A comment at Mail Online says it pretty well. And how about Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking? Or ... or ... Arnold Schwarzenegger? Helen Thomas? So...

Subject: 
A comment at Mail Online says it pretty well. And how about Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking? Or ... or ... Arnold Schwarzenegger? Helen Thomas? Sokrates?
Posted By: 
Jack Dancer
Date: 
Monday, January 17, 2011 02:08 pm

(admitted, my tested personal IQ is much lower than 178 but still high enough to see the questionability of this ... I dare to say \'pseudo-scientific\' research)

I concur with this reader-comment:

snip

Interesting how this report uses the terms \"good-looking\", \"beautiful\" and \"attractive\" as if they were interchangeable, whereas, in my experience at least, they are not. As a personal example, and dealing only with physical appearance, I remember a TV program that concluded that based on facial symmetry and the golden ratio, Liz Hurley was extremely beautiful. I have to agree with that: however, I do not find her attractive at all. On the other hand, I find a 25 year old Sissy Spacek achingly attractive, but I would agree with most people that she was never beautiful, at least in a classic sense. There are many other examples I could cite. So how was beauty, or whatever, actually measured for this survey? Was there a scientific method or was it just \"people the researchers fancied\"? p.s. I\'m bald & fat but have a verified IQ of 178

source was: