Do you think society rewards physical beauty more than intellect why or why not?
Does society reward physical beauty more than intellect?
|by Anonymous||reply 42||02/11/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 1||02/11/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 2||02/11/2013|
SO people aren't really enthralled with just the Kardashian intellect?
|by Anonymous||reply 3||02/11/2013|
Physical beauty rewards society; intellect punishes it.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||02/11/2013|
Human nature. The sex drive is not about procreation as much as cooperation and hierarchy. We need the sex drive to keep from killing each other.
The intellect we are hardwired to accept what other people tell us only in the first few years of our lives. Thereafter we are hard wired to reject most of what people tell us, and we have advanced only because the written word and social complexity have given us impersonal forms of communication with which to preserve and advance knowledge. Face to face communication involves egoism and competition and without the sex drive making us amenable, we reject what smarter people tell us.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||02/11/2013|
Short-term, yes. In the long run, though, the stupid eventually fall to the bottom.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||02/11/2013|
Society rewards looks over intellect, but life favors intellect over looks.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||02/11/2013|
Yes. Absolutely. It sucks, but it is true.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||02/11/2013|
Looks might get you noticed, but intellect will get you respect.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||02/11/2013|
There's a male/ female dichotomy, at least in the straight world: physical beauty is much more highly prized in women than in men, because the straight world revolves around men -- they have the power, and therefore their sexual preference for visually attractive women shapes society.
For gay men, it's the same, except that it's reciprocal: the men are judging and at the same time being judged on their physical attractiveness.
In my experience, lesbians and straight women are much less focused on a partner's physical beauty, and more focused on how supportive (materially, emotionally, etc.) a partner is. And, of course, they judge themselves and each other through the prism of attractiveness as defined by society as a whole (i.e., by and for men).
|by Anonymous||reply 10||02/11/2013|
I don't think intelligence is valued anywhere.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||02/11/2013|
That is a "stupid" question!
|by Anonymous||reply 12||02/11/2013|
Both have merits, and both have cons. Stop reducing life to a reductive cliche.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||02/11/2013|
Someone could be a beauty on the outside as well as in, and someone could be a wretch on the outside as well as in.
In other words, someone ugly might feel entitled because they didn't "have it easy," like some pretty people and treat them like shit.
Conversely, just as the latter example shows, someone might feel entitled because of their beauty, and the way people give them things for it.
Likewise, someone ugly could find solace in books and erudition; then, become so intellectual, they overcome physical limitations.
Or, someone very Pretty could have been given much charity and kindness in life, that they try to pass on goodness to other people.
Also, keep in mind, that people age. So they can switch sides...usually, they age gracefully because they spent time improving their attitude and mind before their looks fail them in life.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||02/11/2013|
The basic tenant of being a "good" person, is how you not only hold yourself in esteem, but others.
If an ugly or pretty person achieves this understanding, then the concept of being an ugly or pretty person is meaningless.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||02/11/2013|
R5, what a load of unsubstantiated evo psych bullshit.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||02/11/2013|
[R15], it's TENET!!! Jesus.
OP should consult the heaps of research on the psychology of physical attractiveness.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||02/11/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 18||02/11/2013|
Is this a serious question? Is your birthday February 10, 2013?
|by Anonymous||reply 19||02/11/2013|
[quote]I don't think intelligence is valued anywhere.
Try getting into Harvard or Yale just on the basis of your beauty.
You can do it on the basis of your money (Anderson Cooper), your name (George W. Bush or Al Gore), or your fame (James Franco). Or by dint of your intelligence (most kids who go there who aren't legacies). But not by dint of your beauty.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||02/11/2013|
I wasn't talking about beauty. It also looks like you have given quite a few examples where money and social position is valued over intelligence, and at places where intelligence is supposed to be valued.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||02/11/2013|
[quote]where money and social position is valued over intelligence, and at places where intelligence is supposed to be valued.
They're not necessarily valued OVER intelligence. they were once, but if Harvard and Yale offered all their slots to legacies or the wealthy, they'd lose their reputations and their attractions. They have to offer more of their slots by far now (and they have for the last 80 years or so) to the intelligent.
But beauty does not factor at all into the equation, although you claimed it does everywhere.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||02/11/2013|
Beauty trumps everything, unless beauty opens it's mouth.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||02/11/2013|
What are you talking about, R22 - I never said anything about beauty. Read!
Back to Harvard and Yale, etc, those are just some examples of money and social position being valued over intelligence. We know about them because the people were famous and there were stories in the media about them. There are, obviously, many, many more. And what about all the millions that they get from big pharma, corparations for "research" that will no doubt effect, and warp the nature of research. Looks like money was valued over intelligence there as well...
|by Anonymous||reply 24||02/11/2013|
oops corporations (typo)
|by Anonymous||reply 25||02/11/2013|
We all like Brooke Shields, but was she really Princeton material?
|by Anonymous||reply 26||02/11/2013|
[quote]We all like Brooke Shields, but was she really Princeton material?
She got in for fame, not for beauty.
And there have been many rumors over the years that she did not apply to Harvard because she Harvard would not guarantee her ahead of time she would get in just based on her fame.
(Interestingly, though, Shields got very good grades at Princeton--suggesting she WAS a good student after all.)
|by Anonymous||reply 27||02/11/2013|
Looks win over brains and my shows prove it. It's making me rich.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||02/11/2013|
Society rewards beauty more than brains, as long as the beauty exists!
There's no societal reward for having been a beauty when you were younger, quite the opposite.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||02/11/2013|
Economic power trumps (and buys) beauty AND intelligence.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||02/11/2013|
I'm here, ain't I?
|by Anonymous||reply 31||02/11/2013|
I wouldn't even say the Kardashians are all the "beautiful," R3. Khloe isn't pretty AT ALL and Kim's face is looking more and more like a plastic surgery nightmare every day.
Unless, of course, you were referring to the indisputable charms of their lesbian grandmother Bruce.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||02/11/2013|
It seems like most of the people in powerful positions aren't particularly attractive.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||02/11/2013|
[quote]Do you think society rewards physical beauty more than intellect why or why not?
Datalounge certainly does.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||02/11/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 35||02/11/2013|
[quote]Economic power trumps (and buys) beauty AND intelligence.
Boy did you ever use the appropriate verb in that sentence!
|by Anonymous||reply 36||02/11/2013|
Watch Fox News, look at their females, and then pose the question, OP.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||02/11/2013|
I think after a certain age it changes from beauty to intellect. Im not sure what age that is though.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||02/11/2013|
I've never had a problem with gentlemen callers. I can't say the same for Eleanor Roosevelt
|by Anonymous||reply 39||02/11/2013|
Sigh....is this yet ANOTHER thread about Lena Dunham?!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 40||02/11/2013|
R20, I am a Harvard graduate.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||02/11/2013|
Youth is a transitory possession, y'all.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||02/11/2013|