The research is very flawed: 1. The pool of tested faces is too small (80 people). 2. 180 people to judge the faces of 80 people is not enough. 3. IQ is not an entirely reliable measurement of intelligence. 4. Different cultures have various perceptions of people. They should have conducted the research in other countries as well. They also should have taken in account that some ethnicities have specific traits that might not have any relation with intelligence at all. However, it still is an interesting study.
gabriel garcia IQ is a measurement of middle class acceptability. The more middle class you are, the higher you will score in an IQ test. And that is pretty much a fact. This comes about because middle class people have the widest access to schooling, academics and public knowledge. By middle class I mean the middle class of any society. You can argue that not all middle classes are the same, which may well be true. But the fact is that a country would only have a large established middle class if they were wealthy and advanced. (The "true" richest nations all have the largest middle-classes as a percent of their totally population). A "developed nation" is an idea based nation, not a manufacturing or industrialized one. So the more middle-class, the more entrepreneurs and inventors, scientists and thinkers they should be able to produce. Which would directly result in larger economies and higher technological progress. They are wealth creators because the can create value from nothing but their minds. Its less to do with genetics and biology, and more to do with their traditions of education and openness. IQ + EQ
What are you talking about? Physical appearance is the only thing people can get down to a science, and it is a good marker for literally everything. Genetics determine physical appearance, they also determine all of our other biological baselines such as intelligence, health, ect. Every species on earth uses physical appearance as a guideline when looking for a strong and compatible mate. You're shallow minded for thinking a universal rule is somehow negative just because it doesn't fit your social/moral theory. In reality, mother nature doesn't give a shit how you feel, she just works her magic. We don't put emphasis on physical appearance, the emphasis is simply there and we only get to choose weather to deny it or not.
MrLoobu may be right to point out Larry glossing over the importance of physical appearance but then he goes off on a tangent that is essentially meaningless. Physical appearance is important but not simply for selecting mates. It's for communication too. Not to mention pheromones playing a large role in attraction, in addition to appearance. MrLoobu is also speaking from a fundamentally male perspective as if there's nothing else, other than visual attraction. hahaha. How paternalistic and short sighted. I mean seriously how can he scold someone else for being shortsighted when he is the blind leading the blind? Oh and also MrLoobu half-baked whimsical theory would indicate that people would be attracted to the same things since our genetics have been largely unchanged for the past 10k years. However, attraction changes due to survivability, it's not like dudes in the 1500s were attracted to rail thin modern looking women, they were attracted to well-fed chunky women, that was the height of beauty. So spread the view across cultures and you'll find different cultures are attracted to different things. So, somehow stating that certain measurable, physical traits beyond the most basic (eyes, nose, mouth, other basic parts being in the right place) define attraction and are tied directly to our genetics is utter folly. The PROCESS behind attraction might be the same, but the details are based on nurture, not nature. Really wish people would try harder to think about their bullshit. Someone all talking about genetics, physical appearance and how "mother nature" works should damn well have an understanding about human history and culture before opening their mouth. Hell you don't even have to have an understanding of history if you realize that maybe people in China or Africa are attracted to different things than people in other parts of the world. So, add eurocentrism to my levy of pejoratives against that guy. Even the most simple white guy that understands some black dudes like big butts has a better understanding of cultural impact on attraction. And if he's smart enough to realize that women don't want to just stare at his manhood bits because they are attracted to different things then this hypothetical dude has a better understanding of this entire argument. I even know how this would play out if I didn't state the afore. MrLoobu would backpedal and change his argument to focus not on the details of physical attraction but if physical attraction happens at all etc, claim victory because it does.
Andy Christ Considering that children of intelligent and well-educated people tend to be that as well, I would think it's a bit early to just say it's only a small part. As far as I know we don't know how big its influence is, really.
"obviously they should do more studies into this..." Why? Of what importance is this? What value is there in attempting to judge people on more things they cannot control. The great thing about intelligence is that it isn't dependent on aesthetic qualities and even if they can judge an intelligent face at a "higher rate than chance" doesn't mean the subject is of any value at all.
HeretixAevum Don't act like you don't know that isn't applicable. Humans are far to diverse to make general statements on perception. Any judgement on someones intelligence is much more dependent on vocabulary and actual performance than the way they look.
The next question is: Because of the way people think when looking at you, are you becoming dumb or smart. If all your teachers identify you as dumb right from first look, will you become dumb?
Yes. This is why, because teachers weren't trained to identify dyslexia, decades ago, dyslexic kids were deemed "dumb" and left to their own devices at the back of the classroom, or even pulled down by stupid remarks. Now they are properly diagnosed and can be educated similarly. Same applies to Turner Syndrome girls which often have bad hearing, which, in turns, used to make teacher think they were not smart, when, instead, they just couldn't hear well enough what the teacher was saying. One of the most common causes of girls being considered retarded when, if equiped with proper hearing aids, they would have been normally bright students.
Personally, I do not believe in IQ as an accurate measurement of intelligence. I instead believe in the multiple intelligence theory. Intelligence simply isn't a black-and-white attribute that you measure as a single unit, rather it's a very broad spectrum of various different factors. It's always better to judge different types of intelligence on a case-by-case basis, because the term "intelligence" in itself is very broad. In all honesty, you can't just dismiss someone in a quick series of tests and say they're smart or they're stupid, there's simply too many variables you have to take into account. The only way you can fully analyze someone's intelligence is if you know everything about them. However, even if your someone's best friend, even if you're someone's relative, there's always details you will never know. You never really know everything about a person, so in actuality, it's never a reliable judgment when you're talking about someone's intelligence. It's always just a mere assumption, never a true, solid, indisputable fact. Literally everyone is intelligent AND stupid in their own way, there's simply no way of denying that.
I agree. IQ tests shouldn't evaluate a persons intelligence as a whole, because it only deals with pure logic. I have an IQ of around 120 according to an IQ test I took in 2007. Sure, it's fairly above average, but here's the thing: It doesn't matter if I don't use it. And I can think of several dumb things I've done in my life just from the top of my head. It doesn't help being smart if you're not wise about it. A mastermind without knowledge is futile.
Measuring intelligence through an IQ tests is like measuring the depth of a lake by having a group of people see how far down they can swim on a single breath: It works, but it's not very practical. Personally I believe that if you pay attention, you can ballpark a person's intelligence by looking at their resting neutral face. You can also gauge their general disposition, and often their sexual orientation. Intelligence, or what I prefer to call intellectual potential (how smart a person could become if properly educated), is controlled by the physical and chemical structure of the human brain. Those in turn are controlled primarily by genetics. So by my reasoning, as an aerospace engineering grad student, intelligence is a genetic characteristic. Now, we learned from the human genome project that we only have about 30,000 genes, a third of the expected number. This means each individual genome can and probably does play a roll in the genes for multiple characteristics. So maybe the genome sequences responsible for intellectual potential also influence the genes controlling facial structure. And, maybe humans have a latent ability to pick up on the differences between peoples facial structures, and associate them with intellectual gifts or deficits. It would make biological and reproductive sense. As intelligence became more important for our species survival, we started to develop the ability to recognize it in each other. This could also explain why it's easier to gauge a man's intelligence than a woman's, just by looking at their face. For most of the existence of our species, women were more selective of their mates, and choosing a genius to father your children is probably better than a muscle headed jock. A spear is a better weapon than a fist and strong arm. So the women who were better at picking out a smart husband would've passed on that skill. It's an interesting trail of thought.
