>>126997930 (OP)It's not that she's attractive. It's that she's attractive in a "hot and seductive" way rather than for example in a "pretty and cute" way, + she's styled (makeup , hair, clothes, surgery) in a way that's commonly associated with a type of person who's very superficial, has looking hot very high in her priorities, has has had an easy life since birth, etc. and those people aren't known to put in the work into studying and practicing things enough to be world class at them.
Basically it's not that she's beautiful. It's that she's a stacy.
Lots of beautiful girls, some even more beautiful than her, don't give off that impression because they're beautiful in a different way that isn't associated with being a dumb stacy.
The exact same thing applies to males. If you see a singer that looks like a fitness model with a perfect body and face you're not going to bet on him being a world class level musician because his type is associated with being the male equivalent of the above (a "chad") and he looks like he spends his time enjoying life, playing sports, chasing women, etc. while an attractive guy who's just as handsome in a different way may give you a different impression.
Obviously these are stereotypes and even if (IF) completely true they still allow for many exceptions, do they're not strict rules, but are why you're led to making that assumption.