« The purpose of college | Main | Arrest records and disparate impact »

January 11, 2012

Comments

"I agree with commenters who say that part of the reason is that the Hopkins girls don’t dress slutty and don’t put forth the effort to wear makeup and bleach their hair and the various other things that less academically gifted young women are more likely to do"

This is based on the assumption that men find women more attractive if the women dress slutty, wear more makeup and bleach their hair. What's more likely is that women who do these things *think* they're making themselves more attractive when in fact it may actually have the opposite effect.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, there's one very simple thing that a woman can do - or, more precisely, *not* do - that will hugely enhance her appearance. You all know what that is.

Two of the ways you can tell that someone is much less intelligent than average are:

The whites of their eyes are dull, with even a yellowish tinge, not at all reflective of light, and somewhat unhealthy looking.

The cranium is simply smaller. Less either across the top or in total circumference.

Also, there is a slight tendency for more intelligent people to be better looking, taller and more physically robust.

I have over 30 years experience of teaching.

Being sleep deprived from studying hard is not appearance-enhancing. The effect may be temporary but still...

It is not called beauty sleep for nothing!

In some societies like ancient China, smart people even started pretending `stupid' to outmaneuver or fool their competitors.

Read Chinese history, such incidents were all over in empirial struggle.

So this study only apply to less sophisticated societies. In sophisticated societies, the game went up. Pretending stupid would fool your enemy. Ask general Macarthur for the lessions.

No wonder most Chinese do not look so smart.

don't forget the confounding variable of ethnicity. In the right place and time knowing how to pick up stereotypical features of Germanics or Jews will give you some ability to identify smarter white people; and vice versa for some other white ethnic groups. All the more so in white melting pot areas like America or Central Europe.

People with high IQs will be treated differently day to day from people with low IQs. High IQ people are more successful at school, work, making money, and gaining status. People with higher IQs facial expressions will thus likely reflect the greater esteem granted to them by society. And people with lower IQs facial expressions will likely reflect their lower status.

So it would seem difficult to separate IQ from psychological conditioning when trying to decide from a picture the IQ of a person. And it would seem to be hard to design a study to do this.

"I think that reproductive fitness is highest at an IQ of 100-110, otherwise we would have evolved to have higher IQs."

^ perhaps we already evolved since IQ 100 is always the average value on a bell curve regardless to absolute abilities, so IQ=100 100 years ago may imply different (lower) mental abilities than today.

I will agree with the assessment, but agree with it because attractiveness is a culturally defined value.

I would think that if we go back in time, to when individuals in high visibility careers - politics, acting, music, etc - had to, because of lack of "crutches", be of higher intelligence than the average citizen, that we would reach a point where highly intelligent people were considered the most attractive.

Now, and going forth, the most attractive people will be the people most visible, sports stars, screen and music artists, and that the average intelligence they hold will slowly drift down with intermarriage between the most visibles. The general public will not consider these people stupid because our world is so crutch-laden (The Teleprompter of the United States) that almost anyone can be made to appear intelligent. I will of course recognize them for what they are ..... morons.

And if I am lucky, I can find an similar intelligence atractiveness wife to marry (who comes from money .... lol) to help me calculate VAR of a Chinese volatility dispersion play, and then back the trade.

Cranial volume is a big clue. When's the last time you saw a smart person with a noticeably small head? I only see them doing menial jobs, food service, or unemployed. At the place where I work the technical interviews are so hard it literally took a year to hire for my job. Last week someone at the office was buying a hat online, and for fun we used his hat measuring tape. All three people with my job description were in the highest category for hat size. Features like being tall, barrel chested, or having big hands are only types of skeletal development that may go along with, and perhaps be more immediately noticeable than the large cranium.

Facial expressions are also an indicator. There are reasons why the words "blank stare", "mouth breather", and "drooling idiot" indicate a lack of comprehension. Then there are identifiable genetic profiles which influence facial features and intelligence. Down Syndrome, PAX6 myopia when subjects wear glasses, Ashkenazi, etc. So your previous statements about being able to accurately sort photos of intelligence segregated groups are, in my opinion, far from a wild boast.

