A person's face is a map of his or her mind. Appearances are accurate measures of what a person does habitually and who that person is. If so, racial features show the different mental habits and propensities of a person.
Thin lips, conservative, reserved
Thick lips, expressive and sensual
Big eyes, concept and macroscopic thinker
Small eyes, detailed and microscopic thinker
That is why the face is there and that is why it is different. These are mating cues. Your face will advertise that kind of genes and health you have.
That said, can we make generalizations on racial traits? Look at Obama's traits, what do you see?
I'd rather don't say what I see in Obama's traits LOL
Hmmm....wish you would, that might be interesting.
Falseness : It shows in the look of his eyes
Deceit: In the way he gestures and talks.
His dark color shows that he is a guy who is instinctive in his decisions, his eyes compassionate, his thin lips show he is tenacious and a little bit reserved and to some extent ruthless to opponents. which are conflicting traits. No doubt there is a flip side to all the idealism...but i think he means them. He won't back down to enemies and destroy them until they can't even whimper.
I would not be too quick to judge. A lesson we were all reminded about recently when Susan Bolye appeared on a talent show and sang. You can see the audience initial response on you tube. It's worth viewing.
See, you don't judge people on purpose, you just do. Does that mean we should judge talent based on looks--no.
I'm just saying certain behavioral traits are advertised in a person's face and body.
hey, cecilia - I see you changed your avatar - I have to go back and read this whole thread now, I missed it.
Hi Mega, so did you!
I'm pushing the limits on another "no-touch" topic and see where it goes. A lot of social fears emerging. People react to it in very passionate ways and it shows me how people reject ideas that may expose them.
Well, Cecilia, we disagree fundamentally again - I don't feel the need, personally, to judge or "expose" people - it seems very unhumanitarian to me - If people are to go around exposing and judging each other and making these broad generalizations they are going to reveal their own ignorance, but little else.
You jump to conclusions alot. I'd think just the opposite, I'd think people would love this kind of hocus-pocus.
. I assure you, you're the one jumping to conclusions.
Read my links. Now a theory is a theory. I can quote studies until ad nauseum about mind body connections but you know why you think I'm jumping to conclusions? Because people would readily touch universal physical features but are afraid of race...but then had I not ventured on race...an important point will not be raised.
Racial features shows a divergent adaptive styles and therefor behaviors,
Hey, look.. you're jumping to conclusions again.
Plus you have reading comprehension problems, affecting your ability to effectively follow a conversation. Which may explain a few things.
First of all, when I said you're jumping to conclusions I was refering to your hasty assumptions that everyone is just afraid to admit you're right when you drop an entirely unsupported theory on them that they've never heard of before.
It's not fear, it's lack of proof, or even evidence, other than I said so and so did this other guy.
Second of all, race? The differences in the races? You wanna have that conversation I'll be there. I'm not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error -so long as my reason is left free to combat it. (loose quote Jefferson)
Clarify this statement:A person's face is a map of his or her mind. Appearances are accurate measures of what a person does habitually and who that person is.
Ed Gein and Ted Bundy had even features(which is what makes people beautiful or attractive)Very very bad guys!
Joseph Merrick did not have even features and was not attractive. Very very good guy!
Do you really think appearance is an accurate measure of anything?
attractiveness does not = good. attractiveness = good genes. now craziness = poor parenting,adaptive choices. later on, crazy people's faces change to reflect their craziness. the eyes start to become asymmetrical and will start showing white in places where they shouldn't.
ectomorph, person is thin, long face. loner, withdrawn introspective
endomorph, round face, fun loving, sociable, poor self-control
mesomorph, angular face competitive, active
please read links on facial asymmetry and brain health.
Yes you can judge people by their looks. When you don't know someone and the only information you have is their image, you have no choice by to judge them based on the information at hand.
Of course, such judgements are often wrong. People are much more than what their image presents. A judgement based on looks is equivalent to reading a headline about Tibet and saying you're informed on the issues.
This is the point I was getting at by citing BLINK. Malcolm gladwell made a study on biases that affect people's decisions.
Taller people earn more did you know that? Yes and he has an actual number there.
The tallest president often wins.
We simplify life by assessing a person's nature quickly by his looks. Sometimes, you would be wrong. But if you study physical features like you do books, you will have a fairly good assessment of at least the person's past choices and genetic predispositions.
It is already being studied.
As for exact features, Western SCIENCE are still associating global traits of virility with hormones.
The Chinese however have boiled it down to yin and yang foods. Macrobiotics, an alternative healing practice developed in Asia explores how choices of food of the mother affects facial features as well as behavior.
Food affects biochemistry and we're all about biochemistry.
Fung shui has a very detailed break down of behaviors associated with features.
Ayurveda as well, breaking down behaviors and their appearance all the way to the color of hair from food sources and genetics.
but they are all correlated to behavior.
You can find clues on a person's picture what kind of person that is, or was but not how that person is going to be.
In that way, someone's past must not be the basis for his future.
but then if you do not know the biases that affect how people judge you, how can you work around it?
it is good to know how people will instinctive judge you. Because it has basis, it would have sound basis.
No,you have to look on the inside.Read my philosophy on hubpages:
"It's all show,and no go,when you present the outside of you, above
the inside". I invite you to become a fan.
I don't think generalizations could be made from appearance alone. I know thin-lipped talkers that rant on about this and that, and are not reserved what-so-ever.
Then why do men prefer thick lipped women? Doesn't say it's a cue for passionate people?
Can you judge a persong by their looks? Never. I've met too many people whom I would've sadly lost the opportunity of knowing if I had decided to judge on their appearance. I've learned to never assume, it just makes an a-s-s out of u-m-e!
Thing is, you can either make an ass out yourself thinking you're different than all the other animals in the world just because you can talk.
If you can make medicine out of rats, then you're definitely made of the same genes rats are, and you are...you just have a few upgrades, and they're not a lot.
Mating Mind author whatsisname reveals that our biological traits grew out of the need to advertise our mating viability.
There's a difference between animals and thinking human beings. Our first attraction might be looks; but we humans have alot of other things will look at to judge a person.
Someone could be very beautiful, until they open up their mouth and speak.
In the animal kingdom, physical attributes are cues to the nature of the animal.
Green snakes are harmless.
red and yellow snakes are poisonous.
something with fangs and claws will most likely eat you (if it's hungry)
without fangs and hooves eat plants
it is consistent.
What makes you think that humans are any different. People don't like to think the appearance gives away many clues about a person's kind of mind. But they do. Just like animals, our physical features advertise the kind of mate we are and the genes we hold.
I understand what you are saying and in a sense I agree with you- that physical attributes can say certain things about who we are-but with the way that society has changed people and with the ability to have nose jobs- collagen injections, face lifts- gastric bypass and change every single trait that we were born with-it isn't a fair judgment to decide who a person is based on their appearance (you have no idea what they have had done to themselves).
Also, if you want to get specific- certain physical traits related to genetic/birth/developmental defects cause certain features that I don't believe are attributes to personality but to the defect...
It's not an issue of judgment. It's an issue of how the physical appearance bears clues to a person's tendencies not choices.
A person that advertises bad fat genes on the face will not necessarily choose to be fat. BY changing habits of thought, you change appearance in the long term.
That said, certain things cannot be changed for instance...a person with slanty narrow eyes will always have a tendency to be detailed and cautious versus the wide eyed big boobed blonde who's open to whatever you suggest.
Oh I realized I contradicted myself here...so to clarify. What I mean is, you can judge a person...does it necessarily mean you should.
I think the clues are there, you can judge. You can choose not to. But you have to know how people are instinctively judging you.
lol, ahhh... okay
Just as an example-take me...
I am extremely detailed (have been diagnosed with OCD), yet I don’t consider myself to have narrow eyes, and with DD's---I wouldn’t say I am up for anything, but was always the one in the background observing while hiding, careful not to interrupt the fun of others.
But on the other hand consider the red hair- I can be extremely witty, and feisty- and what my husband might describe as a smart a** and sarcastic, but only when I am comfortable and only if no more than 3 or 4 people are around (then I have a tendency to shy away and even get anxiety about too many people around).
My point is- although physical traits may play a part in which we are-but the environment we are taught in as well as mental state has more effect- so you can not exactly consider peoples physical characteristics as to how their personality will be.
Great thought in your reason for the thread - does make a person consider a little more closely who they are and why they are that way?
I agree, the choices of a person does affect. In the long term if you persist to give in to OCD, your face will change. And so will your children's faces.
Your jawline is stubborn, you want to have things your way. So its not being detailed its actually more perfectionism...(excuse me, just to illustrate...that is of course based on the picture)
I am not saying that you are not correct- but may I ask how my jawline is stubborn?
My OCD was (I believe) a result of me feeling as if I had no control of my life and my surroundings- so I became somewhat obsessive over very insignificant things-worrying about worrying and over thinking as well as over working on things-until I would notice (oh sh*t I am 2 hours late and have not accomplished a darn thing) It is more controlled now but can become an issue when I become too stressed.
If I did not gain control over my compulsive tendencies, would my eyes become more squinted- how can it be determined that it is because of my OCD and not because of bad eye sight or the fact that I constantly squint because i have very light eyes and the sun is harsh on light blue eyes?
I am not trying to argue-honest, just want to see what you will say in response to my responses(I partly agree with what you say)
On your latter statement.
Yes, sometimes you hate your parents for certain traits and then you realize you look exactly like them and so may be predisposed to have these traits as well...when you become a parent.
I'd say you should avoid people with fangs and claws. I do.
What happens if you judge some-one by their mouth, because they have thin uneven lips where the truth is four weeks ago they were big and plump lips. How would we know if they had just had their teeth extracted and are waiting for dentures??
Well of course, the need to cover up physical features is instinctively knowing that certain physical features will attract mate better.
WE CAN JUDGE THE NATURE...but then, it is not always wise to do so because of how people have adapted to the advertising of their inner traits.
People who have accepted themselves and see their own strengths do not feel the need to change their appearance.
Wise of you (although - who knows - perfectly peaceful people have been known to have birth anomalies. )
Green snakes are harmless?
Where do you get this stuff? Try cuddling up to a green Mamba snake. Deadly as hell!
err i'm talking about poisonous...fact don't mess with red and yellow snakes. they bite and when they do you die.
The scarlet and red king snake are non venomous as is the red milk snake!
I can get you a full list of snakes that are harmless too if you like. By the way, non venomous snakes outnumber the venomous by three to one.
Not that, lol, I wouldn't argue with you about snakes.
Her assertion, "they bite you, you die" or something like that. Not necessarily true. But probably be petty to argue that, huh?
Did she go to bed yet?
It is obvious to me she knows little about snakes, and the other arguments are also conjecture. I do not like to point this out, but after establishing that green snakes are not all harmless, she goes on about the red ones. I think the "they bite, you die thing is a bit much too!
In the bush if we got bitten even by a tiger snake, we always tied the wound off with a bandage and cut the wound and bled it. Then..... back to work. I saw several people bitten by so called deadly snakes like the Australian tiger or yellow belly, red belly browns who simply ignored it, because the snake did not get a good strike. It is rare to cop enough venom to kill you if you wear clothes!
Yeah, but did she go to bed yet?
