Skip to content
July 23, 2012 / JayMan

Evidence for Cochran’s & Harpending’s Theory of Genetic Load: The Link Between IQ and Attractiveness

Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending have recently proposed a hypothesis on their blog that posits that the lower average IQ of tropical peoples may be related to the number of fitness reducing mutations these people carry.  Apparently, the rate of mutation is higher in the tropics. The majority of mutations that occur are neutral and harmless, but the majority of the remainder are harmful. Some of these are severely so, and they are rather quickly eliminated by natural selection. But most are only mildly deleterious, only slightly reducing fitness. It takes selection a long time to remove such mildly deleterious mutations; hence populations that experience a high mutation rate will accumulate a large amount of these fitness reducing genetic changes (i.e., genetic load) because they appear faster than selection can eliminate them. This has all kinds of ill effects for humans, as all these minor dings and dents can negatively impact the individual that possesses them, including lowering IQ among a host of other things.

This hypothesis is potentially huge, because it presents the first real challenge to the standard sociobiological paradigm, which asserts that higher average IQ evolved among Eurasians because of the greater demands encountered in winter climates. While I’ve asserted my own refinements to this paradigm, I haven’t challenged the basic structure, because there is indeed a very strong correlation between average IQ and latitude. Cochran’s & Harpending’s hypothesis, however, suggests an alternative pathway to the evolution of IQ.

This theory, incidentally, would explain the apparent IQ ceilings that seem to exist across the world.  This particularly addresses the latitudinal correlation with brain size, as Cochran explains:

In fact, if this pattern is real and has existed for a long time,  it will change selective pressures.  In a high-mutation environment, brain function probably doesn’t deliver as much fitness per cubic centimeter – but those brains cost just as much per cubic centimeter. In that situation, selection would likely favor smaller brains (than it would in a lower-mutation environment).   So we would expect to see smaller brains in populations with lower average IQ – not enough to explain all of the lower IQ, but some smaller – and we do.

My own thought—and Cochran’s—is that genetic load is only part of the explanation. Selection—such as according to standard HBD theory—still likely plays a large role, if not the dominant role.  But genetic load could still be an important part of the puzzle.

But is it? How much evidence is there for the negative impact of genetic load on IQ and for its role in differences between average IQ between groups? I think that I may have found some, and it has something to do with connection between IQ and physical attractiveness.

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa discovered, using the Add Health data, that there is a link between IQ and physical attractiveness, such that people who are physically attractive have higher IQs, on average, than those who are less attractive.  This pattern remains regardless of race. Good looks are associated with more than just health.

Of course, using the same data, as previously mentioned, Kanazawa also discovered that Black women are, on average, less attractive than women of other races, for which he was almost “Watsoned”. But in his discussion about this, he makes an important point that may shed light on the connection between attractiveness and IQ.

Why is there a connection between attractiveness and IQ? Or, as the question should be, why the connection between unattractiveness and lower IQ? In his attempt to explain the lower average attractiveness of Black women, Kanazawa touched on one reason I believe is behind this link.

That is genetic load. Presumably, just as a high degree of genetic load can lower an individual’s IQ, it likely can also degrade his or her physical attractiveness. Ugly people may be dull and ugly because they possess a high degree of genetic load.  And because genetic load is still with us (presumably for most populations, at least), this explains, at least in part, why evolution hasn’t gotten rid of ugly people.

But, as Kanazawa noted, Black men weren’t rated as less attractive than men of other races, on average.  Indeed, another study has found that Black men were rated as more attractive than men from other races (and also found that Black women were rated as less attractive than women of other races, confirming Kanazawa’s “controversial” finding). This is the case even though Africans, both male and female, have a higher genetic load than other races.

So how do we reconcile these finding? The answer comes back to natural selection. As Steve Sailer discussed, there are different aspects of facial attractiveness. I propose that there are at least two dimensions that are important. One is overall conformity to the group average (as seen here from these facial composites from The Postnational Monitor), which is a sign of physical health—which can apparently be quantified as the degree of absence of deleterious mutations.  The closer one’s appearance to the group average, the lower one’s genetic load is likely to be.

