"I cannot even decide whether [my face] is handsome or ugly. I think it is ugly because I have been told so."

January 12, 2012 12:21 PM

Why are smart people usually ugly? (SLSlate)

"If smart people tend to be good-looking, that might explain the halo effect. But what led our questioner to get things backward and assume that smart people were ugly?"

posted by asnider (101 comments total)

Hmm, beauty is a selection criteria. Smartness is also a selection criteria. Hence smart and beautiful people get together more with each other. You can be smart and ugly and get a good partner. You can be dumb but beautiful and get a good partner. You almost certainly can't be dumb and ugly and get a good partner.

This is not even considering that smart people get more power/better jobs/social status. The question indeed made no sense at all.
posted by jaduncan at 12:25 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

The article was pretty interesting, Brandon.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 12:26 PM on January 12 [4 favorites]

Beauty and smartness are both correlated with class. Having the money for dental work and haircuts goes a long way in the beauty department, and education ain't cheap.
posted by arcticwoman at 12:27 PM on January 12 [24 favorites]

♫ Beautiful's out, ugly's in...
posted by Smart Dalek at 12:27 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

Why are smart people usually ugly?

...I'm not.
posted by MartinWisse at 12:28 PM on January 12 [3 favorites]

Mostly because us smart people tend to focus on the smartness, and realize that "the beautiful people" are horribly shallow and terrible to be mated with.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 12:28 PM on January 12 [8 favorites]

TL;DR

*brushes back magnificent blonde locks, admires self*
posted by Capt. Renault at 12:29 PM on January 12 [27 favorites]

The author must be beautifully stupid.
posted by pwally at 12:30 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

Spoiler: they're not. The question is based on a false premise.
posted by jabberjaw at 12:30 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

Did any of you actually read the article or are you just commenting on the dumb question asked?
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 12:31 PM on January 12 [24 favorites]

Why are smart people usually ugly?

It's because you're so jealous, dumbass.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 12:31 PM on January 12 [6 favorites]

I avoid mirrors. And IQ tests.
posted by tommasz at 12:32 PM on January 12

Seriously, read it. The article starts with:

The answer: They’re not.

Oh, how the Explainer loves a false premise.

and then goes on to talk about some really interesting stuff. These comments here are depressing.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 12:32 PM on January 12 [15 favorites]

Did any of you actually read the article or are you just commenting on the dumb question asked?

We are all far too attractive to bother with that silly "reading" business, my good sir/madam.
posted by elizardbits at 12:33 PM on January 12 [21 favorites]

Confirmation bias?
posted by zeek321 at 12:33 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

Seriously, read it.

I got a good way in, and quickly realized that BB had it nailed with the first comment. YMMV.
posted by Capt. Renault at 12:34 PM on January 12

Yup, all of us know people who are plenty intelligent and plenty attractive... but I suppose the whole point of the article is that it's a provocative question (and a pretty successfully one at that).
posted by spiderskull at 12:34 PM on January 12

hahhahaha what
posted by nathancaswell at 12:35 PM on January 12

Only a dumbass would ask this question, let alone write about it.

Can we get them to write an article about whether people who read the articles are prettier than the ones who don't?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:35 PM on January 12 [11 favorites]

Many such studies followed, and with consistent results: You can learn something about how smart someone is just by looking at a picture. But scientists couldn't figure out where that information might have been hiding in the photographs.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 12:35 PM on January 12

And here I thought the quote I pulled for the "more inside" description would have given away the fact that there is more to the article than the title would imply.
posted by asnider at 12:35 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

Did any of you actually read the article or are you just commenting on the dumb question asked?

Oh, I read it. It was super interesting, I was just surprised at the questioner. IMHO the article doesn't allow enough for the fact that smart people might know better how to appear attractive when discussing the halo effect.

Military hangover: had to correct automatically writing HALO from parachute stuff.
posted by jaduncan at 12:36 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

Slate had a ton of interesting unanswered explainer requests in 2011. The one they chose to answer was inexplicably the stupidest. I personally would much prefer to have learned why we need to see the outline of the waste pipe in the base of the toilet, why all announcements from the National Weather Service come in capital letters, why there are no topless casinos in Vegas, and how the foods in your stomach decide which ones get to be in your breath when you burp.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 12:36 PM on January 12 [3 favorites]

Related: What does a Philosopher Look Like? Weird.

The original article is kind of interesting. Spoiler: both intelligence and looks give you advantages in mate selection, so they are actually correllated.

As I recall, there's an argument to be made that beauty is not itself the advantage in mate selection, but a shorthand for health -- this argument does not, I suppose, take into account historical changes in the beauty ideal.
posted by gauche at 12:36 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

You're all so, so pretty.
posted by CynicalKnight at 12:37 PM on January 12

A while back I was talking with a woman who wanted to collaborate with me on a screenplay, and she observed that good looking characters couldn't be evil because they have been treated so nicely for their looks. Only ugly people are evil.

We did not collaborate on a screenplay.
posted by brundlefly at 12:39 PM on January 12 [10 favorites]

IMHO the article doesn't allow enough for the fact that smart people might know better how to appear attractive when discussing the halo effect.

Yeah, I was thinking about that during the article too.

But I'm super fascinated by what people see in the pictures of others that lets them accurately judge a person's intelligence.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 12:39 PM on January 12

IT'S ALARMING HOW CHARMING I FEEEEEEEEEL
posted by elizardbits at 12:39 PM on January 12 [5 favorites]

the link to Tina Fey portraying Sarah Palin is the funniest....

what about all the beautiful, airheaded women? how can we explain that???

*links to a video of an incredibly smart, talented woman portraying an airheaded woman BECAUSE THEY HAPPEN LOOK THE SAME as a puzzling example of looks signifying intelligence

what?

smart woman and dumb woman look similar, proves dumb people are attractive?
posted by nathancaswell at 12:40 PM on January 12

The article was pretty interesting, Brandon.

It's on Slate, which isn't a high mark of quality and often a sign of dull witted pandering that belongs next to Uncle John's Bathroom reader. Perhaps beneath. Which isn't a total slam, as I like Uncle John's and it's taught me plenty. But a nuanced book of learnin' it ain't. Had it been on The Atlantic website, I would have read it before commenting.

Having now read the article, I'm pleased to note that I did an excellent job at sizing up the material at first glance (just like in the article), marking me as both smart and good looking. But you already knew that.

This ain't rocket science. If you're trying to make sweeping general statements and ignoring the rich variety of individuals, you're being ignorant and not worth much of my time.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:41 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]

Isn't there considerable evidence that intelligence is innately considered attractive?

There are apparently men who don't consider intelligence attractive in women when it exceeds their own intelligence, but that's misogyny must be dying out today, much like men wanting mates who earn less.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:43 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

Ok but why are politicians almost always ugly?
posted by 2bucksplus at 12:43 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]

Smart people aren't ugly. Attractive people are perceived as dumb.
posted by Ad hominem at 12:43 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]

So, all attractive smart people are ugly.

Wait.
posted by everichon at 12:47 PM on January 12

But I'm super fascinated by what people see in the pictures of others that lets them accurately judge a person's intelligence.

My retinal augment displays basic stats for every person I see. Int, Dex, Wis, Con, etc.
posted by kmz at 12:47 PM on January 12 [5 favorites]

Yep, I read the article. That's why my comment was another idea on why smart people are beautiful, not ugly, as was the false premise. Thanks for your assumption though... Just because I'm gorgeous doesn't mean I'm an idiot!
posted by arcticwoman at 12:52 PM on January 12

There are apparently men who don't consider intelligence attractive in women when it exceeds their own intelligence...

See, I can never have that problem. If a woman is willing to go out with me then she clearly can't be all that bright.

Wait.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 12:55 PM on January 12 [7 favorites]

Since the article relies heavily on the research of Kanazawa, you might be interested in the fact that his research is largely bunk.
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 12:57 PM on January 12 [9 favorites]

WELL, kmz, the wild blue dreaminess of my eyes refracts the returning data into a many-splendored starfield, beguiling all augments.
posted by notyou at 1:00 PM on January 12

But I'm super fascinated by what people see in the pictures of others that lets them accurately judge a person's intelligence.