Jay Lyons I've met lots of really intelligent people with stunned eyes and they had absolutely no freaking common sense and watched them destroy their lives through common sense decisions gone seriously wrong While they looked down their noses at me because they felt they were smarter than me, it was like watching a train wreck excellent entertainment
Not true at all. A sample size of 40 could establish a confidence of 80% with a CI of 10%. That's not up to the typical 95/5 standard of rigorous studies, but it's not totally useless.
***** probably the best way we have. But measuring intelligence is a questionable concept to start with. More important than raw power is skills in managing complexity anyway. And utilising effectively what you do have. And continous learning, results in better quality of thought... But yeah, this test is rather absurd. I might have misunderstood but they used less than 50 people(not statistically significant) who were all university students(higher education in a country with fairly intelligent people) and from another comment I read here apparently the mean IQ was 125 which is quite a high score. Not really very impressive. But some faces you just know intelligent thought will never escape from...
Nordic people tend to be very intelligent. Look at the stability of governments and the happiness of the people in countries like Norway, Finland, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark. All very progressive very intelligent societies overall.
MrLoobu Today, yes. You don't have to travel that far back in history to find something completely different however. They were for a long time considered barbaric.
Estou Descalça Absolutely. I like watching but he interrupts so often, as if he needs attention. I'm not sure he's as smart as people tell him he is. He's just loud :(
+Estou Descalça The last bit where he was going on "correlation = causation" rant made me wonder if the study was accurate about his facial features... He didn't realize he embarassed his coworker by saying on video, that what she was explaining was irrelevant..
NeuteredSack You mean they tend to be better family and community educated and encouraged to engage in finance instead of distractions. It makes them very successful over other groups, not any smarter.
Fraternal Military Order "It makes them very successful over other groups, not any smarter." But Ashkenazi Jews do tend to score very high on IQ scores (117 on average I believe). So in this context, they do tend to be more successful and also smarter than other ethnic groups..
I'm not Jewish but I fully believe that Jews (on average) are smarter than any other "race". The fact that they have high family values, aren't distracted, are well educated are all correlated to the fact that they are smart.
We had all this in the 19th century, it was called physiognomy, the idea that you can tell a person's character from the shape of his face. It's utter bollocks.
I've heard people say before that we do judge a book by a cover, that to judge a person's looks is like judging a book's cover to find out if it's sci-fi, non-fiction, or a children's book, but I don't think that's the point whoever came up with that saying wanted to make. The REAL point is that you can't tell the quality of a book by it's cover; you can't tell if a book will be a good or bad based solely on what's on the outside. Just because a person's really handsome doesn't mean he or she'll be a good person.
Here's an idea. Give those men perceived to be less intelligent a clean haircut, a clean shave, a nice shirt and a pair of glasses. On the other side of the equation give the smarter men a popped collar, the international sign for asshole, a Justin Beiber haircut, take away the glasses if they have them and give them slightly tinted shades. People who judge a book by its cover are easily fooled.
1:12 how is that ridiculous? You can easily tell if someone is remarkably intelligent OR remarkably "left behind" by looking at their face, or rather eyes. Its one of the most basic things you can notice by a persons face. It is extremely easy to tell, just a one second glance at a person (preferrably eye-contact) and you can immediately see how much is "going on behind the eyes" so to speak. I just cant comprehend why someone would call that ridiculous, its one of the most common basic human aspects to percieve about another person. And far less subjective than attractiveness, which is entirely based on the eye of the beholder.
I think that's it's the expression, not the width of the chin or space between the eyes. (In fetal alcohol syndrome, there are wide-set, small eyes, small nose and no indentation between the nose and upper lip.) Lines form in the face where we have facial expressions the most. Even when the expression is neutral, the lines are still there. Someone who knits their brows in thought a lot, will get 2 lines above their noses which facial physiognomy refers to as "the mark of the lion". There are other facial lines which are cues. Women wear make-up and wrinkle creams to fill in lines, so it's harder to tell.
I think this is very Northern European orientated. Edward Said's Orientalism applies here. Swarthy Turks and Southern Europeans are seen with disdain should I say racism by Northern Eastern Europeans. A lot them harbor bad feelings toward Roma people as well.
women wear makeup since they are 12 years old so yes men would find it harder to distinguish information based on their faces.on the other hand if we were to find iq based on breast and chest size......
I wonder if the reason why people can speculate, with some degree of accuracy, on the intelligence of man, on the basis of appearance, but not a woman, has to do with the fact that for most of human history (until recently), intelligence in a woman was not valued, and therefore no one tried to surmise how smart a woman was on the basis of her appearance.
It's all in the eyes. You can see it, their eyes are either clear, bright and sharp, or they're glazed over and vacant. Literally every total idiot I've ever known just stared ahead like a dead-eyed corpse.
You can tell how dominant a person is, or how focused they are, from their eyes too. Just don't look into my eyes you'll slam your face against the keyboard. I have found that people with a very fixed stare are the most confident and focused in any given situation. Someone who has eyes that dart around everywhere has very poor focus. I have also found that someone with a droopy face is dumb or a drug addict.
The lesson we should take away from this is that conformation bias can make even phrenology seem real. They couldn't have come up with a more subjective study if they tried.
This reminds me of the famous Bill Hicks sketch: “You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. 'I believe God created me in one day.'" "Yeah, looks like He rushed it.”
A persons good looks reflects how healthy their brain was at the time of birth, and it also helps to narrow down the type of social life and limitations they have had and will have. Less attractive people, i believe, are much more likely to be very intelligent. This is due not to them having a natural disposition towards intelligence, but a socially engineered escape.
Interestingly, its a sign of intelligence to know your limits. Only dumb people fill their heads with grandiose thoughts and self deception. So you might not be so dumb. : )
I think I know why people who are naturally good looking push themselves harder in school, but it's embarrassing thing to talk about because of how strongly people are identified with their looks and because of how superficial everyone is for discrimination based on physical appearance, no one wants to admit they do it
These are probably developmental / nutrition oriented things. I once moved to a poor neighbourhood and noticed everybody had this kinda of spacy look all the time. They were usually overworked and ate very badly. Both these things lead to heightened cortisol which has effects on your veins. One of the first places this shows up is in the eyes. Not sure how reversible the IQ difference would be.