The other dimension is degree of gender-specific traits one possesses, which for men means strong jaws and brows, and for women means more gracile jaws and brows, and larger lips and eyes.  This, I believe, explains the racial gradient in attractiveness as seen in the aforementioned study.  In that study, there was in fact a reliable progression of attractiveness that went from Black -> White -> East Asian for women and in the opposite direction for men. This finding was consistent for the average ratings from all three of those races. This is likely because, as compared to Europeans, Blacks tend to be more masculine overall, while East Asians tend to be more feminine. The greater masculinity of Black male faces may have rendered them more attractive despite their higher overall genetic load (with the exact opposite likely being true for East Asian males—whose faces probably weren’t ugly per se, just too feminine).  Conversely, the greater degree of female-specific features (especially neotenous ones) likely render East Asian female faces more attractive. Black women are unfortunately left with the worst of both worlds—higher genetic loads hence more dings and dents detracting from the group ideal—and fewer female-specific features to counteract this.

This racial lean towards one gender-typed set of physical features may be a result of fairly recent selective forces in Africa and Eurasia.  For Africans, specifically West Africans (who we’re discussing most of the time), the selective pressures of the tropical farming system, where women did most of the work and polygyny rates were very high (60% of all married women in some cases), men were under more selective pressure than were women.  This would have selective for genes that led to more attractive male forms even if it came at the expense of attractiveness in women.  In East Asia, and to a lesser extent Europe, the selection for docility by strong state governments would have favored genes for feminization.  As well, the early and universal marriage common in East Asia would have also served to reduce the selection for masculinity. (This is also true, to a lesser extent, for Europe east of the Hajnal line; as one can see from the above facial averages, Slavs appear to possess more feminine features than Western Europeans—I’ll discuss this more in my post on ideology.)

But, as Slate notes, there have been many intelligent people who have been rather unattractive.  Indeed, I’m not sure how the connection between attractiveness and IQ holds for those who have very high IQs.  Anecdotally we can all think of some brilliant folks who aren’t at all lookers.  Some of this is just a natural consequence of the normal variation in both IQ and attractiveness.  However, what if there are other factors operating?

Most traits are the result of many genes with small effects.  But there are a few genes with large effects that contribute to many traits. What of individuals whose high intelligence is the result of the contribution of a few genes with large effects?  Two things are possible then: in a person with little genetic load, these genes can have a large negative effect on attractiveness while boosting IQ  (an example of such genes may be those for male pattern baldness). Or, they may provide a large boost in IQ for those with a large genetic load, and who are hence rather homely.

One additional piece of evidence for the connection between genetic load and intelligence is the connection between height and IQ.  In the cited article, Kanazawa and Reyniers presented several possibilities why these two would be connected, primarily assortative mating (assortative mating of both taller and smarter men with attractive women), but the other explanation (not necessarily mutually exclusive) is higher genetic load impacting both height and IQ, since, as Cochran notes, taller people tend to have lower genetic loads.

I think there is enough for a decent case for a connection between genetic load and attractiveness and IQ. Indeed, if one looks cross racially, races that have been in the tropics for many millennia (Australoids and sub-Saharan Africans) are also (in my opinion) some of the least attractive (women only in the case of sub-Saharan Africans). This could be a sign of the very high genetic load among these groups. I await further analysis with more groups from more places around the world to see if this indeed a real phenomenon.

About these ads

42 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. synapticcohesion / Jul 23 2012 9:14 PM

    This is pathetic. Pseudoscience really gets on my nerves.

    • JayMan / Jul 23 2012 9:19 PM

      Wow could you even have read this that fast? I haven’t even closed the editing box… :|

  2. writeitnow / Jul 24 2012 2:48 AM

    Total BS. East Asians and black Africans are less attractive than white people regardless of gender. The people that say otherwise are either East Asian, black African, trying to be politically correct or fetishists. The picture you selected of an East Asian female had eyelid surgery and dyed her hair brown. It’s always interesting when someone says how attractive East Asians are then present a picture of a surgically altered (trying to look white) East Asian. I’m sure the pictures of black men were those who had white admixture and gained white features like a narrower, higher bridge nose, narrower, longer face, more prominent eyebrow ridge and prominent chin. The media depiction of black males is so far from reality that it’s laughable. If you were to watch TV only and not know what actual black males were like you would think they were atleast 6 feet tall, muscular, with deep booming voices, charming personalities, and always had the right answers. The reality is black males, on average, are shorter and heavier than white males and it’s been that way since slavery.

    The reality is skin bleaching and radical racial changing surgery are big in foreign non-white countries. Partically every East Asian female star has had surgery to look more like white women while in the US and other white populated areas it’s less common to see altered East Asian celebrities. In white countries it’s taught that you should be yourself and there is promotion through the media of natural non-white people. People familiar with the disconent with how non-white people look in relation to white people know these attractiveness scales are bogus. Black people’s resentment in how they look in relation to white people (and no other race) is one of the leading drivers in their anger, jealousy and hatred of white people. African features is a major topic among black people, you can’t go on any black website without it being talked about.

