Discount Nike air jordans ( )

Discount Nike Air Max 90 Sneakers ( )

Discount Nike Air Max 91 Supplier ( )

Discount Nike Air Max 95 Shoes Supplier ( )

Discount Nike Air Max 97 Trainers ( )

Discount Nike Air Max 2003 Wholesale ( )

Discount Nike Air Max 2004 Shoes Wholesale

( )

I have some contradictions. Most intelligent people are rich, because of the gaining factor. Rich people seem to get the concept, that they need to gain, not live for others, but for themselves. A lot of poor people don’t get the concept, that if you need to work to gain, so you can get rich. All they is need, and that’s what doesn’t get them anywhere. Success is a thing from gains, and you need to be a bit for yourself then others.

Intelligent people tend to look modest, and doesn’t care about mediocre things. It’s not they don’t look attriactive, it’s just not as beautiful. Beautiful people tend to be concetrate on the needs and not gains. They people are lucky because they gain, and they concentrate on the fun parts not hard work and gain.

Yes, and no. beauty might be inheritable, but intelligentce isn’t inheritable.

You can be influenced or forced to be intelligent, but you can’t be born to be smart. You either want it or not. It all comes from your values.

You seem to be in to this stuff, a good philosopher to read for this kind of argument would be

Ayn Rand

You might like to look in to her stuff. I think Atlas Shrugged would be able to discuss this the best.

A nice essay. You did a good job backing up your arguments. And I generally agree with you.

Before I go further, there was one technical comment I have to make. You're missing a period (or semicolon or however you choose to rephrase it) here:

"Kovar and Kanazawa cite a study in which IQ tests were administered to a group of girls the middle class ones were more intelligent and better-looking than the working class ones."

As an engineer myself, I can verify some of the comments you made. You wrote about how many intellegent people wouldn't want the highest-paying jobs because of the amount of work and travel they require and the stress levels they produce. From what I've seen (and desire for myself), this is right on the money. Most people of "the socioeconomic level comparable to the doctors, lawyers, and engineers of America" choose jobs that pay well enough to be guarranteed a comfortable life, but not ones in which they will get truly rich. Such people believe that comfort is another kind of wealth, and one more important than pure money.

And finally, I'm still smiling at the last paragraph where you suggest looking through the pictures of math/physics/engineering professors. :) Quite true: they're not usually hideous, but my professors have rarely been beautiful either!

Thanks for the thoughts!

-Ruatha

This essay was a pleasure to read. One thing though: does funny things with URLs, so your attempt to link to the study at the bottom is cut off.

“First, it’s important to point out that beauty does in fact does exist, that it is not as subjective as once thought, and that it is not the abstruse mystery that we sometimes think of it as.”

’Subjective’ doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. Subjectivity means that something is a product of the mind, not that it ‘doesn’t exist’ or that ‘everyone’s idea of X is absolutely and irreconcilably different’. First, all you have to do to refute the study in question is find someone who rates the attractiveness of the specimens differently than the computer. Second, beauty is clearly subjective, and scientific training doesn’t qualify someone to address the question in the first place; the study you cited only says humans tend to be alike in what they perceive as sexually attractive and is engaging in thoroughly unscientific metaphysical conjecture if it actually says beauty is inherent in objects rather than a step in our perception. Third, beauty is not merely the sexual attractiveness of other humans, we see beauty in lots of other things, like music, paintings, etc.

“If you go by the model that I used above about women favoring men that can provide for them and men favoring women who are sexually attractive, how could there be any discrimination when acquired skills make men effective hunters and physical strength and certainly intelligence is less important?”

Intelligence is by no means less important for a hunter-gatherer than a businessman. A businessman is not likely to die or even suffer irrevocable harm from a single miscalculation; primitive life would seem to select far more brutally for intelligence than civilized life. The reason a more intelligent few arise in civilized society than can ever be matched by more-intelligent-on-average primitives is not because civilized life selects for intelligence biologically, but because many or most very intelligent people are born with other mental or physical handicaps that would almost ensure a young death in a primitive life, and while primitive life might select quite brutally for intelligence it offers little ‘leisure’ time, and less population diversity (there’s basically just young men, old men, young women, old women, and small children) and thus division of labor, to allow for the cultivation of intellect.