I was wondering that as well. And I have to admit that I was analyzing my face without a mirror, but I think this is the same bullshit that's foisted on women about their bodies. People come in different shapes and sizes. Operate on that level and love who you are. Forget about what "studies" say regarding what the most perfect look is and what your face says about you. The whole body image thing screws over both men and women if the garbage gets to them at a time that the seed of being inadequate can be planted and allowed to germinate. Happened to me and I haven't been able to work my way through it yet.
The instant we human beings look at each other our brains are already assessing,gauging,judging,ranking,assuming,comparing,attributing, projecting, referencing past experiences and socially reinforced stereotypes. We should not ignore that we do this all the time and we should not dismiss or trivialize the effect it has on our identity,behavior and how we experience life. I think it is ridiculous and wrong to judge people more or less intelligent or most anything by their bio-physiological appearance. I know people say "your voice doesn't match your face." or "I thought you were a studious smart type of person." or "I thought you were tough person." Many people simply go with what has been reflected on them and for some that may be good and others that may be bad. We should be careful not to let these superficial observations guide how we think about ourselves or others if it is negative or if it is not reflective of one's true self. We should not impose traits or characteristics on others that would be stifling to their healthy full range of human expression, or that would stigmatize them with any negative tag or characterization.
My facial features indicate that I'm average or slightly higher than average in intelligence. I suspect most people will perceive me as slightly lower than average; poor health and other factors currently contributes to that perception. Oh well. I think the 3 most important indicators of intelligence are: problem solving, comprehending complex ideas, ingeniously utilizing large amounts of information/knowledge within weeks after learning it. Over the past 5 years I've actively looked for ways in which I can build my capacity for problem solving, planning and adapting quickly as possible, comprehending complex ideas, communicating concisely using logic, thinking abstractly, simultaneously utilizing the competing theories from a wide range of disciplines. I feel my ability to write in words that people can understand has been damaged as a result of my desire to improve on different areas of intelligence.
I don't know that I think this is silly. It's possible facial features could indicate intelligence, the same way facial features can show inbreeding, etc.
It's important to reiterate the fact that you need to be aware of an information's source's credibility, after all, just because you've clarified something 1,000 times before, doesn't mean someone won't see the 1,001st case when you stopped & it happened to be the first clip they had seen. Besides, having that little voice in you're head say "stop, give that argument/perspective the benefit of the doubt" or "stop, just because you like this company doesn't mean all they do is golden, what if the shoe was on the other foot" come up all the time isn't a bad thing.
You have misreported the study's findings I'm afraid. You suggested that the facial features mentioned were actually correlated with IQ, and they were not, they were simply correlated with the observers' *perception* of their IQ. The article you link to quotes: "This means that our raters accurately assessed intelligence from faces of men based on visual cues that simply are not explicable from shape variability in men’s faces."
o_O It's not that IQ scores weren't used in the study, it's just that they were not found to correlate with the facial characteristics listed here. There were two different findings relevant to the coverage by TYT: 1) Observers made a statistically non-random number of correct judgments about IQ by looking at faces, and 2) observers' judgments about IQ also correlated with certain facial characteristics that the researchers were able to identify, but these facial characteristics were found *not* to be the ones that made the observers more accurate than random chance, because they did not correlate with actual IQ. The conclusion is that something about the male face does indeed correlate with actual IQ, but the researchers were unable to identify what it is. Their facial analysis tools/techniques did not detect it. The facial characteristics they mentioned in the video are those confirmed to correlate with others' perceptions of IQ without contributing to the average accuracy of those perceptions.
Oh, & I think that the most important thing to keep in mind was the terminology used: "with an accuracy higher than chance". It never stated the actual numbers so it could've been less of a percent greater in accuracy & still fall within the parameters set by that statement.
That's just how statistics are reported in studies like these... the results were statistically significant at p < .01, meaning there's less than a 1% chance of getting the results they got by chance
Another bit of information I think should have been presented is body language. Sometimes by the way someone acts or moves you can get an idea of what they are thinking. I'm not criticizing the study. I think it is a fairly well presented survey, but I can't help but feel that body language is a large factor in discerning what a person is like.
I can't tell if I look smart or dumb, but if someone told me I looked like one or the other both could be interpreted as either an insult or a compliment.
I believe the face (and the body) changes as the new day-to-day thinking patterns replace the old ones. Also, it seems that the body takes some time to catch up with the mind (which may explain dumb-looking smart people). But more importantly, intelligence alone... isn't it a silly kind of set-up for that concept? Intelligence in WHAT? What specific skill are we talking about? There are some heartless people who are incredibly skilled in stepping over others. Are you skilled in something useful, have you a virtue or two, and can THAT be seen on your face - Id like to see that question studied, and one day answered in your show ;)
I have a beautiful cousin who is learning disabled. She is currently a gourmet chef, and has a talent for it, and is doing quite well for herself. IQ does not measure everything. Sadly, she has trouble with relationships because people are not willing to look beyond the fact that she is learning disabled. If she were not my cousin, I would be happy to marry her as she is very sweet.
for me a woman's body language is a good precursor to the kind of intelligence I'd be dealing with. body language tells you how attentive they are, their focus, their knowledge (does a person look confused or lost? fake nodding or laughing at something that isn't really understood-you know ppl will laugh when others do). a person's actions speak too... impulsiveness. a lack of ability to stop and think before saying or anything. you can tell by a person's demeanour if their words are calculated as the words they use has less filler (ummms and errs and pauses)...uses more specific/concise descriptive language and even higher level language, for example I like using words with several interpretations to gauge a person's mood/mindset/intelligence. sadly... very few get it. for example... notice on my first sentence I said kind of intelligence as opposed to level of intelligence. very few people spot the multiple meaning. and it gets alot of impulsive reactions, as if im insulting someone or presume i am taking a specific tone (because they are looking for a person with that specific tone to attack-the meaning in what I actually say means little) Those things in communication are impossible unless you take at least an instant to assess and then react.
The characteristics of the face can be analysed with an objective digital image analysis, and done over a large scale. It could even be done in a way to calculate correlations between certain facial patters and intelligence.
The possibility for phenotype to show signs of higher or lower intelligence is worth exploring, is just that when it comes to evaluating one feature (face in this case) on one attribute (intelligence) it loses objectivity and becomes a roll of the dice, I would like to see the results of this study if it took in consideration the whole construction of the body as it's base.
Actually people aren't necessarily shallow. You are far smarter and more complex then you realize. Your subconscious mind and thousands of years of instinct allow you to make judgements on people that is more accurate than you might think.
I 100% make judgements on people on just appearance alone. The difference is playfully thinking and infering and talking to the person to get to know who they actually are, because I don't know who they are.
"Correlation does not equal causation - we know" : Kind of irrelevant to this considering that the point of interest seems to be whether or not you can estimate a person's intelligence from their facial features; i.e., whether there is a correlation, _not_ whether or not they are causally linked. That _might_ be an interesting thing to investigate, but a lack of causation does not invalidate the hypothesis of a correlation, which is what this study found.
What I would like to know is for the ones with lower IQs, are there any history of drug abuses? Because a drug addict's physical body will be more distorted than an otherwise healthy individual, and that could be a confounding factor.
This is probably because intelligence and attractiveness correlate. Which means attractive people tend to score better on their intelligence quotas. I think it's also natural for people to perceive people who are attractive with being slightly smarter or more intelligent and stable.
This is because of what society deems as smart, if you notice in all movies, TV shows, and cartoons, even anime, the smart guys all look the same, its very steryotypical
How much variation could there be in a group of college students at the same university? The biggest fault with most of these studies is that they draw their test subjects from under graduates. Most of what we know is true for upper middle and upper class white students between 18 and 21. Beyond that IQ tests tend confirm societal bench mark experiences over native intelligence.
I've always seen intelligence in a persons' eyes, or lack thereof. Not an 'IQ' type of intelligence, but one which shows if they're curious about their world, and are 'learners'. How do they correlate? Wandering eyes which want to observe are what I perceive to be intelligent. It's not shallow or vain by any means, and is not really something I have ever used to grade how 'smart' someone is...or rather, I have simply never tried applying a number to them.
When Cenk asked whether we can gather that much information from faces that quickly, I feel like someone should mention the Fusiform Face Area and the fact that we can judge a whole lot very quickly.
In China it's an ancient art form called Mien Shiang. The Czechs discovered nothing new. I absolutely do this not just with dumbness but also to determine other things, amicability or determination for example. Faces are very revealing.
study should be done in different parts of world too. Easily could be different local stereotypes associated with Germanic / Slavic traits (for example) and if these are also reflective of socio-economic situations could result in correlation.
Back in the 19th Century, there was a whole branch of "science" that held that criminality could be predicted by the shape of a person's face or skull.
"Another option is that women are pervasively judged according to their attractiveness. The strong halo effect of attractiveness may thus prevent an accurate assessment of the intelligence of women. This seems to be supported by a significantly higher correlation of perceived intelligence with attractiveness in women's faces (r = 0.901) in comparison to that in men's faces (r = 0.502)."
Not buying it: "But when the researchers checked to see if actual intelligence (indicated by measured IQ) was associated with specific facial features, they found no significant correlations." "While the study's principal finding merits a booze-bolstered conversation at a dinner party, it will need to be replicated among men of broader age and cultural backgrounds before we take it too seriously."
Maggy Blue Yeah, and Marilyn Monroe was actually a size 16. And you can see the Great Wall of China from space. And vaccines give you autism. Get some common sense.
Meh, I'm calling BS for now. First of all, eighty people is a pretty pitiful data set, as is the 160 that looked at the photos. Second, what the hell does "higher than chance" mean? When I hear that it sounds like there they guessed whether a person was smart or dumb with 51% accuracy. Seriously, put out some actual numbers.
David Gutowski Ha ha, you're going to give me p-table nightmares. That's the one part of stats I don't like. --EDIT-- Oh wait, it's the t-tables I didn't like now that I think of it. Shut up, they rhyme! #ScrewYouStats #EconForTheWin
The research is very flawed:
1. The pool of tested faces is too small (80 people).
2. 180 people to judge the faces of 80 people is not enough.
3. IQ is not an entirely reliable measurement of intelligence.
4. Different cultures have various perceptions of people. They should have conducted the research in other countries as well. They also should have taken in account that some ethnicities have specific traits that might not have any relation with intelligence at all.
However, it still is an interesting study.
IQ is fairly reliable...
gabriel garcia
IQ is a measurement of middle class acceptability. The more middle class you are, the higher you will score in an IQ test. And that is pretty much a fact. This comes about because middle class people have the widest access to schooling, academics and public knowledge. By middle class I mean the middle class of any society. You can argue that not all middle classes are the same, which may well be true. But the fact is that a country would only have a large established middle class if they were wealthy and advanced. (The "true" richest nations all have the largest middle-classes as a percent of their totally population).
A "developed nation" is an idea based nation, not a manufacturing or industrialized one. So the more middle-class, the more entrepreneurs and inventors, scientists and thinkers they should be able to produce. Which would directly result in larger economies and higher technological progress. They are wealth creators because the can create value from nothing but their minds. Its less to do with genetics and biology, and more to do with their traditions of education and openness. IQ + EQ
Fernando Cárdenas You are right to a degree but, IQ is just as much to do with genetics as environmental factors.
gabriel garcia Professionals attribute 80% or so intelligence differences as due to heredity.
RhythmAddictedState It's called phrenology and has be proven to be bogus!
This just goes to show how much emphasis we apply to physical appearance. We really are a shallow-minded species.
Deeply so....
What are you talking about? Physical appearance is the only thing people can get down to a science, and it is a good marker for literally everything. Genetics determine physical appearance, they also determine all of our other biological baselines such as intelligence, health, ect. Every species on earth uses physical appearance as a guideline when looking for a strong and compatible mate. You're shallow minded for thinking a universal rule is somehow negative just because it doesn't fit your social/moral theory. In reality, mother nature doesn't give a shit how you feel, she just works her magic. We don't put emphasis on physical appearance, the emphasis is simply there and we only get to choose weather to deny it or not.
MrLoobu may be right to point out Larry glossing over the importance of physical appearance but then he goes off on a tangent that is essentially meaningless.
Physical appearance is important but not simply for selecting mates. It's for communication too. Not to mention pheromones playing a large role in attraction, in addition to appearance.
MrLoobu is also speaking from a fundamentally male perspective as if there's nothing else, other than visual attraction.
hahaha. How paternalistic and short sighted. I mean seriously how can he scold someone else for being shortsighted when he is the blind leading the blind?
Oh and also MrLoobu half-baked whimsical theory would indicate that people would be attracted to the same things since our genetics have been largely unchanged for the past 10k years.
However, attraction changes due to survivability, it's not like dudes in the 1500s were attracted to rail thin modern looking women, they were attracted to well-fed chunky women, that was the height of beauty.
So spread the view across cultures and you'll find different cultures are attracted to different things.
So, somehow stating that certain measurable, physical traits beyond the most basic (eyes, nose, mouth, other basic parts being in the right place) define attraction and are tied directly to our genetics is utter folly.
The PROCESS behind attraction might be the same, but the details are based on nurture, not nature.
Really wish people would try harder to think about their bullshit.
Someone all talking about genetics, physical appearance and how "mother nature" works should damn well have an understanding about human history and culture before opening their mouth.
Hell you don't even have to have an understanding of history if you realize that maybe people in China or Africa are attracted to different things than people in other parts of the world.
So, add eurocentrism to my levy of pejoratives against that guy.
Even the most simple white guy that understands some black dudes like big butts has a better understanding of cultural impact on attraction.
And if he's smart enough to realize that women don't want to just stare at his manhood bits because they are attracted to different things then this hypothetical dude has a better understanding of this entire argument.
I even know how this would play out if I didn't state the afore.
MrLoobu would backpedal and change his argument to focus not on the details of physical attraction but if physical attraction happens at all etc, claim victory because it does.
MrLoobu
Genetics plays only a small part in our intelligence, go read human biological variation.
Andy Christ Considering that children of intelligent and well-educated people tend to be that as well, I would think it's a bit early to just say it's only a small part. As far as I know we don't know how big its influence is, really.
"obviously they should do more studies into this..."
Why? Of what importance is this? What value is there in attempting to judge people on more things they cannot control. The great thing about intelligence is that it isn't dependent on aesthetic qualities and even if they can judge an intelligent face at a "higher rate than chance" doesn't mean the subject is of any value at all.
I think it would provide some interesting insight into the ways human judge and perceive others.
Point is you can never know where this will lead. That's why it's called 'research'.
"Why?" Simple. To know.
HeretixAevum Don't act like you don't know that isn't applicable. Humans are far to diverse to make general statements on perception. Any judgement on someones intelligence is much more dependent on vocabulary and actual performance than the way they look.
Eddie the Head Not a smart use of grant money. I think we can infer the facial structure of those who green-lighted this project.
Why bother taking 15 minutes analyzing people's faces to figure out if they are smart... when it takes 30s of hearing them to figure it out...
+ImJustDead
you are an awesome dude ....
I love you
ImJustDead but they probably did the study off first impressions.
What has IQ to do with person being able to communicate well with others?
The next question is: Because of the way people think when looking at you, are you becoming dumb or smart. If all your teachers identify you as dumb right from first look, will you become dumb?
Yes. This is why, because teachers weren't trained to identify dyslexia, decades ago, dyslexic kids were deemed "dumb" and left to their own devices at the back of the classroom, or even pulled down by stupid remarks. Now they are properly diagnosed and can be educated similarly.
Same applies to Turner Syndrome girls which often have bad hearing, which, in turns, used to make teacher think they were not smart, when, instead, they just couldn't hear well enough what the teacher was saying. One of the most common causes of girls being considered retarded when, if equiped with proper hearing aids, they would have been normally bright students.
GATTACA starts now.
I thought Cenk was joking, but I looked it up just now & President Bush actually said, "They misunderestimate me". Wow...
Stephen Cody
''was'' :p
Ross T
Because everyone is always 'murican.
'Murica.
Personally, I do not believe in IQ as an accurate measurement of intelligence. I instead believe in the multiple intelligence theory. Intelligence simply isn't a black-and-white attribute that you measure as a single unit, rather it's a very broad spectrum of various different factors. It's always better to judge different types of intelligence on a case-by-case basis, because the term "intelligence" in itself is very broad. In all honesty, you can't just dismiss someone in a quick series of tests and say they're smart or they're stupid, there's simply too many variables you have to take into account. The only way you can fully analyze someone's intelligence is if you know everything about them. However, even if your someone's best friend, even if you're someone's relative, there's always details you will never know. You never really know everything about a person, so in actuality, it's never a reliable judgment when you're talking about someone's intelligence. It's always just a mere assumption, never a true, solid, indisputable fact. Literally everyone is intelligent AND stupid in their own way, there's simply no way of denying that.
I agree. IQ tests shouldn't evaluate a persons intelligence as a whole, because it only deals with pure logic. I have an IQ of around 120 according to an IQ test I took in 2007. Sure, it's fairly above average, but here's the thing: It doesn't matter if I don't use it. And I can think of several dumb things I've done in my life just from the top of my head. It doesn't help being smart if you're not wise about it. A mastermind without knowledge is futile.
Measuring intelligence through an IQ tests is like measuring the depth of a lake by having a group of people see how far down they can swim on a single breath: It works, but it's not very practical.
Personally I believe that if you pay attention, you can ballpark a person's intelligence by looking at their resting neutral face. You can also gauge their general disposition, and often their sexual orientation.
Intelligence, or what I prefer to call intellectual potential (how smart a person could become if properly educated), is controlled by the physical and chemical structure of the human brain. Those in turn are controlled primarily by genetics. So by my reasoning, as an aerospace engineering grad student, intelligence is a genetic characteristic. Now, we learned from the human genome project that we only have about 30,000 genes, a third of the expected number. This means each individual genome can and probably does play a roll in the genes for multiple characteristics. So maybe the genome sequences responsible for intellectual potential also influence the genes controlling facial structure. And, maybe humans have a latent ability to pick up on the differences between peoples facial structures, and associate them with intellectual gifts or deficits. It would make biological and reproductive sense. As intelligence became more important for our species survival, we started to develop the ability to recognize it in each other. This could also explain why it's easier to gauge a man's intelligence than a woman's, just by looking at their face. For most of the existence of our species, women were more selective of their mates, and choosing a genius to father your children is probably better than a muscle headed jock. A spear is a better weapon than a fist and strong arm. So the women who were better at picking out a smart husband would've passed on that skill. It's an interesting trail of thought.
Wow.. the engineer gets it 100%, and even offers an evolutionary explanation. You must have a real pretty face :).
It's in the eyes. Not only can you assess intelligence but a whole lot besides.
So true.
I'm interested, do go on.
Jay Lyons I've met lots of really intelligent people with stunned eyes and they had absolutely no freaking common sense and watched them destroy their lives through common sense decisions gone seriously wrong
While they looked down their noses at me because they felt they were smarter than me, it was like watching a train wreck excellent entertainment
Jay Lyons Then you should be intelligent enough to know there is acceptions to every rule!
Jay Lyons
Yeah well, they just say it is higher then chance, not any way accurate
"They are all just one study..." Unless it's a meta study. I would worry more about the methodology not being sound.
Typical bad science. A sample of 40 is just too small to establish even correlation.
No no, TYT said Science so it must be right. You must be one of those right wing nut teabagger
Not true at all. A sample size of 40 could establish a confidence of 80% with a CI of 10%. That's not up to the typical 95/5 standard of rigorous studies, but it's not totally useless.
LusoryPrime I've heard people use the expression 'statistically speaking' but you were actually statistically speaking.
***** probably the best way we have. But measuring intelligence is a questionable concept to start with. More important than raw power is skills in managing complexity anyway. And utilising effectively what you do have. And continous learning, results in better quality of thought...
But yeah, this test is rather absurd. I might have misunderstood but they used less than 50 people(not statistically significant) who were all university students(higher education in a country with fairly intelligent people) and from another comment I read here apparently the mean IQ was 125 which is quite a high score. Not really very impressive.
But some faces you just know intelligent thought will never escape from...
So smarter people are more Nordic looking? This could get messy.
how did you come to that conclusion?
Free Palestine Sharper features are considered more European.
Nordic people tend to be very intelligent. Look at the stability of governments and the happiness of the people in countries like Norway, Finland, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark. All very progressive very intelligent societies overall.
AdriasSoap And their noses?
MrLoobu Today, yes. You don't have to travel that far back in history to find something completely different however. They were for a long time considered barbaric.
she's an awesome reporter and it makes me wanna watch all her vids, but then that other guy is just obnoxious....
Are u mad?
Estou Descalça Absolutely. I like watching but he interrupts so often, as if he needs attention. I'm not sure he's as smart as people tell him he is. He's just loud :(
+Estou Descalça The last bit where he was going on "correlation = causation" rant made me wonder if the study was accurate about his facial features...
He didn't realize he embarassed his coworker by saying on video, that what she was explaining was irrelevant..
Radrook 2 I wonder if he's an only child.
+Estou Descalça That guy looks dumb seriously!!!!!
When I want to determine someone's intelligence, I feel the bumps on their heads.
So, you have to look Jewish?
Seems legit.
Jews do tend to be brilliant...
NeuteredSack You mean they tend to be better family and community educated and encouraged to engage in finance instead of distractions.
It makes them very successful over other groups, not any smarter.
Fraternal Military Order
"It makes them very successful over other groups, not any smarter."
But Ashkenazi Jews do tend to score very high on IQ scores (117 on average I believe). So in this context, they do tend to be more successful and also smarter than other ethnic groups..
I'm not Jewish but I fully believe that Jews (on average) are smarter than any other "race". The fact that they have high family values, aren't distracted, are well educated are all correlated to the fact that they are smart.
Fraternal Military Order Success can help in setting the right environment?
We had all this in the 19th century, it was called physiognomy, the idea that you can tell a person's character from the shape of his face. It's utter bollocks.
If you do not judge by appearances, you're shallow.
-Oscar Wilde
I've heard people say before that we do judge a book by a cover, that to judge a person's looks is like judging a book's cover to find out if it's sci-fi, non-fiction, or a children's book, but I don't think that's the point whoever came up with that saying wanted to make. The REAL point is that you can't tell the quality of a book by it's cover; you can't tell if a book will be a good or bad based solely on what's on the outside. Just because a person's really handsome doesn't mean he or she'll be a good person.
the beauty is in the eye of the beerholder
🤣
@3:05 There goes Ana's yearly raise...
Here's an idea. Give those men perceived to be less intelligent a clean haircut, a clean shave, a nice shirt and a pair of glasses. On the other side of the equation give the smarter men a popped collar, the international sign for asshole, a Justin Beiber haircut, take away the glasses if they have them and give them slightly tinted shades.
People who judge a book by its cover are easily fooled.
That description of men completely rules out a great deal of Asians...which there are a great deal of very very intelligent Asians.
"He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you - he really is an idiot." -Groucho Marx
I always thought I looked like an idiot but I wasn't quite sure if I was one....until now
Damn, thanks science!
youre probably an idiot
Time to put on my smart face.
1:12 how is that ridiculous? You can easily tell if someone is remarkably intelligent OR remarkably "left behind" by looking at their face, or rather eyes. Its one of the most basic things you can notice by a persons face. It is extremely easy to tell, just a one second glance at a person (preferrably eye-contact) and you can immediately see how much is "going on behind the eyes" so to speak.
I just cant comprehend why someone would call that ridiculous, its one of the most common basic human aspects to percieve about another person. And far less subjective than attractiveness, which is entirely based on the eye of the beholder.
Mhmm I think they need a larger sampling population
agreed.
I think that's it's the expression, not the width of the chin or space between the eyes. (In fetal alcohol syndrome, there are wide-set, small eyes, small nose and no indentation between the nose and upper lip.) Lines form in the face where we have facial expressions the most. Even when the expression is neutral, the lines are still there. Someone who knits their brows in thought a lot, will get 2 lines above their noses which facial physiognomy refers to as "the mark of the lion". There are other facial lines which are cues. Women wear make-up and wrinkle creams to fill in lines, so it's harder to tell.
Interesting point.
I think this is very Northern European orientated. Edward Said's Orientalism applies here. Swarthy Turks and Southern Europeans are seen with disdain should I say racism by Northern Eastern Europeans. A lot them harbor bad feelings toward Roma people as well.
the rapport is so natural with you guys :) so much love:)
women wear makeup since they are 12 years old so yes men would find it harder to distinguish information based on their faces.on the other hand if we were to find iq based on breast and chest size......
"Correlation DOES NOT impy causation", but the opposite IS FALSE:
"Causation requires correlation"
I watched 3:33-3:41 like 4 time!! Loll~~Kimonica
Thanks for watching!
:-)
The Young Turks you guys are one of the best things to happen to youtube
I wonder if the reason why people can speculate, with some degree of accuracy, on the intelligence of man, on the basis of appearance, but not a woman, has to do with the fact that for most of human history (until recently), intelligence in a woman was not valued, and therefore no one tried to surmise how smart a woman was on the basis of her appearance.
It's all in the eyes. You can see it, their eyes are either clear, bright and sharp, or they're glazed over and vacant.
Literally every total idiot I've ever known just stared ahead like a dead-eyed corpse.
How charitable of you
I like to refer it as "staring into the head lights" absolutely stunned look and it's always right
might be truth in that
You can tell how dominant a person is, or how focused they are, from their eyes too. Just don't look into my eyes you'll slam your face against the keyboard.
I have found that people with a very fixed stare are the most confident and focused in any given situation. Someone who has eyes that dart around everywhere has very poor focus.
I have also found that someone with a droopy face is dumb or a drug addict.
The lesson we should take away from this is that conformation bias can make even phrenology seem real. They couldn't have come up with a more subjective study if they tried.
This reminds me of the famous Bill Hicks sketch:
“You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. 'I believe God created me in one day.'"
"Yeah, looks like He rushed it.”
A persons good looks reflects how healthy their brain was at the time of birth, and it also helps to narrow down the type of social life and limitations they have had and will have. Less attractive people, i believe, are much more likely to be very intelligent. This is due not to them having a natural disposition towards intelligence, but a socially engineered escape.
Those faces by Cenk had me rolling.
Of these studies that media goes crazy over, majority of them can't be replicated.
I'm dumb as fuck and I have all the intelligent facial features.
So NO I don't trust this study at all.
Interestingly, its a sign of intelligence to know your limits.
Only dumb people fill their heads with grandiose thoughts and self deception.
So you might not be so dumb. : )
I think I know why people who are naturally good looking push themselves harder in school, but it's embarrassing thing to talk about because of how strongly people are identified with their looks and because of how superficial everyone is for discrimination based on physical appearance, no one wants to admit they do it
kick that guy off the show
he just got a promotion
This kind of studies promote racism. Potentially.
They both look like idiots to me. Then I hear them talk and it only confirms my assumption. :p
These are probably developmental / nutrition oriented things. I once moved to a poor neighbourhood and noticed everybody had this kinda of spacy look all the time. They were usually overworked and ate very badly. Both these things lead to heightened cortisol which has effects on your veins. One of the first places this shows up is in the eyes. Not sure how reversible the IQ difference would be.
Good point. There are also interesting twin studies that show this very nicely as well.
Was race a factor? It doesn't sound like race was a factor at all.
I was wondering that as well. And I have to admit that I was analyzing my face without a mirror, but I think this is the same bullshit that's foisted on women about their bodies.
People come in different shapes and sizes. Operate on that level and love who you are. Forget about what "studies" say regarding what the most perfect look is and what your face says about you. The whole body image thing screws over both men and women if the garbage gets to them at a time that the seed of being inadequate can be planted and allowed to germinate. Happened to me and I haven't been able to work my way through it yet.
conducted in the Czech Rep, likely only ethnically white people in the study.
The insult "stupid face" has been validated.
So begins another form of body dysmorphia.
The instant we human beings look at each other our brains are already assessing,gauging,judging,ranking,assuming,comparing,attributing, projecting, referencing past experiences and socially reinforced stereotypes.
We should not ignore that we do this all the time and we should not dismiss or trivialize the effect it has on our identity,behavior and how we experience life.
I think it is ridiculous and wrong to judge people more or less intelligent or most anything by their bio-physiological appearance.
I know people say "your voice doesn't match your face." or "I thought you were a studious smart type of person." or "I thought you were tough person."
Many people simply go with what has been reflected on them and for some that may be good and others that may be bad.
We should be careful not to let these superficial observations guide how we think about ourselves or others if it is negative or if it is not reflective of one's true self.
We should not impose traits or characteristics on others that would be stifling to their healthy full range of human expression, or that would stigmatize them with any negative tag or characterization.
sounds like phrenology reloaded...
There is no look to a person's intelligence, just behavior.
Poor Cenk and his bulbous chin...
Also, where does the "keep their expectations low" quote come from?
His wife?
He just said it, from George Bush.
Yeah, it was an actual quote from Bush in New Orleans during his 2nd run for President. He said, "The key for me is to keep my expectations low."
My facial features indicate that I'm average or slightly higher than average in intelligence. I suspect most people will perceive me as slightly lower than average; poor health and other factors currently contributes to that perception. Oh well.
I think the 3 most important indicators of intelligence are: problem solving, comprehending complex ideas, ingeniously utilizing large amounts of information/knowledge within weeks after learning it.
Over the past 5 years I've actively looked for ways in which I can build my capacity for problem solving, planning and adapting quickly as possible, comprehending complex ideas, communicating concisely using logic, thinking abstractly, simultaneously utilizing the competing theories from a wide range of disciplines. I feel my ability to write in words that people can understand has been damaged as a result of my desire to improve on different areas of intelligence.
I don't know that I think this is silly. It's possible facial features could indicate intelligence, the same way facial features can show inbreeding, etc.
It's important to reiterate the fact that you need to be aware of an information's source's credibility, after all, just because you've clarified something 1,000 times before, doesn't mean someone won't see the 1,001st case when you stopped & it happened to be the first clip they had seen. Besides, having that little voice in you're head say "stop, give that argument/perspective the benefit of the doubt" or "stop, just because you like this company doesn't mean all they do is golden, what if the shoe was on the other foot" come up all the time isn't a bad thing.
Hodor?....
Lol too much I just can't lmao your killing man XD oh god *gasp* I just *gasp* *gasping harder* (×.×)
You have misreported the study's findings I'm afraid. You suggested that the facial features mentioned were actually correlated with IQ, and they were not, they were simply correlated with the observers' *perception* of their IQ. The article you link to quotes: "This means that our raters accurately assessed intelligence from faces of men based on visual cues that simply are not explicable from shape variability in men’s faces."
But the determined IQ values were also used in the study somehow?
o_O It's not that IQ scores weren't used in the study, it's just that they were not found to correlate with the facial characteristics listed here. There were two different findings relevant to the coverage by TYT:
1) Observers made a statistically non-random number of correct judgments about IQ by looking at faces, and 2) observers' judgments about IQ also correlated with certain facial characteristics that the researchers were able to identify, but these facial characteristics were found *not* to be the ones that made the observers more accurate than random chance, because they did not correlate with actual IQ.
The conclusion is that something about the male face does indeed correlate with actual IQ, but the researchers were unable to identify what it is. Their facial analysis tools/techniques did not detect it. The facial characteristics they mentioned in the video are those confirmed to correlate with others' perceptions of IQ without contributing to the average accuracy of those perceptions.
OH MY GOD! SMART PEOPLE LOOK LIKE ELVES (The Elder Scrolls type)! THAT'S WHAT THEY SAY!!!
There's 4 types of TES Mer.
DynVec there are 6 Mer races in TES.
Fart Snake Take a screenshot next time you meet an Aldmer or a Dwemer beside Yagrum Bagarn.
DynVec There's Altmer, Bosmer, Dunmer, Orsimer, Falmer and Dwemer
Oh, & I think that the most important thing to keep in mind was the terminology used: "with an accuracy higher than chance". It never stated the actual numbers so it could've been less of a percent greater in accuracy & still fall within the parameters set by that statement.
That's just how statistics are reported in studies like these... the results were statistically significant at p < .01, meaning there's less than a 1% chance of getting the results they got by chance
Another bit of information I think should have been presented is body language. Sometimes by the way someone acts or moves you can get an idea of what they are thinking. I'm not criticizing the study. I think it is a fairly well presented survey, but I can't help but feel that body language is a large factor in discerning what a person is like.
I can't tell if I look smart or dumb, but if someone told me I looked like one or the other both could be interpreted as either an insult or a compliment.
I believe the face (and the body) changes as the new day-to-day thinking patterns replace the old ones. Also, it seems that the body takes some time to catch up with the mind (which may explain dumb-looking smart people).
But more importantly, intelligence alone... isn't it a silly kind of set-up for that concept? Intelligence in WHAT? What specific skill are we talking about? There are some heartless people who are incredibly skilled in stepping over others.
