Looks vs Intelligence

[Emil Miller]

In the thread How smart are you, Alexander 111 tells us that he is handsome but of below average intelligence.
If you had the choice between good looks and intelligence, which would you choose, assuming that you are not already in possession of both qualities ?

[Delta40]

Well, as everything heads south, I'll go with - a modicum of intelligence (I may have felt differently some years back!)

[LitNetIsGreat]

I wouldn't like to say where I am on the looks-intelligence scale in reality, I'll leave that to the praise of others...(:biggrin5:), but if it were a choice, I'd cheat and take a healthy balance, a pinch of each, if I could.

Certainly though, in reality I see many, many students (so presumably intelligent) who are very, very good looking. So I don't think that it is an either/or choice - not that I am suggesting you are suggesting such - just that I don't know where the geeky/unattractive intelligent stereotype comes from. Also, I come across many 'nesbit types' who are fairly repulsive in looks and manner, so I wonder if there is a link there instead? Though I don't want to drag lazy stereotypes up again, upsetting people and all...

So, anyway, I'd take a bit of each.:coolgleamA:

[SleepyWitch]

In the thread How smart are you, Alexander 111 tells us that he is handsome but of below average intelligence.
If you had the choice between good looks and intelligence, which would you choose, assuming that you are not already in possession of both qualities ?

If he were literary of below average intelligence, he wouldn't be able to post anything coherent on this forum.

Anyway, I think some good-looking people who come across as less than smart might be potentially a lot more intelligent than they seem. I think some people can get by in life on their good looks and don't need to use their intellect so it atrophies after a while.

[Alexander III]

Well, now I feel vain. I should clarify, people tell me I am handsome, for what others say there is a general consensus it appears to me; it's not like I look in the mirror and declare myself handsome, I have never been able to tell by looking into a mirror if I am handsome or not.

And I have taken a couple of IQ tests and my IQ is at 95. So yea I am bellow average. It's not like I cant tie my shoe laces and forget how to breath. Just my IQ is bellow that which is average. I have always been mediocre at best in school and such. But I think I am quite able to converse about things on a forum, I assure you it doesn't take a genius to talk about thoughts on the internet.

As to the choice - well I am rather content as I am with my life, so I would not change anything. But I think if people had a choice, few people would change away from what they are; I mean we all may not have much, but at least what we have is ours and there is a sense of pride and honor in that, which cant be replaced.

[cl154576]

It would be nice to have some of both, which is probably what most people have. But if they were mutually exclusive – by God, intelligence.

In school there are so many little vain girls who run around squealing and primping and shrieking hysterically all the time. If I ever hated a class of people collectively it's them. They're coarse. Uneducated. Unprincipled. Racist, hypocritical, superficial, etc., etc., etc. They mock anything they can't understand (namely the entire world outside of makeup, nail polish and clothing). At eleven they can't spell correctly and they struggle over addition but they know how to run around half-naked, pick up a new boyfriend every week, and spend hours whining in the bathroom about how lovesick they are. It's appalling.

Supposedly when I was little I looked good. At any rate now I've ruined my body through neglect. I can't be troubled to take care of it when I have something engrossing to think about. A lot of times I look into the mirror and regret it, especially what I've done to my eyesight, but – it can't be helped.

[Lokasenna]

One thing I will say is that looks always fade eventually, while intelligence does not (except in unfortunate cases with dementia and Alzheimer's and so forth).

I'm in no position to comment really, but I value intelligence far more than physical beauty. And as for those who have both, I'll sit in my corner quietly hating them.

[Kyriakos]

When i was 8 i was thinking that there is a clear correlation between looks and intelligence, in that only good-looking people could allow themselves to develop "to the fullest" since they would not have been burdened by misery due to insufficiently good looks.

Was i correct? Well, lets put it this way:

When i was 17 i thought that only people who don't look great can be very intelligent, since they would force themselves to focus on intelligence so as to make up for what they lack in perfection of looks.

Now i think that it is impossible to form any such equation between looks and intelligence. The ancient Greek "kalos kagathos" (good-looking and good-souled) is an ideal which i accept as positive, but it is very rare. It is more something to strive for i guess :)

[Varenne Rodin]

I feel very fortunate in both areas, though I didn't always like my looks. I thank my mother (a model/artist) and my father (a harmonica player/songwriter) for their excellent DNA.

I would choose brains over beauty. No question.


One thing I will say is that looks always fade eventually, while intelligence does not (except in unfortunate cases with dementia and Alzheimer's and so forth).

I'm in no position to comment really, but I value intelligence far more than physical beauty. And as for those who have both, I'll sit in my corner quietly hating them.

Then you must hate yourself, Lokasenna, for you are beautiful and brilliant. Your face is serene and worthy of sculpture.

[Maximilianus]

I was never satisfied with the physical me, especially my stupid face and my even more stupid head shape. However, I wouldn't like to be a brainless cute face with a brainless grin from ear to ear, only capable of luring brainless women.


I'm in no position to comment really, but I value intelligence far more than physical beauty. And as for those who have both, I'll sit in my corner quietly hating them.
That's exactly what I feel for Mary Josephine (a classmate). She has it all. I hate that woman! :p

I feel it all depends on the environment where one moves. There are places where looks don't matter, there are places where they are the only thing that matters, and the same goes for intelligence. I recall a journalist saying something like "She doesn't need to know the answer to this question. She's just a model. In her profession brains are unnecessary."

[SleepyWitch]

Well, now I feel vain. I should clarify, people tell me I am handsome, for what others say there is a general consensus it appears to me; it's not like I look in the mirror and declare myself handsome, I have never been able to tell by looking into a mirror if I am handsome or not.

And I have taken a couple of IQ tests and my IQ is at 95. So yea I am bellow average. It's not like I cant tie my shoe laces and forget how to breath. Just my IQ is bellow that which is average. I have always been mediocre at best in school and such. But I think I am quite able to converse about things on a forum, I assure you it doesn't take a genius to talk about thoughts on the internet.



You're not below average, you are lower average


from http://www.iqtest-center.com/iq-scores.php

Grade Range
Genius 144
Gifted 130-144
Above average 115-129
Higher average 100-114
Lower average 85-99
Below average 70-84
Borderline low 55-69
Low <55

[Maximilianus]

I once got a 126 on one test I took. I may now be deteriorated though... life has mistreated my head harshly :rolleyes:

[Rores28]

There's almost no way that your IQ is 95. The test was mishandled or you were nervous or something. To be able to read the literature you do and contribute to the discussion you do on here that score is ludicrous.

Even if the test did output that number it would be silly to think in your case that it means much of anything. Intelligence is a quality that cannot be easily defined by any single test, not that the tests are completely useless or anything, but I wouldn't put much stock in that score.

[Vonny]

Then you must hate yourself, Lokasenna, for you are beautiful and brilliant. Your face is serene and worthy of sculpture.

Yes exactly Varenne. I thought the same thing when I read that post, that he must hate himself, only Loka has no hate. He has so much of intelligence and looks and indescribable qualities, along with that serenity, that it seems there's a supernatural quality to him. More than anything, when I look at him, there's that serenity that's captivating, and so I keep following him around making a fool of myself, but it isn't because I'm dumb, there's a few things I know. I've never seen a more natural being than Lokasenna, and yet I ask myself, "Is he real?" It's not that I want to get into his world or anything, but since the first time I saw him, I can't take my eyes off him, because there's a perfection to him, and his face and writing have a joy and serenity. I know he rants like anyone else, but still there's a purity that doesn't go away. (oh, please no one respond. I feel embarrassed all the time. I've always hated making a spectacle of myself.)

[Varenne Rodin]

Yes exactly Varenne. I thought the same thing when I read that post, that he must hate himself, only Loka has no hate. He has so much of intelligence and looks and indescribable qualities, along with that serenity, that it seems there's a supernatural quality to him. More than anything, when I look at him, there's that serenity that's captivating, and so I keep following him around making a fool of myself, but it isn't because I'm dumb, there's a few things I know. I've never seen a more natural being than Lokasenna, and yet I ask myself, "Is he real?" It's not that I want to get into his world or anything, but since the first time I saw him, I can't take my eyes off him, because there's a perfection to him, and his face and writing have a joy and serenity. I know he rants like anyone else, but still there's a purity that doesn't go away. (oh, please no one respond. I feel embarrassed all the time. I've always hated making a spectacle of myself.)

Vonny, I must respond! Haha. You are a little darling. I don't believe Lokasenna can be anything but flattered by your tribute. Just be careful, dear heart, you might find yourself embroiled in one of those genuine forum friendships you so dislike. :D

Hahaha. Lovely Lokasenna. Imagine his blush at this!

[Hawkman]

I think one needs to clarrify what is meant by intelligence. There are all kinds of smarts.

There's problem solving intelligence, which I have seen some birds perform relatively successfully. (I'm talking parrots here) and then there's low cunning, being able to work out how to get what you want from someone else. Then there's Intellect. Doesn't mean much this, I've known people who could think the legs off a donky and out=talk a game show host, who nevertheless, seemed incablable of cooking themselves a meal or working out how to get the top off a coffee jar!

Then there's the question of how do you define good looking? I have seen people who would not necessarily be regarded as classically attractive, but still possess such poise and grace that they draw the eye and fascinate. Quite frankly the question is meaningless without a common frame of reference.

[Emil Miller]

Then there's the question of how do you define good looking? I have seen people who would not necessarily be regarded as classically attractive, but still possess such poise and grace that they draw the eye and fascinate. Quite frankly the question is meaningless without a common frame of reference.

Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder so, for the sake of reference, let each contributor use his/her yardstick in deciding who they would prefer to look like, or not should they decide that intelligence, regardless of how it's measured, is preferable.

[cl154576]

I think one needs to clarrify what is meant by intelligence. There are all kinds of smarts.

There's problem solving intelligence, which I have seen some birds perform relatively successfully. (I'm talking parrots here) and then there's low cunning, being able to work out how to get what you want from someone else. Then there's Intellect. Doesn't mean much this, I've known people who could think the legs off a donky and out=talk a game show host, who nevertheless, seemed incablable of cooking themselves a meal or working out how to get the top off a coffee jar!

That's true. Although I doubt his IQ is low, if nothing else Alexander certainly has the intelligence of dressing well.

[Vonny]

Vonny, I must respond! Haha. You are a little darling. I don't believe Lokasenna can be anything but flattered by your tribute. Just be careful, dear heart, you might find yourself embroiled in one of those genuine forum friendships you so dislike. :D

Hahaha. Lovely Lokasenna. Imagine his blush at this!

He won't notice us. He's busy on the Scandinavian thread. You probably don't have a Mormon heritage, but if you get him first, you have to share Varenne, that's the deal. ... :lol: It's a joke!! Need to make that plain!

I have to quit this for a while. I'm really not kidding about it. :) Every day I want to click on this site, but I hesitate for a long time because I feel very nervous and queasy about it. For some reason, this forum, even though I love it, triggers my nervous system. I mean, this is just not me. I never knew what anonymity bring out in me. At the same time, I feel that someone I know could easily recognize me here - eeesh! I keep thinking that I won't say something I shouldn't again, but then for some reason, I can't resist doing it!

[Delta40]

What about money? Would you choose between beauty, intelligence or money?

[Varenne Rodin]

He won't notice us. He's busy on the Scandinavian thread. You probably don't have a Mormon heritage, but if you get him first, you have to share Varenne, that's the deal. ... :lol: It's a joke!! Need to make that plain!

I have to quit this for a while. I'm really not kidding about it. :) Every day I want to click on this site, but I hesitate for a long time because I feel very nervous and queasy about it. For some reason, this forum, even though I love it, triggers my nervous system. I mean, this is just not me. I never knew what anonymity bring out in me. At the same time, I feel that someone I know could easily recognize me here - eeesh! I keep thinking that I won't say something I shouldn't again, but then for some reason, I can't resist doing it!

No worries, Vonny. I'm not in the market for a Lokasenna, sweet as he may be.

Nervous feelings? It sounds to me like these boards are your door to adulthood. I like doing things that scare me. Where's the harm? People enjoy your words. If anyone doesn't, real world or forum world, throw them away or laugh at them. Who cares? Be yourself. :D

[OrphanPip]

I would like to be beautiful and so stupid I wouldn't know what I'm missing (but not stupid enough to eat the paste).

Edit: I know this would make me successful in love, because lord knows I love them pretty and dumb.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Really, this forum is getting quite steamy of late. Time you lot should take a cold shower methinks!!!

[JuniperWoolf]

And I have taken a couple of IQ tests and my IQ is at 95. So yea I am bellow average.

Don't put too much stock in IQ tests, bloody puzzle solving is just one minor aspect of human intelligence and IQ tests don't pick up on much more than that (some memory, some basic math, but beyond that they're severely lacking in scope). They wouldn't be able to pick up on the genius of Shakespeare, or Picasso, or Beethoven because they don't measure that kind of intelligence. You're not below average, trust me, I can tell.

Anyway, I'm cool where I am in both the looks and the intelligence departments. I'd choose not to change. However, if it were a choice between the two, I'd pick.... hmmm..... hard question. Intelligence I guess. At least if you're ugly strangers tend not to paw at you but I can't see any benefits to being stupid.


Really, this forum is getting quite steamy of late. Time you lot should take a cold shower methinks!!!

:p Aww, it's just the human condition dear Neely. Let them drool over Welsh boys, I think it's sweet.

{edit}

[G L Wilson]

Dumb is the new genius.

[JuniperWoolf]

Dumb is the new genius.

Non sequitur is the new deep.

[Revolte]

I'd have to go with intellect. Good looks aren't general anyway. One person might find someone physically attractive, while the other might not. Intellect isn't much different I suppose. I'm not really sure what it means to be smart (parroting seems to be a popular understanding of intelligence, and that doesn't seem right). But if both where concrete, I'd have to go with being smart as apposed to being sexy.

But for now I guess I'll just have to accept both. :willy_nilly:

[Paulclem]

I remembered an interesting news article I read a few years ago about women dating ugly blokes.

http://www.livescience.com/7483-beautiful-women-marry-attractive-men.html

By the way - genital anxiety? People worry too much.

[Scheherazade]

.

R e m i n d e r

This Forum is open to many people from different age, cultural, social and religious backgrounds.

All off-topic posts have been removed.

.

[jajdude]

Topic reminds me of a comedian who said something like, "We're always amazed when really attractive people are not dummies... see that girl over there, not only is she beautiful but she can read!"

Also reminds me of something I read ages ago:
"Beauty is the gold coin of human worth; intelligence the silver."

Another old one went something like this: "A beautiful appearance wins over any introduction."

Not saying these are true but it's hard to know if strangers are smart, yet obvious what they look like, and a lot easier to judge really.

[G L Wilson]

When you are tired of the kids, you can always go to Disneyland.

[Emil Miller]

Topic reminds me of a comedian who said something like, "We're always amazed when really attractive people are not dummies... see that girl over there, not only is she beautiful but she can read!"

Also reminds me of something I read ages ago:
"Beauty is the gold coin of human worth; intelligence the silver."

Another old one went something like this: "A beautiful appearance wins over any introduction."

Not saying these are true but it's hard to know if strangers are smart, yet obvious what they look like, and a lot easier to judge really.

I think it is true because beauty, especially in women, is much rarer than plainness. Intelligence, on the other hand, is similarly variable but it's not a visible quality and can only be assessed over a period of time whereas beauty is instantly recognisable.

[Alexander III]

But I think the thing about both beauty and intelligence, is that they are cultivated.

Personally, I am handsome, but I am quite sure that if I didn't not take care of myself with such attention, I would be plain. Likewise someone who is plain right now, if they started taking care of themselves and paying attention to appearance they could become handsome.

I think personal beauty, like any other thing (literature, biology, mathematics, philosophy, politics, ect) is a subject in which one must invest time in order to achieve success and maser it. Weather or not one wishes to invest in it is a decision like another. And like any subject it attracts both those of immense intellect (Wilde, Byron, Baudelaire) and those whom we deem, well less - Look at the tv, now look back at me, now look back at the tv, the woman there she is what I most likely refer to, now looks back at me....

I have always liked this quote by Baudelaire "no profession other than elegance ... no other status, but that of cultivating the idea of beauty in their own persons ... The dandy must aspire to be sublime without interruption; he must live and sleep before a mirror."

I suppose in that regard I am very vain -

I direct your general attention to this video (do not watch if you are younger than 16) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gckUWpwjR40&feature=related

I must sadly say that I have had moments like that - such as being unable to not admire myself in the mirror at all times, even when I am copulating - and the "don't touch the watch" bit at the end, I sadly say I have done something lie that often.

But then one cannot be a dandy, unless one is in such utter love with ones self.

And to direct you guys to another Partick Bateman video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiQmO4W3bfI

That is more or less my morning routine down to a tea.

This is not good, that I am using Patrick Bateman to demonstrate what I am like...

Ah dam that last post was meant for the On Fashion thread, woops, for some reason I saw Emiles comment and assumed we were on that thread. I am starting to mix up all the threads now.

[Delta40]

They say first impressions do count. As much as we deny our shallowness, initially at least, beauty receives better treatment.

[G L Wilson]

They say first impressions do count. As much as we deny our shallowness, initially at least, beauty receives better treatment.

Oscar Wilde would have agreed with you: appearances do matter. But I delight in the intellect as he did, therefore I am always looking for the spark behind the eyes.

[Delta40]

Was Oscar Wilde good looking though?

[G L Wilson]

Was Oscar Wilde good looking though?

He wasn't bad looking.

[Delta40]

I've never read him but since he was attractive - I might!

[G L Wilson]

I've never read him but since he was attractive - I might!

He wasn't good looking either but I find his intelligence very attractive which adds to his looks. I wouldn't have turned for him but I might turn for Stephen Fry.

[Delta40]

ugh! I cannot watch Stephen Fry. Repulsive man although I hear he is quite brilliant. See? Looks really do count.

[LitNetIsGreat]

ugh! I cannot watch Stephen Fry. Repulsive man although I hear he is quite brilliant. See? Looks really do count.

You can't dislike a man who liked Wilde so much. (Well I suppose you can but I simply won't allow it.)

Here for you (and relevant to the thread):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrMtZimb0-c

Brilliant as always.

[Paulclem]

Did you know that Fry and Laurie used to live together in their early days, and they had plasterers round once who were Paul Whitehouse and Charlie Higson of future Fast Show fame. I thought that was amazing.

[G L Wilson]

ugh! I cannot watch Stephen Fry. Repulsive man although I hear he is quite brilliant. See? Looks really do count.

Beauty is only skin deep but ugly goes right to the bone. I don't know what it is with me and Stephen Fry but sure as hell I know what I see in Emma Thompson.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Did you know that Fry and Laurie used to live together in their early days, and they had plasterers round once who were Paul Whitehouse and Charlie Higson of future Fast Show fame. I thought that was amazing.

No, I knew that they used to live together for a while, but I didn't know that story. Perhaps Fry and Laurie gave them a hand up or they kept in touch somehow or maybe it is just one of those strange coincidences?

[Paulclem]

From how they said it - on QI - I presume that it was just one of those strange coincidences.

[YW1990]

I would like to be beautiful and so stupid I wouldn't know what I'm missing (but not stupid enough to eat the paste).

Edit: I know this would make me successful in love, because lord knows I love them pretty and dumb.

Yep, i'd have to agree with you.
I love people who are intellectual and intelligent. I find it to be the most attractive qualities in both men and women. But if i were given the choice to be smart or attractive, i'd choose attractive. It all erodes back upon my belief that the more one knows the the heavier they become. Some say that knowledge liberates you. I agree to a point. I agree more that knowledge weighs you down. In other words, i'd rather be happy and dumb!

[tonywalt]

Yep, i'd have to agree with you.
I love people who are intellectual and intelligent. I find it to be the most attractive qualities in both men and women. But if i were given the choice to be smart or attractive, i'd choose attractive. It all erodes back upon my belief that the more one knows the the heavier they become. Some say that knowledge liberates you. I agree to a point. I agree more that knowledge weighs you down. In other words, i'd rather be happy and dumb!

They're are so many Beautiful Dumb People that are happy, I tend to agree with you.

[Buh4Bee]

You can always pretend to be stupid, but you can't pretend to be smart.

[Arrowni]

If you pretend you're stupid, are you really being smart?

[Buh4Bee]

Well, if you are trying to get someone in your bed and that strategy works- I'd say, your pretty smart. For a long term commitment, no!


In the thread How smart are you, Alexander 111 tells us that he is handsome but of below average intelligence.
If you had the choice between good looks and intelligence, which would you choose, assuming that you are not already in possession of both qualities ?

Just to keep on topic.

[cranberry]

nice question...id want both ,,but since its just choose one: intelligence ;) although Thanks God for Both.

thankyou for the thread.

[Alexander III]

If you are beautiful you appear intelligent, true beauty always appears perfect in all else.

If you are intelligent you do not appear beautiful, intelligence is to limited to reason to be beautiful.

[Darcy88]

Intelligence, definitely intelligence. Your looks matter little when you are by yourself, and as a somewhat bookish person I spend a fair bit of time alone. And of course your looks will fade but your mind need not. The only benefit my looks have given me has been my increased appeal to members of the opposite sex, and yet I see men who most would not consider particularly good-looking who have equal or better luck in that department than I. Your mind benefits you each and every moment, when thinking, conversing, reading, enjoying works of art, ect. The same can not be said of looks.

And honestly, who do you admire more, the calvin klein model or the nobel prize winning author or scientist?

[PoeticPassions]

Intelligence, definitely intelligence. Your looks matter little when you are by yourself, and as a somewhat bookish person I spend a fair bit of time alone. And of course your looks will fade but your mind need not. The only benefit my looks have given me has been my increased appeal to members of the opposite sex, and yet I see men who most would not consider particularly good-looking who have equal or better luck in that department than I. Your mind benefits you each and every moment, when thinking, conversing, reading, enjoying works of art, ect. The same can not be said of looks.

And honestly, who do you admire more, the calvin klein model or the nobel prize winning author or scientist?

I agree with this. Sure, beauty is great and all, but I definitely think that intelligence, wit, etc make a person so much more attractive in every way.
Of course, if you can have both... :)

[Pensive]

Neither looks nor intelligence, simply kindness and empathy (and if you claim there's a strong link between intelligence and kindness, then intelligence I suppose) Kindness fascinates me, it might be because I am so evil. :p

[stlukesguild]

And honestly, who do you admire more, the calvin klein model or the nobel prize winning author or scientist?

Of course Alexander will probably ask you who's getting laid more often... and by far better looking lovers? :ladysman:

[hampusforev]

I'd say my intelligence is higher than my looks, on a hypothetical scale... So I guess it'd be fun to reverse that just for ****s and giggles

[Arrowni]

Neither looks nor intelligence, simply kindness and empathy (and if you claim there's a strong link between intelligence and kindness, then intelligence I suppose) Kindness fascinates me, it might be because I am so evil. :p

If you're intelligent and have no empathy you're not truly intelligent.

[Alexander III]

If you're intelligent and have no empathy you're not truly intelligent.

Hitler and Stalin had many flaws but calling them stupid is a bit of a long shot.

[L.M. The Third]

How did I miss a discussion which worked its way around to mentioning my comedy trinity - Stephen, Hugh and Emma? :sad:


ugh! I cannot watch Stephen Fry. Repulsive man although I hear he is quite brilliant. See? Looks really do count.

And I've got a crush on Stephen Fry - and have an affection for his nose -because he's so brilliant. I can imagine myself being like Dora Carrington with Lytton Strachey over someone brilliant. Which doesn't mean I don't also get crushes on people for merely looks, though I think I'd end up despising them if they didn't match up to my ideas of how intellectual they must be to be my equal.

If I was asked Anne of Green Gables' question, "Would you rather be divinely beautiful, dazzlingly clever, or angelically good?" I would unhesitatingly reply with "Dazzlingly clever!" I would probably say that was the form my vanity took. However, I've had moments of suspicion that behind all my confident feminist championship of "naturalness", behind my geeky carelessness about dress and makeup, and even behind my mournful wales that "I look like George Bush" is lurking the secret conviction that I'm sufficiently good-looking that everyone will be charmed by my natural beauty. Or is that the conviction that I'm so dazzlingly clever that my entire effect will be dazzling? :biggrin5:

[stlukesguild]

Arrowni- If you're intelligent and have no empathy you're not truly intelligent.

Alexander III-Hitler and Stalin had many flaws but calling them stupid is a bit of a long shot.

My thought as well. We may wish that reality were otherwise, but I think it is naive to assume that only the "good" or "moral" (those with empathy) are intelligent while the morally challenged or "evil" are inherently ignorant... or stupid.

[OrphanPip]

Arrowni- If you're intelligent and have no empathy you're not truly intelligent.

Alexander III-Hitler and Stalin had many flaws but calling them stupid is a bit of a long shot.

My thought as well. We may wish that reality were otherwise, but I think it is naive to assume that only the "good" or "moral" (those with empathy) are intelligent while the morally challenged or "evil" are inherently ignorant... or stupid.

Although, there is a well established connection between low IQ and aggression, the lower your IQ the more likely you are to react to challenges with violence. The correlation is even found with small children.

[cafolini]

Although, there is a well established connection between low IQ and aggression, the lower your IQ the more likely you are to react to challenges with violence. The correlation is even found with small children.

It depends how low. I couldn't actually think well until I de-educated it to below 60.

[Alexander III]

Although, there is a well established connection between low IQ and aggression, the lower your IQ the more likely you are to react to challenges with violence. The correlation is even found with small children.

Thats the funny thing about these kinds of things, in that I tend to fully agree stupid people tend to be more violent, but then there are so many glaring examples such as Carravagio or Lermontov or Alexander The Great, men who were so violent yet...

[Emil Miller]

Arrowni- If you're intelligent and have no empathy you're not truly intelligent.

Alexander III-Hitler and Stalin had many flaws but calling them stupid is a bit of a long shot.

My thought as well. We may wish that reality were otherwise, but I think it is naive to assume that only the "good" or "moral" (those with empathy) are intelligent while the morally challenged or "evil" are inherently ignorant... or stupid.

Well it wasn't a exactly a brilliant idea of Hitler's to attack the USSR without knocking out the Britain first. It didn't require great thinking to realise that, as during WW1, the USA would get involved on the side of the UK.
On the other hand, Stalin knew from history that no country was big enough to take over a land mass a great as that of Russia.

[Darcy88]

Well it wasn't a exactly a brilliant idea of Hitler's to attack the USSR without knocking out the Britain first. It didn't require great thinking to realise that, as during WW1, the USA would get involved on the side of the UK.
On the other hand, Stalin knew from history that no country was big enough to take over a land mass a great as that of Russia.

Not to mention his decision not to annihilate the British Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk.

[Alexander III]

Well it wasn't a exactly a brilliant idea of Hitler's to attack the USSR without knocking out the Britain first. It didn't require great thinking to realise that, as during WW1, the USA would get involved on the side of the UK.
On the other hand, Stalin knew from history that no country was big enough to take over a land mass a great as that of Russia.

Sorry Emil to be crude, but if you ever manage to establish yourself as an absolute emperor of a country, like Napoleon or Hitler, you would have full justification to say they were stupid, until then...

Notice how in America there are 200 million who critize the President, yet there is only 1 President - I say America but any country really...

[Emil Miller]

Sorry Emil to be crude, but if you ever manage to establish yourself as an absolute emperor of a country, like Napoleon or Hitler, you would have full justification to say they were stupid, until then...

Notice how in America there are 200 million who critize the President, yet there is only 1 President - I say America but any country really...

First of all let me say that Hitler wasn't stupid, in fact he was possibly the greatest political wheeler dealer in recorded history. Like Napoleon Bonaparte he came to power via the political scenario of the day but, unlike Napoleon, he was elected by popular vote whereas Napoleon gained ultimate power via the overthrow of the Directorate and its replacement with a Consulate with himself as 1st Consul.
It is ironic that both Napoleon and Hitler cooked their goose by invading Russia. A colossal mistake if ever there was one but in Hitler's case he had Napoleon's example and still went ahead.

[stlukesguild]

Well it wasn't a exactly a brilliant idea of Hitler's to attack the USSR without knocking out the Britain first. It didn't require great thinking to realise that, as during WW1, the USA would get involved on the side of the UK.
On the other hand, Stalin knew from history that no country was big enough to take over a land mass a great as that of Russia.

Hitler was politically astute... a brilliant spokesman and manipulator of public opinion. However he wasn't a brilliant military strategist like Napoleon. Neither was Stalin, but Stalin had the good sense to leave the military decisions to the military. Dunkirk was an absolute fiasco where it should have spelled the end of England. The bombing of civilian targets in Britain was absolute stupidity... giving the British time to rebuilt their military capabilities. The failure to increase the submarine attacks on shipping, which was strangling Britain, was stupidity... but Hitler wanted the big, obvious showy victory like the tanks rolling through the Arc de Triomphe. The invasion of the USSR before having finished off the British and the declaration of war upon the US... now that was just pure lunacy.

Stalin knew from history that no country was big enough to take over a land mass a great as that of Russia.

Well the Mongols did pretty well for themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquests

One might also note that the invaders need not take over the whole of the Russian landmass. All that would be necessary is to take control of the major cities, including Moscow, and dispose of the ruling government.

[nerriesantra]

I’ll chose to be intelligent; you can have that looks in your own way not to mention the fact that there are some who doesn’t care about it. Just think of it what will help you succeed in life and your weapon to achieve your dreams.:argue:

[Emil Miller]

Well it wasn't a exactly a brilliant idea of Hitler's to attack the USSR without knocking out the Britain first. It didn't require great thinking to realise that, as during WW1, the USA would get involved on the side of the UK.
On the other hand, Stalin knew from history that no country was big enough to take over a land mass a great as that of Russia.

Hitler was politically astute... a brilliant spokesman and manipulator of public opinion. However he wasn't a brilliant military strategist like Napoleon. Neither was Stalin, but Stalin had the good sense to leave the military decisions to the military. Dunkirk was an absolute fiasco where it should have spelled the end of England. The bombing of civilian targets in Britain was absolute stupidity... giving the British time to rebuilt their military capabilities. The failure to increase the submarine attacks on shipping, which was strangling Britain, was stupidity... but Hitler wanted the big, obvious showy victory like the tanks rolling through the Arc de Triomphe. The invasion of the USSR before having finished off the British and the declaration of war upon the US... now that was just pure lunacy.

Stalin knew from history that no country was big enough to take over a land mass a great as that of Russia.

Well the Mongols did pretty well for themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquests

One might also note that the invaders need not take over the whole of the Russian landmass. All that would be necessary is to take control of the major cities, including Moscow, and dispose of the ruling government.

The German invasion of the USSR known as operation Barbarossa was actually designed to do just that. It's objectives were to take Kiev, Moscow and Leningrad but, although they took Kiev, got to within sight of Moscow and laid siege to Leningrad, it would have made no difference to the eventual outcome because the Russians had already set up military facilities beyond the Urals that eventually turned the war in their favour.
Stalin actually impeded Russian victory by executing a number of senior officers during the purges of the late 1930s on charges of plotting to overthrow the state.
The evacuation of the BEF at Dunkirk made little difference to the war's outcome as they were a demoralised and fragmented force completely outmatched by German firepower. What saved Britain was the Royal Navy, which outgunned that of the German Kriegsmarine and put a potential invasion of England on the back burner. Ironically, this was the very reason that Napoleon's proposed invasion also never took place.
The bombing of civilian targets was undertaken in response to Churchill's directing the RAF to bomb German civilians. This was done deliberately to draw the Luftwaffe away from industrial targets in the UK.
German submarine attacks did hamper the war effort and reduce the population of the UK almost to starvation levels but the discovery of RADAR effectively put an end to the problem.
Hitler's military parade through Paris was no different to that of Bismark's when France fell to the Prussians in 1870, but Hitler had greater reason to celebrate because it was at Compiegne that the Germans were forced to sign the treaty of surrender in 1918.
Whatever reasons prompted the declaration of war against the US it must be counted as a major error, although it was pretty obvious that the US, with its Lend-Lease bill, was manoeuvring itself into a position of eventual military confrontation with Germany.
The Mongol invasion of Russia came at a time when Russian defences were principally concerned with combating invasion from the west and their influence on Russian culture was minimal. The Russians simply waited until the time was ripe to kick them out, which is what they eventually did, having defeated invasion by the Teutonic Knights of Germany and Sweden in the meantime.