Home > Life > Pulchritude: A Cognitive Disability

Pulchritude: A Cognitive Disability


“Beauty is inversely proportional to Intelligence.” 

Xenocrates

Have you ever heard of a phenomenon known as “dumb blondes“? What about “dumb jocks“? Do you ever wonder why such expressions have often found truth among our populace? Watch the video, then allow me to enlighten your darkness:


People of unusually conspicuous pulchritude (read: really gorgeous people) are commonly mentally undeveloped as it pertains to how much knowledge of their world they have absorbed since being alive. What we observe is a hoard of extremely genetically blessed individuals who have spent most of their lives being so self-absorbent that they never actually progress beyond the pre-formal stage of cognitive development. This stage usually occurs at around age 14.

This means that most good-looking people, even well into their adulthoods, are still effectively 14 years old.

This is what produces the “dumb blonde/jock” phenomenon of which we are most familiar; Grown men and women who are remarkably attractive, but effectively under developed on a cognitive scale. So one may ask; “Why are so many good looking people like this?“. The answer is deceptively simple:

People develop their strengths, not their weaknesses

Whatever gives humans the greatest pleasure will continue to be focussed on, often neglecting all others. This rule is the same one that creates the less-than-attractive geeks, and the über-attractive blondes/jocks. Whatever gives people the greatest pleasure, will receive the greatest work to continue that reward, often ignoring all the other facets of their being. So if someone is naturally attractive, they will continue to build on their physical appearance. If someone is naturally smart, they will continue to build on their intelligence. So much attention is focused on the strengths people have, that they tend to neglect the other aspects of their being – neglect which becomes more conspicuous as they get older.

People who’ve won the genetic lottery at birth will have discovered that others respond very positively to them because of their naturally delightful appearance. This happens very early in childhood – usually by the time they’re six years old. Naturally, positive attention makes everyone happy (we’re hard wired that way, such that we become social animals). Thus once that connection is made, these blank slates develop a personality such that they become more outgoing, exhuberant and socially interactive than other babies which did not win the genetic lottery. What happens afterwards is that the good-looking babies grow up paying more attention to their looks, building on it as much as possible as they get older, working out at the gym more, or paying more attention to their nutrition.

On the other hand, the ugly babies will have realised from very early that their appearance doesn’t give them the same reaction, and so they work on other aspects of their being to elicit the same response. They already know that they’re not attractive, so an automatic subconcious reaction causes them to realise that there’s very little point into trying to develop that part of their being. They instead focus on building personality, becoming true-hearts, and genuine friends. These people tend to develop into the traditional “nerd” and “geek” personalities – or simply those that don’t fit in with the popular crowd. But that’s not the most interesting part:

The Love Deficit

The most fascinating thing about these two types of people is that eventually, they will grow to dislike each other because each side represents an undeveloped part of their being which provokes an insecurity. In other words, the pretty girls and the handsome well-built men will envy the nerds/geeks because they can  quite easily outsmart them academically. Meanwhile, the nerds/geeks will envy the pretty girls and the handsome men because of their physical appearance. In many cases, people from both sides of the fence will even develop romantic interest in each other – but the detriment is usually on the side of the less than attractive nerds/geeks. Why? It’s quite simple actually. If you’ve been following anything that I’ve been saying so far, then you’ll realise something quite obvious:

Since pulchritude often and effectively predicates less cognitive development, pretty people are therefore less likely to fall in love. They have to be taught how to love,  just like how nerds/geeks have to be taught how to be socially integratable.

What’s going to happen when a geek falls in love with a beautiful person? There are two possibilities:

  1. Even if the pulchritudinous individual manages to develop an attraction, they have spent far too much of their life being drawn to other gorgeous people to change their pattern now. If they are over 16 years old, that pattern will have been locked into place for the rest of their adulthood and will be very difficult to break… UNLESS:
  2. That person is forced to endure an emotionally traumatic or life changing event that forces a powerful cognitive re-evaluation process in their minds.

However, the probability of No. 2 happening is RARE – and usually involves highly improbable scenarios. This is usually true in cases of pure chance or a more controlled situation where both worlds are forced to cross. For example, examine a situation where they have to work together for an extended period, or a natural or social upheaval that usually spawns unusual acts of humanity – these are the usual crossover points between the less attractive smart folks and the more attractive, but less intelligent folks. The reason why these events only occur in such rare circumstances, is that birds of a feather, will naturally flock together – unless some external force causes some distortion in their social circles. People like to keep the company of their own kind. It’s the easiest form of comfort to gain, however unfulfilling.

Undeveloped Potential 

I feel sorry for pretty people, because they will usually have a harder time finding true love. Make no mistake, they will get laid often – but that is only because they’re highly attractive to the opposite sex. The same is true for people who are rich or are unusually successful in life, (especially when very young). People who are born pretty, born rich, or who hap upon success without having to work for it are like butterflies which got help exiting their cocoon. A new butterfly has to struggle to exit its cocoon so as to build the muscles necessary to flap its wings in order to fly. If someone were to pry the cocoon open while it was struggling to get out, the butterfly would never learn how to fly, because its wing muscles would be so undeveloped from the long stasis in the cocoon, that it would fall from its housing and be gobbled up by one of its many avian predators.

Similarly, life is hard for a reason – it is so that we become well-developed people. Nerds and geeks usually break out of their socially-ackward natures by virtue of being so cognitively well developed. Because of their passion to learn, they will realise that there are things about themselves that they must change in order to become successful in life. They seek out this knowledge and will eventually overcome their insecurities and become very powerful, very knowledgable people. They will also have developed wonderful personalities and thus endure a much higher probability of finding true love.

Pulchritudinous individuals however have never really much of a hard life by virtue of being good-looking. As such, they never really develop the cognitive skills to become whole persons and thus, like a butterfly that never struggled out of its cocoon, they never effectively matured beyond the age of 14 – 16. This is the reason why models, movie-stars, moguls, heirs and heiresses spend all of their youth searching for love, in most cases marrying a multiplicity of times, or never marrying at all – only to grow old, child less, and sometimes full of regret.

Conclusion

While there is every possible permutation of pulchritude, smarts and providence with love (i.e. there are geeks/nerds who never marry, and gorgeous people who do find true love), this fundamental flaw with human nature is such that the majority case is what holds true:

Being too blessed in one area often leads to under development in another.

This is why pretty people are often very shallow or cognitively undeveloped and why smart people are usually relatively unattractive. I find that most of the really gorgeous women who are drawn to me are either attracted to my mind, my money or my car. While I would complain under normal circumstances, I will continue to exploit this flaw in human nature for all that it is worth – at least until I find the one woman who can see past all of my super powers, and realise that even Clark Kent has a heart that can be broken.

For is not love the end all and be all of human existence? If for anything else, then our existence is vain.

pour le encore:

Advertisements
Categories: Life Tags: , , ,
  1. August 8, 2010 at 7:36 pm

    This would explain why nearly every big-shot model/movie star has had some scandal in which they do something very, very, I mean VERY stupid (Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, Charlie Sheen, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Paris Hilton, Lawd Have Mercy, the list goes on and on…).

    Consequently, because beautiful people are more comfortable to look at, they usually get simple slaps on the wrist while others do not: the funky looking Wesley Snipes faces up to three years while sexy Lindsey Lohan is put in jail for 14 days of a 90-day sentence. Boo hoo, poor Lindsey.

  2. Sophie
    July 25, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    This comment is a late comer but I just had to say something. I know plenty of good-looking, intelligent people and just as many unattractive, less than intelligent people. Good-looking people may be more prone to coast on their good looks but it’s a matter of convenience, not lack of intelligence. Stupidity is an equal opportunity thing – not related to looks in most cases. This type of thing just perpetuates a stereo type that is damaging to both sides of the argument. It’s not quite so cut and dried.

  3. Razzybrite
    February 20, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    This article is food for thought. It’s like a mirror to many.
    I must comment & commend you on your Ms (mind & money) you go boy!!!!!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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