Beauty and the Beast

"It was beauty killed the beast."

I must admit that I can move between different social groups. There's a party crowd that I sometimes "hang" with. On more reflective days, I may go to a Unitarian church service and talk to my friends there. I can operate at a profound philosophical level, and sometimes at a superficial level. And today we'll be superficial. Why is it that if someone is drop-dead beautiful (male or female) and dressed to the nines, they probably aren't a Rhodes Scholar? And if they've just completed work on the Human Genome project, they probably aren't modeling for any fashion magazines? Do beauty and brains have to be mutually exclusive? I polled some friends informally, and the answer is "Yes, mutually exclusive". People had trouble coming up with any exceptions.

More along the same lines: There's the body that God gave you. Then there is clothing, grooming, jewelry, accessories, etc, that can embellish God's handiwork. The smart person, already not winning any beauty reviews, is far less likely to be a sharp dresser. The smart person is more likely to suffer in other areas such as hygiene and grooming. You might think that nature would try and compensate one trait with another, but no. The already beautiful person is the one who will be wearing the beautiful clothes. Obviously, a smart person is showing a preference for the profound over the superficial. The clothing is a diversion from worthy pursuits and deep thoughts. For a smart person, clothing conceals the naked body; for a beautiful person, it's an extension of the self.

From an evolutionary perspective, what is the favored approach? At either extreme is something untenable - a brain in a jar versus a strutting peacock. But somewhere in the murky middle is an interesting thing to observe. Beautiful people are more sought after, and probably have more reproduction potential. A non-repulsive smart person can still reproduce. Smart people have greater creative potential, which frequently translates to higher income and stable employment. And the two groups are not walled off from each other; beauty frequently gets together with the beast. But why, even when that happens, do the children of such pairings come out as beauty or beast? I wouldn't say that intelligence is sex-linked, but it's certainly looks-linked. A thesis put forth by my coworker and myself is that the developing fetus is under material/time constraints. The trade-off is very real. You can be a rocket scientist or the belle of the ball. But not both. There are probably some very noteworthy exceptions, but not many.
Nature is still running her course. Perhaps in a few thousand years, this enigma will clear itself up. Perhaps mental prowess and beauty will dwell happily in one person. Or maybe a species of ugly, but super-brilliant people will have mastery over everything. Perish the thought! For now, beauty needs the beast and the beast needs beauty.