I’ve been doing some analysis into why they don’t and here I document what I think are likely explanations (or theories) for it.
We have been hard-wired to find averages attractive/desirable. An average face, character or personality all contribute to the attractiveness factor. The less deviated you are from the parameters of the average population, the more likely people are to find you attractive and/or desirable.
The way society (majority of the people in your environment) perceive you can largely affect your social standing. Popular kids in high school are likely to have more friends because people continually work to increase their standing in society and one way to do it is by associating themselves with people who stand higher than them. In popular culture, one way this could affect females is how they are viewed (respected) by their fellow peers. A female associating herself with a influential male is more likely to be invited to parties or in other words, have a higher standing in society.
Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection has been widely accredited for a long time to explain how organisms evolve to procreate at optimal rates. To achieve this, an organism will seek to mate with the opposite sex that has desirable qualities – something which natural selection has iteratively narrowed down to. The organisms with these qualities of interest are statistically likely to be least deviated from average.
Attraction/seduction/courtship is an art. It isn’t merely logical and scientific – meaning there are inconsistencies among what it preaches and what goes behind making it reality. For example, attractiveness may be defined mathematically but who one might find attractive may come down to the individual’s stance on societal and demographical norms. The human race has evolved as one, with people inheriting and assimilating themselves with certain protocols as to how certain processes should be carried out through successive generations. It is what helps this race sustain on the planet.
That concludes my post. My next test is one on Psychology. It’s finals week. Should I ever run into something that hopefully relates to this post, I’ll always come back and update with whatever floats my boat.
In this post, I’ll be discussing the role of demographics and linguistics in the cognitive and intellectual development of an individual. I must warn you I haven’t really done any actual research in the area so all I’ll be doing is giving anecdotal evidence to support my argument. If this is not your kind of science, I advice you not read further.
Based on what I’ve read off the internet and actual conversations with people from varied backgrounds than mine, I find that people from certain geographical, economic, social and cultural backgrounds have in average a higher IQ. I highly doubt the consistency of this finding because we have mutations everywhere, there are prodigies from South Africa and really dumb people from North America making it hard to put out a solid generalization. However, given that the vast majority of people confirm to their physical and social surroundings quite flawlessly (because that’s how humans were meant to be), we could exploit this anthropological feature to make a vague generalization that might not apply to everyone that fall within a certain demography, but to the vast majority instead.
Now how do people from certain geographical/social backgrounds manage to pull off a higher IQ? I think it has to do with the way their brains develop from a very young age – say the food they eat, the quality of people they interact with, the quality of their surroundings, their physical possessions etc. A kid brought up in a third world country by average, would have a lower IQ than his first world counterpart. Why? Because this kid was possibly fed food with an inferior quality, hindering proper brain development in those tender years and the people he interacted with were also probably not intellectually competent enough (because they were in-turn brought up in a third world country) to stimulate the kid’s thinking and cognitive development. I believe these socio-economic and geographical factors contribute primly to the intellectual development of an individual.
Now for the linguistics and cultural influence. I’m pairing these factors together because they seem more apt to be discussed together. I’m basing this on my personal experiences – like the conversations and encounters I’ve had with people. Linguistics plays a role I believe, not to a large extent as the factors we discussed previously but somewhat to be considered. I find some languages to be more efficient and complete. They have more synonyms, more scientific literature written in them, and more words in general. Some languages also allow for better parallelism in sentences, allowing the speaker to convey a large amount of information effortlessly in a smaller period of time. These complex sentences also engages the mind of the reader to keep track of multiple ideas and words in a sentence simultaneously, allowing the brain to form new connections to process information effectively hence making them intelligent.
UPDATE (241951z): It struck me that I hadn’t discussed the role of culture and geography in each of the above paragraphs in much detail and hence will do it here. There are certain cultures that forbid people from doing some things and/or acts and this may in my opinion, negatively affect intellectual development. Also, with geography comes infrastructure. Someone in a third world country had to navigate poorly planned cities and road infrastructure. This might not stimulate a person intellectually.