Short fat engineers are undervalued

Re:Short fat engineers are undervalued by centimeter on Friday February 12, 2021 @06:22PM (#26119759)

I think it's definitely true that attractiveness indicators correlate with characteristics like intelligence. If you think about it, this shouldn't actually be that surprising; it would be silly if the factors that went into sexual selection had no correlation with survival-boosting traits.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Short fat engineers are undervalued by wutbrodo on Friday February 12, 2021 @06:30PM (#26119820)

Hm, perhaps I'm reasoning about this correctly, but wouldn't you think the opposite? Being attractive provides evolutionary slack that requires less optimization on other characteristics (like intelligence), and vice versa.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Short fat engineers are undervalued by dsr_ on Friday February 12, 2021 @06:38PM (#26119883)

Being judged attractive is a cultural thing that varies with time and place.

Being judged intelligent is also a cultural thing that varies with time and place.

Unless your culture is static for 20+ generations, don't expect much influence of it on evolution.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Short fat engineers are undervalued by centimeter on Friday February 12, 2021 @07:27PM (#26120277)

There are attractiveness signifiers that are not culturally mediated (e.g. clear healthy skin is valued everywhere, extreme obesity or thinness is very rarely valued, being very short is very rarely valued, etc.)

Intelligence also seems to have plenty of culture-independent aspects.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Short fat engineers are undervalued by wutbrodo on Saturday February 13, 2021 @01:52PM (#26125695)

> Being judged attractive is a cultural thing that varies with time and place.

This is partially true, but there are many significant markers of attractiveness that are not particularly context-dependent.

> Being judged intelligent is also a cultural thing that varies with time and place.

This I disagree with much more strongly. "Being judged intelligent" isn't explicitly isn't the only thing that feeds into the evolutionary drive, and the second-order consequences are much more significant: being quick-witted/funny, increasing likelihood of success/resources, etc. The concept of general intelligence is not nearly as narrowly-defined as you're implying. To take an example, subsistence farming isn't exactly _easy_. General intelligence is an important factor in success at subsistence farming just as it is in success at post-industrial white-collar work.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Short fat engineers are undervalued by centimeter on Friday February 12, 2021 @07:26PM (#26120261)

No, I don't think this reasoning holds. What is intuitively considered attractive is itself an evolved trait, so as a meta-evolutionary strategy it almost certainly selects for otherwise desirable traits.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Short fat engineers are undervalued by wutbrodo on Saturday February 13, 2021 @02:00PM (#26125763)

In this thread, "attractive" is being used as shorthand for "physically attractive": it was first introduced in response to a comment talking about height.

Also, while intelligence is per se attractive to some degree, it's also mediated through downstream effects like a higher likelihood of financial/resource success.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Short fat engineers are undervalued by ZephyrBlu on Saturday February 13, 2021 @09:07AM (#26123651)

What's the correlation coefficient though? Attractiveness may only be weakly correlated with intelligence, in which case it isn't very meaningful.

[ Parent | on HN ]