Huh, why is it ludicrous?
Did you not read my post? To think that how a person looks (retadation and downs syndrome excluded) is directly related to how smart person is is ludicrous. It’s laughable.
And to be more precise, to test this theory is ok, I guess. I don’t mean to imply it’s not ok to test this theory scientifically. I just find it laughable and offensive to my own intelligence personally.
Then why are you posting?
Because you’re not in IMHO. Calling another poster’s cite “bullshit” without explaining why is not SOP in GQ.
Well, why not? Plenty of people have said it. Plenty of studies have investigated it. As far as I know, no good studies have found a correlation.
I think that’s a valid question, too. Not a valid conclusion perhaps - I don’t know, I haven’t done any research on it, nor do I know if anyone else has. But why is it unacceptable to posit that perhaps obese people have a different pH to their saliva, making tooth decay more likely? Or that obese people eating a diet high in sugar would be more prone to tooth decay? Or that we grind our teeth more due to positioning and movement restriction while we sleep? I’m not saying any of these are the case, or that being fat causes tooth decay even if we find that the two are correlated, but as far as I can see, it’s an interesting and valid question.
Again, why not? Plenty of people have indeed found different groups, including gender groups, score differently on standardized tests. Further research has shown it’s likely due to culture and teaching, not inherent intelligenct. But the question had to be asked to be answered.
What isn’t fact? The questions? Of course not, they’re questions, not facts. The data collected in studies are facts, though as I said, they can be flawed studies and the facts therefore meaningless. But you haven’t indicated why you think these studies are flawed besides a generally PC sense of outrage.
Do you understand correlation at all?
OK, so he made a hypothesis (a guess), and it was tested and no evidence found. I’ll take your word for that. So what? That doesn’t mean that every hypothesis ever made is wrong. That’s why we test them.
It also, BTW, doesn’t mean that he thought ears that stick out and large foreheads were what made men criminals. He may have thought that elevated testosterone levels make men criminals. Evelated testosterone levels ALSO cause facial features to be more “coarse”. The coarseness doesn’t cause criminal activity, but the two may both be caused by something else. See again: correlation /= causation.
So to test it is OK, but you won’t accept the results no matter what due to your own bias? We have a word for people like that. Hint: it’s not “intelligent”.
Why? Lots of disparate characteristics are linked, genetically. For example, the tendency to develop freckles is strongly linked to the gene(s) responsible for red hair. Why not the tendency towards obesity with a gene that controls some aspect of brain development which is partially responsible for intelligence? I’m not saying that IS the case, but just because you find a particular theory to be repugnant does not mean it has no validity.
Yet you already have to list exceptions to your hard and fast rule. Could there be other exceptions that no one’s yet noticed? That’s debatable, and amenable to testing, but certainly not ludicrous or laughable.
There are no exceptions to my “rule”. It is documented fact that people with downs syndrome have similar appearances and a degree of mental retardation.
OK, there’s no way for me to argue with three of you at once. So I’ll just say that you guys can think what you want and I’ll think what I want. You’re not going to change my opinion on this issue at all. No matter how much quoting and quote embedding you do.
To say that people’s intelligence is directly affected based upon their how they look is asinine and bullshit. Post all the “We call there here on the Dope” statements and clever little acronyms you want. Sorry.
and why does this place not have an edit button damnit !
diggleblop, I’m sorry for coming down so hard on you. I’m just honestly perplexed by your stance. I asked some pointed question to find out your reasoning, and you don’t want to answer. That’s fine. That’s the beauty of a message board. I can ask, you don’t have to answer, and we can be friends in another thread (or you can cringe whenever you see my username. That’s fine, too.)
For what it’s worth, I immediately thought “Of course there’s not a correlation between IQ and weight - or if there is, it’s elliminated once you account for socio-ecomic class!” But I’m clear that that was my knee-jerk, uneducated response. It has no basis in reality, because it came entirely out of my head. If I’m presented with evidence to the contrary, I’ll certainly change my mind.
I’m sorry I hijacked a perfectly good thread trying to figure out your mind. I think you’re being foolish and unscientific, but you have every right to be those things.
You’ve said this more than once, yet nobody else seems to be arguing this point. Do you or do you not understand the difference between correlation and causation? This is basic high school science stuff, not some mysterious grad-level statistics concept.
It’s not ludicrous to study to try to find such correlations - such is the way knowledge is gained.
We have people on this board who will passionately argue that feeding a child mothers milk will do better for the childs intellect (IQ, EQ, whatever) than feeding them formula. They might be right, they might be wrong: regardless, it isn’t a ludicrous thing to study.
Same thing with obesity and IQ: taking into account that there are different causes of obesity, will children raised on a traditional “balanced” diet do better or worse than children raised on “junk” (and what about children born to “health nuts” - is IQ affected by having a vegetarian diet from birth-onward)? Again, these are not “ludicrous” questions.
Well, no need to apologize WhyNot 
I’m letting my personal emotions affect my response to this thread. I just strongly feel that scientists who do these studies have every right to do so, but it is still laughable to me. For someone to say, “Hmm, I wonder if fat people are more stupid than skinny people, let’s test this” is just…funny and offensive to me, not to mention waste of a lot of resources when cancer at large.
Well, it’s a good thing that no one here has said that.
What they have been saying, and what you’ve been ignoring, is that there may be combinations of factors that affect both scoring on standardized intelligence tests and some factors of appearance, such as weight. This is not even a remotely similar statement.
Read this carefully: No one is saying fat causes stupid. Only you seem to be reading it that way.
Just one of the many articles and studies found countering these studies.
Well thanks for telling me how I’m reading things. I wish you were my financial advisor with that amount of insight.
You seem to be missing MY point. I’ll type this slowly: For scientists to even consider testing to see if intellect is based on appearance or size is ludicrous in my opinion.
Many people used to have the same opinion about testing heliocentric universe theories. Look how right they were. I’ll say this once more: just because you, personally, find a theory to be repugnant does NOT mean that the theory has no merit.
You’re getting the hang of it. But, you should probably cite a better article, and read the one you cited more critically. First, the article you cited is from 1966.
Furthermore, if I’m looking at their table 1 correctly, seems to indicate that obese and non-obese females score about identically on the SATs, but obese males score more than 50 points lower than non-obese males.
Furthermore, only 21% of obese males are in the top third of their class in academic ranking, which was statistically significantly lower than their non-obese peers.
The authors seem to ignore this data when writing the title and conclusions of the article. Seems that obese males DO perform worse than non-obese males in high school. At least they did 40 years ago.
Again, I think that IQ DOES not correlate with weight. But this article does a terrible job of proving that.
Now this is the way to discus this. We now see a study that seems to show no correlation between weight and standardized testing.
So why the difference? What combinations of factors were present in the studies that seemed to show a correlation that were not in this one, or vice versa? There are certainly organic factors that can have an effect on the brain, are any of these more likely to occur in certain populations that overlap populations where obesity or other physical traits are more common? And if so, are the causes partially or largely the same, and are those causes organic, economic, social, or combinations of them all?
These are very valid (and I think) interesting and worthwhile questions.
Do you not see the irony here? You’re telling us that it is ludicrous and offensive to even consider studying the correlation between intelligence and obesity, yet you quote from a study which did exactly that. Obviously, someone didn’t think the idea was too ludicrous to study.
I’ll point out that knowledge always seems to pop up usefully when we least expect it. Maybe the results of this weight-intelligence research, if we do it, will eventually prove useful fighting cancer.
And then… maybe not. We can’t tell until it happens.