At this point I'm probably better off just staying up anyway.
Maybe I am crazy... Waste of time.
You have an awful lot of facial hair Earnest.
Which I find sexy, but it probably means you're a cheater.
Oh heck. I've got one of those. He sleeps under my bed at night and drools all over the kitchen floor.
Just kidding. Being on australia time makes me kinda snarky. Aha! That's where you get it from!
except for red and yellow milk snakes..harmless...
really? let me dig up that little biology lesson...
http://exoticpets.about.com/cs/snakes/a … snakes.htm
we have them here, I promise, they arent poisonus.
"Some nonvenomous snakes mimic the patterns and behaviors of venomous snakes. Eastern milk snakes can look like copperheads, rat snakes can look like rattlers, and harmless king snakes can look like coral snakes. Always treat any snake as a venomous snake if you are uncertain whether it is venomous or nonvenomous. And though you should remain cautious, do not kill any snake -- it could be illegal to do so, and killing nonvenomous snakes allows venomous snake and/or vermin populations to grow."
"Venomous Snakes in the U.S. tend to have varying colors. Most snakes that are one solid color are completely harmless. However, some cottonmouths are also venomous so this is not a foolproof way to tell them apart. Also, beware of venomous escaped pets."
got this from wiki...but just to show you I'm not inventing my facts.
more about snakes and appearances here.
specifics versus statistics.
this is a good point...it shows that although the general rule is poisonous snakes have more vibrant colors, some snakes learn to cover up their harmlessnes. but still, despite evidence you can tell by a snakes features if it is poisonous.
Just like even if you're in PatPong in thailand. not all people with boobs are girls...but generally boobs=girls.
I am sorry, I didn't mean to sound liek I was saying you were making facts up. I was just pointing out that being red and yellow doesn't make a snake poisonous. Of course there are differences, its just mimmickry. And none of this about snakes has anything to do with what people look like. Of course people do judge by looks, I just dont really agree with it being right.
People are scared of this fact because well, you're kind of not have a choice with how you look. But the thing is, as you change your habits of thoughts, your looks follow.
Remember that bitchy blonde cheerleader in high school who looks like white trash now? Her choices made her fat, soggy and dirty looking.
Remember the fat nerd? Choices overcome genetics and now he's a hottie!
I believe you can see a whole lot in some-one's eyes. They are a window to the soul. They tell a story just by looking in.
When you are truly happy the eyes laugh too.
I agree with blonde poet on the eyes, but my personal view is that you should never judge some one on their looks, only what is on the inside is what counts lol
Not an issue of judgment. It's a biological discussion not a social one. It is taboo to say that we can know a person just by looking at them but in truth we do this every day.
It is important to be aware of how you looks advertise you. Your appearance is telling everybody what your genes possess.
I see what you mean!!
Some people dont always take pride in their appearance but can be the nicest people you could ever wish to meet and vice versa if you know what i mean?
Never judge a book by its cover lol
So, if you see someone with red eyes, splotchy skin and some weird markings on their face...and they said. "let's have a baby together" would you not judge by her appearance that she's probably not a good candidate for mother of your child right now?
There's a difference between facial expressions, facial markings etc, and the actual facial features. A woman born with big lips isn't necessarily passionate or necessarily anything but a woman born with big lips!
With all due respect, I think you take it a little too far. I don't believe a genetic tendency towards thin lips equals a genetic tendency towards reserved emotions or whatever you said.
Sure there are some impressions a person might gain by looking at someone, period. Their clothes, physical fitness, cleanliness - all of these things give us clues, but ANYONE jumping to conclusions based on such superfical things stands a high chance of being either a) completely wrong about the person or b) possibly right in their assumptions, but still writing a person off without ever knowing them at all, and completely overlooking all the good qualities that person may have.
But they do.
Let's move on to more dangerous waters, shall we.
BLACK PEOPLE, WHITE PEOPLE, ASIANS, MIDDLE EASTERN etc.
now not all black people, white people and asians, middle easterns are the same. BUT
THERE ARE QUALITIES TYPICAL OF A RACE.
That doesn't mean it's due to some link between physical characteristics and personality/behavioural traits.
But they do. See, the physical features are sculpted by biochemistry and biochemistry is born out of choices, and habits of thoughts. In fertility this goes down all the way to how wide your hips are or how high your eyebrows are.
Choices affect some of your features, sure, but I don't see it giving a person thin or fat lips, wide or narrow eyes.
And then it seems you're speaking sometimes of choices, and sometimes of stuff beyond your control, DNA, so I'm confused. Are you saying that your ancestors choices altered their DNA?
For example, your picture shows asymmetry in your eyebrows which indicates a preference for the use of one side of the brain...can you tell which one?
One of my eyebrows is permanently raised due to all the bullshit I hear, lol.
Sorry I dropped out of the discussion earlier, evenings are my busiest time. Can you link me to a study or something? Well, nevermind I guess you said the name of whatever this is -facial profiling would be my smart-butt guess. I'll check it out, since you're so emphatic and I admit to knowing little about science.
Were you also a part of the there is no free will thread?
There are of course several other very possible reasons for the differences in the races.
although your latter point is true, the fact is, the face and physical traits are indicative of predisposition...NOT CHOICE..BUT predisposition to certain traits.
It will not be say politically correct to judge a person by looks. but we do it everyday. Because as part of the animal kingdom, instinct makes us more likely to respond to what the features tell us.
Who someone finds attractive/appealing in terms of a potential mate is one thing. Whether or not "that lady on the bus" can be assumed to cheat on her taxes because of the eyes or mouth she ended up getting is another matter.
We can generalize all we want. It still doesn't change the fact that one must reduce the camera altitude just to take my picture. At my heighth it's sometimes like "Umpa Lumpa" land. Just kidding!
Actually, much can be learned from facial expressions. It is one of the mastered sciences that law enforcement deal with everyday. However, I would caution the average "Joe" from implementing it as an absolute in their daily interactions with others. Nothing can take the place of learning and getting to know an individual. That is how you truly get to know their heart, thoughts and intentions.
I agree. But what if I told you, even the nature of the person's heart is etched in his face, wouldn't you be interested in knowing what is etched in yours....and say your prospective wife?
Everything is recorded on our faces. Even our recent choices of food.
For example, lines around the mouth will tell what kind of life a person has had in general, if the person has a tendency to be sad or happy.
Absolutely! In fact, it's quite helpful as a clergyman. It can be quite revealing during counseling and interviews. However, these things are not exact science. We are all different and it is absolutely true that some individuals who exhibit some of those physical features you mentioned still, to the heart, do not feel that way. I know this to be true as well.
It is a wonderful and fascinating tool, but there is danger in trusting it as a blanket policy for all interactions.
There are many studies that show features reveal nature. Many documentaries.
It has actually approached exact science on the level of mathematical proportions in relation to fertility and hormones like testosterone and estrogen.
What people don't realize is testosterone exhibits itself as personality traits.
That may be but it still doesn't address the fact that six billion people are individuals and are different one from another. This is an awesome tool but is hardly a six billion people policy. Everything affects facial expressions from various climates, culture, heredity and domestic issues. Even diet. I support the continued study and use of these techniques but would never advocate it as the "albeit" to human study.
Awareness of features and their implication does not mean you will logically decide on what to do with these people. These things are limbic at most.
For instance, you can tell women that men with thick brows and square jaws are bad news for fidelity...but I bet you my ipad, that won't stop them from wanting these men.
Of course what you're drawn to is another thing.
Beauty indeed is in the eye of the beholder, because a person's asymmetry can actually be attractive if you are asymmetrical in the opposite way.
example, long chin would be attracted to no chin.
The body always aims to balance itself out. But chins are indicative of internal tenacity. A strong chin and jawline is someone who is most likely assertive and combative and brave. A receding chin shows someone with a genetic predisposition to shyness and being prone to being withdrawn.
@ceciliabeltran to be honest I would never judge that person on her appearance it is something I just dont do because I have no right to do so. (im just being honest) if that person with the red eyes and the splotchy skin was nice and loving and a caring person then yes whats stop her from being a mother, its only if the child is in any way at risk of abuse then their would concerns.
But then, you would hesitate would you not?
My point is, if it were a beautiful woman there will be less getting to know first. I would think the face of a woman would carry weight in your decision on who to trust enough to be the mother of your child.
I know you don't want to judge people but you cannot help it...because this is how your subconscious chooses friends and girlfriends. You look at their face and somehow something draws you to them.
if the child was at risk from abuse or neglect etc I would seriously hesitate but if the child is not at risk then no I would not hesitate because that lady poses no threat and is a genuine loving person. xx
I'm not asking WILL YOU JUDGE A PERSON BY THAT PERSON'S LOOKS. I'm asking CAN YOU...and I say, you can and we can go to the science of it, if you want more proof.
The pineal gland is responsible for coloring. It produces melatonin that protects people from say the sun. Black people have active melatonin production. But the pineal gland is also where visions are produced.
So, black people are more likely to have more vivid archetypal visioning than white people who have evolved to not need as much.
this is in general...ok. statistics not specifics.
White people have developed a propensity to deal with the known hence the scientific method.
Black people tend to delve in mystery...hence voodoo.
this is a portrait of cultures.
Oh, now, see, I KNEW you were going to get on to this race thing and I regret that you are saying these things because - they are not true!
The pineal gland is responsible for coloring. It produces melatonin that protects people from say the sun. Black people have active melatonin production. But the pineal gland is also where visions are produced."
"Visions? well, everyone has a pineal gland, so if this is true enot only black people will have visions
"So, black people are more likely to have more vivid archetypal visioning than white people who have evolved to not need as much.
this is in general...ok. statistics not specifics."
You're implying that white people have evolved more than black people? when according to science theory (and it is only theory because no one really knows) the original people were black - black people have been here longer and therefore probably evolved MORE than whites - color of skin has nothing to do with level of evolution!"
"White people have developed a propensity to deal with the known hence the scientific method."
Where do you come up with this? whites are more scientific than blacks? remember that blacks are responsible for many scientific inventions, theories, discoveries - so this is total bull.
"Black people tend to delve in mystery...hence voodoo."
All cultures have creation myths, religious and ritualistic traditions that arise naturally out of human need to explain our environment and beginnings. The traditions involved in the Catholic church are just as "mysterious" as those in voodoo - if you know anything about voodoo you will see that it is a very humanistic religion that is based on primal personalities just like most other religions. Read Joseph Campbell and get educated before you start making these thinly veiled racist comments. I know you don't intend to sound racist, but you do.
"this is a portrait of cultures."
this is NOT a portrait of cultures - this is your own half-baked opinionated myth of how we can "judge" by someone's face what they are like. Really, humans are much more complicated. And why do you NEED to be judging people? Can't you just listen, watch, look, learn about them and accept them?
No I am not white and so don't need to imply anything regarding white supremacy.
However white people have evolved differently from white people because of environmental factors and choices of food as well as mating habits.
huh? If you would actually reveal the sources of these statements you are making it would be very interesting, very interesting. Otherwise - you're just stating your opinions AS IF they were scientific fact - which is, in my opinion, ignorant and reveals you as someone who just wants to set up an specious arguement - serves nothing.
