![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackofallgeeks"Why is intelligence or oratory ability better than looks?"
I just heard that over the cubicle wall; some guy is discussing acresses and
modles with a girl who sits over there. He's gone on to say that it comes
down to what society rewards, that if she were as smart as she is pretty
she'd still be better off playing up her looks, and that they work as hard
at being pretty as other people work at what they do... except then he goes
on to say that it comes down to minimizing effort for maximized reward, and
so the logical conclusion is that they would be putting for less effort...?
I think the obvious answer to the question stated above is that looks are
transitory, that you can lose them or have them taken away from you as
easily as you got them, and that they say very little about who you are as a
person. Intellectual ability is different -- perhaps age will steal your
intelligence, and perhapse a catastrophic accident will rob you of your
mental ability, but those are far less sure than the fact that your body
will degrade with time, and attractivness fades. Nevermind that looks are a
have/have-not sort of thing, that if you don't have it you can't get it --
except maybe through surgery or an improvement in style, though in the
latter case I'd argue you "had it" anyways.
And that plays into my next point: philosophic arguments about the objective
nature of 'beauty' aside, renown for attraciveness relies solely on the
opinions of others. You can be objectively smart, and you can have
objectively high oratory skill, regardless of what people think of you;
"beauty is in they eye of the beholder," as they say.
I'm reminded of a line from House -- I love that show, and really need to
get around to watching my DVDs. Anyways, The Girl (can't recall her
character's name) asks House why he chose her and he said because she was
pretty. She got upset and started saying that she'd worked hard and got
good grades in med school, et cetera. House returned that he grades hadn't
been the best in her class, but noted (not in so many words) that she'd
taken the higher road, that she was pretty but had actively worked to become
more than that, to succeed in her ability rather than in her looks -- when
it would have been easy for her to just skate by on being attracive.
I imagine someone might come by and argue that it's not easy being pretty,
that it takes a lot of work and discipline to maintain a fit body. I can
attest to that, if only in the negative: you can't live the way I do and
expect to rank high on "beauty." But it's a different kind of effort, and a
different kind of aim. It reminds me of a discussion of happiness (I think)
by some greek philosopher or another (probably Plato) wherein it's noted
that Fame can't be Happiness because it rests on the opinions of others.
And even if you work hard at it and get good at it and recieve rewards for
it, it's still a lesser thing because it can be recinded.
I just heard that over the cubicle wall; some guy is discussing acresses and
modles with a girl who sits over there. He's gone on to say that it comes
down to what society rewards, that if she were as smart as she is pretty
she'd still be better off playing up her looks, and that they work as hard
at being pretty as other people work at what they do... except then he goes
on to say that it comes down to minimizing effort for maximized reward, and
so the logical conclusion is that they would be putting for less effort...?
I think the obvious answer to the question stated above is that looks are
transitory, that you can lose them or have them taken away from you as
easily as you got them, and that they say very little about who you are as a
person. Intellectual ability is different -- perhaps age will steal your
intelligence, and perhapse a catastrophic accident will rob you of your
mental ability, but those are far less sure than the fact that your body
will degrade with time, and attractivness fades. Nevermind that looks are a
have/have-not sort of thing, that if you don't have it you can't get it --
except maybe through surgery or an improvement in style, though in the
latter case I'd argue you "had it" anyways.
And that plays into my next point: philosophic arguments about the objective
nature of 'beauty' aside, renown for attraciveness relies solely on the
opinions of others. You can be objectively smart, and you can have
objectively high oratory skill, regardless of what people think of you;
"beauty is in they eye of the beholder," as they say.
I'm reminded of a line from House -- I love that show, and really need to
get around to watching my DVDs. Anyways, The Girl (can't recall her
character's name) asks House why he chose her and he said because she was
pretty. She got upset and started saying that she'd worked hard and got
good grades in med school, et cetera. House returned that he grades hadn't
been the best in her class, but noted (not in so many words) that she'd
taken the higher road, that she was pretty but had actively worked to become
more than that, to succeed in her ability rather than in her looks -- when
it would have been easy for her to just skate by on being attracive.
I imagine someone might come by and argue that it's not easy being pretty,
that it takes a lot of work and discipline to maintain a fit body. I can
attest to that, if only in the negative: you can't live the way I do and
expect to rank high on "beauty." But it's a different kind of effort, and a
different kind of aim. It reminds me of a discussion of happiness (I think)
by some greek philosopher or another (probably Plato) wherein it's noted
that Fame can't be Happiness because it rests on the opinions of others.
And even if you work hard at it and get good at it and recieve rewards for
it, it's still a lesser thing because it can be recinded.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-25 11:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-26 12:52 am (UTC)After all, there ARE objective points that make the difference between an engaging speaker and a dull one -- there are people who sound interesting talking about napkins and people who drone on no matter what the subject is. A clear vocabulary is something I'd place on the objectivity scale -- and not just having words, but having RIGHT words, and knowing and being able to read your audience so you don't lose them in jargon. The same can be said for pacing and spacing of your speech: it's been argued that music is as much about silence as it is about sound, and the same principles can be applied to speech. (And despite differences in taste, there is an objective mathematical theory to music.)
no subject
Date: 2008-03-26 07:33 am (UTC)