    • JayMan / Aug 1 2012 12:49 AM

      The picture you selected of an East Asian female had eyelid surgery and dyed her hair brown.

      You sure about that?

      Japanese often dye their hair brown, because apparently when they’re young, their hair is brown. That is about appearing youthful, not White.

      The reality is black males, on average, are shorter and heavier than white males and it’s been that way since slavery.

      As I understand, there are no height differences between Whites and (West African) Blacks.

      The reality is skin bleaching and radical racial changing surgery are big in foreign non-white countries.

      Skin-whitening is common, but that is because of a general preference for lighter skin across the world.

      You make a lot of claims, but I’d like to see more support to see if they are of any substance.

    • synapticcohesion / Aug 1 2012 1:34 AM

      “You sure about that?

      Japanese often dye their hair brown, because apparently when they’re young, their hair is brown. That is about appearing youthful, not White.”

      Actually, that is not true. There’s no metamorphosis that occurs in Japanese children’s hair as is the case with blonds and red heads. Most Japanese people’s hair would be just as dark in childhood as would be in adulthood. There’s no need to accumulate pigmentation later in life as all the normal amount of pigmentation is already there from birth. That said, there are some Asian peoples with genetic mutations and as a result have naturally lighter, less pigmented hair as well.

    • JayMan / Aug 1 2012 11:57 PM

      There’s no metamorphosis that occurs in Japanese children’s hair as is the case with blonds and red heads. Most Japanese people’s hair would be just as dark in childhood as would be in adulthood.

      Ah. This was an anecdote that I’ve stumbled across. I haven’t bothered to confirm it at all, so thanks for pointing that out.

    • synapticcohesion / Aug 2 2012 1:03 AM

      Such is the nature of pseudoscience. One can claim anything based on his or her own personal feelings and biases without evidence and pretend it is scientific fact. It reveals a lot about the psychology of the “pseudoscientist” in question more than anything else.

    • JayMan / Aug 2 2012 1:19 PM

      And you were doing so well, synapticcohesion.

      Oh well, such is the nature of those who put ideological axioms in front of reality… :\

    • JayMan / Aug 2 2012 12:38 AM

      I will also add:

      The picture you selected of an East Asian female had eyelid surgery and dyed her hair brown

      Neither of these appear to be true.

      It’s always interesting when someone says how attractive East Asians are then present a picture of a surgically altered (trying to look white) East Asian.

      Would you say that that’s true of this lady? I’d say she’s pretty attractive…

      I’m sure the pictures of black men were those who had white admixture and gained white features like a narrower, higher bridge nose, narrower, longer face, more prominent eyebrow ridge and prominent chin.

      The dude pictured is a full-blooded West African, yet is quite highly regarded in attractiveness.

  3. Paul / Jul 24 2012 11:59 AM

    Fascinating theory, which manages to tie together lots of different strings.

    I have a problem with this:

    “In East Asia, and to a lesser extent Europe, the selection for docility by strong state governments would have favored genes for feminization”

    Sure, there was strong govt in what is now central China, but not so much in Japan and not at all in Mongolia and central Asia — but I do not see much difference. Northern Europe has had strong govt for a lot less time than say Egypt.

    • JayMan / Jul 24 2012 12:14 PM

      Yeah, I thought the same thing. While I don’t know enough about Mongols or for that matter Siberians/Central Asians to be certain about the pattern there, I will say that from what I do know (anecdotally) that Mongolians and Southeast Asians aren’t quite as feminized as “core” East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans) in terms of behavior or appearance (e.g., Mongols are quite a bit taller than Han Chinese, I understand).

      As for northern Europe, while strong states haven’t existed there long, it nonetheless appears that quite a bit of change can happen in a short time.

      And thanks!

  4. Dan / Jul 24 2012 2:16 PM

    My theory is very simple. Big and or fast brains can overheat easily in very hot climates. They thus put their owner at a big risk for heat stroke in the tropics, whereas in Northern climes there is no such risk. This was a selective force *against* big or fast-clocking brains in places across the globe that were extremely hot.

    Consider that the ‘total failure temperature’ of the brain is only a few degrees hotter than the optimum of 98.6 or so.

    Others have had this perspective as well:

    http://www.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/origins/bipedality.html

    http://www.public.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/phychar/02_brain_size.html

    http://books.google.com/books?id=NZ19UiDPosEC&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=heat+stroke+%22brain+size%22&source=bl&ots=BWrbhH3oK7&sig=SKR8J4IPp1QYfQXh2SWFVW5zYU0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WcoGULDjLYjF6wGxmZHWCA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=heat%20stroke%20%22brain%20size%22&f=false

    • JayMan / Jul 24 2012 4:17 PM

      The issue of heat stress is likely a real one for brains, but the heat-size connection isn’t incompatible with a genetic load-size connection. The only question is whether we need the genetic load theory, and I think the attractiveness-IQ connection is evidence that we might just. We’ll have to await more genomic analysis to get a better idea.

  5. Dan / Jul 24 2012 2:35 PM

    One reason I am disinclined to believe Cochrans & Harpendings idea is that I don’t see evidence that blacks are generally less fit across the board.

    Look at the dominance of Africans many aspects of athletics for instance. Also look at, for example, facial symmetry. Is someone with the facial lopsidedness and disproportionateness of a Prince Charles more likely to be found among Europeans or Africans? I think that the answer is Europeans are more likely to be lopsided like that, but I don’t have evidence.

    • JayMan / Jul 24 2012 4:05 PM

      From my own experience I can say that there are plenty of Blacks (of both sexes) who have many such facial imperfections.

    • emailno@noemail.com / Jul 24 2012 6:42 PM

      Don’t forget that Prince Charles is much more inbred than an average European male and so thus not very representative of the group.

  6. Anonymous / Jul 25 2012 12:00 AM

    Dang. The post topic is incredibly interesting, and I’ve been following West Hunter blog so am interested in your take on the subject, but it takes all I have to read this white on black print. I implore you to change it.

    • JayMan / Jul 25 2012 12:43 AM

      See the special tip (i.e., use control and +, makes life a whole lot easier).

  7. Dan / Jul 25 2012 11:12 AM

    Cochran and Harpending’s thesis is probably wrong for the following reason:

    If it was just about genetic load then

    (1) Why aren’t there subgroups among Africans that have had high technology, high culture and arts and/or sophisticated government. And you really haven’t had that apparently at any time in history, when you take off the patronizing lenses that everyone wears which judges the achievements of certain groups on an easier scale.

    If the only difference was genetic load, then some subgroups would have had less genetic load, especially during/after a period of intense selection, and then you would see the true sophistication come out. That hasn’t happened.

    (2) Why aren’t there individuals of consumate genius, who happen to have less genetic load (since presumably some individuals will have a lot of load and some will have almost none)? You would expect greater variability and great extremes. Instead, there is little evidence of consumate genius. Where are the science Nobels, the great inventions, patents or literature, the symphonies? There are just about none at all.

    Where genius appears among those groups it has actually been among mixed people.

    It seems like the extreme sophistication demonstrated by some Europeans and Asians never developed among some other groups. You would expect *some* examples of what a low load African looks like. In fact, I contend that the world has plenty of examples of African individuals of low genetic load and terrific genetic health. They just don’t have the kind of genius you see in other groups, because a ‘perfect’ genome for that group simply doesn’t have certain features.

    • JayMan / Jul 25 2012 11:42 AM

      If it was just about genetic load

      C&H don’t claim that it is just genetic load:

      None of this implies that there are no other factors influencing the distribution of IQ, or its evolution. Strong selective pressures could keep IQ high in environment A, even if environment A had a somewhat higher mutation rate than environment B.

      Why aren’t there subgroups among Africans that have had high technology, high culture and arts and/or sophisticated government. And you really haven’t had that apparently at any time in history

      Well let’s hold off a too strong form of that. We did have the Nok culture (who may have presaged the Bantu expansion), and it was sub-Saharans who invented steel.

      It seems like the extreme sophistication demonstrated by some Europeans and Asians never developed among some other groups. You would expect *some* examples of what a low load African looks like.

      There are some sub-Saharans with very high IQs.

      In fact, I contend that the world has plenty of examples of African individuals of low genetic load and terrific genetic health. They just don’t have the kind of genius you see in other groups, because a ‘perfect’ genome for that group simply doesn’t have certain features.

      I don’t think that there is much contention over this point, particularly not with C&H.

    • szopeno / Aug 4 2012 6:59 AM

      Wikipedia:
      “The earliest known production of steel is a piece of ironware excavated from an archaeological site in Anatolia (Kaman-Kalehoyuk) and is about 4,000 years old.”
      So the claim sub-saharans invented steel seems to be exaggerated.