Nope. As a matter of fact.
Start with BLINK Malcolm Gladwell- social propensity and basis for quick judgments.
The MATING MIND (err lazy to get the author's name but if you're really interested I'll email you)
And for features, the GOLDEN MEAN project will tell you on a mathematical level how features translate to biochemistry and behavior.
Again, it is very easy to misunderstand what I'm saying. These are loaded statements. But they are factual.
Again, human choice is independent of predisposition. The human spirit can rise above anatomy.But not say that the mind cannot be viewed in the body is denial for emotional reasons.
(I urge people not to take it personally as it is a discussion that is worth discussing just because it is hardly ever discussed with honesty)
Pop-psychology is not scientific research. It is books people who think they are smart read. Malcolm Gladwell is a journalist with a degree in civil engineering, not an experimental psychologist. This is NOT a credible source. It is a book housewives read when they are waiting for their kid's soccer practice to be over.
Mating is an entirely different field of psychology, and sociology that has absolutely nothing to do with the correlation between appearance and personality. What it is about instead is the interpersonal reactions of how people are treated because of how they are perceived - perceptions are confirmed due to the other party's treatment, not because of biology.
You actually cited this...
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, for a while I thought that maybe you were doing actual research into your ideas. Now I understand where you get your ideas from, don't delude yourself into thinking this is actually research.
Again you're jumping to conclusions. Whenever people hear something new they're gonna want to hear more than just one person's opinion.
If we believed everything everybody ever told us we'd be quite insane. Perhaps you just have not effectively made your case. There's no need to get all defensive and accuse us all of being scared to admit you're right.
If you're right, you're right, but just because you claim such does not make it so.
I could see by your website photo you are not white - but what does that matter? The term racist can apply to anyone. Some of the MOST racist people I've ever known who proclaimed white superiority were themselves black! and I didn't bring up white supremist talk - you did. What the heck is your agenda here? Are you looking for confirmation of a personal theory? Are you wanting to know more about human characteristics and whether or not the face correlates to the personality? because there are probably some great studies out there - but you are making racial comparisons and that doesn't make much sense when you are talking personality traits. do you see what I mean?
yes. it is the gland associated with "visions"
insanity is also a universal thing...one that is a result of choice of response to the environment. Mentally ill people's faces changes over time.
The gland produces more melatonin in black people making them darker skinned. What does this have to do with scientific propensities? That you have not effectively shown.
I'm not saying it isn't true, or that I'm afraid to discuss it or consider it, I'm saying you have failed to make the connection between the two.
This is also the reason why, killers like TED BUNDY, I forgot what it s called is typical in white people. The method of killing is typically methodical and pre-meditated. Where as Black people kill from crimes of passion and spur the moment decisions.
Only white people can have calcified pineal glands which have been found to be responsible for these types of repeat crimes. Whereas it never was observed with black people.
(not enough data on asians...)
Skin pigment is indicative of something not well researched for racial discrimination reasons.
Your pseudoscience is dangerous. It is oppressive ideas like this that have led to absurd scientific racism throughout human history.
Biology is not the only contributing factor to human appearance, personality, and intelligence. A huge contributing factor that you are neglecting is socio-economic status, which has absolutely nothing to do with genetics.
It is not pseudo science. It is science. Is it dangerous. Yes. e=mc squared is dangerous. zero is dangerous, but it is not pseudo-science.
we approach all topics here that are controversial, evolution and religion. we can't all color within the lines. otherwise, there will be no picassos
socio-economic status affects genetics. LOOK UP GENOMIC IMPRINTING.
You can continue your scientific racism without me. Good luck.
the thing is it is only racism if you characterize people as superior or inferior.
I do not think that people with narrow hips should not vie for motherhood. Equal rights to everyone. A black person has the right to pursue astrophysics, but then he will have a different style of getting to the facts than someone who is pineally challenged. And that should be respected and studied.
I am just saying physical traits of humans are indicative of traits that have behavioral implications, as in the case of animal coloring.
You keep referring to animals. We are all the same breed, last time I checked. Yes, many animals have markings or colorings or features that indicate to OTHER DIFFERENT KINDS of animals their dangers, but we are all the same kind of animal, so I don't think that's a good example. Dangerous snakes are colored a bright color, but all of them do, not some do and some don't, or some are one color and some another, or some have square jawlines or assymetrical faces.
Please read the scientific studies on HUMANS, and it will show you you have not read everything.
Well duh. Did I ever claim to have done so? Actually I said I'd give it all a look and fully admitted to being scientifically... challenged. Odd, for a white person I know.
Is this how I sound people? Do I come off like she does? Jerami, Holly, where you guys at?
Holly is this how I sound when I try to explain things to people? Cause if so you guys are right and I sincerely apologize to you all from the bottom of my apparently arrogant and very little heart.
What physical trait is it that gives one a higher propensity for a--holeness?
Well, brown skinned people are generally apologetic, will be polite and smile a lot even when they disagree with you. Notice how I'm still polite and smiling
You can call me names and I'll still smile genetics has its advantages. Care for a snack?
Smile away, I say it's a learned cultural thing until you show me otherwise. Which you have not yet even tried to do in any meaningful manner other than to state your premises and call us all afraid for failing to see your opinions as facts.
I didn't call you any names either. If I implied you were rude it's only because you clearly were. Calling people ignorant and afraid because they won't agree with your stated opinions is rude.
She refuses to accept that biology is not the sole determining factor, but that social setting, and psychology contribute equally. She will never see that just because something is related that does not mean one can predict the other.
well it is an indicator, no? You CAN judge predisposition of behavior to physical traits. IS it going to be entirely accurate,well thats when the biological wars start to muddle things. How one smells, his talents, her clothes...many things can play in the judgement but as per physical features..it reveals a lot about the nature of the person. her habits of thoughts are etched on the lines of her face, her diet is revealed by her pallor, dark circles around the eyes dehydration and salt consumption....etc. the face reveals many things. not pseudoscience...but science.
Can is not should. we should not but we can't help it, we evolved into human beings judging appearances.
I'd be satisfied if she proved that thin lips indicated a tendency towards frigidity or wide eyes innocence or a square jaw a stubborn nature.
For all I know it's true, but as a science writer she needs to be able to articulate the proving evidence of it.
physical cues relating to hormones.
"Among those with a new slant on attraction is biological anthropologist Helen Fisher, a research professor at Rutgers University who has studied romantic love for more than 30 years. Her new book, Why Him? Why Her?, suggests that certain hormones — dopamine, estrogen, serotonin and testosterone — attract others, depending upon which hormone appears dominant in that person."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/200 … tion_N.htm
wide eye thick lips.
Men with more masculine facial features, such as squarer jaws, larger noses and smaller eyes, were perceived by women who looked at their photos as good for casual sex but unfaithful long-term partners, a British study in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior found. It also found that men viewed women with wide eyes and large lips as more attractive and more likely open to short-term sexual relationships.
hormones and behavior:
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journa … escription
those are not my only sources but too lazy to type actual sources...they are adequate for specifics i think.
Hey I thought you said you were going to bed. Go to bed already so I can catch up with you and go to bed as well.
Okay. Here's what you've quoted, in short.
"Her new book suggests.... depending upon which hormone appears dominant.... were perceived by women who looked at their photos.... men viewed women...."
You call this proof? Or even supporting evidence? You're a science writer?
Crap. I can do that shit.
Are there any square-jawed, big nosed, small eyed men in the house who'd care to defend themselves?
I'm sorry Cecelia. This is miles away from being any kind of proof.
I actually have an entire documentary about this and just really really not in the mood to spend thirty minutes to look for that pbs special.you can watch it and disagree with it. But to say its weak even when serious scientists are studying it, writing books about it and it is evident in the biological behaviors of animals is weaker than my claims.
hormones...shape the face. testosterone, estrogen. it even shapes the reproductive organs. I attached a link on testosterone and facial features a while back...please read it.
i don't voice opinions that are not backed up by data, statistics and peer reviewed studies...but then that's not relevant.
I do not agree with the original post. Perhaps a persons hygiene might speak some about a person, but not the looks they are born with.
is that a belief? I respect your beliefs. Beliefs are a person's right. However, scientific data and social experiments would not agree with your belief.
I have searched the library databases of the University of Waterloo, McGill University, Concordia University, University of Toronto, and Ryerson University for peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject and have found not one that confirms your hypothesis. It is one thing to "say" the data confirms you, it is another altogether to provide the data that does to backup your claims.
Appearance is not a universal predictor of behaviour, how a person is treated because of their appearance however is.
I recall a study from my Social Psychology class that looked into how physical attractiveness affected interpersonal relations between men and women. The genders were isolated, kept in separate rooms, never met, and communicated only by a telephone. Before the conversation the men were provided with photos of women that were either attractive or unattractive (these photos were not of the women they were actually going to be talking to, but they were told they were). If the man thought the woman he was talking to was attractive he was very warm, sweet, and attentive. If he thought the woman that he was talking to was unattractive he was inattentive, cold, and sometimes even rude. The women reacted to this and responded exactly how these men thought an attractive woman (sweet, kind, good listener etc.) would react, and how they though an unattractive woman (cold, inattentive, harsh etc.) would react. This had nothing to do with what they actually looked like, but how they were treated because of how their appearance was thought to be.
I agree with mega1:
This is all very oppressive of you to even consider as true.
I will come back after dinner for my sources.
I assure you, I am not making things up.
Yes! Now her I agree with. I've seen that alot. People often become however they are expected to become, or behave however they are expected to behave. Regardless of their facial features.
Read my words, not your fear of my words.
White people culturally evolved to pursue more logical and knowledge based interests...yes? its true. Science came from white people.
Black people culturally evolved to have advanced kinetic knowledge...and a system of divining "truth" that is applicable to their context but not necessarily applicable to predominantly white culture.
To say that mental science is superior to kinetic science is coming from a bias that is not mine.
All of this is just your opinion - you have not sited one reference. very unscientific - and why? why are you saying these things? whats your interest in the subject all about?
I'm not afraid of your words, I just want to know where you're getting this crap!
Any credibility I thought you had before, no longer exists.
Scientific Method did not come from white people?
Now, another method not called science came from other races. Predominantly black cultures have their own science that is no less than that from the west.
Why is fact offensive?
The Chinese call their system FENG SHUI. It is not science. It does not ask how, but it calls out patterns, natural laws so to speak. Things that can be observed over long periods of time.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD is Galileo's, correct?
It is a necessity for inhabitants of a cyclical climate to predict outcomes and cycles. The food sources are irregular and comes in patterns and cues from nature. A predisposition to anticipating and looking ahead to survive will be a natural adaptive trait.
Not the same for people coming from relatively warm climates. People from warmer climates who hunt would develop other skills such as ability to run very fast and to respond very quickly to the availability of game.
Southeast asians living in warmer climates would not have problem with food but would need more chamaraderie in order for food sharing to be more harmonious, hence the propensity for large families living together and high level social skills. Smiling all the time at each other, offering food to strangers and so and so forth.
Facial features would also develop as an adaptation to perceived threats and disadvantages.
I think the arabs, egyptians and mayans were way ahead of everybody else. All medium skinned.
well, you know how they arrived at their conclusions right? herbs, chanting and observing
different ways of arriving at the same truths.
But then, how we arrive at truths is dependent of habits of behaviors that are reflected by physical features.
Culturally yeah, but that doesn't at all indicate that a black person can't be just as good at science if he/she so desires, and jesus, you can see all the crazy white people! With their visions and their revelations and prophecies and voices in their head.
Being objective and removing yourself from preconceived notions will allow you to see what I am really saying.
YOUR BODY IS A PORTRAIT OF YOUR NATURE.
well, I haven't studied this, nor do I want to - I like to be with people and just absorb and accept who they are without putting them in slots.
Peoples bodies can reveal some things about them, but I don't believe in creating a system to classify them.
but then, I don't see what you are SAYING as being objective or removed - I feel that you have gone to science with the intent to confirm your own feelings - if not, you would be siting your references and asking for a real discussion of the science you say is fact.
so why bother talking to you about it? no good reason!
have a good day, Cecilia!
Yup, hence pseudoscience. Scientific research isn't just about looking for papers that confirm your hypothesis, to do only such is pseudoscience.
Well then she is black I believe, at least partially, so according to her own theory perhaps she just doesn't have a natural disposition for science.
As a matter of fact, I am lighter skinned than my fellow Filipinos. I also do not associate so much in many fiestas.
My bad. Still you're not white, higher level of melatonin, therefore, according to you, scientifically challenged, and asking us to agree with you based solely on your opinion. You have yet to show a single link between physical features and behavioral tendencies/learning propensities.
well, you are ignoring one thing.
Journalists will present all angles whereas scientists would use data to prove a point. And yes they will produce data that proves their point.
Pseudo science is saying something is true using scientific language but with no conclusive and peer reviewed evidence.
How else will scientists make breakthroughs if they do not break through barriers of thinking.
A theory involves collecting evidence and connecting previously disconnected studies in to one theory. Experiments will them prove the theory. Then it becomes scientific fact.
I think she said she read a book. Alot of crackpot theorists out there.
See? She said so. And in all caps. So it must be true.
I'll be back but anyone is free to be emotional on a topic that is actually quite neutral.
I've learned from my experiences not to be to quick to judge. So I try my best not to. Again, that's just for me.
There is a correlation between appearance and personality but it has a lot more to do with other people's prejudices and interpretations than anything else.
If for example society decides to treat people with red hair as super geniuses then the truly intelligent among the red heads will definitely get a leg up and the others will do moderately better even though some of them shouldn't belong to such a category based on the color of one's hair. People assume that fat people are lazy or eat too much. This isn't always true. There can be many factors involved in weight gain or the difficulty some people have in losing weight that have nothing to do with either laziness or over eating.
People with long noses are sometimes thought of as aristocratic which I find strange. People with pudgy noses are sometimes regarded as common. Again I find this very strange. Give a dog a bad name and he'll live down to it has been an American saying for a while and there is some truth to it. Treat someone with a long nose as learned even though you don't know if they have ever picked up a book in their lives and if enough people follow suit then our big nose will start feeling aristocratic, highly cultured and intelligent. He may very well try to live up to expectations. On the other hand pudgy nose might resent being regarded as very ordinary and basically a peasant and either try to change people's views by doing really well or sit on his hands and decide that if they think I am nothing much I'll be nothing much.
Having thick lips and big ears as a kid did not make me happy. As an adult I no longer have either but still remember how I was sometimes regarded.
The best thing to do with however you look is to make the most of what you have and not worry about the rest.
The thing is earnestshub people do and it does affect a person's personality one way or another whether they choose to live up or down to the judgment or even try to ignore it.
The fact that we shouldn't judge a person by their looks is always there.
Well that's just it, and it's that view that IS scientifically proven. There are thousands of studies in social psychology about the impact of appearance perception on behaviour. People react to how they are treated, and people are treated by people they don't know based on first impressions - which is almost always appearance.
Like the study I mentioned or the examples Rod gave in earlier posts.
There is no direct correlation between physical appearance and behaviour.
Pop-psychology is a diluted 5min introduction to a field often by a journalist taking other's research and spinning it with their own ideas, but it is not published scientific research.
Well, I understand your aversion to the topic of physical features advertising PREDISPOSITION to certain behaviors because it does not include a person's choice and the influences of his direct environment.
The issue of race is a side issue. The larger issue is the mind body connection.
See your values reflect a sensitivity to cultural implications of the statements I am making but say, if we go back to reproduction and mating, I assure you you will be singing a different tune.
testerone and behavior
physical features and testosterone and behaviors
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/ … ion2.shtml
facial asymmetry and mental health:
http://www.alternativementalhealth.com/ … iamond.htm
I could go on and on to the point of ridiculous.
The thing is, all people are sentient. All people are capable of adapting and getting new ideas. That is not the point. Adaptation styles include physical adaptations to a specific environment.
Saying I'm racist because I am saying racial features arise from chemical/biological natures is just putting color that exist only one's own colored thinking.
People have different styles of adaptation and its varied. To say one is superior than the other is funny. On what measures?
There are many different measures of superior which eventually even things out.
Science was created by a predominantly white population...it is an adaptive consequence. BUT that said, Chinese and Indian Medicines are quite impressive as well. They are not called science but only now science is recognizing the :scientific basis for them. But I digress,
this is about physical features... Taking offense is your option but no need to put color where there is none. COLOR is a melatonin thing and melatonin is from a gland and gland secretions affect our behavior.
fact, science, neutral.
"Science was created by a predominantly white population...it is an adaptive consequence."
You mean modern science and the ability of whites to have access to the money education and power needed to study science. Right?
NO I MEAN
Galileo's Scientific Method. the standard in obtaining fact. As for science today, all methods are converging into science as all fields can be investigated by science even feng shui, voodoo and so on.
(Can we set aside white supremacy guilt for a minute? Yeah, everybody knows everybody is made equal in the eyes of G-d yeah? Martin Luther King and all that. Let us talk biology and not sociology)
I don't believe in god. Your point about Galileo is... dumb. Sorry. That'd be like me saying.. Elvis was the king of rock and roll so white people have a higher propensity for singing talents.
well, you must review your highschool science because galileo is responsible for the scientific method....METHOD. Science however is the result of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
So elvis started rock and role but i guess the beatles took it further. and so on and so forth.
Exactly. Just as Galileo took that which came before him and built on it and those who came after him built on his own work. The scientific method is not science. It is simply a system of rules for the game which has long been played.
science is the body of knowledge that came from the scientific method.
every body of knowledge outside of that western product is called superstition... until science proves it has biological and actual basis.
I don't know about that. The Mayans used to do brain surgery. I expect there was alot of trial and error involved in that.
i bet you my cold coffee they did not start from HYPOTHESIS
I'd expect they did! People don't generally cut other peoples' heads open for the fun of it! Even if it was just exploratory, is that not a part of science? Even if their hypothesis was merely that if they cut the head open they might be able to see what was wrong, it's still a great scientific start.
science is a word invented by the western people who are predominantly white. not racist but fact. no, in india they call it ayurveda and it is connected to religion. belief without evidence...and yet, it has been passed on for generations as a body of knowledge. Science can test it and then it will no longer be faith but science.
but we digress.
You can but you would not do that out of choice. But you can and people do. To say that you can't is a moral stance not an actual fact.
To someone is predisposed to how they will grow as a person based on their looks is absurd.
There are thousands of variables to consider, upbringing, peers, family values, dna - plays a part in all of this for certain. Something as simple as a nasty remark from someone you value, can alter you for life.
It is not absurd.
FACT: Propensity for high Testosterone produces the following features:
1. thick eyebrows
2. square jaw
3. hairy body
4. muscular body (mesomorphic)
Testosterone associated behaviors
1. quick temper
3. high sexual activity
It is fact too, that the degree facial asymmetry has been linked to brain conditions.
Brain disability in fetal development results in asymmetric length of legs and eye size.
Certain infections during gestation affects facial symmetry. The body will advertise truthfully the genetic viability of the vessel. That is why arts, humor, and other traits emerged in evolution, it is to even the playing field. A funny man is displaying his intelligence,,,
Brain disability? You're not exactly winning me over here.
It is proof that the condition of the mind is advertised on the face. proofs are proofs. how you choose to respond to proof is your choice.
I don't know about that, about brain disabilities resulting in assymetric facial features, but even if it does, you have not shown that it is the only thing which causes the asymmetry. My face was perfectly symmetrical when I was a child. I have pictures to prove it.
Oh I see the problem now. The predominant ignorance as to what makes the genes.
GENES are learned adaptive traits.
GENOMIC IMPRINTING. A fetus can acquire behaviors dependent on the condition of the mother's life condition.
Lab mic... the offspring of mice were observed to have better at going through a maze their parents learned with more difficulty.
And so on.
Sorry, I never finished reading that book.
Which actually is true. The Human... something. I fergit. I started it, but never finished reading it. Got it around here somewhere...
Your position assumes an isolated system, society is not an isolated system.
present society you mean.
Many of the today's social problems are by boxing people in one measure of competence. That is not the topic here.
The topic is PHYSICAL FEATURES are MIRRORS of the PREDISPOSITION OF THE MIND and HABITS OF MIND.
Your face tells a prospective mate what kind of person you are.
that is a complicated topic that involves biological war between men and women.
do you know that when men smell hormones associated with the female genitalia their ability to judge physical viability of a mate is compromised.
My husband and I were laughing at that when we watched the documentary in PBS
I'd believe that.
I also once read that people choose their mates by sense of smell. Umm... what was it?.... (Little dots mean I'm thinking.) (Which ought to mean something big is coming up, since you know, I'm white and all.) .....
I fergit. I think it was like we smell chemicals which we all give off which our mind is able to identify as coming from physical strengths in the other person which our own bodies are lacking. So for reproductive purposes, smelling each other helps our minds to know which people are likely to strengthen our offspring and which aren't.
Or something like that.
yes that would be immune system compatibility.
There is immune system compatibility. Two experiments were run. Men were asked to keep a pair of socks on for a week then the socks were bagged. Women were then asked to find the least offensive smelling socks. They did. Men were asked to wear the same underpants for a week and the women were then brought in to find the least offensive. The end result of all this was that the women found that the least offensive smells came from men who had a somewhat different immune system to their own . It was a case of same repels but different attracts. The idea here seems to be that if two people with different immune systems were to mate then the offspring would most likely end up with a more advanced immune system which is a good thing.
Pheromones are what Pandoras Box happens to be talking about. We give off pleasant odors apparently at given times that can attract the opposite sex. This I believe usually happens when we are in a good mood and are feeling great. Get a promotion at work or get a book up and running or win a tennis match and you are probably giving off the good scent.
Mind you if you believe you only need the right scent to win the lady fair or the right face then buckle up because you are on a ride to nowhere. Such things might get your foot in the door as far as her affections are concerned but if she is worth anything then there is a dance or two or three ahead of you mental, physical etc before you are gonna dance the ultimate dance with her.
It is my contention that women want to be made to do certain things. They want to be made to feel warm and secure in your presence. They want you to make them smile. Going even further making them laugh isn't a bad thing to do if you can. Do women reciprocate by making the man feel warm and secure? Are there women who go out of their way to make a man smile and even laugh? You bet. For some reason I like those kind of women and love spending time with them.
If a woman radiates warmth looks can become secondary pretty damn fast. If she laughs at my jokes she also wins points. Everybody has a different mating dance and that's fine. Getting hung up on looks doesn't come into mine.
I don't argue this, in the earlier threads I said, and with basis not just opinion, that :
arts and wit and all the other positive human traits evolved to improve chances in mating when your physical features are advertising weakness in genetic viability.
so a person who is not so finicky about obesity because well he had no problem with that but is shy and needs to be more social will be drawn instinctively to a person who is on the heavy side but is quite fun-loving, warm and witty. But fun loving and a good sense of humor will show on the face.
there is a biological war using pheromones to confuse judgment of physical features. they affect responses to physical appearance displaying nature. but they do not invalidate that face and body advertise nature.
you can tell.
Yeah I'm not going to knock looks, but it does seem sometimes as though ..less attractive people have the best personalities. Cecelia said they're trying to make up for what they lack in the attracting a mate arena (or something to that effect, correct me if I'm wrong Cece, I hate it when people misinterpret what I've said and say "PB said") but I think it's more than that.
I don't think they're trying to make up for anything, nor have I seen any evidence for such in the sources provided, I just think sometimes better looking people don't bother! To be fair, maybe a lack of stunning outward beauty does tend to create a humility in people, and maybe a better appreciation for other things (which might be considered more worthy).
well there is an entire book about it feel free to read it because I'm not going to type it in this forum.
THE MATING MIND GEOFFREY MILLER
It is a book that discusses precisely this. That our finer traits like wit and artistic abilities, music and so on and so forth, evolved from the motivation to compete better in the mating scene because appearances sometimes are inferior in attracting a mate.
As for an organized proof of HOW physical appearance are clues for behaviors (predispositions and habit choices) I have offered casual references and there are many throughout this thread.
But I suppose it will be easier to read as a well organized article, complete with references, thought leaders and why it is not accepted. There are studies that puts in doubt the relationship of racial features associated with athletic and 'science' proficiencies. There are also sociological reasons why scientists are careful. We all know what happened to two Jews because of two studies attributing foresight to NORDIC TYPES of people and of course Jung's Aryan collective consciousness paper.
Many studies show that racial features do not lead to certain traits. However they found that the features and behavior correlate more to DNA which is not exclusive to a race. This does not mean though that racial features do not have predispositions of behavior associated with them, such as lean body, short body, etc. They would have the equivalent value to a person of another race bearing the same traits though. Because it is about DNA, biochemistry and not race.
So, the attitudes of the people here about the subject of physical features showing signs of personality and nature is one fear and almost indignation.
Fact is, there is a very very long list of studies that will show you in the animal kingdom as well as humans, certain physical features are linked to nature.
Simple ones are fangs=predator, Hooves=runs fast and eats grass.
testosterone, estrogen affect appearances particularly in the fetal stage. maternal infections change facial proportions of babies, whorls on the head cue handedness and multiple ones propensity for mental instability. there are many studies that show our physical features reveal nature.
Physical features is how the animal world assess danger/trust cues. How can we be exempt from that?
I understand that people who do not want to be convinced will not be convinced. I could reveal a long list of studies but if you do not read it, do not bother to understand its implications (because some are technical) then you would reject the idea. Before speech, how we looked was the only way we negotiated ourselves.
Yeah I got from what I read in reviews that it was about people evolving due to mating needs, I didn't see in the reviews that it was due to the mating needs of less physically attractive people. Nothing I read on this book indicated that, and when you made the assertion I don't think you specifically stated from whence it came. But I could be wrong.
And of course you're right, I have not read the book, and reviews don't cover entire concepts.
I still don't believe it.
Peer reviews said his conclusions were baseless.
Thanks Pandora, it was interesting how this premise was fleshed out
a review of mating mind:
something else for late comers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/ … ion2.shtml
By the way the technical term for this discussion is Physiognomy.
Yes and other good search terms for anyone interested are facial profiling and face reading.
Your review says the same thng the ones I read earlier did. His conclusions are off.
Also noticed this review doesn't mention unattractiveness. I'm sure it's in there, but the reviews never mention it.
We aren't exempt from the cues of nature. If I see a red and yellow snake I'll remove myself from its vicinity, just like any other wise animal. It's got nothing to do with this.
Best of luck with your hub!
Except maybe Pandora Box whose dogged perserverance in these forums frightens me a little !
People have developed artistic abilities and wit, as well as large mammary glands and penises to improve their chances of overriding other features that diminish their chances.
fortunately for you, I am only a writer testing the attitudes of people on a premise on a subject matter that interests me.
And hey, break it out. I don't care. Feels good not to have to worry about hurting anyone's feelings for a change.
Prove the link and I'll believe you. Assert a premise with no supporting evidence and I'll question you. Insult people because they don't immediately agree with your baseless opinion and I'll doubt you.
That simple. Prove the link.
As someone who has struggled with, and sometimes benefited from, a face that makes people think I'm a lot nicer and a lot more stupid than I really am; I have to say I don't think facial features give a lot of information beyond just, sometimes, your ancestors' nationalities or mix of them.
How you wear your hair, which clothes you wear, and how you behave, speak, and move gives more of a clue.
One thing that I think CAN show up in a face is a person's expressions. Someone who has a rotten disposition usually doesn't have "genuinely nice" expressions; but that's a case of "inner ugly" showing up on the outside, no matter how symmetrical or otherwise attractive someone's features are.
Any "readings" I think I get from someone like Obama (and I'm not even sure they're accurate) come from how he moves, talks, holds his head, etc.
physical features are a product of genes and genes are made by habitual choice. A person can however choose in a new direction, but his predisposition will still be there.
thick lips, thin lips, big eyes, small eyes...that stuff is meaningless. my lips are not thin and they are not thick, they are somewhere in the middle, so what does that mean?
i also have large eyes and symetrical features, so what does that mean?
it's all in how a person carries themselves that says a lot about them.
Body language can also be a cultural feature. There's a true story about two Americans who come to India. They hire a local cab driver to take them from the airport to their hotel. They ask the cab driver if he knows the way to the hotel. He says he does but as he says so he is shaking his head from side to side. The shaking of the head in this fashion indicates to the Americans that he really doesn't know at all. Of course in the cab drivers culture he is affirming that he does know. Well the Americans tried a number of ways to get the cab driver to confirm he knew where he was going and each time the words were affirmative but the body language seemed to say no. In the end the Americans were very relieved when the cab actually did pull up outside their hotel.
Lindy Chamberlain was accused of killing her own baby. She said a dingo took the child. One thing that damned her in front of the Australian public was her lack of emotion at her child gone missing presumed dead. The news audience would have responded positively to her if she had burst into tears. She didn't. If she was innocent, and even to this day no one can really say for sure even those she was acquitted, it was the blank expression on her face that lost her initial support. Why did she have a blank expression? Assuming that she was innocent maybe she was in such deep shock that she was simply numb and therefore expressionless. So what I am saying here is that sometimes in reading people we can get it wrong.
true, you can misinterpret physical appearance but it does not mean that the information is not there. its there, your analysis is compromised by many signals, but the clues of a person's nature can be found in her/his face.
why else would we have different faces other than to advertise our nature?
That's exactly what I believe too: in reading people we CAN get it wrong...so why have 'final' judgements about anyone...esp. negative ones...
(really enjoying reading some of the posts here... )
Some funny and informative answers - all I good think of was the trite 'can't judge a book by it's cover'. Which I am sure if I scrolled through this thread has been quoted tirelessly. Than I should look as you can't assume anything really can you.
This whole debate is just nature vs. nurture, and it is commonly accepted in the scientific community that you must take the biopsychosocial approach when analyzing any human beavhiour. Biology, psychology, and sociology are all contributing factors, and correlation never proves causation.
You have made the critical error all non-scientists make - assuming that because one thing is correlated to the other, it must cause it.
Science progress because of theories.
If there is no theory, there is nothing to disprove or agree with.
I am not a scientist. I am however an experience science writer.
But that once again is irrelevant.
You are disagreeing using sociology to disprove biology
No, I am not. Biology, sociology, and psychology intermingle in a person. No one is more important than the other, and because of this interplay of contributing factors it is impossible to prove that because two things are correlated one causes the other.
It is completely relevant. If you want to be a good science writer, you need to get your facts straight about science.
All three aspects must be analyzed together, not separately. Anything else is just bad science.
How do you know what is bad science when you haven't examined the evidence? That to me is bad science. Many scientists fail because of sticking to old notions long after they've been proven wrong.
Because I still don't agree with you I haven't examined the evidence?
You are drawing conclusions that your "evidence" doesn't draw. Correlation does not prove causation. Biology, sociology, and psychology intermingle, and no one is more important than any other.
Yes it is, but you discredit Malcolm Gladwell but ignore Mating Mind. You do not acknowledge that yes in the case of testosterone especially, behaviors are associated with certain physical traits. established facts of some decades now. Facial asymmetries linked to Brain disabilities as well as length of feet. Eyebrows and estrogen and soft jawline has been on many many documentaries about fertility and behaviors associated with estrogen.
You are still drawing conclusions that haven't been made. You are reading a, assuming b, and so concluding c. You have no credibility to me whatsoever. A journalist can write about science all they want, but that does not make them a scientist.
Like Chuck Klosterman and Douglas Copeland, they are interesting to read, but I'd never cite their pop-psychology in a paper.
This conversation is no different than one with a religious fanatic, and as it is going nowhere, I'm done.
well, nobody's claiming to be a scientist here. I do have an informed opinion on the matter and I invite people to challenge it. (otherwise how else will we all grow,that said it doesn't mean I'll just say...ok if you say so and shy away)
The causation you are mentioning is the root isn't it behavior does not cause physical features to appear that way but certain behaviors are shaped by biochemistry and biochemistry affects anatomy.
Specific facial features are linked to hormones and hormones affect behavior. Widely documented.
So I don't know about causation, because what causes it is genes and environment as well as personal choice. All of which are etched in our anatomy.
You are completely ignoring the social aspect. Many people, not just me, have argued with you that social influence is equally important and you just ignore it because it threatens your belief.
You are the writer - I am the scientist.
Ironically that is exactly what you are asking us to do.
no, i welcome all responses and challenges. But I will state my source, why I am discussing it. why it is not pseudo science and why it is relevant.
I already gave you the sources that prove I am not dreaming things up...correlation is clear.
now what it does not mean is another matter...what factors will facial advertising not indicate nature?
I have already said choice is not advertised but predisposition is.
Yes, behavior can indeed cause physical features. I was dead serious when I said my eyes are messed up due to my bad habit of exposing myself to alot of dubious materials, trying to understand them, and the skeptical nature this has created within me. It's true.
Granted you have no reason to believe me, but it means that I know what you're saying isn't true when you say behavior doesn't affect physical features. Of course it does! You referred in your early posts to flesh in the face, a feature which can be affected by behavior, though not necessarily.
Soft and strong chins are often determined by whether or not you had good dental care as a child. Narrow eyes can be indicative of a good deal of time spent squinting, and that could be due to poor eyesight or alot of time spent in the sun. Etc etc.
