Snob

Vantek, I dont like you.

I agree with what my colleague, Henry17, is saying to an extent. In theory intelligent people should be able to adapt to social situations and what not, but you're forgetting in order to do this they have to be comfortable with who they are first. So in practice it doesn't work like that due to having less intellectual equals in the population. On the other hand people with average intelligence are everywhere so they quickly integrate into groups that positively reinforce their own ideas, goals, dress, speech, etc ultimately their self worth and therefor ability to interact.

So you're right, but have to address that it takes them longer to get over the first hurdle. Usually the more intelligent the person, the longer it takes. At least that's my explanation for the stereotype. Once they're comfortable though, they have the ability to become a social hurricane, or monsoon even. Category 6. But that doesn't mean they exercise it.

It depends on how big the gap in intelligence is. I was about to answer that I have a moderately decreased ability to connect to less intelligent people but then I realized that it really only applies to people who lack the ability to do the most basic logical reasoning, need a calculator to multiply by 10, etc. Most topics of conversation don't require too much critical thinking anyway.

Before reading on, i just want to say that you are probably the poster with highest laugh/post ratio i've seen.

As you point out, "intelligence" is such an ambiguous term as to not mean much of anything specific. On the other hand, "intellect" can be pretty precisely defined, and I was glad to see the OP use that word. It's the ability to grasp and manipulate complex concepts, and is independent of the ability to make good use of those ideas or wise decisions. Often that is lacking in people with high intellect, just as social skills are often lacking. But I don't think the degree of wisdom and/or social skills are correlated with intellect, either directly or inversely, in general.

Ha Ha, none of the other kids will play with you

LOL @ people getting all upset or apologetic because I dared to mention the fact that some people are smarter than others. Classic.

There absolutely is a correlation between physical attractiveness and intelligence. A positive one.

BTW Henry, I think you are one of the most intelligent people I have ever encountered.

How do you define intelligence? Is IQ the overwhelming factor in your differentiation between people?

If so, for simplicity the breakdown of different IQ's could be as following:

- Less than average <90, the lower you get the closer you get to "******ation" and the more difficult it becomes for a more intelligent person to "connect" with these people.

However the type of people that Henry mentions, the superficial, fun to be around but not really intelligent people probably hover around the higher end of this bracket and the lower end of the average bracket. You can connect with these people if and when you want to, it probably wouldn't be a deep connection and there will be only certain times when you will feel like being around them.

- The 90-110 bracket. Consists of your average person, connecting with them on sophisticated and highly intelligent concepts could be challenging. They have the mental capacity to comprehend or be aware of what you're talking about, but they cannot keep up or be on par with you on matters that you find very stimulating or challenging. So "connecting" with them on these subjects might be difficult.

However you could easily connect with these people based on the non intelligence requiring mutual interests that you might have with them. (Sports/ TV Shows/ Movies Music) you don't need to be highly intelligent to have a smart or decent opinion about a lot of subjects.

-Intelligent people : >110

As you go a little bit higher, you will find that the marginal increase in intelligence becomes less evident in people, and the difference that a couple or more of IQ points makes isn't really very relevant.

An intelligent person has the ability to connect with people of less intelligence, he CAN willingly decide to only engage in some conversations of a certain nature, the ability to dictate the level of conversation will be in his hands. On the other hand, the less intelligent person is more limited in his ability to engage smarter people and connect with them on all the levels that they usually do.

Limiting your definition of people solely by IQ level has its obvious shortcomings. A lot of acquired or learned abilities (Education, Networking, Social intelligence, Manners etc..) will sway the result of your attempt at "connecting" with people.

I don't really subscribe to your theory that physical attractiveness and intelligence are necessarily positively correlated.

I think the correlation between physical attractiveness and success exists and is more obvious, plus the one between success and intelligence too.

I feel like this thread comes down to, "Would you rather be friends with someone who likes Arrested Development, or someone who likes Two and a Half Men."

ATAT - I don't like either show

yes, vvv much so

Well then, substitute in a thing you do like that is smart/abstract/conceptual and a thing you don't like that's mouthbreathingly ******ed.

PhDs can't dance, Henry.

And quite handsome too!

Northern Exposure vs. Friends.

Television rots the mind. A better question is would you rather be friends with someone whose favorite book is Ulysses, or Gravity's Rainbow?

Have you ever seen an attractive ******?

If I don't know which one of those is the stupid book, and which is the smart book...what does that make me?

EDIT: Vantek, are you serious? While I am inclined to agree with physical attractiveness and intelligence being correlated (intelligence--money--upgrading your image), I have met quite a few handsome idiots

Have you never seen an ugly genius?

Not really a way to prove a theory. Other than genetic anomalies that result in ******ation, yes a lot of not intelligent pretty people exist.

It's a trick question, they're both stupid

I've seen some blond bombshells who had every asset you can imagine except a brain.

You don't need a brain if you are a bombshell. Somehow you'll manage .

lol, I didn't mean that to be proof, but I am serious about the correlation.

They correlate because they have a common cause.

High intelligence and maximum attractiveness are the optimum towards which human genotype has been selected for, and only very narrow set of genes and ideal developmental conditions result in the delicately balanced system landing in that optimum. Steps away from the narrow set of genes and conditions tend to ruin the balance and cause the whole system to move away from optimum more or less every way. In reality, most people are not optimal. Most people have plenty of smaller or bigger flaws in their genes or development.

When a person has a flaw in his genes or something goes wrong in his development, it very generally causes an overall reduction compared to that optimum, an overall reduction in health, in attractiveness, and intellect. Obviously the specific case may vary in every possible way - some peculiar genetic or developmental condition might improve health but reduce attractiveness, improve intellect but reduce health, etc etc etc, but the GENERAL tendency is IMO simply inevitable. I am not actually saying that the correlation is strong (in fact I think it's probably weak due to massive noise, variance, chaos process etc), but it's almost like it's impossible for it to not exist resulting from extremely basic biological principles, even if it is quantitaviely quite weak. It's actually something I thought of myself lol so I could be wrong of course, but this does really seem to be the case to me right now.

In other words, when someone is lacking in attractiveness, it is very generally an indication that there was a flaw in that person's genes or development. If there was a flaw in that person's genes or development, it is likely that optimum intellect (which is well above average) was not achieved. Human organism is a delicately balanced system and it has been selected towards "attempting" to be maximally attractive and quite intelligent (significantly more than the modern average). If either of those goals has fallen short, it is a sign that the balance was off. If the balance was off, it is likely that the other goals fell short as well.

The geniuses are actually another matter. I think it is possible that extremely high intelligence is beyond optimal from the natural selection point of view, so I think past some point intellect might begin to negatively correlate with attractiveness. But there are not enough geniuses to begin to swing the very general tendency in the bulk population.