"But I think the important message here is that people with high IQs look different, and I think there is some direct biological connection between physical appearance and intelligence that’s not just related to cross-assortative mating. This is further evidence that IQ is a biological trait. "

You may be right. In addition to assortative mating, if you look at OMIM you'll find that the set of genes that has no measurable CNS expression to be small compared to that set of genes with at least some CNS expression. For example, look at OCA2, a gene implicated in hair and eye color and you'll see expression in places like the cerebellum:

http://biogps.org/#goto=genereport&id=4948

I've recently formed two testable hypotheses that could demonstrate the heritable nature of intelligence via genetics beyond reasonable doubt:

Hypothesis 1: In any population, variance in intelligence is more strongly correlated with variance in that set of genes with a high rate of CNS expression (either in absolute terms or relative to expression elsewhere in the body) than to that set of genes with a low rate of CNS expression.

Hypothesis 2: In any population, variance in intelligence is more strongly correlated with variance in that set of genes that has a certain rate of CNS expression (again, in absolute or relative terms) but is less conserved than variance among that set of genes that has a similar rate of CNS expression but is more conserved.

The basis of the first hypotheses is that while any individual gene may have an outsized or undersized impact relative to its rate of CNS expression, when you look at thousands or tens of thousands of genes, each with a relatively small impact on intelligence, we should expect those that are more strongly implicated in neurochemical and neuroanatomical development to have a greater impact than those with little or no impact on brain function.

The basis of the second is that humans are smarter than chimps and genes that are highly conserved are probably those involved in critical nervous system functions that are not as important in explaining differences in human intelligence.

Any opinions?

Why are the staunchest believers of HBD tend to be childless omega type men? Is nature trying to tell HBDers something? Also, the culture of desperation and "uncoolness" among HBDers is preventing HBD from gaining widespread acceptance. Who wants to win the approval of marginal middle-age men?

[HS: I think that these people are more likely to see that the emperor is wearing no clothes. People who benefit from the status quo usually don't see anything wrong with it. I've written about this phenomenon before. You haven't discovered some new point.]

I should note that glasses are a double edged sword. Combine glasses with accoutrements of intellectual labor – books, pens and pencils, a calculator, a dress shirt – and they will enhance perceived intelligence. Combine them with general indicators of unfitness - coke bottle glasses with a hearing aid, audible breathing, shuffling gait – and they will indicate `special needs`. Oddly there can be a fine line between looking really intelligent, and looking really unintelligent, but that's really a topic in and of itself.

As the great Arthur Schopenhauer noticed (really the first HBDer, way before Darwin even hit the scene) although a lot of idiots may have a prominent brow, every genius has had a prominent brow.

Proof: Look at George Bush, his brow is not prominent, which is odd considering his Dad seems pretty smart.

Criminals look different too. There is a test at the end of Kanazawa's post.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201103/criminals-look-different-noncriminals

[HS: The criminal look is probably a combination of low IQ, low future-time-orientation, and agressive extoverted personality.]

I don't know, Sigma. I was always quite impressed by the fact that almost all of the girls in my medical school class were more attractive than the average. Partly this was because they possessed the drive and motivation to do things like get into medical school and keep themselves in shape. But I assumed, and still believe, that it was also because most of them had father physicians who married attractive women.

****I should note that glasses are a double edged sword. Combine glasses with accoutrements of intellectual labor – books, pens and pencils, a calculator, a dress shirt – and they will enhance perceived intelligence.****

This reminds me of my admittedly weird theory that for a man - an older man, at least - being ugly or awkward-looking can actually make one look distinguished, because of our stereotype that dorky-looking guys are smart and must be successful at *some*thing. Note that I say "distinguished", and not necessarily wealthy or sexually attractive.

I think there are tons of happy married, fertile and successful people among the HBD aware.

In fact, I would argue that all the rich liberals who pay unbelievable amounts to segregate themselves into lily white enclaves in every single US city in America are all HBD aware.

Manhattan is the most sharply racially segregated place on the planet. Was that one giant coinkydink?

[HS: They are aware of HBD on a subconcious level maybe, but they have NEVER consciously expressed the belief, not even just to themselves, that black people are less intelligent than whites because of their genes.

To be truly HBD aware means you know about the research by Arthur Jensen and others that proves that blacks are less intelligent than whites.]

You can see the block by block breakdown of race everywhere in America. You can see that American cities are unbelievably segregrated, even as they are extremely liberal.

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer?ref=nyregion

Go to any US city and see incredible racial segregation.

I contend that most liberals are extremely aware of something even as they are completely dishonest about it. Southern racists have nothing on city liberals who will pay 2 million dollars to live in an apartment in the white part of town when they can live in another part for 1/10 the price.

Take even Obama for example. First thing he did was enroll his girls in Sidwell Friends School. (Jimmy Carter God bless him at least was honest enough to enroll his kids in DC public schools.) Second thing he did was kill the DC vouchers program that let a few poor DC kids go to that school, no even allowing the ones who had started to continue.

Just sayin'...

[HS: While the hypocrisy of liberals seems very obvious to those who know about HBD and read our blogs, the liberals themselves seem totally unaware that they are behaving consistent with their being aware of HBD. Trust me, they are unaware.]

***Why are the staunchest believers of HBD tend to be childless omega type men?***

Heh, I just had my first child and at law school had a (slightly unfair) reputation as a 'playa'.

It wouldn't surprise me though that "nerdy" types, who are more capable of thinking for themselves, would also be more likely to understand HBD (rather than reflexively rejecting it on emotional grounds).

Measuring smarts vs measuring health. Healthy people tend to be smart because they are healthy. I would imagine that pictures capture the health status of human beings more then intelligence.

There's too many fudge factors IMHO for it to be anything approaching serious analysis.

"(rather than reflexively rejecting it on emotional grounds)"

or for reasons of social conformity. Failure to fit in socially could also be a cause of childlessness.

"High IQ people are more successful at school, work, making money, and gaining status. People with higher IQs facial expressions will thus likely reflect the greater esteem granted to them by society. And people with lower IQs facial expressions will likely reflect their lower status."

Please. There are plenty of miserable high IQ people -- so many that the depressive high-IQ novelist has become a cliche. And there are plenty of cheery low IQ people. Have you ever met a high-functioning individual with Down Syndrome?

"I think that these people are more likely to see that the emperor is wearing no clothes."

A dash of cynicism can make someone more objective, but a few heaping tablespoons of it can make one less objective in the opposite direction (i.e., see things more negatively than they actually are).

Also at Slate I found this article very interesting:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/permanent_record/features/2011/permanent_record/how_i_found_the_report_cards_and_how_they_changed_my_life.html

There was a time when schools were unapologetic about instilling middle-class values and work-ethics into their charges. Something Half Sigma has suggested on more than one occasion be brought back into the current educational establishment.

I think given the chance front-line educators would relish passing cold, harsh judgment on soft-skills. However, once the academics started running statistics on the results the ugly side of HBD would rear its head and the over-wrought hand-wringing would be elevated to national scandal. No, for it to work, we first have to admit to HBD. It is the necessary pre-requisite for any meaningful social improvement.

Cranial volume is a big clue. When's the last time you saw a smart person with a noticeably small head? I only see them doing menial jobs, food service, or unemployed.

Correlation between head circumference and IQ is only around 0.3. Which means that there are tons of very smart people with tiny heads.

"However, I don’t buy into the theory that because of cross-assortative mating, the higher the IQ the better-looking, on average, the person. I think that reproductive fitness is highest at an IQ of 100-110, otherwise we would have evolved to have higher IQs. Above or below that level of IQ, attractiveness would decrease under my theory."

I find this very interesting, and it is indeed quite possible. The attractiveness of people with high IQs (>120) wouldn't necessarily contribute much to the data because of how rarefied they would be. It is possible that the relationship between attractiveness and IQ is curved rather than linear, peaking at say an IQ of 110-115, and decreasing from there in either direction. Indeed, considering evidence for the very low sex drive of high IQ people, especially women (which you've commented on, http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php ), it is possible that this mirrors attractiveness.

I don't believe that the way women dress or whether they wear make up is at play, because some of us (like myself) look through such things.

Rather it's possible that what's at play is academic selection. Maybe it's not that smart women are less attractive, it's that women at elite (especially technical) schools are less attractive. After all, colleges select not just for IQ but for intellectualism—possibly even "nerdishness," and that may be what's at play.

Maybe we should have photos of Terman's Termites as young adults rated for attractiveness, and perhaps see if there is a difference between the "A" group and the "C" group.

I will say anecdotally that a good percentage of the females on college faculties aren't real lookers...

"(1) the relative inaccurate grouping of IQ into only four categories"

Wouldn't it be easier to guess someone's category with fewer choices?

A key component of looks is weight. What do we know about BMI and IQ?

http://www.halfsigma.com/2010/02/body-weight-and-iq.html

It's plausible there is some sort of correlation between beauty and intelligence. On a daily basis, I can tell intelligent people are more likely to be attractive, but I think it is indirect; more so than a biological linking trait, in that, intelligent people tend to be more selective in general for things like beauty and health as compared to less intelligent people. The dynamism of the varying populations are also evidence to the contrary for this theory, but nature being nature, things do not have to be mutually exclusive.

As always, a fun thing to think about.

[HS: The criminal look is probably a combination of low IQ, low future-time-orientation, and agressive extoverted personality.]

Throw in certain melanin levels and criminals are easy to spot.

Reproductive fitness does not always mean attractiveness. Just because the 100 IQ people have the most kids it does not mean they are the most desirable.

I'd guess attractiveness peaks around an IQ of 120 or so. Above average enough to be athletic and healthy, not so high that you're awkward.

"This is further evidence that IQ is a biological trait."

You may want to rephrase that because no one disputes that IQ is a biological trait.

My cat will never do advanced physics, or even do the dishes. She will however bring me mice from outside all day long if I let her.

IQ is a biological trait, beyond dispute.

[HS: The people who read this blog may understand that it's beyond dispute, but it's disputed by the liberal media.]

I went to Northwestern University. At Northwestern University, people have a certain look to them.

They are generally lean, below average height, and dark haired. If they are light haired, somehow the blond hair tends to look more healthy.

Smart people keep themselves healthy.
Smart people also use their faces differently.
Smarter people are funner to have sex with, because they are more "there". It's in the eyes, in every body motion.
Because their inner universe is larger, its like you are with a larger being.

As you can see, smart people are more into abstraction.
Truly smart people in into abstraction made practical.

It's remarkable how often you can, just by looking at someone, tell whether they have much going on upstairs. Mostly it seems to be in the eyes. Perhaps head shape & size has something to do with it, but if so that's more a subconscious factor. I noticed this watching Michelle Obama at the Kennedy Honors a week or so back - a woman who'd clearly been cast out of her depth, with all 52 or so facial muscles signalling exactly that. She was sitting there trying to look classy, thoughtful and intelligent - at what was basically just a freakin' pops concert (Neil Diamond, Yo-Yo Ma, etc.).

Or perhaps we're just exposed to so many smart and dumb people that we learn to distinguish the two after lengthy exposure to each.

What do I do if a low future time orientation prole whose prone to getting into trouble (esp fighting) wants to befriend me but I don't want to befriend him? He seems intent on becoming my buddy, but I don't want to get into trouble with other people or the law.

I would desperately like to know what appearance traits correlate with intelligence.

What about dumb blondies? Is it slander?

"no one disputes that IQ is a biological trait"

The liberal media and educational establishment most certainly disputes this obviously raciss' statement.

Don't you know, we are all the same under the skin and everyone can do anything!

http://www.newenglishreview.org/John_Derbyshire/The_Dream_Palace_of_Educational_Theorists/

"I don't know, Sigma. I was always quite impressed by the fact that almost all of the girls in my medical school class were more attractive than the average."

Just picking at random here...

How long is it before there is a program to tie up all a person's details (medical school, East coast, certain years) over a series of years and give you the Real Life Name?

Or the reverse- you get a job applicant and you run their personal details through such a program to generate nom de plume on-line personas with unsavory opinions. Cant hire a teach who thinks black kids have small cranial sizes or a doctor who makes pointed observations about cranial ridges.....

We are one year out from the the waterboarding of TJIC and Steve Sailer is tragically underemployed.

Hey Sig, check this out:

Young, Jewish girl on Shit Christians Say To Jews:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=51dFlpwKkBM

Good article, the one about the criminal faces. Looking at them, I noticed that, generally, the criminals either have A) Hypermasculine "caveman-like" features or B) They simply have a dull expression.

I got only 2 wrong on that quiz at the end, and I'm not involved in law enforcement in any way, so characterizing people isn't really that hard

"Cranial volume is a big clue. When's the last time you saw a smart person with a noticeably small head? I only see them doing menial jobs, food service, or unemployed.

Correlation between head circumference and IQ is only around 0.3. Which means that there are tons of very smart people with tiny heads."

Wrong. That correlation coefficient means there's no predictive power in the middle of the bubble, although there may be for outliers. If halfsigma sees a microcephalic in an IQ segregated group photo, it might as well be sorted for him already.

How long is it before there is a program to tie up all a person's details (medical school, East coast, certain years) over a series of years and give you the Real Life Name?

I appreciate your point, but I think we're a ways from that yet, and may never be able to do it with certainty - particularly if we take care to be intentionally imprecise about some of these details.

I just looked at the actual Slate article. Good to see the controversial Kanazawa being cited. Of course this leads to some outrage in the comments section.

IQ and height are highly correlated, along with obesity and low-IQ.

Those two facts would imply that skinny tall people tend to have higher IQs and possess the basic necessities for physical beauty. I would also add that high IQs tend to eat well and adopt healthier habits such as never smoking, drinking to excess and exercising weekly. Additionally, due to peer group association and social circles these individuals tend to marry/mate with each other resulting in their offspring perpetuating the cycle.

If you would like anecdotal evidence go to the nearest Walmart/bowling alley vs. college campus/tennis match.

I think that reproductive fitness is highest at an IQ of 100-110, otherwise we would have evolved to have higher IQs. Above or below that level of IQ, attractiveness would decrease under my theory.

HS,

You're right, if IQ were the only factor in reproductive success we as a species would be light years ahead in intelligence. Here is a pretty good article which says rapid improvements in IQ are unlikely. It mentions Ashkenazi IQ as well.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111207133053.htm

"every genius has had a prominent brow."

John von Neumann, unequivocally a genius, did not have a particularly prominent brow. Brow prominence might be correlated with high intelligence, but it's certainly not perfectly correlated.

**Young, Jewish girl on Shit Christians Say To Jews**

FWIW, while she doesn't look too intelligent (125 IQ), I'd argue that she is attractive.

"What do I do if a low future time orientation prole whose prone to getting into trouble (esp fighting) wants to befriend me but I don't want to befriend him? He seems intent on becoming my buddy, but I don't want to get into trouble with other people or the law."

I am facing similar problem right now. Let me know if you have an answer.

""every genius has had a prominent brow."

John von Neumann, unequivocally a genius, did not have a particularly prominent brow. Brow prominence might be correlated with high intelligence, but it's certainly not perfectly correlated."

Fair enough. I agree. Idiots come in all head sizes. Geniuses come in all head sizes except small. I googled "retarded executed". The first mug shot in the images tab led me to this article:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/lawyers-convicted-killer-ronell-wilson-argue-t-executed-mentally-retarded-article-1.1005349

The men who's pictures appear in the article are the same race, and close to the same age. If both were dressed in police officers uniforms, you could instantly tell me which one was the police detective, and which was the convicted cop killer who's lawyer claims he's too retarded to be executed.

To be fair, there are lots of clues other than the cranial vault. Eyes are too far apart, and don't look focused. The hair style is bizarre and sloppy. Facial features are smooth rather than sharp. Lower jaw slightly too small for upper jaw, and even though mouth is closed, jaw appears slack.

@Douglas Robert:

"Here is a pretty good article which says rapid improvements in IQ are unlikely. It mentions Ashkenazi IQ as well."

It's highly unlikely to increase on its own in the population via natural selection. Thought it's perfectly possible theoretically, as there are plenty of healthy very high IQ individuals.

"I contend that most liberals are extremely aware of something even as they are completely dishonest about it. Southern racists have nothing on city liberals who will pay 2 million dollars to live in an apartment in the white part of town when they can live in another part for 1/10 the price."

-

Underclass NAMS aren't racially barred from living in these neighborhoods, they just can't afford to live in them. The type of people who pay 2 million for an apartment in Manhattan wouldn't want to live around poor, underclass whites either. Racism and classism often come together but are not the same thing.

-

Southern cities and towns are quite segregated, at the same time having a higher concentration of middle class blacks. The unspoken rule is "You can get big, but don't get close". Whites seem fine with blacks rising above their 'station' but get riled at the idea of inter-racial dating and families (in the north the opposite is true). There a still high schools with racially segregated proms for goodness sake. Many blacks are moving back to southern hubs like Atlanta because of the perception of better economic opportunity despite the horror stories told by their transplant parents and grandparents.

@Bill, I hear you but I do not not buy for one second that race is not an issue among these urban 'liberal' whites paying millions for houses and apartments when just a couple of blocks away are houses in more 'diverse' areas that cost a lot less.

