Should superiority be defined by looks or iq

[ChangPilled_]

Basically, I had a question in my mind about whether or not looks mattered more than iq for determining “superiority

For example many people can confidently say East Asians (on average) tend to be more developed and more educated and advanced than most of the south East Asian populations, however in terms of objective attractiveness it’s clear South Asians have better features and overall higher psl than East Asians for obvious reasons (better bones more forward growth etc)

Again this poses another hypothetical question for us, if humanity were to have met an intellectually superior ugly alien species, would we interpret them more positivpey or negatively than an alien species with mogger bones and overall appearance with lower intelligence (not like animals but clearly less than humans)

 

[goykiller]

I would say that it's a mixture of both to a degree. Though, in terms of pure superiority, I would argue that it's the inherent skill that any one person has to inflict their will upon others. Both ugly and dumb people have held positions of power throughout human history, so that's kinda irrelevant on a large scale. A person also needs to know how to speak to the masses and break down complex topics into easily digestible ones that normies can understand. You can have just slightly above surface-level knowledge on any one given topic, but if you can explain that to a normie by using good examples and wording, they'll treat you like a genius.

You don't actually have to be smart at all; you just have to sound smart enough for people to want to follow you.

 

[bp_1]

Basically, I had a question in my mind about whether or not looks mattered more than iq for determining “superiority

For example many people can confidently say East Asians (on average) tend to be more developed and more educated and advanced than most of the south East Asian populations, however in terms of objective attractiveness it’s clear South Asians have better features and overall higher psl than East Asians for obvious reasons (better bones more forward growth etc)

Again this poses another hypothetical question for us, if humanity were to have met an intellectually superior ugly alien species, would we interpret them more positivpey or negatively than an alien species with mogger bones and overall appearance with lower intelligence (not like animals but clearly less than humans)

superiority should not be defined by deterministic things which most people are unable to control due to lack of knowledge and the entire frame work which brainwashes them

true superiority should be defined by ur will to uphold morals within the capacity u hold
because everyones capacty is different, some hold very low capacity, again due to it's random and deterministic nature so whatever they do within that capacity to the fullest makes them superior

a simple analoogy would be i need 100 usd, but anna has only 10 usd, she gives me all 10, while josh has 2 million usd, but only gives me 10 usd. even tho we both know each other and have been friends for 10+ years

 

[esoterik]

what does this even mean? you need to first define superiority

 

[IOD]

Everybody already cares about looks way more obviously, and it's a much easier way to rank people on a social level then iq. Whether it should be, I believe looks should still stay the ranking system. Both of them are all genetics anyway and looks are easier to identify plus it's very possible to change your looks, having merit award you on a social system is an absolute should, rather then IQ which is all genetics. Plus many people with high iqs live meaningless lives, successful people are made with discipline as well.