Rockdoc Franz wrote: Some things are testable and thus objective. Beauty is subjective and held in the eye of the beholder. News report states that the study graded beauty. Who did the marking and what criteria were used is not stated. sample size may also be questioned here. Regardless, some of the comments above are great.
I agree. I have observed that in the past few decades the standard for beauty has taken quite a nosedive. What was once taken as plain is now touted as beauty. Quite depressing!
Apparently whoever did this study hasn't ever attended any scientific meetings...
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
No, I didn't. The point of my post was that scientists tend to be more average looking, not beautiful (by purely subjective terms as RockDoc put it). If climate scientists are all dumb, then it logically stands to reason that they would all be beautiful, which is the opposite of what I said.
And climate scientists aren't all dumb as rocks, you just don't agree with their research so you think they are.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
No, I'm not calling you anything - where do you get that?? I was responding to Baileyboy's comments...
Not all beautiful people are smart and not all smart people are beautiful; conversely, not all less-than-beautiful people are smart and not all less-than-smart people are beautiful. Thankfully, it runs the gamut and I'm not sure a study of this kind can ever draw the conclusions that this one did - physical beauty is too subjective and changes between cultures and over time, intelligence has no obvious ties to physical characteristics as beautiful people marry not-so-pretty and/or dumb people all the time and vice versa so the gene flow is pretty well mixed up.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
We find symmetry beautiful because symmetry usually is an expression of good genetics. It follows that better genes would result in higher intelligence, though not necessarily the full use of that intelligence.