[quote=“Mother Theresa”]That’s funny, I was sure this thread would contain a link to the following, from yesterday’s NYT (guess the OP must be a dumb brunette):
[quote]Despite the Dumb Jokes, Stereotypes May Reflect Some Smart Choices
A quick Web search identifies thousands of jokes about dumb blondes, this one among them: A married couple were awakened by a call at 2 a.m. The wife, a blonde, picked up the phone, listened a moment and said, “How should I know, that’s 200 miles from here!” and hung up. Her husband asked, “Who was that?” She replied, “I don’t know; some woman wanting to know if the coast is clear.”
There are almost as many jokes poking fun at the supposed mental deficiencies of athletes. Two offensive linemen in a rented boat catch an unusually large number of trout in a secluded cove. As they start back to the marina, one reaches over with his felt-tip pen and marks an X on the starboard bow. “I want to make sure we can find this spot again tomorrow,” he explained. “Idiot,” his friend replied, “what makes you think we’ll get the same boat?”
Since there is no persuasive evidence that blondes and athletes are less intelligent than others, such jokes pose a puzzle. Where do the underlying stereotypes come from? Definitive answers remain elusive, but an armchair economic analysis suggests some intriguing possibilities.
Let’s begin with the dumb blonde stereotype, which proves especially puzzling in light of what economists know about the dynamics of the informal market for marriage partners. Notwithstanding minor cultural differences, there is broad agreement on the characteristics that define an attractive partner. Most people, for example, prefer partners who are kind, honest, loyal, healthy, intelligent and physically attractive. And in Western countries, at least, blondness is viewed as a positive characteristic in women. The upshot, according to a recent paper by two sociologists, Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics and Jody L. Kovar of Indiana University of Pennsylvania, is that blondes should actually be more intelligent, on average, than others.
Their claim follows from four plausible propositions. The first two concern differences in the weights used by men and women when evaluating the desirability of potential partners: (1) men generally place greater emphasis on looks; (2) women generally place greater emphasis on income and status. The point is not that men don’t care about a woman’s income or status, or that women don’t care about a man’s appearance. Rather, it is that the relative strengths of these concerns differ for men and women. The authors cite extensive evidence in support of both claims.
Their third and fourth propositions also appear to be solid: (3) more-intelligent men tend to achieve higher income and status; (4) both intelligence and physical attractiveness are traits with significant inheritable components. If the first three propositions are true, it follows logically that relatively attractive women will pair up disproportionately with relatively intelligent men. And if both beauty and intelligence are inheritable, then the offspring of such unions will tend to display above-average values of both traits.
That conflicts totally with the latest study that says there is not even a correlation let alone a significant difference between IQ and wealth!
In short, the hypothesis that beauty and brains go together does not appear far-fetched. (No one ever claimed life is fair.) By similar reasoning, if gentlemen prefer blondes, fair-haired women should pair more often with intelligent, more successful men, and since hair color is at least weakly inheritable, a positive correlation should also emerge between blondness and intelligence. . . [/quote]
nytimes.com/2007/06/07/busin … ref=slogin[/quote]
