Do you think there's some tiny truth to physiognomy?

Do you think there's some tiny truth to physiognomy?

I know this is a pseudo-science, and that phrenology went full retard on it by explaining your personality traits by the bumps and crevices in your skull.

But don't you think the way a person looks can be deformed, altered, changed by the way it feels? By what it's lived?
I mean you get scars when you grow up. It's a bit simplistic, in my opinion, to only see the skin-deep scars and not examining the impact of some more in-depth trauma on your physical body.

In extension, you could say the way a persn thinks can be reflected on your face. It's been proven it's got an impact on your stance and your poise after all.


I know I'm just shooting the shit here, but I'd like to hear what you guys think.

Yes, and not even tiny. For example many neurodevelopmental disorders come with distinct facial features. Your brain and face do develop together and there happens some kind of interaction between the genes coding those two. Also certain racial features can hint about neuropsychological traits of that said race. Hormones like testosterone also affect both your face and brain.

Yeah, that's exactly it. But how do you conceive it's not more widely accepted? I mean the collective unconscious hasn't really processed this concept yet, at least from my point of view. You can't yet assume people's traits by looking at them and be taken seriously at that. The natural reaction is to dismiss these kind of thoughts by thinking it's prejudice against a person - even though you could say everyone does it all the time, in seduction, in job interviews where you know what to expect from the first look at the person...

How? Why do we restrain from thinking that if a man looks dangerous, or looks dumb, he actually is? This can't be just a social construct. Spirituality maybe? Are there proper counter-arguments to this kind of thinking?

The race thing could be a bit more cautious though, connotation and all. But I'm not picky.

Another question: do you think it could be valuable as a research subject? If not outright scientifical, at least philosophical or sociological?

Or has it been researched already?

>But how do you conceive it's not more widely accepted?
People generally hate objectivity, because they can't reinterpret things to mean what they want it to. It's the same reason some people reject IQ tests because they don't measure things like "emotional intelligence"

>could what a person looks like possibly reveal anything about them

gee

The problem with physiognomy is that we don't know enough. Like, we have little tidbits of research that show x facial feature is caused by y brain malfunction or whatever but it's not whole. The science just isn't there yet. I'm certain that some day, we will have it all figured out. But as it currently stands, you can't just jump to conclusions about a person based on their face, we aren't that good yet.

Yeah, so that falls under people's common bad faith. Makes sense.
Have facial features been documented with the knowledge we now have btw?

It's obvious but I dare you to find someone who will agree to it without a second thought. Seriously.

>we don't know enough
Or cross-checking what has been discovered in neuropsychology with the development of facial features hasn't really been done yet?

The two statements are analogous.

"We don't know enough" was not, well, enough of a statement

> But how do you conceive it's not more widely accepted?

because 99% of people are literally fucking retarded and can't see something even when they're looking right at it unless they're told that its there.

and if you try to tell them that it's there, most of them will ask you for studies that prove that it's there and/or mention something 'scientific that they head' that proves it could not possibly be there.

>do you think it could be valuable as a research subject?

the only thing that determines if something is valuable as a research subject is how much grants, funding, and possible patent money you can make off of it.

everyone that isn't a retard already knows these things and so your job is to convince retards to give you money, which has nothing to do with whether or not it's valuable, but more to do with memes and manipulation.

>Why do we restrain from thinking that if a man looks dangerous, or looks dumb, he actually is?

because people are unwilling to live in a world where things are exactly what they appear to be. and racial differences are exactly as realistic as your ability to realize that someone is a scumbag just by looking at them. black person? he's probably toxic waste and you should avoid him. if he's someone that can behave themselves under certain circumstances, that too will be obvious.

there is very little that is not fucking obvious if you just look.

the entire modern schema of 'truth seeking', 'scientific method', 'rationalism', 'intellectualism' and etc. is actually an endemic flight from reality participated in by a majority of people who consent to collectively confuse each other and to call things the opposite of what they are.

also, don't tell anyone else about this.

that's why you don't tell people about it.

you can probably figure out who is aware of it just by looking at them, too.

see

this person is dedicated to confusing themselves and everyone else in order to prove that things aren't exactly what they seem to be.

>I seent it
Where's da proofs brainlet?

they are few in number but will constitute 100% of the people whose friendship is literally valuable on it's own merits.

memes are the cancer that learned to become contagious.

