures have quite different expectations of “beauty” , quite often coupled to racial features, so it’s also a question of how much any perception of “beauty” is outside the quantifyable realm of Fitness to begin with. It certainly shows that in the phase-space of features v/s intelligence there’s not a single optimum, but actually quite a few.

    And Stuff.. There’s simply too many variables, so the scientifically correct answer is: “Possibly. There’s just simply no way to measure it, and bugger all you can do about it.”
    In that sense it’s like Tim’s Economics. You can accurately measure single processes, but good luck quantifying the whole kit and kaboodle.

    That said.. The most fearsomely intelligent women I’ve encountered in my life most definitely weren’t in the front row when the Barbie kits were handed out.
    If there is a connection, the optimum lies below “academic level” intelligence. Which would make sense, because too much intelligence interferes with the business of procreating.

  6. Even taken at face value the differences are small. 0.067 on a 4 point scale, which is the difference between marks got by good-lookers and average lookers, is only about one and a half marks for a mark out of 100, whereas 0.025 (the difference between having average looks and being unattractive) equates to about half a mark out of 100. So basically lookers get, say, 65, average lookers get 63.5 and munters get 63. Hardly the basis for declaring anything (and as most marking at University is anonymous it can’t be due to markers favouring good lookers).

    If you’re marking out of 20, or on a stepped with less steps, then these differfences would not show up at all.

    (Note that saying the differences are statistically significant isn’t the same as saying the differences are large. If batsmen A has a batting average of 51 and B has 50, the difference between them can be statistically significant, if there’s been enoiugh innings, while still being small.)

  7. It is also possible that the girls who bother about their studies also bother about their looks and one who doesn’t care two hoots about the class wouldn’t bother to brush her hair or put on decent clothes before class, so she appears unattractive compared to a physically equivalent person whjo does bother.

  8. “So basically lookers get, say, 65, average lookers get 63.5 and munters get 63.”

    I should also add that that’s just the *averages*. The actual marks got by good-lookers will be all over the place. The actual marks got by average lookers will also be all over the place. And ditto for the not so good-looking. But the averages, which are supposed to be what are important here, are pretty close. Far closer than what you’d expect from the rad fems.

  9. Cal beat me to it. “Statistically significant” is quite different from being significant.

    This could be just as easily explained by the increased confidence that comes from being good looking. Or that people with destructive tendencies tend to scowl and look less pretty compared to rays of sunshine.

    Or we could take them at their word, and campaign for less internal assessment and more blind externals. To avoid personal bias was, after all, why exams were invented.

    The luvvies don’t like that though. They don’t like exams.

  10. Confidence will override most physical factors when judging appearance so this should come as no shock to anyone.

    The interesting cases to look at are those that don’t fit the normal stories. The prettiest girl when I was in 4th grade had a poor response to chickenpox leaving her with gruesome scars. Once she had accepted that she was no longer going to be viewed as beautiful she decided to focus on her studies and rose to the top of the class. I should add she did spend the time to make sure her hair, clothing and makeup were immaculate.

  11. “Bloke In Italy

    Makes perfect sense, over the generations, the smartest and hence generally richer blokes can get the fittest totty, and so the gene pool will gradually conflate good looks with intelligence”

    For a long time I’ve believed that this inevitable process will result in effectively two species. Since HG Wells has already claimed ‘Morlocks’ as his name for the sub-species which will inevitably result, I have christened my proposed sub-species as ‘Murphlocks’

    The only reason it hasn’t already happened is alcohol causing cross-contamination of the genes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *