Physiognomy

>>17760085
Interesting

The presence of a condition like Down Syndrome is pretty obvious to an observer, right? Human facial recognition is a deep and complex adaption. People may be able to recognize congenital disabilities from facial structures alone.

Didn't they say that there are avian humanoid aliens

Entire books are written about it, and are applied by people in businesses where you do lots of face to face meetings and even criminal profilers have lent some credence to the idea of certain facial features correlating with certain personalities.

My boss has a book over it in her office, actually. And she swears by it.

The human brain is hard coded to get a tremendous amount of information instantly from a person's face. Mood, age, gender, ethnicity, intelligence, health etc. I personally am acutely aware of this because I have a mild case of prosopagnosia and am much worse at that than the average person so I find it amazing while normal people just take it for granted.

I have a friend who looks like a shark. He eats lots of meat and spends a lot of time in the sea. You can also often hear the Jaws theme when he's around, usually because we sing it around him because he definitely is a fucking SHARK

>>17760142

can you tell me the title of the book?

>>17760267
Let me go see if I can find it.

>>17760257
That would be funny if you actually recognized the existence of the soul

>>17760267
"Amazing Face Reading"by Mac Fulfer. J.D.

>>17760085
i heard some shit about this on "mysterious universe" podcast recently.
They mentioned a study where people were supposed to draw conclusions about people's character from looking at their faces.
The result showed that people were able to guess traits correctly, but that it had no correlation to facial features.
Maybe we judge people based off unseen cues, like pheromones or something?

I mean people have been studying the face-shape/head-shape thing for a long time and getting nowhere...

>>17760318
The face is like the frequency but the data is in the signal

>>17760318
As unscientific as it is, I think people just have vibes that they give off. It could be micro expressions or something rather than facial features. Was that study just pictures or was it faces in motion? A picture is staged and not a true representation of the person. You get a better feel for the small expressions and mannerisms in person.

>>17760318
If it's just looking at faces, pheromones have nothing to do with it.

>>17760085
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvjw5xJF8WQ

>>17760137
People who suffer from down syndrom can be very intelligent!

>>17760085
principles personified by the attributes of certain animals

>>17760396
Sounds exactly like something bill burroughs would write

>>17760085
Interesting thread, I have similar beliefs and this is the first time I've seen the idea outside.

Bump

Yea I've been into it before I was even really into spirituality. But now knowing about spiritual principles it only makes even more sense that it is true (that facial structure can tell you about a persons personality).
>from a scientific perspective it makes sense that physical appearance correlates with qualities because you see that in the breeding of animals. When selectively breeding foxes for being docile they had a curly tail (or straight, can't remember) and a certain type of look. The foxes bred for aggression had the opposite type of tail and different look.
>there are supposedly IQ and strength differences between races, face groups are like mini-races so they could have traits like IQ associated with them too
>its engrained it us to trust people who look more neotenous (bigger eyes, bigger forehead, smaller nose and mouth) because they look more like children. So to some extent everyone judges people on their face and its normal.

>for the more spiritual perspective, everyone is made of energy that arranges itself into a unique physical form
>in other words our body doesn't give off our aura, our aura gives off our body. How we look is a result of our though-form self
>if someone's thought self had a lot of reptile, cold-blooded, logical energy to it, they could come out looking snake like or lizard like
>I don't want to get into who I think looks reptilian and who doesn't, but there are some people who I think really do, they may have a similar blood-line or religion/background, or may not

Physiogonamy=Bullshit

There are 7 billion people on earth. The chances that they look like animals are high.

There are more than 7 billion animals on earth. The chances of them looking like humans is higher than humans looking like animals.

No mystical shit here.

>>17764487
I think you misinterpreted the direction of this thread

>>17764471
This nig knows, this is more along the lines of what we're talking about

>>17763430

Well, yeah. My point is that human beings have the ability to recognized undesirable hereditary conditions based on facial features.

>>17764504

Don't be fucking stupid.

Physiognomy is like phrenology or reading tea leaves; a nonsense that we put behind us once we realised it's nonsense.

Why do people insist on continuing to deal with the ridiculous even after it's proven ridiculous? Humanity and it's stupidity never fails to amaze me.

>>17764919
>tips fedora

Lmao

>>17764919
You sound extremely euphoric, did you feel good writing that?

>>17764919
Also physiognomy has some merits, even if you take away the spiritual aspect you are still left with genetic traits and phenotypes. You likely have a weak chin and little testosterone running through your veins by your sense of greatness on an anonymous board.

File: criminal.png (12KB, 1039x555px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 1039x555px

>>17764919
>phrenology
>wrong

The reason we stopped using phrenology is because it's politically incorrect, not because it's bad science.

The shape of the skull is an excellent predictor for criminal behavior; a short sloping forehead correlates with antisocial personality disorder.

>>17765035
>>17765049
I hope you ignorant fucks are trolling.

>>17765049
Do you even understand the difference between causation and correlation?

>Poor black people resort to crime because poor.
>Poor black people have certain features and head bumps.
>Head bumps mean crime.

You fucking spastics. When phrenology was discarded we didn't give a fuck about it being politically correct. We were busy pushing around natives and ruling our Empire you dumb fucking peasants. We simply realised phrenology was a ridiculous notion and a little too French for our liking.

Learn some real history you plebeian fools.

>>17765142
Kill yourself nigger sympathizer.

>>17765142
Holy fuck you are retarded.

File: hobbes NO.jpg (21KB, 282x348px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 282x348px

>>17765142
>Poor black people resort to crime because poor.
Fuck off, this has been thoroughly debunked.

Black people are more crime-prone than white people; this has been proven in studies where income level is controlled for. Poor blacks commit more crimes than poor whites, and rich blacks commit more crimes than rich whites.

You seriously think wealthy black men don't commit crimes? Poor blacks mug people in parking garages, and rich blacks drug and rape women in expensive clubs.

Crime isn't a poor problem, it's a black problem.

>>17765184
You fucking moron. I don't sympathise with any nigger. I don't sympathise with any inferior race or culture.

It's just that I don't need to make up bullshit to justify my beliefs. If I'm going to think less of people I don't need to hide behind bullshit.

Now fuck off.

>>17765207
Of course it's a black problem, I never said otherwise.

But it has nothing to with bumps on their fucking heads, it has to do with their culture and their ignorance and their fucking society never progressing.

If a culture lives in shit like cavemen they act like shit living cavemen. It's because they live in shit and are cavemen.

Not because they have weird shaped heads. You utter fucking idiots.

>>17765049
>Angry people are angry because studies show that more angry people watch aggressive T.V duuuurrooopp.
no anon, that's not how it works. Confirmation bias at its finest.

>>17765215
hahahaha ur so fucking butthurt

File: 1461355672677.gif (3MB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x200px

>>17765049
Does your skull shape correlate with making anyone who hears you talk want to shoot themselves?

>>17765222
are you autistic

ITT: People who failed 10th-grade biology at least twice.

>>17765228
hahahaha ur so fucking illiterate/childish/obviously American.

Pick whichever one you like most.

>>17765250
lol ur butthurt is infinite

>>17765049
Have you ever had that time when you see a post so awe-inspiringly stupid that you can't form a coherent rebuttal because you don't know where to begin on calling it out?

>>17765278
no because we're not autistic

>>17765049
>The reason we stopped using phrenology is because it's politically incorrect, not because it's bad science

Prove it.

File: wew.png (2MB, 720x803px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x803px

>>17765285
>accepting a theory based on correlation without emphircally-proven causation is smart

>>17765294
lol rice a roni is this your faggot pretentious ass again?

File: bait-cancer.png (28KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 550x550px

>>17765049

>>17765049
>The reason we stopped using phrenology is because it's politically incorrect, not because it's bad science.
>implying phrenology wasn't a pseudoscience based entirely in political correctness because "because niggers" was too racist back when racism was cool.

"scientific racism" is the one banned for being right and politically incorrect.
homo sapiens sapiens should be divided up into dozens of subspecies and hybridizations due to geographic and reproductive isolation with the understanding that each subspecies has different physical and mental traits (like statistically low or high intelligence). The only other animal we don't properly taxonomy is dogs, but people still consider the different breeds to have distinct traits common throughout each pedigree created via artificial selection.

TLDR: the fact that if you took a statistically average sub saharan africa and educated them in a first world country their IQ would be ~10 points higher than their former peers but still in the low to mid 80's is because blacks are a genetically distinct species from other human species and the fact that homo sapiens can hybridize successfully is no different than texas cougars and florida panthers being able to do the same.

>It's a you sure are intelligent episode
>why?
>I don'now, you just look smart lol

>>17765049
This might make sense if the guy on right has a diminutive frontal lobe, so he might see things as just nails that need hammering more often than a regular person

>>17760085
Its animorphs, Op.

>>17765142
>hurrdurr correlation doesn't imply causation

>>17760085
You can watch the wrinkles in people faces and note what areas have had more use and the kind of movement they did. It`s the history of the face and taken that it forms after years gives a good measure of that person reactions.

>>17760085
I could usually tell a right winger from a left winger. There are sometimes exceptions, but I could guess correctly about 80% of the time.

File: guzxoxh.jpg (236KB, 1378x778px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1378x778px

>>17765756
wew lad, is that a super power?

>>17765768
More than just degenerate shit like dyed hair and piercings. I can tell by their facial structure.

>>17765184
>>17765205
>>17765207
/pol/ here, if you want a debate about black crime /x/ isn't the place

>>17765049

i think you are right and my head is much larger than average indicating higher intelligence. anyone who thinks otherwise has a smaller head

>>17760085
LMAO ITS ICE POSIEDON Cx

ugly people are treated like shit, so they become bitter

attractive people are treated like gods, so they become nice people

that's all there is to it

>>17766336
My ugliest friends are the nicest. And I've known some "attractive" people who were the absolute worst type of person ever.

Explain.

>>17766342
are you ugly? you might feel kinship with the uglies and that colors your perception of niceness and worstness

>>17766355
I have no real opinion on what I look like.

>>17764919
0.02$ payment has been made into your account.

>>17766355
But I'm ugly as sin and everyone treats me great.

>>17765365
I'm sorry but when did average level of intelligence abrogate genetic compatibility as an indicator of species differentiation.

>>17760085
Casey Neistat?

File: head-measurer_of_tremearne_side_view.jpg (126KB, 500x342px)

126KB, 500x342px

Phrenology It's not wrong per se, if you have communities of human with certain characteristics, that have been associated with certain behaviors for long periods of time, you can do cold reading into the person with just the physiology, but it just applies to socially developed habits, if you hammer down into the brain of people by constant reminders, you will have a group of individuals that actually believes that they have to behave in a certain way, but it's social prejudice aplied to educational enviroment.

People inside their own communities behave different than outside them, regardless of what the shape of their heads say.

>>17766027
Wow, this is rare. A /pol/tard not trying to derail a thread on a non-/pol/ board. I am actually impressed and it's pretty decent of you.

>>17766336
wrong ugly people are treated like shit, s they become bitter towards atractive people, and nicer towards other ugly people.
Attractive people are treated like gods just because of their looks, so they become bitter towards ugly people, and bitter towards otthher attractive people out of jelousy.

>>17763430
That's really interdasting.

Phenotypes stacked in genes, like your typical ginger, red hair, pale skin, and freckles are stacked. I belive that the way you react to things is based in genes, equating w/ personality, different chemicals released to corresponding stimulation. I see no reason why people even question that personality and physical traits are linked. Learn basic bio.

>>17771595
So in closed communities with similar gene pools, everybody has the same personality?

It's that what you are implying?

EVERYONE IN My OFFICE

>>17763430
Hahahahahahahaha no

T. Former tard wrangler

>>17766336
>>17766342
Wrong, everyone is an asshole except for me, who am a god.

File: índice.jpg (11KB, 195x259px)

11KB, 195x259px

>>17760085
It totally works, I think.
I've started to notice a whole lot of things since early ages that some characteristics on a person's personality seemed to have connections to specifics of their bodies.

Me for example, since I'm the subject I analysed the most on this, I'm skinny as shit. Like, "not being able to get up easily" weak.
What I noticed from this anatomic quality of mine is that it induced me into rejecting any kind of physical conflict, maybe through instinst of self preservation.
But also, because I'm weak, I was cornered into developing a set of skills for self defense, such as a number of social skills, emotional resistance and observation skills.

In my conclusion, I do think the anatomy of a person heavily influences his personality and maturity, but everything I've described until now could be inverted. I could be a pansy inside as well as outside.

>>17765207
it's called being alpha.
whites are so beta whipped

File: 30446940_1300x1733[1].jpg (335KB, 1300x975px)

335KB, 1300x975px

I don't know if what I'm about to discuss has any correlation to any of the above, but...

I notice daily about four-five different human types, facial-wise, vocal-wise, mannerism-wise and/or physically-wise that share very distinct, similar traits, sometimes these traits cross racial boundaries which is even more interesting.

For example, look at this photo of Carl Weathers. He reminds me so much of my dad in almost every way and my dad is Asian!

>>17760085
>Anton Lavey
Generally pitied for folly more than condemned for evil. He would jump on any old bandwagon.

Can you guys recommend links on pdf that are good and provides illustrations? I'm poor af and I can't seem to find a pdf version of a good physiognomy book

>>17760085
BANTI

true or not i like these topics, heres some from where i grew up

>if a girls knees dont touch when she stands with her ankles touching, shes prob promiscuous/lost her virginity

>people with back dimples are natural s at oral

id love to hear what youve all heard

>>17775487
Another skelleton here, can agree with that.
I have noticed I usually observe my sorroundings a lot more than people around me, and I'm usually the first one that notices danger.
I also noticed I'm short tempered so when involved in a fight I always strike first, makes sense to me because I have no chances of wining a fight, but if surprise the other guy punching him as fast and hard as possible I can confuse him and gain time to run away.

>>17760085

Nah man, that's called Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

>>17779781
>if a person has a hunched back, they need a new mattress
>if your palm can cover your entire face, you have cancer

>>17760085
When you feel emotions you tend to have a physiological reaction with them.
If you feel these often, it will show in your face and other areas of your body.
Like when you're always smiling, it can show in your face without you having to smile or even as if you have a permanent smile.
I always think of the quote, As above, so below...Energy always has a physical counterpart
You can also look into psychosomatic psychology/therapy

I've noticed about 15 different faces per gender per major racial group, and have noticed that not only does voice a given voice-type tend to match a given-face type, but personalities tend to be, overall, almost identical between two specimens of a given face/gender/race-type.

I've brought this up to several friends and associates, and they've all noticed it as well, either before I ever mentioned or, or soon after.

>>17765365

It's just... logically, humans in civilization would be less intelligent than humans outside civilization. Their world is simpler to survive in. Being smart is not an unadulterated advantage, as it is outside civilization; in civilization, being smart and of the wrong class is about the worst fate that can befall you.

We could examine how intelligent different populations are now, and we could try to account for the historical context, but that doesn't change the logical argument that civilization produces less intelligent humans on average.

>>17769063
That's /pol/itical soldier for you anon.