Phrenology still scares me

> If black people are given opportunities and have better guidance in 50 years they could be looked at the way Asians are looked at now

Are you aware that an African male is eight thousand times more likely to express MAOA-2R than an East Asian male?

>Psychology

Phrenology was a protoscience and informed early neurology. Also people keep on conflating physiognomy and phrenology, which is wrong.

>You're just triggered because you've been outed as the brachycephalic Yellow Press reader that you are.
kek

t. unreliable husband

Left: F. Scott Fitzgerald
Right: Harvey Weinstein

>tfw traditionalist
>have to listen to nu-nazi retards espouse scientific nonsense they know nothing about: now with less citations!
>have to listen to nu-scientist retards espouse political nonsense they know nothing about: now with more self-aggrandizement!

if only there was a middle ground between "gas the kikes race war now, global holocaust of the mudraces" and "everybody is exactly equal, biology is the devil, fuck my wife"
why cant people just be left alone and allowed to forge their own destiny free from the shackles of globalistic imperialism and artificial population replacement? but I guess saying that costa ricans have just as much a right to exist as ethnic poles makes me a nazi, oh well

also stop using plastics

Physiognomy is real, and isn't a central or essential tenet in any kind of "nu-nazi" belief system anyway.

The guy on the right kinda looks like an elf.

which is why phrenology is retarded. phrases like "assumes...correlate...to a certain degree" we're few and far between.

instead you'd get quotes like OP pic where "this" means "that" so stay away or wtv

a main criticism of phrenology is the confidence and black/ white nature its pioneers attributed to correlations/ associations.

claims like this are quite legitimately more retarded than phrenology itself

t. Sigmund "mofo" Fraud

Phrenology probably has more repeatable results than psychology desu

>testosterone levels were not significantly linked with attractiveness, masculinity or health.
Veeky Forums btfo they will never recover

Does "rises ethical questions" mean "facts show our ideology is bs"?

lol

Where can I get a phrenology book to use on my own face?

Explain this

I look exactly like the guy on the left lmao

meant to reply to this

And, more masculine faces in both men and women have recently been linked to autism.

I don't believe you

last year they made machine learning that had 100% homo recognition from face pics.

Seems legit to me; guy on the right looks like Cenk Uygur.

Source?

>Thus, we can assume that having a wide face correlates with aggressiveness to certain degree.
No. Doesn't account for the whole. And phrenology was used to basically just make up shit, you would never be able to discern such complex things as "what kind of husband a man might be". You need to break that down into something that actually means anything, for starters.

...

All you need to know

Don't start. You want to be made a fool of?

>which is why phrenology is retarded. phrases like "assumes...correlate...to a certain degree"

Does smoking produce lung cancer?

It's 100% true though, if a mans skull has the shape of a chimps then he will 100% put babbys in you and flee.

thanks for ruining my day

Yeah, we now know what DNA is.

We can just look at a persons DNA and tell them their strengths and weakness.
But this is very taboo. So we don't do it and go on pretending nurture is everything.

People believed this shit about Asians 200 years ago. People also believed this shit about indian people that they were dumb and lazy. It never ends. You have to ignore it, but it gets really scary when people start getting really retarded ideas which are gonna affect other people because they saw some stupid shit written by some retard and liked the idea.

gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/deep-neural-networks-are-more-accurate-humans-detecting-sexual

Firstly. While I have absolutely no source, are you sure this isn't satire? Or are you sure this isn't the 1902 example of some shizo writing an absolutely retarded book?
Secondly. Why would it scare you? It is a reasonable hypothesis, nothing to be afraid of. Science is about testing things and coming to a conclusion.
Thirdly. Who cares? It is outdated, it has proven to be retarded. If you believe in Phrenology you might as well deny evolution or argue that there are no biological differences between groups of humans.

Why is it so easy to tell if somebody s gay just by lookin at his face?

Why is it so easy to tell that somebody is thug just by the way his face look?

Why is it so easy to tell that somebody is a virgin just by the way his face look?

it is not a pseudoscience

What does this skull say?

ayy lmao

>phrenology is wrong
>100 years later
>oh wow it turns out blacks have lighter and smaller brains and a smaller cranial capacity
>Oh wow it turns out no matter what we do and what controls we place on blacks including environment , their IQ is always inferior to other races in the same control environment.
>Oh wow it turns out black men reach puberty earlier and have higher testosterone resulting in not only massively disproportionate prostate cancer risk , but also aggressive and violent behavior
>oh wow it turns out when you mix low IQ with aggression you get a dangerous result , hyper impulsive criminality
>Oh wow the same people who deny this are the same people that swear on richard dawkins that gender is a spectrum and giving children sex hormones and delaying their puberty is a humane practice and surely wont contribute to suicide in young people.

