Image not available

960x652

fff.jpg

๐Ÿงต Physiognomy

Anonymous No. 16297617

What do we know? What are some theories?
Its hard to find any serious material on it

Anonymous No. 16297633

>>16297617
Attractive-looking people tend to be narcissistic.

>t. attractive narcissist

Anonymous No. 16297776

>>16297617
Irregular features are a sign of inbreeding. Inbreeding is strongly correlated with low IQ. Certain cranial shapes are correlated with specific ethnic groups. Those ethnic groups also have low IQ.

The whole field exists simply as a way to turn the above set of clearly true statements into a set of standards. But it was developed before intelligence had any standardized ways of measuring it, so it has a lot of problems.

Anonymous No. 16298141

>>16297617
it's like music taste. there is objectively better music but no one knows what it is.

Anonymous No. 16298163

>>16298141
>but no one knows what it is.
Could this be a result of the objectively better music changes between qualities of person, e.g. the dumber lower class humans like X while the smarter productive humans like Y; then when researchers attempt to find the "better music" this fact is noticed and due to taboos over eugenics etc they can't openly state this correlation, so have to result to "there's two types of objectively better music".

Anonymous No. 16298169

>>16298163
i know highly eugenic people who hate music or have shit taste in it, and i know dysgenic people who are extremely gifted in music. it's almost not correlated. why would psychological affinity be different from physiognomy if it's all genetic

Image not available

333x500

ED_physiognomy.jpg

sage No. 16298232

Anonymous No. 16298235

>>16298232
didn't mean to put sage

Anonymous No. 16298942

>>16298232
I don't like his assumption that all mutations are bad. Obviously they are necessary for any advancement whatsoever. He comes across as overly close minded and conservative. Probably just aiming for average