>this person is dedicated to confusing themselves and everyone else in order to prove that things aren't exactly what they seem to be.
That was me.
I studied philosophy, so in my defense contrived platitudes are my key trade.

But can you go ahead and contribute?

proof is a meme.

>But can you go ahead and contribute?

this person is becoming hostile in defense of the toxic memes he uses to help people know less and less with each passing day.

this is why this is not to be spoken of.

subtle mental illness thread?

>this person
Who the fuck are you talking about

Also, I guess you're right

Wouldnt identical twins be an easy way to study this?

Profile when they are young and at important ages like when the puberty hits, when your 18,21, etc. Surely with enough samples you could see a trend if it exists

I'm glad I'm not the only one who is getting confused as fuck by the language being used in this thread.

OP here. I'm not a native English speaker so my syntax can be weird. But at least I'm not the guy who begins his phrases by "this person"

the chinks have some kind of gooky slant eyed tradition or system of knowledge that nobody but a chink could possibly understand about it.

that's probably less helpful than realizing that you have a nervous system designed to accomplish this task and putting it to use.

identical twins exhibit far more bizarre traits than this. their personalities are typically identical, even when separated at birth or a young age.

the key take-away here is that 'everything has meaning'.

>gooky slant eyed tradition or system of knowledge that nobody but a chink could possibly understand about it.
What the fuck
I thought I was spouting trivial shit, but this... This takes the cake.

As for twins, this is good idea. But in any case this would stay an interpretation.

I think it's a good litmus test for proper scientific intuition. It requires you to perceive all the pieces and the invisible extra between them holistically and simulate their interactions.

>tiny truth

More like huge truth.

I saw actual, measurable physiological changes. They can happen over the course of a day, or even a few minutes, given proper conditions.

Most notable areas are the angle of your eyes and the shape of your jaw. Lots of stuff with spine curvature too.

>It's the same reason some people reject IQ tests because they don't measure things like "emotional intelligence"

But you're objectively wrong. IQ tests aren't objective, and emotional intelligence is objectively a thing (which also can't be objectively measured, but w/e)

>emotional intelligence is objectively a thing
Prove it.

>prove it

the refrain of the retard

I'm asking for proof that something objectively exists, which should be easy if it does in fact exist. Stooping to name-calling is a pretty good tell that there isn't any real evidence that what should simply be called "empathy" is actually in any way related to intelligence.

there's no such thing as 'intelligence'. or 'emotion'. they don't objectively exist. they're referring to objects that we only imagine into existence for convenience.

so you basically just define yourself as a complete fucking idiot, who shouldn't be allowed outside of the mines or fields that you should by all rights be an illiterate slave in, by asking for 'proof that emotional intelligence exists'.

notwithstanding that you're a complete hypocrite who is actually suggesting to people on the internet that there's some sort of unbiased standard that would be worth appealing to with you. it's probably beyond what you're capable of comprehending that things can be true, and unproven, yet known. imagine that, things being true before they're 'proven' by whatever faggot fischer-price standard you heard about in some consumer entertainment slop that you mistook for education.

you literally should not have been taught to read.

while I agree with you, tone down the hyperbole, it makes you look bad

>there's no such thing as 'intelligence'. or 'emotion'. they don't objectively exist. they're referring to objects that we only imagine into existence for convenience.

I'd bet you're the kind of person who'd argue that nothing objectively exists at all.

i'm not trying to look good...

...to these people.

there's no 'hope that they will see the light'. that's not how it works.

i seriously suspect that it's just a chromosome, or if not a chromosome, it's an epigenetic expression of some arrangement of chromosomes that is set in stone by the age of 12 or so. but it's probably just something you're either born with or you're not.

instead of saying things to look like things, just say what needs to be said. the rabble will be driven one direction from it and those who can see things or who are capable will be driven another direction.

Could you paraphrase that post to not be a meaningless ramble?

No.

I know you prefer your long-winded rambles that you probably think are a form of "left-brain" intelligence or some-such nonsense, but to normal people you just seem like a dumb nigger with delusions of grandeur.

these sophisticated defense mechanism you have are why you will always be mentally disabled.

Here's a shorter version of what I think you tried to say "There's a genetic basis for a belief in objective reality." or would the trasnslation be closer to "Mup da doo didda po mo gub bidda be dat tum muhfugen box nood cof bin dub ho muhfugga"

>he believes there's any such thing as belief

belief is a meme

what is a hyper bowl?