Okay yes, hormones can affect appearance and temperament, but temperament isn't exactly the same as the other stuff brought up, and this is an example of what CRM was talking about.
What's this called? .... (Well at least yer making me think) ...shoot I fergit that too. Um.. like -
The house is white so all houses are white. That's what yer doing, whatever it's called.
expounding on a topic does not mean there is no basis. Racial features are caused by genetic adaptations which has associated behavioral adaptations. They are cues as to the environment a race evolved from and certain environments inspire certain adaptive ways of thinking.
chase gazelle for meat, long strong legs that can run like the wind
rabbit hiding in winter...oooh check the stars, when will winter end and spring begin...oooh flowers...rabbits will be back..
chase rabbit,no very tiring...catch rabbit with contraption...yes. Not enough sunlight, no need for pigment no, best use energy for something else.
food all year round, lets all be happy, why work? food is there all the time, lets party! then when the sun gets too hot let's sleep. no need to grow too big, big size not good for having friends and being invited in parties. lets all have small frames, no need to invest in being tall.
Cultural tendencies do not prove facial features are indicative of individual nature.
And I'm not at all convinced that powers of observation (your genesis of scientific propensities in whites) weren't just as equally needed and used by africans.
err you can choose to disagree BUT cultural evidence will tell you that they have something else in place of that. these things have equal value and requires intelligence.respect for cultures and their validity despite their different measures is necessary for you not to see it as insulting that people from africa did not invent the scientific method. they invented civilization as sumerians are black.
Well the sumerians were responsible for alot of stuff. Astronomy, sure they weren't always right, but they were thinking. And they were farmers, which you cite as being what makes whites scientifically inclined. Wasn't their's the first written language?
individual features will cue behaviors based on the hormones predominant to a person....cultural is another discussion....
stating something does not mean you're proving anything. you disagree. i agree you disagree...but not having something to back that up other than anecdotal evidence is ever worse science than geoffrey miller (who is not bad science at all, its good science)
I will SLEEP NOW! (i know you, you always disagree until the bitter end! and so will i, this will never end ahhh. GOOODNIGHT!)
seriously, i appreciate the discussion and see exactly what kind of specific proof people need to entertain (not believe) the plausibility of the premise.
No, not really. Put it out there just as it is. You'll get alot of suckers.
I dunno, maybe you're right, but I don't think so. Hormones don't follow through, first of all, and they seem to be the basis of your argument.
Honestly, if I thought your argument had merit I'd admit it. I have nothing to lose. I'm white.
And scientifically not very experienced. I just don't feel you've offered any proof, and you yourself admit your theory isn't proven, but seemingly just based on a lot of speculation regarding some observations.
I also think based on the snippets you've provided that your misinterpretting other peoples' positions. I dunno, I guess this is based off of other peoples' misinterpretations.
This is what I get from the argument as you've presented it.
this is the second time she says she's done after i've given her an actual source. ah well...dawkins not enough for her I suppose.
Because I read your source, and it doesn't draw the conclusions you are. There is no point in having a conversation with someone that doesn't understand their own sources.
Unfortunately for me I have too much faith in people and give them more chances than they deserve.
well it is a discussion, you refuse to agree with my sources that is your choice. I also have the right to counter your reasons for disagreeing
no need to get personal,ya? no reason for heads to explode.
you disagree. thank you for challenging me as that is why i am doing this. I want intelligent people to challenge me. It makes my understanding of the subject matter and people's attitudes deeper.
I will however not avoid a topic just because it is unpopular. I will also not mouth theories I cannot back up with research until my nose bleeds.
You can prove counter evidence or you can just say...it's inconclusive. It will be valid if you say why, give counter evidence. generalizing "you're wrong" is not going to be weighty is it? Calling me a religious fanatic is also not relevant. Discussions are there to explore topics, to assess attitudes. Getting pissed is a sign that your reasons for saying I don't agree with you is not objective. Stick to the subject. Or leave it alone.
An abominable NO man is great in furthering discussions, though and I appreciate your thoughts.
"no reason for heads to explode"
Perhaps not, but you sure aren't helping my asymmetrical eyebrows any either.
Plus you're not being fair at all. You assert your premise as fact, when in fact it is not.
So it seems ... odd ... to find fault with anyone for questioning it. And questioning it was all we did until you became insulting and increasingly insistant.
It is not fact, it's nothing more than a far-fetched theory based on misinterpretation of the facts.
Testosterone cause facial hair, you say, and also can increase one's tendencies towards anger, therefore, you say, facial features in general indicate tendencies and propensities, you say.
That's bad science, despite your citing of Galileo's scientific methods.
it is based on facts. your face is a product of your genetics yes?
your genetics are adaptive traits yes? adaptive traits are established to have physical implications yes? dark skin, exposure to hot sun. cold climate, light skin. hormones.all hormones and these hormones have behavioral impact. all facts.
all i did was make a connection that is obvious. that is been written about and studied. do you want me to quote that your body is a signal of your health, fertility and MIND?
Okay hormones come and go in varying levels, and a good deal of the hormones which affect a person's physical traits come from the mother's body while the child is in the womb, and do not stay with the child once it is born. The physical traits carry through, the behavioral effects do not.
I did not say anger, I said territorial and competitive. sexual libido...these are not opinions they are fact. And they also link this hormone for male features such as thick eyebrows and square jawline.
Hold it, when did i insult anybody? I don't think I insulted anybody. I apologize if you think i did. But i was not aware of insulting anyone. how did I insult you?
Skip it, doesn't really bother me. You insisted a few times that we were just too scared to agree with you due to the implications of your theory. I find that insulting, but I don't really care.
It was indeed very nice to have a discussion without having to worry about it.
Okay I will tell geoffrey miller, and dawkins that this is bad science and maybe they will recant.
See, if you could just learn to read faces....
Just cause dawkins says a book you refer to is a good read doesn't mean he endorses what may just turn out to be nothing more than your interpretation of it.
OH he would not endorse it, if he does not agree with it. And dawkins would be able to assess science from pseudoscience. Geoffrey Miller has a PhD in cognitive psychology...CRM is a cognitive psychologist aspiring for PhD.
THE TWO SHOULD CHAT, who am i but a lowly writer agreeing with him.
He worked for Max Planck institute for psychological research but his work is full of biological proof. I urge you to read it.
Or running with new notions long before they've been proven accurate. Maybe. Just sayin' is all.
Which is why I can't believe you just because you say so.
Well, that is a choice. I am in a forum to test attitudes and avenues I haven't seen. And also the strength of my arguments. I appreciate everyone for disagreeing, discussing and challenging. We all grow from discussions.
Challenging notions is always a gateway to higher understanding.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR RIGOROUS CHALLENGES...If you have more I'll read them tomorrow.
The strength of your arguments is weak. Extremely weak. You take a lot of stuff and try and assert it means something it doesn't. You never provide any actual evidence at all.
That said, alot of people will probably believe you anyway.
why is it weak? what is its precise weakness.
it's simple. hormones=face hormones=behaviors hormones,behaviors and face face will clue in behaviors, otherwise why is it there. why is genetics investing on making different faces...what for? why can't we all look like you? because it provides clue for mating purposes. very very simple.
now please state the weakness.
How do hormones affect the shape of the eyes? Or the ears. Or the cheek bones. Not saying it doesn't affect these things, because shoot I ain't even a science writer.
Ummm.... what did you say... Oh yeah. You said that you can't all look like me because of mating purposes, yeh, well maybe it's because -for starters- my ancestors needed lighter skin to absorb more vitamin D from the sun, and some of them were german beer aroma testers -thus the big nose- and teh cold weather caused them to hold their faces in a tenser position part of the year, thus the thinner lips and squarer jaw, and also because not everyone is as skeptical as I, and yet also lacking a higher level of education, causing them to raise an eyebrow as they tried to figure things out.
Could be either or. Neither of us have any proof. Both are based on speculative evidence, with little to no scientific proof, and perhaps other than the beer thing I think my speculations make at least as much sense as your's.
There again, you should be able to articulate it.
So, now, are you saying this is a theory or a proven fact? Cause so far it sounds like a theory based on a lot of speculative ..speculations.
It is based on facts... but is an established theory. just like the theory of relativity.
Based on facts can mean an awful lot of stuff. It's a fact that it's past my bedtime. Based on that fact one could assume that I'm sleeping. But I'm not.
data is there to be interpreted. it's not I'm alone in this. just quoted a major researcher with the same theory.
facts are there not to get in the way but to be used as parts of theories that will BE proven as facts if someone actually does a laboratory testing it.
Certain traits have been associated with certain hormones and certain behaviors with the same hormones. why is that pseudoscience?
or better yet, what reason do you have for saying your face is advertising for your nature is UNFOUNDED.
Cecelia wrote: facts are there not to get in the way but to be used as parts of theories that will BE proven as facts if someone actually does a laboratory testing it.
Me: Which they have not yet done, so clearly you have no proof, and shouldn't be asserting it as fact, and insulting peoples' intelligence because they disagree with you.
When you write your paper on this are you gonna let people know that it's just an unproven theory?
You: Certain traits have been associated with certain hormones and certain behaviors with the same hormones. why is that pseudoscience?
Me: it's not. The rest of the stuff you said is.
You: or better yet, what reason do you have for saying your face is advertising for your nature is UNFOUNDED.
Me: I didn't say that, sure it is in some limited ways and to some extent. I said that your THEORY that our facial features themselves are indicative of our personality tendencies and intellectual propensities is unfounded.
I will not write a paper on this:) I am just writing a hub. I first wanted to test it in a forum to see all angles.
see people can write about really ridiculous things and its okay.
but start talking about things that are really out there, the frontiers of science and its implications and people start getting all Prove this and prove that, where are your credentials? is she going to actually send this to a journal...
truth is journal papers are boring, nobody reads them but people like me who have actually spend a considerable time with them. that is why many people are ignorant about what's out there and what it implies.
a writer can conclude that alcohol can reduce a person's risk of diabetes but on a scientific journal, it will be talk of laboratory mice and .07 water given twice a day versus other mice who were given .something of water and results show that this insulin specific scientific jargon thing is reduced by something something percent.
Doctors would know the implication. If you've worked as a medical writer, you would understand the jargon and make an interpretation.
But scientists are not the ones making the interpretations, science writers are and some science writers are or were scientists.
scientists will just publish results of experiments, conservative implications.
SO facts are, hormones affect features and behavior. the precise connections can be inferred and interpreted.
these are not lies, or stretching the truth. the truth is already out there and some people are already and have already said them published them and so and so forth.
But people do not like the idea that you can consciously decode a person's face. but they do it subconsciously every day.
People judge people's looks everyday. It is a habit of nature. One that we are striving to resist because it had collosal impact on politics and people's lives. racism affect people everyday.
The thing is people need to rise above their measures of better in order to appreciate that different is just different not better.
A PERSON WHO IS OBESE will be less likely hired in an interview or get a date in speed dating.
That is why we develop other ways to cope with this hard fact of biology. the body advertises the habitual thoughts and genetics.
we start dressing up in certain ways, reading more, getting witty, do art. all of which is to show that we are not just how we look.
and this is also true. we are the sum total of our choices. but the white canvass of our choices are the choices of our ancestors.
and that's a lot of choices showing up on the face.
because habits of choice etch itself in our expressions our body, the lines that we have over the choices of parents and their parents and their parents before that.