LOL

lol'd

>If black people are given opportunities and have better guidance in 50 years they could be looked at the way

They did get it.They still aren't seen as Asians. People noted behavioral differences between blacks and Asians hundreds of years earlier, and what they say still sounds contemporary. They never will be seen as Asians, because black behavior is genetic and its not gonna fucking disappear in 50 years.

>Keep in mind they used to have field days using phrenology to justify the "inferiority" of black people and nonwhite people in general.

Oh no. How terrible.

Jesus fuck, you sound like a completely and utter leftist faggot. What the fuck is your fucking problem? Too bad that "physiognomy" is legit and making a comeback so hopefully, you'll blow your brains out faster.

...

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Phrenology

...

Yeah. I want confirmation I'm a bad guy. I do bad shit but I get sad, an I both or schizophrenic?

t.Understands Psychology better than they do so can't get answers when I have theirs already.

ehh, really? I mean you'd think so, but I recall reading that testosterone correlates with social status and high stat doesn't commit crimes. When you feel secure in your position you are not agressive. At least not in the way of bludgeon-people-with-a-pipe-because-they-looked-at-you-wrong agressive.

It's almost like you unironically think testosterone is evil and bad, fuck off BuzzFeed

This. Genuinely interested to see what they would've thought of me if I lived during the age of Phrenology.

>oblivion speechcraft minigame

...

...

...

>physiognomy

Is mostly useless

Don't know about the skull but the eyes say "run and don't look back".

You don't need a book.

Any flat surface will do.

Heh. GOTEEEEM

Why are supposed intellectuals so afraid of the tackling the genetic implications of race?

Not the guy you were talking to, but don't be anti-science on Veeky Forums and act like a holier than thou bitch, cheers cunt.

More recently, Beaver’s team has focused only on the 2R variant rather than the low-expression variants combined [6, 7]. He and his colleagues have discovered that African American males carrying 2R were more likely to be involved in extreme violence — shooting and stabbing — than African American men with other MAOA variants [6]. The relationship between the rare MAOA version and antisocial behaviors has raised eyebrows because, quite simply, this gene is not distributed equally across ethnic groups. In the Add Health database, 5.5% of African American men, 0.9% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men have 2R. (No information is currently available on the frequency of 2R in males of African black descent outside the United States.) Since the rare MAOA variant is virtually non-existent in whites, all of the males in Beaver’s study were black Americans [6].

Beaver’s sample of 133 African American men from the Add Health database included 6% that carried 2R. Overall, 5.6% of the men in the sample reported shooting or stabbing someone at some point in their lifetime. The association between 2R and committing a shooting or stabbing crime was statistically significant. Based on Beaver’s evidence, 2R appears to increase the risk of shooting or stabbing a victim during adolescence or adulthood [6]. For some commentators in the public arena, MAOA-2R has become a symbol of a new era in behavioral genetics research — an era that has reintroduced race into the nature versus nurture debate over the source of ethnic behavioral differences [1].

Borderline PD.

>relying on vague correlations to predict personality traits when you can literally test individuals on their actual traits

Why?

Witten might be smart, but he lacks motoric skills. Jesus fucking Christoph, look at that line to the left of his head- it's as crooked as his head is!

>Why is multiplication useful when you can just count the jellybeans?
>Why is trigonometry useful when you can just measure the shapes?

Do you happen to have moderate to severe mental disabilities by chance?

>personality testing is as simple as counting jellybeans
>it is an easily predictable phenomenon, of which we know everything and current methods can predict with great accuracy

Our methods are not perfect, but that's why we should further work on them to make them more accurate, not just abandon them saying "it's just some Nazi pseudoscience shit"

Niggers have been getting opportunities for 150 years and they're still niggers.

*tips fedora*

Not that user but the sampling from the Add Health for which the study in question utilizes is irregular with respect to the races in question.

Add Health is based on U.S. school population sampling of 132 schools which attempts to reflect racial/ ethnic distribution in the country overall. If we follow the entirety of the study and not the excerpt you posted it shows while true whites have the lowest MAOA variants reported within the study. There are several other groups with the original MAOA-r3 variant higher than 50% which includes Maori 56%, Chinese 56% and Taiwanese 61% (African Americans have 58%). Two of these groups (the Maori and Taiwanese) have low population in comparison to Whites, African Americans and Chinese.

scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/the-extreme-warrior-gene-a-reality-check/

Assuming that having a higher percentage of the MAOA-R3 variant correlates to an increase probability of the R2 variant, an issue appears. The Taiwanese only make up 194,000 of the U.S. population while the Maori barely make up 2000.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwanese_Americans

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māori_people

Because of these low population numbers despite having roughly the same percentage of R3 as African Americans they are not sufficiently represented. On top of this Add health database appears not to have them available for sampling purposes within the context of the study. Only the Chinese appear to be confirmed as stated on the site via the wave I page involving

cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design/wave1

The reason why this is important is because the statements involving comparisons between Asians and African Americans cannot be assessed properly using the study for probability purposes in expression. As it would utilized skewed results (Beaver research only focusing on Americans) and from skewed data (Add Health small sampling of Chinese and little to no sampling of Taiwanese and Maori).