Are you skilled in something useful, have you a virtue or two, and can THAT be seen on your face - Id like to see that question studied, and one day answered in your show ;)
I have a beautiful cousin who is learning disabled. She is currently a gourmet chef, and has a talent for it, and is doing quite well for herself. IQ does not measure everything. Sadly, she has trouble with relationships because people are not willing to look beyond the fact that she is learning disabled. If she were not my cousin, I would be happy to marry her as she is very sweet.
for me a woman's body language is a good precursor to the kind of intelligence I'd be dealing with.
body language tells you how attentive they are, their focus, their knowledge (does a person look confused or lost? fake nodding or laughing at something that isn't really understood-you know ppl will laugh when others do).
a person's actions speak too... impulsiveness. a lack of ability to stop and think before saying or anything.
you can tell by a person's demeanour if their words are calculated as the words they use has less filler (ummms and errs and pauses)...uses more specific/concise descriptive language and even higher level language, for example I like using words with several interpretations to gauge a person's mood/mindset/intelligence. sadly... very few get it.
for example... notice on my first sentence I said kind of intelligence as opposed to level of intelligence. very few people spot the multiple meaning. and it gets alot of impulsive reactions, as if im insulting someone or presume i am taking a specific tone (because they are looking for a person with that specific tone to attack-the meaning in what I actually say means little)
Those things in communication are impossible unless you take at least an instant to assess and then react.
The characteristics of the face can be analysed with an objective digital image analysis, and done over a large scale. It could even be done in a way to calculate correlations between certain facial patters and intelligence.
Tide goes in, tide goes out and you can't explain that! WTF! lol
The possibility for phenotype to show signs of higher or lower intelligence is worth exploring, is just that when it comes to evaluating one feature (face in this case) on one attribute (intelligence) it loses objectivity and becomes a roll of the dice, I would like to see the results of this study if it took in consideration the whole construction of the body as it's base.
Actually people aren't necessarily shallow. You are far smarter and more complex then you realize.
Your subconscious mind and thousands of years of instinct allow you to make judgements on people that is more accurate than you might think.
In other words, there is no peer review. Nobody tried to reproduce the study to disprove it yet.
I 100% make judgements on people on just appearance alone. The difference is playfully thinking and infering and talking to the person to get to know who they actually are, because I don't know who they are.
There are very few things I love more than Cenks' bush impersonations lol
I'm so glad you guys address the Causation people. Eff those people.
"Correlation does not equal causation - we know" : Kind of irrelevant to this considering that the point of interest seems to be whether or not you can estimate a person's intelligence from their facial features; i.e., whether there is a correlation, _not_ whether or not they are causally linked. That _might_ be an interesting thing to investigate, but a lack of causation does not invalidate the hypothesis of a correlation, which is what this study found.
What I would like to know is for the ones with lower IQs, are there any history of drug abuses? Because a drug addict's physical body will be more distorted than an otherwise healthy individual, and that could be a confounding factor.
Shut the hell up Ken Ham, the Devil did it ok.
This is probably because intelligence and attractiveness correlate. Which means attractive people tend to score better on their intelligence quotas. I think it's also natural for people to perceive people who are attractive with being slightly smarter or more intelligent and stable.
Dat staring bit....XD I nearly choked on my lunch.
"That person looks kind of dumb."
Oh, hi Ken Ham.
Greetings, Ray Comfort.
And hello to you, too, Kirk Cameron!
I just wanna say that correlation does not imply causation! Don't forget that you guys!
This is because of what society deems as smart, if you notice in all movies, TV shows, and cartoons, even anime, the smart guys all look the same, its very steryotypical
How much variation could there be in a group of college students at the same university? The biggest fault with most of these studies is that they draw their test subjects from under graduates. Most of what we know is true for upper middle and upper class white students between 18 and 21. Beyond that IQ tests tend confirm societal bench mark experiences over native intelligence.
This study VERY STRONGLY conflicts with the facial features of highly intelligent Asian and African people. Smh. Lol.
I've always seen intelligence in a persons' eyes, or lack thereof. Not an 'IQ' type of intelligence, but one which shows if they're curious about their world, and are 'learners'.
How do they correlate? Wandering eyes which want to observe are what I perceive to be intelligent. It's not shallow or vain by any means, and is not really something I have ever used to grade how 'smart' someone is...or rather, I have simply never tried applying a number to them.
When Cenk asked whether we can gather that much information from faces that quickly, I feel like someone should mention the Fusiform Face Area and the fact that we can judge a whole lot very quickly.
So where's the segment stating the testers who scored higher were the subjects who LOOKED smarter?
In China it's an ancient art form called Mien Shiang. The Czechs discovered nothing new. I absolutely do this not just with dumbness but also to determine other things, amicability or determination for example. Faces are very revealing.
study should be done in different parts of world too. Easily could be different local stereotypes associated with Germanic / Slavic traits (for example) and if these are also reflective of socio-economic situations could result in correlation.
I think studies like this are dangerous.
Back in the 19th Century, there was a whole branch of "science" that held that criminality could be predicted by the shape of a person's face or skull.
Or race, actually people still do.
XmarcX92
You bet, and that's why kooky stuff like that hurts innocent people.
Constipation does not equal Procrastination.
"Another option is that women are pervasively judged according to their attractiveness. The strong halo effect of attractiveness may thus prevent an accurate assessment of the intelligence of women. This seems to be supported by a significantly higher correlation of perceived intelligence with attractiveness in women's faces (r = 0.901) in comparison to that in men's faces (r = 0.502)."
Some papers use data from hundreds of individual studies. Clearly these are more trustworthy.
Cenk, it's just one study, correlation doesn't imply causation!!!!! [additional sound effect unable to be transcribed]
Not buying it:
"But when the researchers checked to see if actual intelligence (indicated by measured IQ) was associated with specific facial features, they found no significant correlations."
"While the study's principal finding merits a booze-bolstered conversation at a dinner party, it will need to be replicated among men of broader age and cultural backgrounds before we take it too seriously."
This is more about people's perception than the accuracy of those perceptions.
Marilyn Monroe's IQ was higher than Einstein's...so...I don't think testing IQ was the most effective way to conduct this research.
Maggy Blue it wasn't. stop the BS
Maggy Blue Yeah, and Marilyn Monroe was actually a size 16. And you can see the Great Wall of China from space. And vaccines give you autism.
Get some common sense.
Best video title ever...
I may not be the smartest guy in the world, but I do recognized that ego without balance from men and women can be downright offensive.
Meh, I'm calling BS for now. First of all, eighty people is a pretty pitiful data set, as is the 160 that looked at the photos. Second, what the hell does "higher than chance" mean? When I hear that it sounds like there they guessed whether a person was smart or dumb with 51% accuracy. Seriously, put out some actual numbers.
David Gutowski
Ha ha, you're going to give me p-table nightmares. That's the one part of stats I don't like.
--EDIT--
Oh wait, it's the t-tables I didn't like now that I think of it. Shut up, they rhyme! #ScrewYouStats #EconForTheWin
Ah Cenk, cracked me up with this oldie but goodie hehe