Why is it considered superficial to choose a partner based on beauty but not considered superficial to choose a partner based on brains?

Beauty is temporary but,Brain will be with you always(exception- brain damage) May be for some continent what is beauty will odd for other continent.. But brain never..

In the specific context of the House-episode: because hiring-decisions should be made on the basis of factors that are relevant for the job. You should not get hired as a doctor because you're pretty, OR because you've got a high IQ. You should be judged by your education, your results and your experience. More generally, the same argument applies: a high IQ is not inherently more "worthy" than a attractive face, but often when we say "smart" we mean something more than just raw intelligence. We also mean that you're using your head in a good way. This is something you've got conscious influence over, and as such it's more deserving of praise than just your genes is. For the same reason, it's a better idea to praise a person for a good sports-performance than for a pretty face. Both are influenced by genetics, but sports-results also take a lot of hard work, and is thus a lot more influenced by your own conscious effort than the attractiveness of your face is. And frankly, our culture heaps a lot more admiration at people who perform well in sports than in people who (for example) perform well in science. As average people on the street to name 10 currently good athletes. Then ask them to name 10 currently good scientists. In the specific case of choosing a partner, it's not so much that it's shallow as that it's dumb. Human experience tells us that physical beauty fades a lot faster than being smart does, thus over the long haul it's likely that choosing primarily by looks will be regretted. Choosing a partner solely by IQ is however also not a good idea. It's true that it's got more longevity than looks does, but you still need a lot more than just "she's got a high IQ" for your relationship to be a solid one.

A2A. Before proceeding to answer this question, I'd like to make a point - the two traits being dealt with here, namely, aesthetics and intellect need not be mutually exclusive. There are several women, who are both pretty as well as intelligent. Having said that I shall proceed to the main body of the answer. I'll admit - this is one of the hardest questions I have answered, and one which required some amount of research. I seek to, by means of this answer, attempt to explain why oftentimes, looks are given a greater importance than intellect. To that end, this answer is divided into three parts: Part I deals with reasons behind the importance of physical appearance. Part II attempts to reason why one is given preference over the other. Part III addresses other questions posed by the OP. This answer is going to be awfully long, as I have tried to make it exhaustive. I have not had the benefit of reading the answers posted by others just yet. NOTE: I'm going to answer this question primarily operating under the assumption that the choice is made by a man while seeking a partner who is a woman. Part I: Importance of physical appearance: Before elaborating on the importance of physical appearance to prospective partners, I shall quote a part of my earlier answer, which I find extremely relevant to the current issues at hand. I've quoted this passage in several answers of mine, where I felt this would serve as a good introduction into the answer. The way I see it, any relationship requires four elements namely: (1) Attraction (2) Chemistry (3) Affection (4) Sexuality. Their order of importance and even importance inter se varies from person to person, and from couple to couple. I'll elaborate upon each element before proceeding onward. Attraction for the purpose of the elemental categorization of relationship prerequisites is purely physical. It has to be mutual. Attractive encompasses being pretty, beautiful, cute etc. It can be either instantaneous (often called "love at first sight, although the term "love" here is a misnomer) or acquired. It is instantaneous if you find the person attractive immediately upon seeing him/her.  Attraction is acquired when it is not instantaneous but develops gradually and often caused with the progression of the relationship (even as friends perhaps). For e.g. finding a person cute because of his/her personality. Having therefore defined two types of attraction, I shall proceed onward. Physical attractiveness is very much an important factor. The reason behind the status accorded to physical attractiveness of women can be analyzed from three angles, namely, historical, biological and social. From a historical perspective, it is evident that women have for the most part been valued for their physical appearance. This is because, the traditional gender role of a woman has always been that of a person to satisfy the sexual needs of men (which satisfaction is owing to the intrinsically visual nature of men's sexuality, contingent upon attractiveness) and giving birth to and nurturing his offspring. Features such as a wide hip were considered (albeit fallaciously) to be an indicator of fertility. Beauty was equated falsely with viability, health and fertility and this erroneous line of thought led to the commodification of women in a manner of speaking. From a biological perspective, members of both sexes are attracted to members of opposite sex - who are physically attractive. A clear complexion for instance and a radiant face, are often seen as a sign of a healthy individual. Long straight hair is admired almost unanimously as being a sign of beauty. Sure, sociologists argue that beauty as a concept is not nearly as biological as it is sociological - that society, through positive and negative reinforcement techniques, in addition to media in recent times, creates and/or shapes the notion of what is and is not beautiful. The social aspect determines the extent of importance attached to it. The extent to which physical appearance is important - while evaluating the tenability of a prospective relationship varies between men and women. I have addressed in very great detail, the extent to which good looks contribute to success with members of the opposite sex, in earlier answers of mine, links to which I have given below. Since my views on both matters remains materially intact, I don't find the need to re-articulate them again. I have addressed this issue from the perspective of both men and women. 1.  and 2.  Part II: Reconciling the two traits The fact is, it is NOT superficial to choose a partner based either on her looks or her intellect. Society has deemed it so because of resentment people feel from being rejected because of their lacking the character deemed necessary by the person they were hoping to become the partner to. The way I see it, people ascribe their rejection to the shallowness of the person who rejected them, instead of realizing that they don't measure up to the aforesaid person's expectations. The validity of such expectations in itself is not the subject of this question. Oftentimes, it is women largely deemed unattractive who state that using looks to find a partner is superficial, much the same way short men complain that women are being vain by only dating tall men. The fact of the matter is, one cannot help whom one is attracted to. While some people find certain physical traits attractive, others find intellect attractive. There are people, both men and women who find the thought of a charming and witty significant other almost as sexually arousing as the average person finds the thought of a physically alluring significant other. It varies. Neither one trait is inherently superior or more worthy than the other, its importance with respect to the other varies upon the individual taste of the person. As I mentioned earlier, it depends upon the importance placed by the perceiving person, upon the trait being perceived. Part III: I shall now address the specific questions of the OP: Imagine a different species, which can communicate telepathically and can sense the intelligence of another member just being in close proximity. In that species, would finding intelligence attractive be considered superficial? Yes, it would be, because intelligence would be accorded by members of such species the same importance, reverence and status good looks are by members of the human species. Why the dichotomy in the treatment meted out to the two characteristics which are equally genetically predisposed, ephemeral and subjective? The fact is, the dichotomy is not the product of rational thought. As I did mention earlier, it is not superficial or shallow, among the string of adjectives used to characterize situations of this nature, to choose one's partner on the basis of characteristics one finds desirable. But the issue presented here is not the reasonableness of the dichotomy, but an attempt to rationalize it. The simple answer is this: The average person does not want to fuck intellect. When it comes to male-female interactions, with the prospect of romance, either subconsciously or consciously, people have looked for someone whom they are sexually attracted to. This is proven by the point - given their way, most people would, ceteris paribus, go for someone they find sexually appetizing. This is not a mere statement to throw around. Since men on the hand tend to be far more visual than women, the fact is, an ideal partner, or rather, a trait to be found in an ideal partner, would be physical attractiveness. As a result, women have often been passed in favor of the next woman, on the basis that the former is less attractive than the latter, so much so that, it has caused to form within them, a feeling of resentment towards the value placed on physical attractiveness, which resentment manifests itself in the form of eschewing the validity of the notions placing such value on attractiveness. As to why it is deemed superficial to choose on the basis of looks, as opposed to intellect, it stems from the fact that people often conceptualize looks to be something innate as opposed to intellect which is perceived to be acquired. What I mean to say is this - people perceive physical attractiveness to be something of a "gift" - which a person possesses as the result of a fortuity, and not because of the person's own efforts. While the same applies to intellect, people perceive differently. This is because by intellect, people do not refer to one's IQ as much, it is a reference to one's ability to reason, and think, and apply one's ability well. It is not as much to the trait itself, as much as it is to the application thereof. Since the prevailing mindset is, that something which one had to work to attain is more worthy than something handed over to the person in a silver platter, intellect is deemed more worthy of praise and recognition. I think I have addressed the issues adequately.

To hire someone on the basis of an attribute that has no direct bearing on their ability to get the job done is certainly demeaning if not a case of blatant unfair discrimination against another who may be equal or better at doing the job.The physical attractiveness of the lack of it thereby is no reflection of a doctor's ability to be a good one! At best, levels of fitness may be a consideration for a doctor given that they should be a good role model - and demonstrate that they are able to practice what they preach. Also unless the person hiring hires based on attractiveness for both genders and not just women (which would more likely be the case than not), he is clearly sexist and disrespectful of women's abilities and their utility beyond being just eye candy. If the job in question requires physical beauty, such as modelling, it would equally discriminating to hire based on other attributes whether it be brains, interpersonal skill or coming from a powerful family. A person has the right to choose which of their abilities they would want to make a profession out of. If the lady doctor in question wanted to be hired for her level of attractiveness, she may not have needed to worked as hard to earn her doctor's qualifications. To have been hired for any other reasons than she was the best candidate for the job would indeed have been demeaning. That both beauty and brains may be genetically gifted is hardly the right argument applicable here!

's answer is very apt to this question. I would like to add a few points. Brain is what differentiates human beings from other living organisms. We are different because of our brains, not because of the way we look. How do you define beauty? Its simply the way we look. Some may find us good looking, others may not. When talking about brains, our IQ points are not considered but rather the way we use our brain. Emotions and feelings are attributed to heart but are actually because of the way we think i.e. because of our brain. Our brain make us productive, not our looks. There is no benefit to be provided by beauty except may be attracting a partner in some cases. All our actions (including putting emphasis on beauty) are because of our brain. Looks don't have anything to offer. In fact, you are asking this question because of your brain, not because of the way you look. Thanks for the A2A.

Actually, it still is. Either way, people of similar intelligence and physical attractiveness tend to pair up, more often than not. Make of that what you will. :) I also disagree with what others said about intelligence being a better bet of sorts since it fades slower. You're forgetting that beauty charms us greatly and is so heavily rewarded for a reason; it indicates good health, fertility, and excellent genes. It even indicates great nutrition in the womb and a lack of parasites. These are all great boons to the children nature intended for us to conceive- though with the advent of modern contraception, we've thwarted biology's original script. Calling people who pick their partners by looks "dumb" is rather short-sighted and insulting; if the name of the game was to pass on our genes, people who picked good-looking partners were far more likely to succeed. Who's dumb now? But back to the question: the only thing that isn't considered superficial is character. Research consistently shows people considering kindness a vital trait in a mate, though certain exceptions exist: Residents of economically developed nations assigned more importance to a mate's niceness than residents of economically undeveloped nations did. Thus, seeking a 'nice' mate with pleasant personal qualities may be a luxury available to people in affluent countries more than to people in poorer nations. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/articles/results/mates.shtml Interestingly, "in richer nations, men tended to value a mate's intelligence more than women did, but the reverse was true in poorer nations." Also, men consistently valued beauty far more than women across all nations. It does show up our priorities- beauty is far more essential since it means your mate is fertile, but intelligence and character are second-tier, being less important when it comes to the aforementioned gene-passing game. But of course, you could always argue the other way and state that people who pick mates based on looks and smarts really aren't superficial at all, since both do indicate far more than what they are: health, virility, vigour, and each other (since looks and intelligence are positively correlated: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201012/beautiful-people-really-are-more-intelligent; http://www.amazon.com/Looks-They-Matter-More-Imagined/dp/0814480543). Finally, I believe House says things to mess with people. After all, the tagline to House was "one sick bastard"... (Source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/House_(TV_series)), and Cameron did have an excellent and impressive resume. However, that dialogue did resonate with me: People choose the paths that grant them the greatest rewards for the least amount of effort. That's the law of nature, and you defied it. That's why I hired you. You could have married rich, could have been a model, you could have just show up and people would have given you stuff. I fear that he's right. And what a depressing indictment of humanity it is.

I believe the answer is romantic love. Romantic love is considered by western cultures (and perhaps worldwide) as the "ideal of how love should exist between the sexes". Romantic love requires more than physical intimacy. It requires things like closeness, caring, emotional intimacy, etc. Those things cannot be achieved unless you have a deeper connection (which would reflect intelligence). Since this deeper level of connection is far more difficult to find, we have de-emphasized beauty as a requirement for modern relationships. Romantic love stems out of concepts of chivalry and courtship which happened in medieval Europe. That is when this all began. The conception of romantic love was popularized in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture by the concept of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight, or knights in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages,  engaged in what were usually non-physical and non-marital relationships  with women of nobility of whom they served. These relations were highly  elaborate and ritualized in a complexity that was steeped in a  framework of tradition, which stemmed from theories of etiquette derived  out of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry as a moral code of conduct. Over time, the concept of chivalry and the notion of the courtly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleman became synonymous with the ideal of how love and romance should exist  between the sexes. Through the timeless popularization in art and  literature of tales of knights and princesses, kings and queens, a  formative and long standing (sub)consciousness helped to shape  relationships between men and women. Note that romantic love is not the only way to establish successful pair-bondings. In many societies over history and still today, arranged marriages work perfectly fine and they had no pre-requisite romance. Put a man and a wife under the same roof, and eventually, sex will happen. The example you used from the show House was not a good example, but I guess it simply spawned the thought in your mind. Doctors should be selected based on merit. Mates should be selected based on lots of traits including beauty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_%28love%29

I'll stay away from the house episode. There are two issues involved in judging a potential partner by looks vs intelligence : fairness, and the overall importance of physical beauty. It's considered unfair for you to lose or gain by virtue of characteristics that are not under your control. Intelligence, as applicable in reality, has a very large willful component : it's a choice. You do intelligent things mostly because you really want to and work towards, even unconsciously. Beauty is, OTOH, almost entirely a genetic lottery. So it's fair to judge you on what you had control over. The other point, that no one has yet talked about, is the overall importance of physical beauty. No matter how you look at it (pun not intended), beauty only has as much value as we give it. In other words, it does not have intrinsic value, and cannot do anything unless others choose to recognise and appreciate. Intelligence on the other hand, can let you do things that have value independent of how much people can choose to recognise or ignore it. I can ignore your beauty, but I can't ignore the gun in your hand (I'll think of a better example). Intelligence allows us to do objectively REAL things. Beauty can't do that. So it's selfish and irrational to value something that has no intrinsic value, as against something that does. Selfish, irrational, and unfair = superficial.

I am not too familiar with the show mentioned here, but of what I read from the paragraph above - the recruiter's reply doesn't sound like a blunt admission (that he picked her for being pretty). When the doctor took offence with his remark, he was quick with a rather profound retort - which means his first reply to her question was intentional and he wanted to elicit the response she came up with (so that he can force her to examine her social conditioning; the whole concept that judging someone for their beauty is more superficial and offensive than judging them for their brains). In an ideal world - a professional would be hired for their skills and talent in the profession, rather than their looks, morals or other characteristics which might be irrelevant to their professional capability. A hospital wouldn't stay in business too long if they hire doctors based on how pretty they are, and I can't imagine the recuiter(s) of a halfway decent hospital making such poor choices. Coming to the contention of whether attraction to beauty is more superficial than attraction to brains, it is beaten to death by the other answerers already, so I'd rather stay a mere spectator. Thank you Nikhitha for the A2A, by the way. Quite an interesting question, this one.