1. Fatness can decrease intelligence. Inflammation, plaque, etc all affect the cardiovascular system, and hence also the brain.
2. Fatness is variable. Brown fat. Visceral fat. Subcutaneous fat. Fat-adapted cold hunters with high metabolism. Though generally, the fat the majority of people possess in excess is bad (not simply a store of calories for famine/lack of food).
3. The propensity to care about physical features (in a maximally sexually attractive manner for short-term mating) is slightly inversely correlated to an increase in intelligence. Going to gym, etc.
4. Intelligence enables one to have higher incomes when combined with other personality traits; a higher income affords better food selection, more nutrition, a home gym, excerise, opportunities to be out in the sun, hence an indirect
negative correlation to excess fat.
5. Intelligence has a variable effect, mediated by cultures. In asia, it is more likely to be correlated with MOBA games (propensity for mental stimulation) than scholarly efforts for recreational time, hence an indirect correlation
with fatness. Furthermore, if one lives in Japan the portion sizes are smaller, likewise in EU certain additives are banned so food might be less enticing/less appetizing vs North America. Intelligence enables one to cognitively
understand nutritionally the food differences, and act on those choices, although willpower is variable amongst people (to not gorge calories).
6. Intelligent parents are more likely to be more choosy of their offsprings' environment, and their offspring also inherits this level of choosiness. Thus, more sports, more excerise, more opportunities, more variety of foods (not just junk),
thus a slight negative correlation with fatness.
7. Lacking intelligence means less likelihood of having income, and also less being able to understand one's health risks/benefits on a proportional basis, with less impulse control. All combined synergetic factors point to a high
correlation with fatness (in the low end).
8. Eating well and having nutritionally good food also boosts an offspring's intelligence (from a neurodevelopmental standpoint) up to their genetic potential, one can likely observe this effect from one's parents vs one's offspring,
at least in Asia/other countries going to NA and being taller/scoring better on tests/etc. General fitness is a proxy for intelligence to some extent.
9. Higher intelligence also means higher openness, which might mean less propensity to be affected by social norms, or more ability to tolerate dysgenic trends, hence a slight positive correlation to fatness for fat acceptance in NA.
Norms might be stricter in other countries where being fat affords you less opportunities, so a higher intelligence would understand such norms and thus be a slightly stronger negative correlation to fatness. On the other hand if you
are in an extraverted culture like South America and where the available foods are all nutritionally dense, you still would be more fat relative to you being somewhere else.
10. Intelligence also affords you to consider many other things which are not perceivable at lower levels of intelligence, while at average or low levels of intellect one can be a 'gym' master, you may have other competing mental interests;
research, academics, gaming, theorizing, observing, esoteric hobbies -- thus this can have a slight negative effect on you attending gyms/having a home gym and being more fat because of a lessened interest in body physique.
11. One usually observes fat and shorter people than the inverse, tall and fat (which also correlates with a lack of intelligence)
Overall there are many confounding factors; availability of foods, variety of foods, cultural norms, impulse control, income level, propensity for mental stimulation, acknowledgement of sexual attraction, etc.
perhaps another way of considering this might be whether people judged "good looking" have higher intelligence test scores than those judged by others as less good looking.
In our society fit, not fat seems to be judged as "good looking." I expect there are studies out there to confirm.
These correlations are quite weak. As a comparison, I found a correlation of about 0.5 between patterns of activity and bmi (high bmi is associated with less activity during the day but more activity overnight). This was on the nhanes data set.
This is one of those questions where we should separately report the data for male and female. And then further separate the female data on number of children she has. Obesity in women goes up with the number of children she has (anecdotal but I think representative). Men have less "excuse" for becoming overweight as we age.
There're a lot of studies out there on obesity and poverty (social economic status). If we use SES as proxy for IQ, this will make those studies more interesting.
Per the 'obvious potential confounders' chart above (white type on black background) Hispanic and Native American have a much stronger link between BMI and intelligence, and in the opposite direction from other racial groups-- positive instead of negative! Neither are close to significant, even at the 0.05 so obviously both could just be artifacts.
Looking at the data of Hispanics and Native Americans combined might be useful--if the data of the two groups were combined that might show more clearly what is going on, or at least increase the significance of the results-- and as far as I can see the difference between 'Hispanic' and 'Native American' is simply whether their ancestors were born on one side or the other of the US-Mexican border.
Because we are not omniscient and don't know everything about people to create a perfect value score for a person to achieve any single goal. So, as he said, you can use obesity as a tiebreaker when there are two candidates equivalent in all the major variables you can and have measured. All of us rely on group data in most decisions during our life since it is eminently useful unless you are God.
This makes no sense. Surely you have already assessed a candidate's intelligence or capabilities by the time you implement your "tie breaker" that's meant to add, um, weight to the same factors you have already evaluated.
If overweight/obesity, which is only meaningful in assessing groups, not individuals, is meant to be a proxy for something you can assess more accurately by taking the measure of the individual, why would you use it?
Just use psychometric exams, standardized tests, grades or whatever other combination of reliable individualized measures are available.
No, we make our evaluations subconsciously and reflexively. Vocabulary, inquisitiveness, verbal fluency, qualifiers, technical jargon, height, weight, facial structure, credentials are all accounted for when we judge someone before we consciously process that information and make a formulization like some regression equation or whatever. Not everyone is a psychometrician, not everyone can ask your grades or test scores. Humans evolved to judge people's body, faces and behaviour. Just like other primates look at the asses to determine the health of a person. Maybe in the future you can just wear a visor and all the metadata is pre-scanned and loaded into your brain, then yes. Specialized brain structures exist for a reason, use them. Dolphins have better-than-sonar detection in the same way that bats have echolocation in the same way that we have musical aptitude/appreciation.
1. Fatness can decrease intelligence. Inflammation, plaque, etc all affect the cardiovascular system, and hence also the brain.
2. Fatness is variable. Brown fat. Visceral fat. Subcutaneous fat. Fat-adapted cold hunters with high metabolism. Though generally, the fat the majority of people possess in excess is bad (not simply a store of calories for famine/lack of food).
3. The propensity to care about physical features (in a maximally sexually attractive manner for short-term mating) is slightly inversely correlated to an increase in intelligence. Going to gym, etc.
4. Intelligence enables one to have higher incomes when combined with other personality traits; a higher income affords better food selection, more nutrition, a home gym, excerise, opportunities to be out in the sun, hence an indirect
negative correlation to excess fat.
5. Intelligence has a variable effect, mediated by cultures. In asia, it is more likely to be correlated with MOBA games (propensity for mental stimulation) than scholarly efforts for recreational time, hence an indirect correlation
with fatness. Furthermore, if one lives in Japan the portion sizes are smaller, likewise in EU certain additives are banned so food might be less enticing/less appetizing vs North America. Intelligence enables one to cognitively
understand nutritionally the food differences, and act on those choices, although willpower is variable amongst people (to not gorge calories).
6. Intelligent parents are more likely to be more choosy of their offsprings' environment, and their offspring also inherits this level of choosiness. Thus, more sports, more excerise, more opportunities, more variety of foods (not just junk),
thus a slight negative correlation with fatness.
7. Lacking intelligence means less likelihood of having income, and also less being able to understand one's health risks/benefits on a proportional basis, with less impulse control. All combined synergetic factors point to a high
correlation with fatness (in the low end).
8. Eating well and having nutritionally good food also boosts an offspring's intelligence (from a neurodevelopmental standpoint) up to their genetic potential, one can likely observe this effect from one's parents vs one's offspring,
at least in Asia/other countries going to NA and being taller/scoring better on tests/etc. General fitness is a proxy for intelligence to some extent.
9. Higher intelligence also means higher openness, which might mean less propensity to be affected by social norms, or more ability to tolerate dysgenic trends, hence a slight positive correlation to fatness for fat acceptance in NA.
Norms might be stricter in other countries where being fat affords you less opportunities, so a higher intelligence would understand such norms and thus be a slightly stronger negative correlation to fatness. On the other hand if you
are in an extraverted culture like South America and where the available foods are all nutritionally dense, you still would be more fat relative to you being somewhere else.
10. Intelligence also affords you to consider many other things which are not perceivable at lower levels of intelligence, while at average or low levels of intellect one can be a 'gym' master, you may have other competing mental interests;
research, academics, gaming, theorizing, observing, esoteric hobbies -- thus this can have a slight negative effect on you attending gyms/having a home gym and being more fat because of a lessened interest in body physique.
11. One usually observes fat and shorter people than the inverse, tall and fat (which also correlates with a lack of intelligence)
Overall there are many confounding factors; availability of foods, variety of foods, cultural norms, impulse control, income level, propensity for mental stimulation, acknowledgement of sexual attraction, etc.
perhaps another way of considering this might be whether people judged "good looking" have higher intelligence test scores than those judged by others as less good looking.
In our society fit, not fat seems to be judged as "good looking." I expect there are studies out there to confirm.
These correlations are quite weak. As a comparison, I found a correlation of about 0.5 between patterns of activity and bmi (high bmi is associated with less activity during the day but more activity overnight). This was on the nhanes data set.
I have met enough fat geniuses to think it might be something non-linear going on
This is one of those questions where we should separately report the data for male and female. And then further separate the female data on number of children she has. Obesity in women goes up with the number of children she has (anecdotal but I think representative). Men have less "excuse" for becoming overweight as we age.
There're a lot of studies out there on obesity and poverty (social economic status). If we use SES as proxy for IQ, this will make those studies more interesting.
Per the 'obvious potential confounders' chart above (white type on black background) Hispanic and Native American have a much stronger link between BMI and intelligence, and in the opposite direction from other racial groups-- positive instead of negative! Neither are close to significant, even at the 0.05 so obviously both could just be artifacts.
Looking at the data of Hispanics and Native Americans combined might be useful--if the data of the two groups were combined that might show more clearly what is going on, or at least increase the significance of the results-- and as far as I can see the difference between 'Hispanic' and 'Native American' is simply whether their ancestors were born on one side or the other of the US-Mexican border.
But why rely on cohort data like this at all when you have the individual sitting right there in front of you?
Even more so if he's sitting on you.
Because we are not omniscient and don't know everything about people to create a perfect value score for a person to achieve any single goal. So, as he said, you can use obesity as a tiebreaker when there are two candidates equivalent in all the major variables you can and have measured. All of us rely on group data in most decisions during our life since it is eminently useful unless you are God.
This makes no sense. Surely you have already assessed a candidate's intelligence or capabilities by the time you implement your "tie breaker" that's meant to add, um, weight to the same factors you have already evaluated.
If overweight/obesity, which is only meaningful in assessing groups, not individuals, is meant to be a proxy for something you can assess more accurately by taking the measure of the individual, why would you use it?
Just use psychometric exams, standardized tests, grades or whatever other combination of reliable individualized measures are available.
No, we make our evaluations subconsciously and reflexively. Vocabulary, inquisitiveness, verbal fluency, qualifiers, technical jargon, height, weight, facial structure, credentials are all accounted for when we judge someone before we consciously process that information and make a formulization like some regression equation or whatever. Not everyone is a psychometrician, not everyone can ask your grades or test scores. Humans evolved to judge people's body, faces and behaviour. Just like other primates look at the asses to determine the health of a person. Maybe in the future you can just wear a visor and all the metadata is pre-scanned and loaded into your brain, then yes. Specialized brain structures exist for a reason, use them. Dolphins have better-than-sonar detection in the same way that bats have echolocation in the same way that we have musical aptitude/appreciation.
You can't use all/any of those things often, and even then they could be basically even, so something else must be used to decide then.