Pop science. You mix some known facts with alot of assumption, ignore other known facts, and assert your premises as scientific truth.
I can also say things like :
"you are mixing personal bias with words like pop science and ignoring facts to suit your belief".
interpretation of data is a theory. strong theories are backed up by facts. proof strengthens a theory. the strength of the proof lies in across the board consistency. say genetics, biological, behavioral, chemical, social. yes?
you and crm are saying you need to integrate all these. correct? ok will tackle that one by one.
But you can't possibly think that anecdotal evidence and things like pop science, mixing facts with blah is enough to make ME rethink my stand.
Claim : Women have boobs
weak argument : my nieghbor is a woman, she does not have boobs.
that is what you call weighty counter argument?
GIVE ME HARD DATA...OH NO YOU DON'T HAVE IT, you're just here to say you don't agree with me. you will be too lazy to look for hard data because you're not here to prove anything. you're here to disagree.
It's very dishonest of you to imply I ever said anything about my neighbor. The only anecdote I offered was in agreement with another poster regarding our observations of our own children.
If you had hard data you would have put it on the table! I read your links, except the sign up one that you quoted, and I looked elsewhere for hard data to back up your assertions.
I have not found one thing from any acredited scientist or sociologist backing up your premises. They all seem to be saying it's only a perception game.
In studies which may seem to prove your theory there are always mitigating circumstances, indicating that the reason why people were able to correctly guess other's tendencies did not arise from a simple perusal of their natural facial features.
Some very old studies supported your point of view, and people were advocating the doing away with certain face types!But as it turned out the methodology used in these studies was always flawed. In some studies your premises have been DISPROVED! A study on the faces of incarcerated criminals showed the violent offenders faces displayed no significant differences from nonviolent offenders.
The only proven correlation found between physical features and behavioral tendencies and intellectual propensities was in how people are perceived by others.
So who is ignoring the facts? In insisting on the validity of this position all you're doing is discrediting yourself by relying on speculation and inaccurate interpretations of study results.
I switched computers, but I will try to find some of this stuff again and post the links.
thank you, thank you for actually doing your research.
I would like to have your links and understand the measures.
As for further evidence that appearance offer clues to behavior.
"A 1998 study by Coplan and his colleagues have unearthed a link between inhibitions/social wariness and eye color in young children, more specifically, pre-schoolers. It found that blue -eyed male children were more socially wary than brown-eyed ones. No such significant variation was observed among female children. The study shows that in young children, iris pigmentation could probably serve as a marker variable for social wariness."
"Pax6 is known to induce tissue deficiencies in the iris and the ACC. Could this then explain the relationship between eye color and personality? A study by Larsson M and his colleagues in 2007 (May, 2007) suggest that this maybe just so. Changes induced by Pax6 leads to different iris configurations, which, in turn may influence certain ‘approach related’ behaviour."
Read more: Eye Colour and Personality - Page 2 http://www.medindia.net/news/healthwatc … z0lw2XPWzJ
No. I'm tired of this right now. Or, maybe more accurately I'm just tired. Plus i just don't think it'll pan out to be supportive of your main claim.
What you have is a theory, supported by studies that don't indicate what you claim they do and propped up with a healthy serving of speculation.
Apparently this school of thought has run its course several times before -most notably in the lead up to WW2, has always been substantiated by bad science and usually if not always founded upon an underlying principle of prejudism. In time, every 'study' has proven to be either conducted under very poor methodology or deliberately manipulated.
I've read enough to know that much of what you submit as evidence really isn't -just speculation and conjecture at best or irrelevant to the main premise, things you've asserted as facts aren't -such as the ecto, meso and endomorphs -discredited a long time ago, and sources you've listed don't carry alot of weight -hypothesis and/or discredited by the scientific community -such as the Mating Mind which was both.
Life intrudes and this is pointless. You just ignore everything which doesn't fit your theory and seem to think that other stuff that doesn't does.
Interesting subject but a not very objective approach. Thanks though, it was interesting.
You have not read my link, crmhaske. It is one thing to suspend pronouncements in a scientific paper. But to call something an error without examining the evidence is not science...its resistance.
If you've read it, then say why physical features and behavior are not intimately linked. studies show....I'm waiting.
Nature plus nurture I agree with. Facial features an indication of natural propensities or behavioral tendencies I'm still waiting for evidence on.
The upshot is that we work with what we've got and what we know.
Maybe ceciliabeltran should read up on B. F. Skinner. You get some dogs that have been well cared for all there lives and put them in separate cages. You get mongrels hanging out at the local tip and put them in cages. You rig it so that at given times leaving the cage will result in the dog getting a nasty electrical shock but only at given times. There is food and freedom beyond the confines of the cage.
So what happens in this experiment? The pampered dogs go forth get a nasty shock and then whimper. They stay in the cages presumably expecting the humans who have treated them so well up to now to come to their senses eventually and save them. The mongrels, on the other hand, keep testing the exit to their cages. They get shock after shock but keep going. Eventually they find the time when they don't get shocked and so escape. Behavior here we can say was governed by nurture as much as nature.
It has been some years since I studied psychology in college but some things stuck.
The Pavlov's dog experiment might be brought up when a dog was trained to salivate at the sound of a bell because he had been taught to associate the sound of the bell with food. This is an example of nurture.
irrelevant to the premise that biological features are attributed to certain behaviors.
Not all behaviors can be predicted by faces and body types. But I would say we have already established to some are.
Not at all irrelevant. B. F. Skinner proved that often it is the way we are brought up rather than the way we look that either wins or loses the day. The scruffier less tame dogs knew how to survive by never saying die or relying on others to get themselves out of a mess. The pampered dogs the dog breeders would love didn't have a clue aside for crying out for help.
This is one of them, but I wish I could find that thing that I accidentally read about calcification of the pineal gland associated with serial killing....
I'm not fat but I'm lazy.
I just don't feel motivated enough to sign up on that site in order to read the paper. I'm sure it's hard to verbalize scientific stuff, but after all you summarized The Human ..(Genome Project?) in three pages, so...
It's late, I gotta get up in the morning. Maybe I'll sign up and read it tomorrow. Honestly though, since you're here insisting that it's true, you must understand how it works, and I'd think an intelligent woman such as yourself would be able to articulate it.
One point might be, though, that there can be so many contributing factors it muddies things, as far as anyone's accurately making "assumptions" about someone, based only on his facial features.
One of my three kids (all grown) is one I adopted. I've been close to two other adopted people in my life, although I only knew one as a toddler and have seen several members of her birth family. The other one (my brother-in-law) has three grown children, so I can see any differences and similarities between him and his three kids.
Based on what I've seen in my own life, I still say you can't judge a person's nature by his facial features. One common mistake scientists make is not living up-close-and-personal enough to disprove a lot of conclusions draw from studies.
Good points. My three children are all three so very different in personalities and strengths, and it was the same with my four sisters and I, despite the similarities in facial features.
this is what i call citing specifics to counter statistics.
True, but it's gotta be better than citing journalists to prove scientific theories.
Besides, I was just agreeing with her.
ah well, you ask for proof, I give you proof. you want to believe anecdotal evidence without exploring the actual reality of that case...then what's the point. Why did you ask for proof. Look at your neighbor and judge if I'm right or wrong. My neighbor is white and is not scientific, oh theory is crap.
I asked for proof, you provided none.
You wanna know mostly why I agreed with her? Because we were hogging the conversation and I didn't want her to feel like we were ignoring her input.
Plus she did make a good point, a very good point. Your theory doesn't work on individuals.
So which is it, you have proof, or you don't? It's a fact, or it isn't? Behaviors can affect your features, or not? You're going to bed, or ain't ya?
Your position shifts as we go along.
I agree with you PB that Lisa HW made good sense.
Here I add that experiments have been run on twins and the results indicate that separate personalities develop regardless of looks.
I have met twins and after half an hour you can usually tell them apart unless, of course, they wish to play games on you and be deceptive.
I knew two girls, twins, in primary. They were both nice and had identical facial features as true twins do but even the way they dressed was radically different. One always went in for pony tails or pig tails. The other with the more wild personality liked her hair out there and unrestrained.
They were both good at English but where one liked to kick the soccer ball around the other preferred skipping rope.
You could collate all evidence that physical features advertise nature that influences predisposition to certain behaviors.
But look at the animal kingdom...are you saying the countless scientists testing animals for human conclusions are doing pseudoscience?
Eh? Is this in response to the brightly colored snakes? If so it makes no sense and ignores my point.
Which over all is still very simply prove the link that demonstrates that facial features are indicative of natural propensities and tendencies.
I think B. F. Skinner and his animal experiments could be brought in here to defend PB's position.
In answer to the question, sometimes you CAN judge a person by his or her looks. For example, someone can look at me and say, "Dang! I'll bet she's a great cook!" And they'd be correct. lol!
"each trait that we consider sexually attractive already summarizes a huge amount of information about an individual's genes body and MIND"
-page 205 geoffrey miller the mating mind how sexual choice shaped our nature.
reviews for this book: "sexual selection, darwin's other theory has finally come in from the cold...geoffrey miller has really been theone with that ball abd he now brings his ideas and evidence together in this thoughtful witty, vividly written book..." richard dawkins
Exhilirating stimulating reading this book enables a rich confusion of apparently unrelated detials to fall into one place- and isn't this what science is all about. -NATURE
and that is that. unless you want some more quotes?
I dunno, maybe blondes are dumb.
How exactly do these quotes prove -or even indicate- that facial features are linked to our propensities and tendencies?
They don't. Not at all. Is anybody else seeing it? I'm not seeing it.
did you not read it? you want an actual study think lips sensual? is the global wide eyed and full lips reference not prove my flippant comment earlier about wide eyed blonde who will be open to any suggestions. that is a joke of course, but then its right there. wide eyed blondes can choose not to be like this, though. then you will see in time, the wide eyes will narrow...and maybe an eyebrow will permanently raise.
Yes I read it, and it didn't say anything much other than how men are perceived. Masculine men are perceived as cheaters probably because they may have more choices, or because the women themselves felt insecure in their own abilities to hold his attention.
It's not proving anything other than peoples' general perceptions of others which could be caused by any number of things. Just because plumper lips are perceived as extra sensual, doesn't mean people with bigger lips are actually anymore sensual in general than anyone else, though I'll grant you that the perception, the expectation, may cause a higher tendency. However, it is the expectation which causes the tendency, and not the lips themselves.
It's very possible, and I'd guess highly likely, that plumper lips are perceived as extra sensual because they can be sensually useful when used properly.
Your assertion is that these people have bigger lips because they have ancestrally been used properly and frequently, which therefore has made them bigger and the people who possess them more likely to have a tendency towards using them properly.
In fact, that may be true, in this case, if one considers the sexual prudity imposed upon the white race by christianity, but you have failed to prove it. It could be due to piercing habits, or the way they ate their fruit, or some other thing.
So yeh fuller lips might be perceived as more sensual, it isn't necessarily any sort of indicator of actual propensity in the individual -or the race, or subset of the race- for a sensual nature.