The thing to realize is that architecturally these houses are often identical, built at the same time by the same builders, blocks apart. It's not that a developer came along and built mansions someplace that only the rich could afford. The houses near each other are of the same vintage, and yet they are so steeply segregated that you could draw a line between the races with a ruler.

Here's that link again.
http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer?ref=nyregion

If you want more hyper-segregated liberal cities, type in Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and Washington, DC. Obama's Chicago is a real gem.

Way more segregated than supposedly uberracist Phoenix. Nashville, fairly mixed. New Orleans? Way more mixed than any of our liberal havens.

Its not a crime to live where you want with whomever you please. But the smarmy liberal smugness of looking down on everyone as racist is wearing very thin.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf

Have a look at table 5. The US average was for 7.4% of marriages to be interracial. Maybe a bit more now.

What about red states? AZ 11.5%, TX 9.8%, UT 7.3%, Georgia 4.6%. What about blue states? MA 5.1%, MD 6.3%, NY 7.6%, CT 5.7%.

So we see that extremely racist Georgia is basically at the same level as thoroughly superior Massachusetts. Blue states liberals are not different from red state conservatives, they are just less honest. Remember, this data reflects marriages from 1950 or earlier to 2000 so it covers the segregationist era in the south.

"Many blacks are moving back to southern hubs like Atlanta because of the perception of better economic opportunity despite the horror stories told by their transplant parents and grandparents."

Awesome news.

*If you want more hyper-segregated liberal cities, type in Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and Washington, DC. Obama's Chicago is a real gem.*

It's admittedly why I'd prefer to live in Canada if I ever left New York. FWIW, I'd prefer to live in place that isn't racially segregated, and where my cousins live in Canada is far more multi-cultural that anywhere that I've seen in the United States. When you have American metropolitan areas that are so racially segregated, even if one is a black person that wants to live with white people to avoid other black people, there's the perpetual fear that my neighbours will secretly have contempt for me in liberal places, or openly harass me in not-quite liberal places. Even if Nashville is less segregated than a northern city, why would I want to take my chances in the South given it's legacy?

@Dan

I wasn't aware of those interracial marriage rates, but a thought occurred to me as I read: Southern and western red states have always had a much higher non-white population than blue states. Logically this would lead to more opportunities for interracial couplings. Texas and Arizona are minority-majority states with high hispanic populations, Georgia is 30% black.

Conversely, California is #5 in interracial marriage, New Mexico is #3, and Hawaii is #1 according to the census data. Those are all blue states.

This suggests the numbers are more an indication of racial plurality rather than white racial tolerance.

Don't get me wrong, liberals (and certain conservatives) who pretend they are enlightened beings who have transcended racial preferences bug me. My prior point was that the de facto racial segregation is more economical in the north and cultural in the south.

@Bill --

Call it what you will if it will help you maintain your sanctified image of northern liberals, but they sure are paying astonishing sums of money so that their children will not have to go to integrated schools.

You can protect your image of liberals if you want but keep in mind that Boston saw the most intense resistance to desegregation busing, more than any other city in all of America.

While maintaining your view that northern liberals are morally superior to those southern racists bear in mind those sharp color lines in NYC and Chicago are not what you would expect if the division was simply economic as you claim. Economic gradations would be smoother and more continuous, not an abrupt shift. Also note the history. Those neighborhoods formed by 'blockbusting' with Chicago at the center. And it was all about race. Not economics at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbusting#Methods

I am not faulting the impulse to want the best for their families, but the gleeful cries of racism by northern liberals are quite dishonest.

@David Alexander wrote:

"where my cousins live in Canada is far more multi-cultural that anywhere that I've seen in the United States"

Dude, please. Just, please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada

2.5% black
1.0% latin american

I have noticed small-headed looking geniuses tend to be in math/physics fields. 2 famous ones who come to mind are Freeman Dyson and Leonard Susskind, but this is somewhat of a general pattern in my field (not that it's the norm, but not too uncommon).

It's true. Stupid people have distinctive features. Since experiencing a few brain injuries, I've developed a "stupid gaze". It sucks. No matter how hard I try to look un-stupid, that stupid gaze just makes itself apparent. I use to have an IQ well north of 130. At that time, I was good looking and had a really confident look from head to toe. Now that my IQ is around 100, I have an aloof goofy look.

The comments to this entry are closed.