      Otherwise, Dan’s post seems to indicate, that it is hard to grasp for some people, that a population with low average IQ may still produce quite a lot of high IQ people, and as such it is able to produce civilisational achievements.

    • JayMan / Aug 5 2012 7:25 PM

      So the claim sub-saharans invented steel seems to be exaggerated.

      The Haya did discover steel independently, so they did indeed invent steel, even if they weren’t the first to do so. Haya knowledge of steel use seems to have been confined to themselves, so their use of steel had little implication for the rest of the world, but it is fascinating that a sub-Saharan people made this discovery.

  8. HBDetective / Jul 26 2012 5:16 AM

    synapticcohesion says:

    This is pathetic. Pseudoscience really gets on my nerves.

    JayMan responds:

    Wow could you even have read this that fast? I haven’t even closed the editing box…

    This is as far as SC needed to read:

    “Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending have recently proposed a hypothesis on their blog that posits that the lower average IQ of tropical peoples–”

    Then an alarm went off and SC’s crime-think module kicked in.

    • Matt / Aug 12 2012 7:23 AM

      but those brains cost just as much per cubic centimeter.

      Why must they? It is probably not that hard to change the number of folds in the brain, or to change brain glucose use, or to change matter density… I’ll admit perhaps it is harder than to simply prolong size growth though.

      This is likely because, as compared to Europeans, Africans tend to be more masculine overall, while East Asians tend to be more feminine. The greater masculinity of African male faces may have rendered them more attractive despite their higher overall genetic load (with the exact opposite likely being true for East Asian males—whose faces probably weren’t ugly per se, just too feminine).

      Interestingly, the relationship between masculinity and attractiveness is inconsistent in males – I think health indicators tend to generally work better in most facial studies I have seen.

      http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013585

      “Here, we used geometric morphometric techniques to assess facial masculinity, generating a morphological masculinity measure based on a discriminant function that correctly classified >96% faces as male or female. When assessed using this measure, there was no relationship between morphological masculinity and rated attractiveness. In contrast, skin colour – a fluctuating, condition-dependent cue – was a significant predictor of attractiveness.”

      Of course, perceived masculinity in face shapes, as distinguished from masculinity derived from shape dimorphism or by comparing adult men with children, may be more related to attractiveness than the dimorphism related measure above.

      http://www.faceresearch.org/feedback/techniques – e.g. see here.

      It seems what is seen as masculine seems a little different from what men are when contrasted to women, or men when contrasted to kids.

      Perhaps African men have more (and Asian men less) of this “perceived masculinity” measure… That would make sense, since they are perceived as more masculine, but presumably would (evolutionarily) want to avoid the consequences of having androgenised women and unhealthily overandrogenised men (while East Asians would evolutionarily want to avoid having estrogenised men and over-estrogenised women), both of which would hit fertility and reproduction heavily.

      One other problem with the East Asians as having better genes and femininity would be that you would expect East Asian women to double dip and get a boost from both, and that East Asian men would lag less than African women… But I do not think this is actually the case.

      http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0035917

      Also, as a note Africans seem more neotenous in terms of face shape than Europeans…

      “Main craniofacial changes indicate that Europeans differ from Southern Africans by increasing facial developmental rates and extending the attainment of adult size and shape. Since other studies have suggested that native subsaharan populations attain adulthood earlier than Europeans, it is probable that facial ontogeny is linked with other developmental mechanisms that control the timing of maturation in other variables. Southern Africans appear as retaining young features in adulthood.”

    • synapticcohesion / Aug 12 2012 8:42 AM

      [Jayman: You make one more substanceless and derogatory comment and you will banned]

    • JayMan / Aug 12 2012 5:48 PM

      The state of research into facial attractiveness appears to be in its infancy. I expect that a lot more discoveries will be made in this area.

      As for the much contentious racial gradient in attractiveness, it seems that the Lewis study is in need of replication, with larger samples in different countries.

  9. synapticcohesion / Aug 12 2012 6:46 PM

    Go ahead. That comment was directed at mainly you anyway. If you can’t handle the truth from outside observers, then make your blog private.

    • JayMan / Aug 12 2012 6:54 PM

      I might be able to get a start if you presented any truth for me to handle…

    • redzengenoist / Aug 14 2012 6:47 PM

      I believe that Jaymans contention with you lies in your lack of citation for your claims (equal to your accusation of Jayman), rather than your over-delivery of “truth”, synaptic.