Maybe they don't have fuller lips at all, maybe whites have thinner lips due to living in colder climates where they'd be more likely to keep their teeth clenched a good deal of the time.
I have two nieces who are blond. They are nice girls but I wouldn't call them dumb. One is a university graduate who is now living in Europe. The other shows the tendency of also becoming a university graduate in a couple of year's time. Call them dumb PB and you could be in trouble. They both have black belts in taekwondo.
Oh and I know you weren't being serious about the dumb blond bit.
that said we all have ways of overcoming our genetic predispositions. choice belongs to the present and the future... predisposition is not predestiny.
what about body type? how does that factor in? tall, short, skinny, plump...?
mesomorph, ectomorph and endomorph...that's like an old psych theory
i saw this cartoon in Bloom County one time. in it, Opus the penguin was sitting at a bar. seated beside him were a slender, long-haired hippie-looking sort of guy, and a big beefy, 'redneck' sort of guy with a "mom" tattoo. the tatooed gentleman said 'hey do you wanna know what i would do to fix what's wrong with america?' and Opus bristled because, judging by the man's appearance, he expected him to blame all of America's problems on minortities, etc.
instead, he said he would feed the homeless and build schools in poor neighborhoods and get rid of all the nukes. so Opus turns to the hippie-looking guy and says 'hey, did you hear what that guy said? You can't judge a book by its cov--' and the hippie-looking guy interrupts him to yell at the other guy, going 'America, love it or leave it you commie pinko!'
which illustrates perfectly how physical traits are meaningless in discerning a person's charcater or beliefs.
I see the whole thing about the animal kingdom, and the ways in which the biological hardwiring of humans can be traced back to/extended out to the animal kingdom. I know there are things like the fact that ferule cats are said to be able to have kittens earlier than cats living with families; and that a similar thing occurs when humans adolescents are living under stress/threat and "prematurely launched" into reproductive maturity. So, I'm not necessarily questioning much of the science. I believe it is not, however, complete; and I believe there are often times when conclusions are drawn based on insufficient study. In other words, I'm not so much questioning the overall science, as I am some of the conclusions (or else the misinterpretation of what may be valid, but still incomplete, conclusions).
I have the three grown kids (so I can see how they turned out, as well as know how each was a newborn/infant).
None of them have the same facial features at all - not the two biological ones, not the adopted one.
All three were had very similar natures, behavior, personalities, and other "inner" traits as children. All three remain very similar in a lot of ways. All three had the same slight, slender, builds (I fed them all the same kinds of food, of course. It was, I guess, a coincidence that the two biological children have a mother with a small frame; and my son's birth mother has a small frame as well.
The adopted one has a biological brother who looks just like him - only who is overweight. He has an entirely, entirely, different personality than my son.
I had all three tested for school reasons. The eldest one (adopted) excelled in many of the same areas his younger siblings did (I mean - way ahead of his age level). His birth mother is a whole different story. She was described as "of limited mental capacity".
Then again, he doesn't have the same kind of verbal ability his younger siblings have; but this was a child with "God-knows-what" for a prenatal environment, not to mention a head injury in early infancy.
At the same time, each of my three kids has a completely different personality (even if they are, in many ways, similar "kinds" of people).
If nothing else, if someone looked at the almost clone-like similarities between my son and that one biological brother, there would be no way whatsoever to make any assumptions about how similar or different they are. They're wildly different in so many ways.
With a major mix of nationalities in their backgrounds, nobody would see any similarities between my two birth children's facial features (for the most part); and yet they are similar "as people" in so many ways.
On the one hand, I can see a precise pattern between what my son and daughter inherited from me versus their father; then again, with my sister's three kids there is no such perfect pattern.
With my two biological children here's the pattern:
Daughter - my hair color; her father's head and hairline
Son - father's hair color and texture, my head and hairline
Daughter - my eye shape, father's eye color
Son - father's eye shape, my eye color (slightly varied)
Daughter - my nose
Son - my nose, but a man's version of it
Daughter - my mouth
Son - father's mouth
Daughter - my chin
Son - father's chin
Daughter - my white complexion
Son - father's darker complexion
Daughter - my frame and build
Son - father's frame and build
(and by the way, my adopted son has my ex-husband's frame and build too )
Daughter - father's hands/finger shape
Son - my hands/finger shape
Daughter - my feet
Son - father's feet
Based on this, I might have jumped to the conclusion that it's a pattern with having sons and daughters; but as I said, my sister's kids (a lot of other people's kids I know) don't show the same kind of perfectly "planned" pattern).
All I know is that I can look in the mirror and see what I see, and compare it to what a lot of people think they can assume about me, based on what I look at; know what other people often think they can assume about me; and see that my facial features aren't good indicators of who/what I am as a person.
The same is true when I look at my kids, see differences or similarities, and know what kind of people they are (and how a lot of people don't realize what kind of people they are, because those people do the thing about basing assumptions on facial features).
Maybe my individual, anecdotal, evidence isn't enough for scientists; but it's the only evidence that has been staring me in the face for decades; so it's why I am certain that it is misguided and never wise to use facial features as a way of assuming things about people. Anyone who thinks they can do that is a case of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". So, my main point isn't to question what science has found; but to point out that I, personally, believe science has not yet found "the whole picture" (or else conclusions made cannot be used in day-to-day life because of the variations in genetic mixes, nurture, and whatever else from individual to individual.
all good points but that only proves one thing. that there should be studies done to prove and disprove this theory.
I have to sleep but will continue tomorrow. thanks!
Aha! Finally she admits she has no proof, even though she asserts it all as fact and calls us ignorant and/or too scared to believe it.
ah, context...a theory is not declared fact until it is proven consistently in a laboratory. people should continue to discuss the relationship.
the theory of relativity was just recently proven. the big bang however is still a theory...as is evolution.
studies indicate dat small, round faces, squishy noses, round, wide-set eyes and cute droopy ears indicate massive intelligence and an extraordinarily sweet disposition.
again, hormones make the face and hormones affect behavior. goodnight and would love to see counter evidence to that. but tomorrow.
This statement, by itself, overlooks the role the brain plays in determining what mix of brain chemicals/hormones are at play at any given moment (or even stretch of time). In other words, the brain plays a major role in both hormone/chemical levels and behavior; and how the brain develops (in terms of when it reacts to what with chemical changes) is determined by genetic predisposition to some degree, but also nurturing.
The site, Zero to Three (dot org) points out that nurturing in the first three years of life can actually affect how well (or not well) the stress-response system and immune system will function for the rest of child's life. That points out the powerful impact that nurturing has on the overall person.
I know you said you're leaving for now, and I may not be back; so here's just something to back up (to some degree) your belief:
Without digging up a bunch of references that I'm using (and in some cases not using) for the "theory" (that may be mine but may be more than theory in at least some scientific circles): (and I couldn't even find your link, for some reason, so maybe this is there already - maybe because it's late...)
I think there is a kind of "equilibrium" with regard to balance of things like brain chemicals/hormones which, if it is generally maintained throughout childhood, will mean a person will develop "as planned" in terms of what he's inherited for features.
I think if/when that equilibrium is "shaken" (perhaps, for example, a child who feels stressed or under threat at certain developmental points along the way; or else for his whole childhood); something like increases in the flight-or-flight hormone (or other chemical changes) can affect the way the brain/body/features develop.
It pretty much looks to me as if features most subject to most dramatic change as a child reaches reproductive maturity may be most "at risk" of being altered by what may be imbalances in chemicals/hormones. (For example, my mother, not nearly as secure a person as I've always been, pretty much had my nose - only her nose was much longer than mine is; then again, though, maybe I just have my father's "influence" in the "nose department").
I do think, though, with the rapid physiological changes in a baby's brain during his first three years, there might be the chance the brain's development (and resulting "pattern of brain chemicals/hormones" could be altered to the point where the child's physical traits could eventually be altered as well. (Maybe an example would be a child who would have only been "sort of muscular" because of his genes who might be insecure/threatened in infancy and end up being even more muscular than he otherwise would have been. Maybe, under the influence of flight-or-flight, or other "mixes of chemicals/hormones" one child's development will (at least during any given time) take a direction toward the physical versus the cognitive; and perhaps even alter the "blueprint" on which future development is built.
Think about body types - ectomorphs (both male and female), endomorphs (associated with female) and mesomorphs (associated with male) (although both sexes can be any of those).
Suppose we're all supposed to be ectomorphs (at least as children); but later (as reproductive maturity is reached) "lean toward" endomorph or mesomorph, depending on our sex.
If, as you (or the science) suggested, body type is only one trait that can be altered by the "blend of chemicals" at any given time; then where the science might be correct would be with individuals who didn't have "just the right" equilibrium throughout childhood. That would back up what you suggest; but, because I was good at knowing how to keep my babies/children feeling secure and happy (I'm good with babies and young children, because my parents were), what I've said is also true (because children who lived in "reasonable equilibrium" as children would not have their "pre-destined features" altered as a result of disequilibrium.
In other words, we're both right (but I'm still right in saying some science may not tell the whole picture )
I'll be back tomorrow to read - but I've think I've "contributed" about all I "have" for now. (By the way - on that list of traits my kids got: My son got my "Spock" ears, and my daughter got her father's "C shaped" ears. )
environment affects behavior predispositions and the corresponding adaptive anatomy.
To some extent, yes, and as pointed out to you earlier by CRM, a mixed society negates even that.
it does not negate it, it just confuses it.
it is very hard for people who need to move fast in order to think better to be asked to sit on a desk like people who spend half of their lives indoors or inside warm caves wondering why seasons change and how to keep the food fresh, or say how to keep the fire alive.
but evolution means everyone evolves and present society is a stage for that.
I imagine all that heat necessitated frequent periods of rest.
Which might be when they got around to writing the epic of gilgamesh and inventing a calendar.
Food stays fresher in the cold, but it rots quickly in the heat.
well you shouldn't because you could hurt peoples fellings and that is wrong to do
I'm still dumbfounded by the "green snakes are harmless" statement. Like I said, try getting friendly with a green Mamba.
well, i have no idea what a mamba is, but green snakes are not as deadly as red and yellow snakes.
by HubPages 9 years ago
How to describe yourself
by jonnycomelately 8 years ago
If the perception of "God" and "Satan" is just in the mind, molded and adapted to the individual's needs, could the acceptance of this change the way we address each other? Could listening to the other person's understanding/belief; warming to his/her need; trying to...
by GypsyFootedWoman 8 years ago
What are some non physical attributes of your perfect mate?Can you describe, in a few simple terms, your desired mate? Things that have nothing to do with the physical aspects of the individual.
by LensMan999 7 years ago
How do you judge a person at first sight?Is it possible to judge a person completely by seeing only once? Some people say that they have such an ability. Is it really possible?
by Michelle 7 years ago
Do you think that physical attributes are more important to maintaining a successful relationship ?
by John Sarkis 9 years ago
Paraphrasing Schopenhauer "you're as good as you look." e.g., attractive, clean and tidy people are usually nice and dependable; ugly, dirty and unclean people are usually not nice or reliable. Question was inspired by a comment one hubber made to another a few days ago. ...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|