It's possible that people might think that looks and smarts trade off. In this post, I talk about where this false dichotomy seems to be at play, why one might intuitively believe it, why such a belief is mistaken, and why this belief can wreak havoc on one's self-esteem and one's relationships.
As part of my series on mapping the political space, I talk about two intellectual periods, the Enlightenment and the Romantic movement, that embody and inspire two clusters of aesthetics. I go over how both of these aesthetics can be used for good or ill, and discuss how these aesthetics are adopted by various political ideologies/camps.
For some reason, people have a mental image of racism as violent, ignorant, lower-class, crude, crass, and irrational. I talk about what racist beliefs look like when they're held by genteel, polite, educated, upper class, scientifically-minded people, and why we should care about this form of racism.
I introduce some philosophical concepts (the is-ought problem and the notion of thick concepts) to illustrate why you cannot remove morals from political debate, why avoiding words like "racist" because they are "inherently alienating" is an unproductive exercise, and why explicitly appealing to values helps facilitate political discussion and communication.
One should always, in my opinion, be suspicious of incongruent dichotomies. I show how the false dichotomy of logic vs. emotion (thinking vs. feeling) is used to discredit groups of people and justify laziness.