Yeah, this is fascinating. I've always thought the eyes are a reliable giveaway, on some kind of primordial/extrasensory level that even computers wouldn't be able to detect. From the article, it appears I'm not alone: "The author of the follow-up in Pittsburgh wondered if the secret of intelligence might not be lurking in 'the lustre of the eye.'"
posted by naju at 1:01 PM on January 12

I figure being well-hung trumps both.
posted by jonmc at 1:01 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful...
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:02 PM on January 12

Yeah, the article was kinda interesting, but as Philosopher Dirtbike says, Kanazawa is essentially a pseudoscientist.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 1:02 PM on January 12

I have this new theory that smart people are dumb. Who's with me?
posted by facetious at 1:07 PM on January 12 [3 favorites]

Having now read the article

You admit you commented without reading the article, basically a threadshit. Whether you were right or wrong has no real bearing.
posted by Rumple at 1:11 PM on January 12 [5 favorites]

Kanazawa is essentially a pseudoscientist.

An evo psych guy peddling bullshit? This is my shocked face.
posted by kmz at 1:14 PM on January 12 [8 favorites]

People, it's ALL genetic.

*Dons asbestos*
posted by Edgewise at 1:18 PM on January 12

Two words: Hedy Lamarr.
posted by aught at 1:18 PM on January 12 [9 favorites]

You admit you commented without reading the article, basically a threadshit. Whether you were right or wrong has no real bearing.

If the post is composed of dumb ass questions, is there a need to read the article?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:19 PM on January 12

Because you don't pay any attention to ugly, stupid people.
posted by delmoi at 1:20 PM on January 12

f the post is composed of dumb ass questions, is there a need to read the article?

If the commentor hasn't read the article, is there a need to make a comment?
posted by mokin at 1:22 PM on January 12 [3 favorites]

I only half read the article, can I only make half a co
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:29 PM on January 12 [4 favorites]

MetaTalk is kind of overkill. The best course of action
posted by delmoi at 1:29 PM on January 12

Seems like exactly the kind of poisonous first comment that the mods delete now, too bad.
posted by smackfu at 1:30 PM on January 12 [3 favorites]

The dinosaur question was silly - they'd look like chickens, obviously.

I don't know the answer to the sex change question, but I do suppose that anyone transitioning back would be travelling an ineffably lonely road.
posted by Mary Ellen Carter at 1:31 PM on January 12

I'm too smart to be reeled in by a trolling post title.

so there, smartypants
posted by Halloween Jack at 1:32 PM on January 12

Personally, I don't trust beautiful people, since they're so readily changeable.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 1:34 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

OnTheLastCastle: "Did any of you actually read the article ... ?"

Do we ever?
posted by symbioid at 1:36 PM on January 12 [3 favorites]

I'v wondered whether it would be better to be the most attractive person or the smartest person. Sure looks fade somewhat but in all honesty so do brains. Kinda a tossup.
posted by Ad hominem at 1:39 PM on January 12

The dinosaur question was silly - they'd look like chickens, obviously.

The second question is:

Let's say that a meteor never hits the earth, and dinosaurs continue evolving over all the years human beings have grown into what we are today. What would they be like?

There's actually no way to know. Evolution doesn't go in a straight line, it's a random thing, where random chance can cause one evolutionary 'move' to change drastically.

The thing is, the earth was much warmer in the Dinosaurs time, and there was far more oxygen in the air. That's why animals were able to be so large. There were 2.5 foot dragon files for example. They would have been able to be far more efficient in terms of burning calories then animals today.

So, dinosaurs would probably be smaller. But saying they'd be 'like chickens' is kind of unrealistic. It's likely that some of the larger animals might have survived, if they did shrink down.

There could have been an intelligent animal on earth long before humans, had large land dinosaurs survived. Who knows if mammals would have come up to fill the niche left by large land dinos.

There was a really interesting Dresden Codak comic speculating about it.
posted by delmoi at 1:40 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]

I personally would much prefer to have learned why we need to see the outline of the waste pipe in the base of the toilet, why all announcements from the National Weather Service come in capital letters, why there are no topless casinos in Vegas, and how the foods in your stomach decide which ones get to be in your breath when you burp.

Hehe, I actually asked that one.
posted by Afroblanco at 1:44 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]

True story.

I knew a girl in high school from the various debate events I went to. Tina. Stunning. Acted the total ditz. I make some crack about this, as awkward fifteen year olds are wont to do.

I was rather confused by the looks of shock around me. "What?"

"Uh, Dan, who do you think organized this event we're all at?"
"TINA?"
"Yeah. Girl basically aced her SATs. It's all an act."

Quite the lesson.
posted by effugas at 1:50 PM on January 12 [4 favorites]

Metafilter: Us smart people tend to focus on the smartness.
posted by Brak at 1:54 PM on January 12

I personally would much prefer to have learned why we need to see the outline of the waste pipe in the base of the toilet

Toilets are ceramic. I always assumed it was because a glazed surface will be super-smooth and easy to clean, unlikely to accumulate gross stuff as other surfaces. I'd guess the outline thing is to save on materials, and probably weight as well. Fired clay is about 85 pounds per cubic foot. About 100 pounds wet. You could a plastic thing around it, but that would be a cleaning liability.
posted by delmoi at 1:54 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

One thing that could lead to the impression that smart people are ugly comes from an interesting factoid from causal inference. If two unrelated factors (e.g., attractiveness and intelligence) are co-causal agents for a third factor (social desirability), restricting the population to a level of the third factor (only socially desirable people) induces a correlation between the co-causal agents in that restricted population. So even if smarts and looks aren't correlated in the general population, they will be in the subpopulation of just the wealthy or of just the popular. This is easily illustrated. Suppose all three factors are binary (pretty vs. ugly, smart vs. dumb, desirable vs. not) and of equal frequency (i.e., 50/50). Then exactly 3/4 of the population will be socially desirable, 1/3 smart only, 1/3 pretty only, and 1/3 both. Within this population, if you're ugly, you're sure to be smart (i.e., all of the ugly people in this group are smart). If you're pretty, then you have an even chance of being smart, just like in the larger population. But if you're dumb, you have a perfect chance of being pretty.

The real situation is more complicated (continuum on each scale, unequal frequencies, etc.), but the principle still holds. If you only know socially desirable folks well enough to judge their smarts, the ugly ones will be smarter. If you are part of the socially undesirable set, then your results will be the opposite: stupidity will be synonymous with ugly (or at least highly associated).
posted by Mental Wimp at 1:56 PM on January 12 [6 favorites]

The title is link bait. Its totally fair to give it a pass on that basis alone.
posted by Bovine Love at 1:57 PM on January 12

A fella' walks into a supermarket and buys:

1 bar of soap
1 tube toothpaste
1 loaf of bread
1 pint of milk
1 single serving cereal
1 single serving frozen dinner

The gum-smacking teenage cashier looks at him and says "Single are you?" The guy replies sarcastically "Yeah. How did you ever guess?" Her answer, "Because you're ugly."
posted by ericb at 2:03 PM on January 12 [4 favorites]

Interesting. I finally finished the article. The explainer cites Kanazawa, the psudo-scientist. Even if his conclusions are wrong, his data might be correct. If it's true that less attractive people are actually less likely to be smart, I would guess that, rather then evo-psych it has a lot to do with self perception and confidence. An ugly person will be treated way different from someone who is good looking.
posted by delmoi at 2:05 PM on January 12

I'm cursed with being both attractive and brilliant. It's a nightmare, people thnk I'm shallow and I can fell the pain.
posted by ciderwoman at 2:11 PM on January 12

Remember folks, if the headline ends in a question mark, the answer is almost always 'No.'
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:13 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]

I don't get the question. [preens feathers]
posted by not_on_display at 2:17 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

why there are no topless casinos in Vegas

People stuff chips in your G-string for a tip.
posted by Halloween Jack at 2:20 PM on January 12

There's a quite reasonable explanation for some people to associate intelligence with ugliness. Ugliness is so profound a social handicap that the vast majority of ugly people who attain significant prominence do so because of a powerful offsetting virtue -- usually intelligence. By contrast, beautiful people in public view fall in a normal distribution of intelligence.
posted by MattD at 2:26 PM on January 12 [7 favorites]

So, dinosaurs would probably be smaller. But saying they'd be 'like chickens' is kind of unrealistic.

Well, but they'd still TASTE like chickens, right?
posted by soundguy99 at 2:38 PM on January 12

Uh. Am I the only one who thinks the "caveats" the article lists are more like "this study is probably bullshits"?

Anyone giving this study credence note that the article points out two things. First, other studies have gotten different results. Second, the guy who did this study used the same dataset and methods to prove that black women are objectively uglier than white or asian women.

So, yeah. Might want to rethink the whole "hey this makes sense" thing.
posted by Justinian at 2:40 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]

The title is link bait. Its totally fair to give it a pass on that basis alone.

How is it link bait? Slate asked people for a question they wanted answered. This one came out on top. The columnist tried to answer it.
posted by smackfu at 2:45 PM on January 12

Two words: Hedy Lamarr.

It's Hedly!
posted by banshee at 2:49 PM on January 12 [6 favorites]

I can't speak for other smart people, but I'm usually ugly because I haven't figured out a way not to be.
posted by smcameron at 2:51 PM on January 12

Have you noticed that very few porn movies are intellectually challenging? Are you dismayed that your academic journals and socioeconomic periodicals don't excite you sexually? Then you need The Whore of Mensa, who provides both titillation and tutelage.
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:55 PM on January 12 [3 favorites]

I eschew titillation and tutelage. I just want to read classical porn in its original language.
posted by Dumsnill at 3:05 PM on January 12

I personally would much prefer to have learned why we need to see the outline of the waste pipe in the base of the toilet

The problem with this is that your question involves a false premise. Indeed, the earliest toilets, such as the one used in Minoan Crete, did not have such an outline. Quite often toilets have performed the function of eliminating waste quite intelligently while preserving the beauty of sleek design.

I suggest you focus your attention on the more intriguing question: Why do public toilet seats have a break in the front?
posted by twoleftfeet at 3:16 PM on January 12

Wouldn't smart ugly people rise to prominence more than stupid ugly people? So all the ugly people we can think of are smarter than average? Or something.
posted by prefpara at 3:37 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]

Two words: Hedy Lamarr.

banshee: It's Hedly!

God dammit- I came to this thread late, and was frantically scrolling down hoping that no one had made that joke yet, and there you are right at the end, you jerk.

MattD: There's a quite reasonable explanation for some people to associate intelligence with ugliness. Ugliness is so profound a social handicap that the vast majority of ugly people who attain significant prominence do so because of a powerful offsetting virtue -- usually intelligence. By contrast, beautiful people in public view fall in a normal distribution of intelligence

Linked article: Another theory holds that certain environmental factors in the womb or just after birth can produce both facial disfigurements and cognitive impairments on one side, or facial symmetry and high intelligence on the other. A third suggests that attractive children are treated better, and receive more attention from their caretakers and teachers, which helps to nurture a sharper mind. It's also possible that smart people are better able to take care of themselves and their looks. (emphasis my own)

Quoting so I don't have to comment in much depth. Yep, I think my thoughts on this matter are pretty well documented throughout my posting history at this site.

I've always heard that the stereotype is untrue, as the article noted; that in general, smarter then average people tend to also be healthier, taller, and more attractive. Either because they have overall good genes, or because the environmental factors that are beneficial (healthy regular diet, safe upbringing, mostly disease free, access to and emphasis on education) leads not only to improved physical attributes like symmetry and height, but to better mental acumen.

But that's for the ~1 SD range; I suspect the 3+ SDs on either end are pretty much overcoming most any environmental factors or trends (well, except when an accident/environmental factor leaves someone severely impaired).
posted by hincandenza at 3:40 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

Smart people are ugly? These ladies and Dolph Lundgren would like to have a talk with Mr. Daniel Engber of Slate Magazine. The talk will consist mostly of word-puzzles learned from Puzzlemaster Will Shortz and solving Soduku without using any writing utensils.
posted by AzraelBrown at 3:42 PM on January 12

I'm smarter than hell, and I tell you, once I've got 8 or 10 beers in me, I'm gorgeous in that mirror.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:44 PM on January 12

The approach of correlating high school yearbook photos with I.Q. has some flaws. Any snapshot of a person is just that - a snapshot - and can't possibly convey enough of the detail that we use to judge abstract notions of "beauty" or "smartness". I've known the most beautiful people, graceful sensitive people, who seemed to me, as I spoke with them, to be undeniably gorgeous, and it was only later when I happened to see them in a photograph that I realized they were ugly. Voltaire famously said (so they say): Give me 10 minutes to talk away my ugly face and I'll bed the Queen of France. So much of what is beautiful in a person doesn't appear in a photograph. Nor in an I.Q. test. I met the most intelligent woman once. She wasn't literate. Her math skills were poor. But her movements were exquisite and delicate, and her singing voice was sublime. She was beautiful for who she was, completely intelligent in her own being.
posted by twoleftfeet at 3:49 PM on January 12 [4 favorites]

Of course most smart people are ugly, because most people are ugly. Go hang out at the mall one day and watch them all walk by. It's a freak-show out there.

Present company excepted, of course.
posted by rocket88 at 3:50 PM on January 12 [3 favorites]

I resemble that remark!
posted by Saxon Kane at 4:20 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]

Of course most smart people are ugly, because most people are ugly. Go hang out at the mall one day and watch them all walk by. It's a freak-show out there.


While you're at the mall, go over to whatever pub-grub joint is attached to and down a few of their strongest drinks. Everyone (including yourself) will look better, trust me.
posted by jonmc at 4:37 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

In short, Kanazawa’s findings are not statistically significant, and the patterns he analyzed could well have occurred by chance.

Even if you believe that attractiveness can be objectively evaluated and that IQ measures some innate feature of a person's mind (unaffected by education, biased test questions, study effects, etc.) there's nothing here. If anything, Kanazawa's data tells us that there is no relationship between perceived attractiveness and IQ scores.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 5:22 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

I judge an article by the headline. I didn't read the article.

What tosh. A headline copywriter is needed if you want anyone to Continue? reading, Slate.

See how smart I am? HaHa.
posted by alicesshoe at 5:32 PM on January 12

ericb: "A fella' walks into a supermarket and buys..."

Almost totally OT, but I saw our local political reporter in my neighbourhood grocery buying exactly one can of Zoodles and a giant pack of toilet paper. Here, I thought, is the archetypal bachelor!

He is also ugly and not very smart.
posted by klanawa at 9:02 PM on January 12

Go hang out at the mall one day and watch them all walk by.

Now now, rocket. You know as well as I do that Centre Mall's been demolished, and Eastgate isn't as bad.
posted by Capt. Renault at 9:19 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

Old Joke:


Q-What is a sexual intellectual?

A- A fu---ing know it all!
posted by smudgedlens at 9:35 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

I'm nightmarishly ugly but only modestly stupid.
posted by planet at 9:36 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]

Kanazawa is essentially a pseudoscientist

Kanazawa? The self hating douche who thinks Asians are no good at science and evolution made Black women objectively unattractive? That dude? Anybody who just snarked rather than read the article first was right. Dude makes his living finding pseudoscientific justifications for rightwing prejudices and should be ignored by anybody with an interest in real science.
posted by MartinWisse at 11:54 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]

Yup, that's the guy. Though it's not all right-wing. He also has a "paper" out about how liberals are innately smarter than republicans, because, after all, contemporary US politics perfectly represents the adaptive situation of our savannah ancestors some 150 000 years ago.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 1:08 AM on January 13

"why there are no topless casinos in Vegas"
posted by stupidsexyFlanders

I am not 100% sure on this, but having worked as a croupier, I would guess it is becase you could steal chips by hiding them under your breasts, the same reasons we wore bow-ties, and no watches were allowed. I know it sounds ridiculous, but casinos are totally (and kinda understandably) anal about this sort of thing.
posted by marienbad at 8:18 AM on January 13

I would guess it is becase you could steal chips by hiding them under your breasts,

So just small-breasted wome (and men?).
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:34 AM on January 13

I know it sounds ridiculous, but casinos are totally (and kinda understandably) anal about this sort of thing.

Also probably why they don't have bottomless dealers.

I'll show myself out.
posted by jabberjaw at 8:03 AM on January 14

why all announcements from the National Weather Service come in capital letters

I have long wanted to know this too. For some reason I decided to search for the answer today, and found that the Seattle NWS office has an frequently asked questions list that explains why:

Q14. Why are NWS text products typed in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS?
A14. It is not because we want to scream at you! This practice goes back many, many years and relates to international requirements for message dissemination. Some of our international partners still use low-tech dissemination technology which requires the continued use of ALL CAPS. Since the U.S. is an international member of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), we follow those guidelines that still exist for the benefit of all nations. That is why TAFs, AIREPs, Marine Forecasts, etc. are typed in ALL CAPS.

posted by grouse at 11:45 AM on January 17