> pretty people are nicer ,more reliable and generally better people then ugly ones
No shit literally everyone knows this

>Exact mathematical formulas are equivalent to making extremely confident statements about individuals based on weak correlations in populations with huge variance

The retard was you all along, user.

HS, mostly 8th grade, dropout...you?

Oh, yeah, no. Ive had an assault of mental and physical batteries for years. *I* dictate what the test results are by *MY* answers, what part of "know it better than them" did you not read?

I mean...yeah, read yours wrong, but I never took psychology. Thats "pedestrian" pseudo-science, for most people that is.

Cool

Yes. That's my whole point: using something like cranial shape to predict someone's personality is stupid (and has been scientifically proven to be so). There are other indicatives, and they are most likely not obvious as physical appearance. Personality can't be reduced to one single indicator, even if that is somewhat more accurate than others.

>emphasize in the most absolute way
>all danger lies in these two faculties
>there are no other sentiments and no other places to look for them
>we say this with absolute cetainty
You can tell just by the language that this is pseudoscience. Not even physics textbooks are this definitively worded.

But maybe shape of the skull can tell something about personality, maybe alongside other indicators and in ways we can't read yet, but we can't just say "duh, phrenology is stupid, saying that shape of skull has something to do with personality is just like saying there are numbers that become negative when squared, what a nonsense"

No, it's not like saying there are numbers that become negative when squared. It's like saying we have a function [math]f(x_1,...,x_n)[/math], and another function [math]g(x_1,...,x_n)[/math]. A hundred years ago, some faggot decided [math]f[/math] was probably a good predictor for the value of [math]g[/math]. However, investigating this hasn't found any strong correlation. Meanwhile, we've discovered ways to measure several [math]x_i[/math] and make MUCH better predictions of [math]g[/math] than [math]f[/math] ever yielded, so using [math]f[/math] is probably a waste of everyone's time.
[math]f[/math] is phrenology.

>Phrenology is worthless, baseless science, and no self-respecting scientist would dare use it in this day and age.
Politically incorrect != incorrect.

>No, it's not like saying there are numbers that become negative when squared.
user, i...

Yes? If you assume there are numbers that become negative when squared, you get interesting mathematical results. If you assume phrenology is true, you get a shitty predictor with a lot of noise. Therefore, the two are not similar.

That's all very well and good, but I'm 100% from European ancestry: Romano-Brythonic, Norman-Gaelic and Flemish-German and yet, because I have mandibular prognathism, I have a forward sloping mouth.
So, how do you account for genetic complexities even in thoroughly European populations?

...

>does smoking produce lung cancer
Smoking, while proven to correlate to a far higher likelihood of lung cancer, does not account for all cases of the condition.
It's entirely possible for a smoker of 10 years to not have contracted the condition, whereas a similar person who has not once touched a cigarette would as a result of other factors such as radon gas exposure.
You can't just assume X equals Y unless hard unequivocal evidence finds this to be true. This is why the concrete nature of phrenology and other psychological theories in a similar vein are BS

Facial morphology and skull structure correlates with personality type and underlying behavioral biases. It's not a matter of tinted perception, it's a solid heuristic that when used, needs very few inputs to narrow down the reality of the matter. It's just a fact of life, and the longer you do it, the better you get.

Anyway, you seem to be confusing propaganda and other people's purported reality for an actual "implementation", then are using that strawman to discard the whole topic.

this isn't even pseuedoscience, this is just straight up making up your own version of reality

Very cool.

And that's exactly why you'll likely forever remain a nobody on 4-chan, and not somebody on the forefront of the field of science.

To type "anyway" after typing all that, as if what you said's no big deal and it's just something I should come to terms with...

You think I'm not going to question that?

I mean, I'm not surprised anymore, considering this is 4-chan, but you're mistaken if you really think you can just label and pinpoint people's personalities and such like that.

Sad thing is that's no different that the excerpt I posted about husbands... Sad how there're still people out there who think this way, but I don't care anymore.

You can live your life like that if you want; you obviously have no remorse for the things you say or do, so I suppose you'll have a nice life, anyway.

It's okay to reject a theory for being flagrantly wrong.

Congradulations for proving your arrogance and ignorance, and how being an intellectual with the ear of millions of people isn't your strong suit.