Beauty or Brain?
- Thread starter liza01
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think such a dichotomy is a bit simplified. I don't see why one needs to be chosen over the other. As to which one is more important in the long run, I would say neither. The ability to connect with someone emotionally is probably the thing I put at the top of my priority list. So maybe that's brains, but probably in a different way than you're thinking.
I'd take self-confidence and the capacity for hard work over either of those things any day.
I like to think I'm pretty smart, but so does every other idiot on the planet. I could be thick as a brick and have no way of knowing it.
I am not beautiful by any standard and would like to know what it's like. However, the grass is always greener. As tempting as it is to imagine that the pretty people are all happy, it probably isn't the case.
I like to think I'm pretty smart, but so does every other idiot on the planet. I could be thick as a brick and have no way of knowing it.
I am not beautiful by any standard and would like to know what it's like. However, the grass is always greener. As tempting as it is to imagine that the pretty people are all happy, it probably isn't the case.
I'm sexy enough already. Brains.
Wait, are we talking about brains/beauty for us, or for our significant other?
I mean, my answer remains the same, but still...
Wait, are we talking about brains/beauty for us, or for our significant other?
I mean, my answer remains the same, but still...
I think the idea that people are not often both is a terrible stereotype that has no basis in reality. You do not need to be ugly to be intelligent, nor dumb to be attractive.
Actually, did you know that people are inclined to believe that attractive people are more intelligent than unattractive ones?Lil devils x said:
I've read about experiments where subjects were shown photos of random people and asked to estimate their intelligence. They invariably rated the more attractive people as being smarter. And vice-versa. Fat people in particular were assumed to be dumber.
While the stereotypes of the brainless but pretty ("dumb blonde") and the ugly but smart (scrawny scientist) obviously exist, I don't think they carry much weight in how people actually act toward others.
A bookworm Disney princess vs. a diabolical lab mouse out to conquer the world? I'll go with the former, please.
In all seriousness, I'd go with brains. Intellect and personality tend to accentuate physical attractiveness for me anyway. Besides, physical beauty tends to fade faster over time than a sharp mind (barring something terrible like an early onset of Alzheimer's, of course).
In all seriousness, I'd go with brains. Intellect and personality tend to accentuate physical attractiveness for me anyway. Besides, physical beauty tends to fade faster over time than a sharp mind (barring something terrible like an early onset of Alzheimer's, of course).
This answer is kind of a cop out.Jux said:
...that I totally agree with. Just because someone is smart doesn't mean you'll have any connection with them, and intelligence won't enhance any connection that you do have. Likewise, they could be smoking hot, but you might hate their personality.
So I'm gonna say personality; I find that people become more attractive as I get to know them.
Intelligence and wisdom are things you can increase over time, both with support and motivation. Beauty, not so much. I mean there's make up and shit, and plastic surgery if you've got the cash for it, but they're both pretty artificial options. So I think I'd take beauty as the first preference.
Both is better though, obviously.
Both is better though, obviously.
I would definitely prefer both but if I have to choose one then it would definitely be intelligence.
If someone is intelligent then I generally find conversations with them far more interesting. Meanwhile if my significant other were attractive but a complete dunce then I would just find myself becoming bored of the relationship very quickly.
Granted, there is such a thing as too much intelligence since I've had a friend who was incredibly smart but also had the habit of being a bit condescending about it.
If someone is intelligent then I generally find conversations with them far more interesting. Meanwhile if my significant other were attractive but a complete dunce then I would just find myself becoming bored of the relationship very quickly.
Granted, there is such a thing as too much intelligence since I've had a friend who was incredibly smart but also had the habit of being a bit condescending about it.
I prefer anything over nothing - with exceptions allowed. Since I obviously have both, I can hardly settle for less, right? Or maybe just not dying alone is fine. I mean, each other's attributes should match in one way or another, whether it's beauty, brain, or a combination of the two.
All of the girls I have ever met have had a brain (admittedly I didn't check - but motion and interaction strongly suggest it is the case). I have not found all of them beautiful. This suggests to me that these are not independent characteristics. If by 'brain' you mean that I find them intelligent, insightful and charming (how many other characteristics could be indicated by 'brains' - personality, cadence of voice, vocabulary, charisma...?), then I happen to find that beautiful.
There's my problem. I have an aesthetic appreciation for non-visual characteristics of other humans.
So you must mean 'beauty' to mean someone else. Visual appeal only, perhaps. Asking me to make a judgement of preference as if I were seeing someone (at at least two people if I am am to choose) through a one-way mirror in a sound-proof box. But even then, the way people move might sway me in a direction. Perhaps I need a photo. One with a neutral image. Perhaps a passport photo? This seems a bit artificial - but even then it's easier to assess scientifically than any concept of 'brains'.
The science of beauty has not concluded much in several hundred years of study. We know that across cultures, humans prefer symmetrical faces for some reason even if culturally they seem to prefer asymmetry. Also faces that approach the 'average'. As a man, I am likely to be less choosy than the average woman about these characteristics. The potential cost of a sexual relationship biologically is considerably less for me, so that makes some kind of sense. I would anticipate that women's preferences may change depending on the menstrual cycle.
I tried to construct a thought experiment to scientifically test your question, but I came up short because of the lack of definition and the difficulty in eliminating other factors. The closest I got was selecting a preference based on a pool of candidates made up of neutral unadorned passport photos and a selection of forum posts. And all that might test is my preference for human photos above and beyond the written word. All I could conclude was that my preference for a potential partner could not be created from these characteristics in isolation and I needed more input.
So, in short, humans are complicated and I don't know. Why do you ask?
There's my problem. I have an aesthetic appreciation for non-visual characteristics of other humans.
So you must mean 'beauty' to mean someone else. Visual appeal only, perhaps. Asking me to make a judgement of preference as if I were seeing someone (at at least two people if I am am to choose) through a one-way mirror in a sound-proof box. But even then, the way people move might sway me in a direction. Perhaps I need a photo. One with a neutral image. Perhaps a passport photo? This seems a bit artificial - but even then it's easier to assess scientifically than any concept of 'brains'.
The science of beauty has not concluded much in several hundred years of study. We know that across cultures, humans prefer symmetrical faces for some reason even if culturally they seem to prefer asymmetry. Also faces that approach the 'average'. As a man, I am likely to be less choosy than the average woman about these characteristics. The potential cost of a sexual relationship biologically is considerably less for me, so that makes some kind of sense. I would anticipate that women's preferences may change depending on the menstrual cycle.
I tried to construct a thought experiment to scientifically test your question, but I came up short because of the lack of definition and the difficulty in eliminating other factors. The closest I got was selecting a preference based on a pool of candidates made up of neutral unadorned passport photos and a selection of forum posts. And all that might test is my preference for human photos above and beyond the written word. All I could conclude was that my preference for a potential partner could not be created from these characteristics in isolation and I needed more input.
So, in short, humans are complicated and I don't know. Why do you ask?