      Also, please do a google image search for “asian infant brown hair”. Your claim that no East Asians have lighter hair in infancy than adulthood, as is the case in every other brown-haired primate, is unsubstantiated.

    • synapticcohesion / Aug 14 2012 10:21 PM

      redzen:

      [Jayman: You were warned. Goodbye!]

    • synapticcohesion / Aug 14 2012 10:25 PM

      What exactly do you feel that you are lacking in? I am curious.

    • redzengenoist / Aug 16 2012 3:22 PM

      For example, this:

      “Actually, that is not true. There’s no metamorphosis that occurs in Japanese children’s hair as is the case with blonds and red heads. “

  10. DragonHorsee / Dec 19 2012 12:25 AM

    Japanese kids do often have brown hair, a lot of them, but I have rarely seen a Chinese kid with brown hair, and I have not lived in Korea so cannot comment. I have lived in Shanghai, Tokyo, and Taiwan. A lot of brown haired kids in Tokyo, and Japanese are more likely to have light brown eyes than chinese, which tend to have dark brown (black) eyes almost uniformly. In my opinion, based on staying in Tokyo for over a year, Japanese are slightly lighter pigmented than Koreans or Chinese, and on Mainland Asia, from Korea down to Malaysia, people get darker the further South you go…somewhat…I think Cambodians are pretty dark, darker than Malays, but generally what I said is true. I’ve also spent some time in singapore and seen a lot of Filipinos, Malays, people of southern Chinese ancestry (Fujian, Guangdong), etc.

    As far as evidence for Japanese hair color –

    I’m not sure the percentage, but my observations are 30-40% of Japanese kids under 6 have brown hair. It’s not a fixed trait by anymeans, my ex, has two sisters. One had brown hair as a child, but the other to had black hair, but neither have hair as black as mine. Two of the sisters have light brown eyes (like their father), whereas one siste has “black eyes’ like her mother. They are both from Nagano…so central Honshu, not an Ainu area or an area known for heavy immigration historically. Their face features look more Koreans than anything else (very flat faces, small eyes, single lid, a bit taller than average Japanese, almost Central Euro average height).

  11. DragonHorsee / Dec 19 2012 6:31 PM

    Mongolian kids also often have brown hair as children: http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4059/4311355897_f0d063a9db.jpg

    In my experience, Japanese kids are not this light, but lighter than Chinese in hair and eyes (on average).

    You can see two Japanese girls here in an earthquake drill, the one of the left is a common “brown haired” child, the one of the right a “black haired”, but in my experience, before the kids are even 12, there hair is almost always black. Many Japanese have told me that brown haired boys are considered weak or sickly…

    • JayMan / Jan 3 2013 11:40 AM

      Thanks! I’m working on digging deeper into this.

  12. Spinal Chord / Nov 4 2013 8:44 AM

    @Jayman

    Why is there a connection between attractiveness and IQ? Or, as the question should be, why the connection between unattractiveness and lower IQ? In his attempt to explain the lower average attractiveness of Black women, Kanazawa touched on one reason I believe is behind this link.

    That is genetic load.

    Wasn’t there some data that showed that:
    The lower the IQ of a white woman the more attracted to a black man she is?

    Do you know of such study?

    Why would a lower IQ white women be not attracted to a lower IQ white men? Why the sudden shift in racial preferences the lower the IQ?

  13. DragonHorse / Nov 4 2013 9:02 AM

    As far as genetic load and “race”, uhm…white and black Americans carry about the same amount of genetic load…

    http://dienekes.blogspot.tw/2013/05/deleterious-mutational-load-and-recent.html

  14. Christoph Dollis / Mar 26 2014 12:15 AM

    Why don’t the multitude of very beautiful animals in Africa and birds across the tropics generally show the visual results of this differential genetic load you are talking about?

Trackbacks

  1. JayMan’s hypothesis « Secular Blood
  2. How Much Hard Evidence Do You Need? | JayMan's Blog
  3. Beauty and brains: not always together? « JayMan's Blog
  4. Obesity and IQ | JayMan's Blog

Comments are welcome and encouraged. Comments DO NOT require name or email. Your very first comment must be approved by me. Be civil and respectful. NO personal attacks against myself or another commenter. Also, NO sock puppetry. If you assert a claim, please be prepared to support it with evidence upon request. Thank you!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 960 other followers

%d bloggers like this: