What is rarer to find, a genius or an extremely attractive person?

[Zylk]

Magnus Carlsen, considered the best chess player of all time has an IQ of 186. (Consider that having an IQ above 130 is higher than 98% of humanity).




David Gandy, one of the most handsome men in the world, one in a hundred million men.

Less than 0.1% of humanity.


Consider them as examples, you can use others if you wish.

 

[Zylk]

Personal experience: I have met very few extremely attractive people in person, but never a genius.

 

[Enfant terrible]

his iq is not that high
that seem unrealistic
he is probably 140 or something

 

[Enfant terrible]

for example kasparovs iq was measured and he scored 136
i doubt carlsen is much higher

 

[Zylk]

his iq is not that high
that seem unrealistic
he is probably 140 or something

Probably higher than 145+ more than that I don't rule out.

 

[Deleted member 1901]

Very attractive person because the standards are so high, whereas most people are idiots.

 

[dirtydorito]

Hard question since iq is certainly 100% objective but attractiveness at a point can be subjective

and yes I said looks isn’t 100% objective, if users here can find fucking gooks the best looking females then there’s certainly a discrepancy

 

[Zylk]

Very attractive person because the standards are so high, whereas most people are idiots.

Objectively whether the standards are higher or not, it is easy to recognize an extremely attractive person.

 

[Deleted member 18582]

Geniuses are a dime a dozen

The beautiful people are rare……and kissable

 

[DeathlyAware]

They should be around the same. Consider that IQ is also based on a bell curve, where the 99th percentile is 130+, if the most attractive person is also around the 99th percentile in a bell curve of attractiveness, then that's why both should be rare. However, the difference is that IQ can be measured in studies and surveys, while attractiveness cannot be.

 

[fauxfox]

If you met a genius, how are you truly supposed to know? I feel like most geniuses would know how to blend in. Meanwhile an extremely attractive person will always appear attractive to those around them.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

There is only like a few thousand true geniuses every century.

 

[Zylk]

View attachment 1722217

They should be around the same. Consider that IQ is also based on a bell curve, where the 99th percentile is 130+, if the most attractive person is also around the 99th percentile in a bell curve of attractiveness, then that's why both should be rare. However, the difference is that IQ can be measured in studies and surveys, while attractiveness cannot be.

Consider that many users here who believe that physical attractiveness is objective. PSL System

 

[jaw_is_law]

a true genius is rare probably one in 100 million

but an extremely attractive genius is like 1 in 8 billion thats more rare and probably more or less nonexistent

however Intelligence and IQ is not fixed, you can always do things to improve your intelligence

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Consider that many users here who believe that physical attractiveness is objective. PSL System

Chad is supposed to be like one in a thousand. Which is the same as the standard definition of genius. So both should be the same in rarity.

 

[Blackgymmax]

A genius savant

 

[Zylk]

If you met a genius, how are you truly supposed to know? I feel like most geniuses would know how to blend in. Meanwhile an extremely attractive person will always appear attractive to those around them.

I don't know, I think many geniuses are highly inhibited, they would act in a very sincere way when talking about many topics.

I mean, they would have to have a fairly developed emotional intelligence to act in such a way, most geniuses tend to have asocial behaviors.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

a true genius is rare probably one in 100 million

but an extremely attractive genius is like 1 in 8 billion thats more rare and probably more or less nonexistent

however Intelligence and IQ is not fixed, you can always do things to improve your intelligence

Good genes come in a package, the likelyhood of being both is higher than you'd think.

 

[Zylk]

Good genes come in a package, the likelyhood of being both is higher than you'd think.

Dolph Lundgren

 

[DeathlyAware]

Consider that many users here who believe that physical attractiveness is objective. PSL System

Yeah but unfortunately, that's pseudo objectiveness, we attempt to make an objective system and yet none of us can come to a consensus on the PSL of many PSLgods, looksmaxxers,celebs etc..
Look at how many rating threads there are, there are rarely any agreements. IQ can be objectively measured with a test and PSL has no such equivalent.

 

[ALP]

Genius.

And if you gave me a chance to become one, i d prefer genius.

attractive genius is like 1 in 8 billion thats more rare and probably more or less nonexistent

Nikola Tesla, 6'2 + Handsome.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

I don't know, I think many geniuses are highly inhibited, they would act in a very sincere way when talking about many topics.

I mean, they would have to have a fairly developed emotional intelligence to act in such a way, most geniuses tend to have asocial behaviors.

How do you know that? We both have probably only met like 1 actual genius in our entire lives.

Im sure there isn't much of a correlation with extreme intellect and asocial behaviour.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Genius.

And if you gave me a chance to become one, i d prefer genius.


Nikola Tesla, 6'2 + Handsome.

He was like 6.5+ psl. A true genetic elite.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Yeah but unfortunately, that's pseudo objectiveness, we attempt to make an objective system and yet none of us can come to a consensus on the PSL of many PSLgods, looksmaxxers,celebs etc..
Look at how many rating threads there are, there are rarely any agreements. IQ can be objectively measured with a test and PSL has no such equivalent.

IQ isn't intellect. It doesn't directly correlate. PSL is the same, it's correlated with beauty.

Neither IQ or PSL is directly measuring, they're estimates.

 

[jaw_is_law]

Consider that many users here who believe that physical attractiveness is objective. PSL System

there is no such thing as attractiveness, all of your traits and features are simply the result of your environment and your ancestors environments. You are who you are now because of what part of the world your ancestors lived in. why some people have dark skin and some people have light skin is because of what environment their ancestors lived in.

Good genes come in a package, the likelyhood of being both is higher than you'd think.

not at all, being attractive is simply a sexual selection trait, and being extremely attractive is top 99.99% percentile

having a astronomical IQ is also 99.99% percentile

so having both is a statistical anomaly

also being attractive means you are handed things easily in life meaning you dont have to overcome struggles and hardships meaning your more likely to be a weak pussy and not take care of yourself, an uglier guy is more likely to be ostracized and not invited to social groups giving him more time to spend studying and reading therefore over time that uglier guy even if he does have bad genes he still is able to improve his intelligence by reading

chad even if he is high IQ doesn't need to use his high IQ and because the brain works more or less like a muscle if chad doesn't exercise his brain he will never reach his full potential and he doesent have to worry about studying to get good grades so he is more likely to just go out to parties and drink, do drugs and smoke which are all known things that lower your IQ

 

[Wallenberg]

IQ isn't intellect. It doesn't directly correlate. PSL is the same, it's correlated with beauty.

Neither IQ or PSL is directly measuring, they're estimates.

What is the difference between IQ and intellect?

 

[DeathlyAware]

IQ isn't intellect. It doesn't directly correlate. PSL is the same, it's correlated with beauty.

Neither IQ or PSL is directly measuring, they're estimates.

Yeah, I'd agree that geniuses aren't necessarily correlated with IQ, however I'm going with OPs definition of 130+ IQ person. IQ measurements are estimates but it is still far more accurate than PSL, because PSL will always be a lot more subjective and vary wildly.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

What is the difference between IQ and intellect?

IQ is the score you get after taking an IQ test. It stands for 'intelligence quotient', it's an attempt to measure a human's intelligence, most modern tests probably correlate with true intelligence at around .5 - .7.

 

[Zylk]

How do you know that? We both have probably only met like 1 actual genius in our entire lives.

Im sure there isn't much of a correlation with extreme intellect and asocial behaviour.

From what I understand, gifted people in psychology are analyzed with isolation problems, suffering from psychosocial stress.

To have an intellectual capacity superior to the 90th percentile in all the areas of intelligence can give the result of maladjustment.

That is to say, most of the society is built for people with average capacities, a genius would have to get used to it since it is not built for him, it would not be strange to me that he would end up with asocial behaviors.

 

[Zylk]

One example is James Sidis.

A mathematical genius who never formed an interpersonal relationship with a woman, and very few with friends, and distanced himself from his parents, basically became almost a hermit. He died of a stroke at about 45 years of age.



GIGAOVER

 

[OldRooster]

For some reason I have it in my mind that "genius" is specifically defined as top 3% in IQ, I think that comes from Mensa qualification guidelines. So based up that definition it is not that rare to be a genius. However that is probably a dated and overly generous number. I think top 2% could be legit described as Genius.

so, to answer OP, they are about equally common somewhat by definition, because both are described using the same adjective, "exceptional"

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Yeah, I'd agree that geniuses aren't necessarily correlated with IQ, however I'm going with OPs definition of 130+ IQ person. IQ measurements are estimates but it is still far more accurate than PSL, because PSL will always be a lot more subjective and vary wildly.

Most people agree within 1psl point. Everyone can agree that Gandy or Opry are 7+ psl, they're obviously extremely far above average. People can tell someone is a normie, you can argue if they're 3.5psl or 4.5 psl.

Psl is also not very old and we rely on just ticking boxes. We haven't created any formula for the importance of each trait, if we can get an idea of just how important a good jaw or eye area is, psl accuracy will increase. Perhaps to a .5 point variance.

 

[Zylk]

For some reason I have it in my mind that "genius" is specifically defined as top 3% in IQ, I think that comes from Mensa qualification guidelines. So based up that definition it is not that rare to be a genius. However that is probably a dated and overly generous number. I think top 2% could be legit described as Genius.

so, to answer OP, they are about equally common somewhat by definition, because both are described using the same adjective, "exceptional"

Mensa is the Cope Larp Supreme organization, the majority in that organization has an IQ OF 120.

Autistics with individual abilities, do not take into account those retards.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

there is no such thing as attractiveness, all of your traits and features are simply the result of your environment and your ancestors environments. You are who you are now because of what part of the world your ancestors lived in. why some people have dark skin and some people have light skin is because of what environment their ancestors lived in.

not at all, being attractive is simply a sexual selection trait, and being extremely attractive is top 99.99% percentile

having a astronomical IQ is also 99.99% percentile

so having both is a statistical anomaly

also being attractive means you are handed things easily in life meaning you dont have to overcome struggles and hardships meaning your more likely to be a weak pussy and not take care of yourself, an uglier guy is more likely to be ostracized and not invited to social groups giving him more time to spend studying and reading therefore over time that uglier guy even if he does have bad genes he still is able to improve his intelligence by reading

chad even if he is high IQ doesn't need to use his high IQ and because the brain works more or less like a muscle if chad doesn't exercise his brain he will never reach his full potential and he doesent have to worry about studying to get good grades so he is more likely to just go out to parties and drink, do drugs and smoke which are all known things that lower your IQ

IQ and looks are correlated because both good looking people and highly inteligent people tend to climb up the social hierarchy and reproduce with each other.

The good looking gold digger with a rich betabux is a perfect example. Their children are likely to have higher intellect and looks.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Mensa is the Cope Larp Supreme organization, the majority in that organization has an IQ OF 120.

Autistics with individual abilities, do not take into account those retards.

You need an IQ of at least 130 to join though.

 

[DeathlyAware]

Most people agree within 1psl point. Everyone can agree that Gandy or Opry are 7+ psl, they're obviously extremely far above average. People can tell someone is a normie, you can argue if they're 3.5psl or 4.5 psl.

Psl is also not very old and we rely on just ticking boxes. We haven't created any formula for the importance of each trait, if we can get an idea of just how important a good jaw or eye area is, psl accuracy will increase. Perhaps to a .5 point variance.

The variance of one point in PSL is still too high compared to IQ measurements. For example, if one person says Gandy is 9 PSL, while the other says 8 PSL, it changes from 99th percentile to 80th percentile. It would be like adjusting someone's IQ from 130 to 120, 130 is very rare, while 120 is just uncommon, above average IQ. Even .5 is too high, if PSL can ever be narrowed to .2, that would be the most accurate.

 

[Zylk]

You need an IQ of at least 130 to join though.

Gigacope, Mensa is only interested in making profits, the IQ is almost an excuse. Obviously you need to be smart but not as smart as they ask for

 

[Deleted member 17791]

The variance of one point in PSL is still too high compared to IQ measurements. For example, if one person says Gandy is 9 PSL, while the other says 8 PSL, it changes from 99th percentile to 80th percentile. It would be like adjusting someone's IQ from 130 to 120, 130 is very rare, while 120 is just uncommon, above average IQ. Even .5 is too high, if PSL can ever be narrowed to .2, that would be the most accurate.

8PSL is the highest you can get, it is aesthetic perfect. There also isn't a rarity attached to PSL, it's a check list for how many ideal traits you have.

I don't think anyone has measured how rare a perfect face is yet. We don't know the SD yet.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Gigacope, Mensa is only interested in making profits, the IQ is almost an excuse. Obviously you need to be smart but not as smart as they ask for

You think they inflate your score?

 

[DeathlyAware]

8PSL is the highest you can get, it is aesthetic perfect. There also isn't a rarity attached to PSL, it's a check list for how many ideal traits you have.

I don't think anyone has measured how rare a perfect face is yet. We don't know the SD yet.

Yes, because if anyone objectively measured it, there would be disagreements. There still isn't a consensus on how anything is rated on this forum, that's why there are so many different rating threads.

 

[Zylk]

You think they inflate your score?

Yes

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Yes, because if anyone objectively measured it, there would be disagreements. There still isn't a consensus on how anything is rated on this forum, that's why there are so many different rating threads.

We do agree on who is giga chad and who isn't. We can all agree if someone is ugly and around just how much.

Those debate threads on which psl god mogs is over like 0.1 points.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

@ForeverRecession wants to know the odds of being both.

 

[jaw_is_law]

One example is James Sidis.

A mathematical genius who never formed an interpersonal relationship with a woman, and very few with friends, and distanced himself from his parents, basically became almost a hermit. He died of a stroke at about 45 years of age.

View attachment 1722230

GIGAOVER

what a fucking chad

 

[Zylk]

@ForeverRecession wants to know the odds of being both.

View attachment 1722236
View attachment 1722237

Just take an internet test to qualify all your intellectual abilities theory

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Just take an internet test to qualify all your intellectual abilities theory

How rare do you think being both would be?

 

[Zylk]

How rare do you think being both would be?

Being extremely handsome and intelligent at the same time? Very rare, it's already rare to see an average asian overachiever.

Although I think being good looking and intelligent in softer measures is more normal than it seems

 

[Deleted member 19567]

A genius is probably more rarer by a large margin. Ive seen lots of men that mog gandy even out in the street. There's a lot of attractive people tbh. And while attractiveness is somewhat subjective, it still shares objective aspects and has a hard cap. It also does not scale as much because of that subjectiveness.

While a genius remains extremely rare, no matter what. If society gets smarter, a genius is still the extremely rare cream of the crop. Its hard to put a genius in a box with other geniuses, or subjectify them. Its more bound by the rule of "smarter than smart, smarter than the smartest"

 

[DeathlyAware]

We do agree on who is giga chad and who isn't. We can all agree if someone is ugly and around just how much.

Those debate threads on which psl god mogs is over like 0.1 points.

Yes, same way everyone can agree on binary yes/no attractiveness. However, comparing gigachads to gigachads, it'll vary, and comparing normies to normies, it'll vary. For example:
https://looksmax.org/threads/who-mogs-face-only.117459/
this thread is a mog battle of Chico vs Brad Pitt, the votes are 60/40 almost an even split, proving that attractiveness still cannot be agreed on.

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Being extremely handsome and intelligent at the same time? Very rare, it's already rare to see an average asian overachiever.

Although I think being good looking and intelligent in softer measures is more normal than it seems

I agree. Being a 120IQ with 6/10 face is pretty normal actually. Because both good looks and intellect rise in status and reproduce with each other.

Having a genius IQ is usually because of a mutation, so the correlation with looks wouldn't exist at that point.