> Today was the first day I actually had to stop and think how to answer the question. What really surprised me was the disparity in the number of responses between the two answers I was considering. I finally chose the response that ended up being (so far) the most popular. My thinking went like this:
>
> Rich, stupid, ugly, and clumsy was dismissed out of hand. Being rich doesn't make up for very many things in this world. In fact, I think being rich makes some really bad qualities worse in people.
>
> Poor, smart, ugly, and clumsy struck me and ended up being my final response.
>
> Poor, stupid, attractive, and clumsy gave me a little pause, because I am considered relatively attractive, and I know it does open some doors for me. What I do after I get in the door is another matter, but society as a whole does have some prejudice on the side of attractiveness. The whole first impression thing.
>
> But I seriously considered answering that I would most rather be poor, stupid, ugly, and
> athletic, the least popular answer. (I'm biting my tongue not to say, "Look at Dennis Rodman, for instance.") Seriously. Athletic talent, at least in this country, does make up for countless deficiencies.
> Or at least, if it doesn't make up for them, it certainly makes them matter less. If I had
> extreme athletic ability, I would make a lot of money, be surrounded by people who
> would think for me, and be attractive to certain people who otherwise wouldn't have
> looked twice at me, simply by virtue of being in the public eye and having exposure in
> front of a larger group of people (without even mentioning the money and fame aspects).
>
> I'm really surprised that so few people answered that way. Thoughts, anyone?

I just chose the only one that made me smart.

Drac