Think you can’t judge a person’s character by the shape of his skull? Think again:
Researchers spanning many scientific domains, including primatology, evolutionary biology and psychology, have sought to establish an evolutionary basis for morality. While researchers have identified social and cognitive adaptations that support ethical behaviour, a consensus has emerged that genetically determined physical traits are not reliable signals of unethical intentions or actions. Challenging this view, we show that genetically determined physical traits can serve as reliable predictors of unethical behaviour if they are also associated with positive signals in intersex and intrasex selection. Specifically, we identify a key physical attribute, the facial width-to-height ratio, which predicts unethical behaviour in men. Across two studies, we demonstrate that men with wider faces (relative to facial height) are more likely to explicitly deceive their counterparts in a negotiation, and are more willing to cheat in order to increase their financial gain. Importantly, we provide evidence that the link between facial metrics and unethical behaviour is mediated by a psychological sense of power. Our results demonstrate that static physical attributes can indeed serve as reliable cues of immoral action, and provide additional support for the view that evolutionary forces shape ethical judgement and behaviour.
So, you really want to limit your dealings with guys who look like this:
This whole subject — that character traits and behaviors can be predicted by physical features — is pregnant with deliciously unsavory thoughtcrime. Do women get more viscerally aroused by wide-faced, beady-eyed men because of women’s attraction to the male dark triad of personality traits? Are long-faced, large-eyed men, presumably more trustworthy, more likely to ascend the corporate ladder? Do wide male faces differ in frequency among population groups? Are people with sloping foreheads really stupider than people with high foreheads? If the genes responsible for making wide male faces and beady eyes also predispose those men to unethical or criminal behavior, what does that say about free will? Criminal culpability? And why, in the first place, would wide faces evolve to be associated with a badboy personality? Why not long faces?
And can we make predictions of women’s behavior based on their facial structure? This blog previously examined the connection between women’s looks and their behavior, and the hysterical screeching it caused amongst the feminists suggests that this avenue of inquiry will not be one any scientist concerned about his reputation or tenure track will want to vigorously pursue.
Luckily the Chateau is here to talk about the things everyone else REALLY wants to talk about, but is afraid to do so.
on July 8, 2011 at 1:22 pm “So, you really want to limit your dealings with guys who look like this:” And Barney Frank.
on July 8, 2011 at 1:36 pm Richard Trumka , AFL-CIO
on July 8, 2011 at 1:48 pm Wide-faced or just fat?
on July 8, 2011 at 1:56 pm Note the key phrase in the abstract: “Importantly, we provide evidence that the link between facial metrics and unethical behaviour is mediated by a psychological sense of power.” In other words, wide-faced guys are burly and think of themselves as badass tough guys. That makes them more willing to fuck other people over. Not entirely genetic, since some of that is developmental.
on July 8, 2011 at 2:18 pm another theory pulled out of rooizy ass
on July 8, 2011 at 2:29 pm Hahahahahahaha thanks Hitler! His descriptions on this topic are similar to this blog: first, right, and prophetic to the scientists who need for some reason more then giny tingles as a gauge for whats right in this world.
on July 8, 2011 at 2:34 pm The guy in the picture looks Russian or comes from a Slavic background. Maybe that’s why people don’t trust Russians, or could it be that the Soviet era did harden many of them to a point where only those who were able to cheat & decieve were able to survive well under a communist regime?!
on July 8, 2011 at 2:39 pm The guy in the picture looks like his name could be Boris and he will hook up illegal cable in your place for a price ranging from $299 – 500+ depending how long it will take him to finish the job.
on July 8, 2011 at 2:44 pm Boris? i was thinking he looked more like a Vladimir….
on July 8, 2011 at 3:07 pm Fyodor Stepanovich Kovalev
on July 8, 2011 at 2:55 pm
on July 8, 2011 at 2:47 pm Shouldn’t it read, “… have sought to establish an evolutionary basis for moral delusions.” ?
on July 8, 2011 at 2:58 pm Holy shit, now I have an excuse.
on July 8, 2011 at 3:11 pm Then let’s converse
on July 8, 2011 at 3:18 pm Thank cripply christ. Now, I can finally TRUST OBAMA Just as my MSNBC Gruppenfuehrer commands
on July 8, 2011 at 3:33 pm Some guys who use high doses of androgenic anabolic steroids do get bloated looking faces. Either from too much estradiol conversion OR there could even be androgen receptors in the face causing some water retention there too. Even when bodyfat levels are rather low.
on July 8, 2011 at 5:23 pm That is all water weight and always come off eventually after the cycle. Plus I believe hes speaking of wide faced men bone wise. Otherwise when I was fat my round face could have me considered a wide faced man. I dont think so. There is some anecdotal evidence on message boards that many users faces have gradually changed from steroid use. Our faces do change over time based on what our hormone levels are. So stands to figure if someone can keep their testosterone level elevated high over a long period of time their face will gradually become more masculine. But what will 100% give one that that cave man face is too much HGH.
on July 8, 2011 at 4:00 pm Damn. I look like that. No wonder people always think I’m a thug, cop or gangster.
on July 8, 2011 at 4:29 pm i find it interesting how someone who loves science adopts to of the mot ridiculous anti-science ideologies: phrenology and global warming rejectionism. stick to pick up tricks. its easier to master mystery method than the complexities of macro level social and environmental dynamics. although you are admittedly good at micro level social dynamics (from reading MM and spending wayy to much time @ DC bars).
on July 8, 2011 at 5:00 pm So you’re one of those people who treats “science” (read: whatever the highest-status ‘experts’ believe in now) as a religion that cannot be questioned?
on July 8, 2011 at 11:33 pm No, the most ridiculous “anti-science” ideology is blank-slatism, the belief that evolutionary forces do not apply to human intelligence and behaviour. Dollars to donuts you enthusiastically subscribe to that idiocy.
on July 9, 2011 at 2:15 pm global warming rejectionism nope sorry, couldn’t continue reading you gave away your mental retardation
on July 10, 2011 at 4:47 pm “global warming rejectionism.” it’s called Climate Change Denial now, didn’t you know?
on July 8, 2011 at 4:31 pm GOEBBELS
on July 8, 2011 at 4:53 pm On the other side of the token, it’s much more comfortable for the ladies. Or so they tell me.
on July 8, 2011 at 5:14 pm I’d also watch out for very baby faced men. Their whole life people have shitted on them, bullied them, took advantage of them, and considered them weak. They overcompensate for this fact by being petty, spiteful, disagreeable just for the hell of it, and ready to fight at the drop of a hat over stupid shit. They feel a need to prove they arent cowards. Sometimes I dont blame them though. Got a buddy just like this and it gets tiring having to deal with his antics. I’d rather deal with a wide faced guy any day of the week. It’s just like that scenario where we all think its the tall guy who’s arrogant and stuck up, but in reality its the short guy you want to avoid even more.
on July 8, 2011 at 5:22 pm Any idiot who thinks biology does not affect intelligence must think fish are as smart as children.
on July 8, 2011 at 5:24 pm I’ve seen this guy’s picture somewhere but I can’t remember where.
on July 8, 2011 at 5:59 pm in your gym locker
on July 8, 2011 at 5:37 pm If you go through all of Stalin’s non-jewish cohorts you find that they all look like that picture. (Including Stalin himself)
on July 8, 2011 at 9:21 pm Speaking of which, this study seems to directly contradict the whole “covetous Jew” stereotype. At least I’ve never heard of a stereotypically wide faced Jew. Problem, WN’s?
on July 9, 2011 at 3:42 am Lol. My sentence was a verifiable observation. Your sentence is mental trickery. Fact: C is violent This fact does not enable one to extrapolate “If A does not look like C, then A must not be violent”
on July 9, 2011 at 3:55 am Also it depends on what we mean by violence. There’s ape-like physical violence and then the more sophisticated kind, like NKVD officers with guns, people with bulldozers, or even government officials who with a pen can determine the fate of an entire people.
on July 8, 2011 at 5:38 pm There’s also the question of how behavior influences appearance. I don’t think it’s too far-fetched to say that how people behave can change how they look over time. Certainly skin tone, posture, eye-bags, placement of wrinkles (smile lines or eyebrow creases?) are all influenced by a person’s behavior over time. Why not face shape? It would be subtle changes, but then we are talking about subtle stuff. My great uncle said you shouldn’t be too hard on ugly teenagers, but that ugly middle-aged people were fair game. There’s a saying he repeated: “At twenty, you have the face you were born with. At fifty, you have the face you’ve earned.”
on July 8, 2011 at 5:52 pm I also notice people like this guy who have eyebrows that point downward to the center have that sinister look to them. Evolution’s way of showing us who to be on guard for, I like it.
on July 8, 2011 at 6:08 pm It seems to me that the only purpose of this paper was to provide further ammunition for rejecting unattractive men, as if women really need another reason to reject a man.
on July 8, 2011 at 6:26 pm Here is another article on the subject: http://www.livescience.com/14909-wide-faces-predict-unethical-behavior.html
on July 8, 2011 at 7:09 pm You know that its interesting that such a discussion would take place regarding men, but never women. In fact if there’s any discussion at all regarding a woman’s physical characteristics and how they relate to her biological/horomonal profile, it is responded to by a chorus of sexual trade union feminists and their pet manginas trying to silence them. Imagine how much easier life would be for men if they were all aware that women who were exposed to too much testosterone during critical developmental periods of their life had identifiable physical traits. The warning signs would be as follows: – Broad shoulders, and a masculine waist to hip ratio – Fucking manjaw, (a long face can be a sign of AIS) – Beefcurtains, Theres a solid anecdotal and scientific corollary between high testosterone women and what amounts to excess and would-be ballsack. Its a surefire marker for excessive androgenic activity. – Small tits or otherwise having the body of a ten year old boy. Women who fit this profile are barely women, in the same way that a woman with AIS doesn’t have ovaries, but has a vagina, they’re psychologically more on par with an adolescent boy than an actual woman.
on July 8, 2011 at 7:35 pm Perhaps wide faced people have been larger and bulkier all their lives and are used to pushing people around and getting their way? Or maybe they have larger brains/ higher intelligence, and believe they can get over on people. People do tend to get the faces they deserve. As an example, I know a guy that I run into every couple years. I’ve known him for nearly 30 years total. He was a sneaky, weasely fuck when I first met him and still is. totally untrustworthy. Every time I see him his face gets more weasel like
on July 8, 2011 at 7:42 pm A thought (from a guy with a relatively wide head – damn me to hell): If one constantly has a clenched jaw due to stress or rage, the muscles bulge there over the years, making one’s face broader. “The face you deserve at 50,” etc.
on July 8, 2011 at 7:47 pm Is thist why nobody trusts Vladimir Putin?
on July 8, 2011 at 8:49 pm You’re being sarcastic, I hope? Putin does not look remotely as chubby as this guy.
on July 8, 2011 at 9:51 pm Of course, Mr. Putin is not chubby, he keeps fit and healthy, but he certainly has a round face and a hardened criminal eyes. anyway I wouldn’t like to have any deal with Mr. Putin.
on July 12, 2011 at 1:37 am Have you actually looked at a picture of Putin? Putin has a classic east-Baltic aryan/dolicephalic head, complete with blonde hair and blue eyes. Unsurprisingly for a guy from St. Petersburg, he looks like million of other Estonians, White Russians, Lithuanians, Latvians, northern/central Poles, and Prussians. Compare his picture to Brezhnev, Yeltsin, Chernenko, Groymyko, or Gorbachev if you still don’t get it.
on July 8, 2011 at 8:38 pm Chinese
on July 8, 2011 at 8:40 pm This is another idiot study made by idiots. They got some people and checked if they acted bad and measured their faces. They could have measured any other binary parameter, for example, they have black shoes or brown shoes? And since it is statistically impossible the parameters are at exactly 50%, they can conclude: who had brown shoes is bad, and who has black shoes is good, Or any other BS they wanted, just ready to be served in women’s magazines.
on July 8, 2011 at 8:51 pm (Traveller, damn keyboard) And I would add, why do not they measure some other subtle physical difference, like for example, skin color? get the white, get the black, measure the crimes and… Wait, WTF? LOL
on July 9, 2011 at 4:44 am Did you know that melanin is a very strong aphrodesiac, and helps to build muscle? Google melanotan libido.
on July 8, 2011 at 11:58 pm OK – nobody’s brought it up yet – the caddish *Glen Quagmire* on “Family Guy”..
on July 10, 2011 at 1:50 am He reminds me of Charlie Sheen
on July 9, 2011 at 1:55 am There is no “free will.” Everything was set at the beginning.. big bang or whatever it was. It’s called “causality.”
on July 9, 2011 at 4:42 am Ya, you’d think. But experiments show that at very small units of time, causality flows backwards. Experiments with photons have shown that. I have a blog post about it somewhere. Also, the idea of infinite branches of time is gaining popularity. A single causal directional time is not what experiment or experience or math shows us.
on July 9, 2011 at 4:45 am above is xsplat
on July 10, 2011 at 2:35 pm Even more complex than that. Experiments show that the response of human body occurs 500ms before the calculated stimulus arrival based on speed of propagation through nervous system. In fact, if we did not have that kind of mini-time-machine, our expiration date as species woulda kicked in long time ago–we’re quite fragile creatures, but this adaptation makes all the diff. Then there are large nodal peaks generated by a mass of participants, The random generators reflect that (by less random sequences) several hours in advance (like 9/11). Then there are cases when people anticipated some events days ahead, with a high degree of accuracy–random events that could not have been predicted based on a simple causal interpolation. Then there are events that you sometimes dream about and they play themselves out exactly decades later. All you are left with is deja vu feeling, if you’ve forgotten, or if you haven’t, it looks to you as if you stepped outside of yourself and watching a flick you’ve seen earlier. No one has an effing clue how that bloody works.
on July 12, 2011 at 1:28 am The book “The Physics of Christianity” posits that God the Father is the point of singularity at the end of time and the existence of the universe, which implies that casaution of events is flowing backwards from this foreordained conclusion of all existence. The author uses a lot of standard physics to explain how this is so and why it is reasonable.
on July 9, 2011 at 2:08 am So Russians and northern Asians are tricky while Anglos and kikes (both narrow-faced) are trustworthy? Bullshit. [Editor: You have to measure relative to population group. A very wide-faced russian would be more untrustworthy than his less-wide fellow russians, even if the average russian face is wider than the average anglo face. And then there’s the possiblity that russians are, on average, less trustworthy than anglos.]
on July 10, 2011 at 6:21 pm No. Really? Russians less trustworthy? How do you know?!
on July 12, 2011 at 1:24 am Putin is not widefaced. If he walked past you on the street, you wouldn’t assume he was some sort of thug. On the other hand, the Ukranian guys at AAA-movers who extorted my wife for $600 to get her household goods out of the truck duyring her first move in NYC looked like the guy in Roissy’s picture. Not all Russians look like the guy in the picture, and not all Jews are narrow faced. Look at Curly from the 3 Stooges.
on July 9, 2011 at 7:20 am Frustrating reading some of these comments, you idiots still can’t come to grips with how hardwired we really are. Testosterone produces lateral growth of the cheekbones. Look at Manny Pacquiao or pretty much any boxer.
on July 9, 2011 at 8:40 am “Luckily the Chateau is here to talk about the things everyone else REALLY wants to talk about, but is afraid to do so.” 🙂
on July 9, 2011 at 10:30 am It is plausible that causation runs the other way. If certain facial features make other people react a certain way, then the face-wearer may develop a behavior to deal with these reactions. Let me take an example. Let’s guess that really good-looking women are haughty. Does this prove that there is a genetic link between haughtiness and being good-looking? No. Such a link might exist, but it can be much simpler than that; pretty women are treated with more deference and become haughty. In this example (but not regarding bone structure) it is also possible that haughty women, to maintain a foundation for that haughtiness, work harder at maintaining their looks. Thor
on July 9, 2011 at 11:28 am Where were these studies done,England? This study may just be looking at Anglo-Saxon males and not Baltic, Slavic, Roman-Greco, Caucasian , Asian , African, Middle-Eastern etc.That would take years of research but this could be plausible. Wide face men could have more of a sensitive adaptation to society which if the society is good to them they excel by the opposite and are more prone to be honest in negotiations and financial transactions. I could see them being “benign giants”.
on July 9, 2011 at 4:09 pm For those who derive a certain amount of pleasure from the contents of the study, take a moment to examine it: why do you feel this way? Why are you so eager to attribute negativity to traits beyond someone’s control? Why are you happy about it? Maybe just maybe, the real unethical tendencies are within you…
on July 9, 2011 at 8:01 pm Rycher: Maybe you need to take a moment to examine your feelings about the comments you’ve read here. Why do you enjoy thinking that people here are unethical and bigoted? Look inside yourself. Why are you happy about it? Maybe, just maybe, you’re a morally-conceited prick.
on July 9, 2011 at 8:13 pm It’s not that anyone is eager to attribute these traits to someone out of their control, but when studies show wide faced men are more aggressive, and less trustworthy, why should we take your word for it that its not true over the study? It’s not like we needed this study anyway. People already distrusted untrustworthy looking people because if he looks like a thug he most likely is one!
on July 10, 2011 at 1:57 pm Not everybody’s moral character is shaped by things within their control.
on July 9, 2011 at 8:04 pm I thought this article was pretty amazing: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201103/criminals-look-different-noncriminals
on July 10, 2011 at 2:50 am Thoughtcrime cops on the way,
on July 10, 2011 at 7:03 am One study hardly explains the ways of the world.
on July 12, 2011 at 10:35 am It fits the pattern presented on this blog.
on July 10, 2011 at 1:57 pm Awesome, already a few hypersensitive baww’ers on the attack! Most non-solipsistic, socially aware people notice from their life experiences that there would appear to be certain archetypes, and subsequently come to expect certain behaviour from people who tick certain boxes (phenotype, clothing, gait, countenance). The more liberal, the greater necessity for post-reflexive anti-generalisation behaviour. That said, we shouldn’t be judging boreal people like this – the simple long/wide skull continuum is not one on which to measure criminal proclivity – I know many an upstanding wide-faced chap. It is a combination of phenotypical traits not necessarily always reducible to a simple taxonomy a la Lombroso. But it’s definitely there. I was waiting in a bar in Birmingham yesterday and this angry prole woman was shouting at her kids. Her face screamed prole. It was if she was genetically predisposed to be aggressive. Whilst not being social constructivist, we should however, not discount the environmental factors – people who grow up in aggressive households and neighbourhoods end up with a permanent scowl or snarl on their faces – their dietary and drug habits will affect their development as well.
on July 10, 2011 at 2:44 pm Rather than look at someone’s face, or measuring their skull you should look at their shoes. I’d bet that the correlation for that has a higher R value than this study. But I’m actually not trolling here. Seriously, you can always quickly and acurately size up a man by looking at his shoes.
on July 10, 2011 at 4:03 pm From you, that’s actually, simianly brilliant. The meme that black men have “big shoes” is constructively balanced against their narrow, sloping foreheads, prominent brow ridges and/or aboriginal skull structure. It is important, after all, that big feet make better athletes.
on July 10, 2011 at 9:29 pm Heh. Simianly brilliant. A poetic marvel! Kind of funny that I must have a strong neanderthal (being of european stock) import in my DNA, as my brow ridge is rather noticeable. My first X made a fun of it calling me a caveman. I took t as an endearment, of course.
on July 11, 2011 at 12:05 pm It is sorta funny that your f1st ex made fun of you
on July 10, 2011 at 3:11 pm The guy in the photo looks like a Russian vor.
on July 10, 2011 at 8:05 pm heartistov So, you really want to limit your dealings with guys who look like this: I always use AK-74 when having dealings with. If he does not obey, I take power.
on July 11, 2011 at 10:09 am AK-47. Dyslexia much?
on July 11, 2011 at 12:02 pm 5.45x39mm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-74 Shoot actual guns… much ?
on July 11, 2011 at 4:01 pm Ha! Well played. Not too many people know the 74 replaced the 47.
on July 11, 2011 at 7:16 am Broker an issue that could be link ed to race, and the beta apologists churn out their garbage
on July 11, 2011 at 8:59 am I no longer trust Danny DeVito, Ernest Borgnine or Brian Dennehy. My life is over.
on July 11, 2011 at 11:59 am I have read other articles on this. The general shape of the face is affected by the amount of testosterone and serotonin in your blood as you develop. It also affects hand shape. If tested large numbers of people for levels of those two hormones and measured skull and hand dimensions they very likely could correlate them and then checking life histories and giving psychological tests link behavior tendencies to facial and hand types. There are studies of this with d2/d4 digit length ratios you can find on the Internet if you look. Of course, this only shows a disposition and not hard proof of behavior. A high testosterone male has predictable differences from a low testosterone male. They do not always occur, but often enough to predict group behavior. Mr Thug in the OP pix looks high testosterone and low serotonin. That is the classic criminal profile. The aggression and drive of the testosterone without the social grace and moderation of impulse that serotonin gives. All the people who jump up and and immediately call people totalitarians for discussing this really need to get a life. Science is finding many things as they study humans. One of them is that we are far more driven by our neurochemicals and basic ape instincts than we knew. Immediately damning those who discuss these things is no different than those Christians who wished to banish scientists who thought equally beyond the pale things in the past, like the Earth revolves around the Sun, humans are apes and apes all evolved from a common ancestor, and the Earth is very old and once was populated by dinosaurs. It is in discussions like these that Progressives reveal that they really are followers of a religion and unable to engage in open debate on some subjects because those subjects violate tenets of their faith.
on July 11, 2011 at 12:55 pm The Chateau has erred. It’s called Physiognomy — not phrenology. Phrenology is the measurement of the skull; Physiognomy is the judgement of a person’s character from appearance. http://www.economist.com/node/18925759?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/ar/facingthetruth http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126957.300-how-your-looks-betray-your-personality.html?full=true
on July 11, 2011 at 1:41 pm I was all ready to dispute this theory on the basis that long-faced Obama is the most unscrupulous President since Nixon. But then it hit me: Obama’s never really lied about the fact that he’s a communist. Most Americans have just refused to listen. So, really, Obama’s one of the more honest Presidents we’ve had…
on July 11, 2011 at 10:04 pm come to think of it, i’ve indeed noticed that the fatter faced people are the ones most likely to screw u socially, in biz, etc. of course, there’s lots of longer-faced ones out there too, but the skew is more toward the fat faced people.
on July 12, 2011 at 1:24 am “”The warning signs would be as follows: – Broad shoulders, and a masculine waist to hip ratio – Fucking manjaw, (a long face can be a sign of AIS) – Beefcurtains, Theres a solid anecdotal and scientific corollary between high testosterone women and what amounts to excess and would-be ballsack. Its a surefire marker for excessive androgenic activity. – Small tits or otherwise having the body of a ten year old boy.”” Add to this; -Their second toe is longer than their first toe. http://137.140.1.71/jsec/articles/volume4/issue4/HarrisonVol4Iss4.pdf
on July 12, 2011 at 1:33 am You like science, roissy? Try this on for size: http://www.practicalpickup.com/science-married-men-are-happier 🙂 [Editor: Selection bias. Fewer people than ever are getting married, so of the ones that do, only those with a strong desire for marital monogamy are left in the married pool. Naturally, they will self-select as happier. Instead of comparing married men to single men, try comparing the happiness levels of married men to men in long term unmarried relationships. I bet they will be nearly equivalent.]
on July 12, 2011 at 10:40 am The old carnard — single helathy and well adjusted men get lumped in with single mentaly ill men, criminal men, and drug addicts.
on July 12, 2011 at 12:45 pm “In general, Worner found that married men are 135% more likely to report a high happiness score than single men.” That is because the vast majority of men are AFCs. A married AFC is getting laid once every few months which is way better than they were doing out in the wilderness. Plus, once you are stuck in something, you tell yourself it is great. Like the Coyote running across thin air, they don’t dare look down or the illusion will vanish and they secretly know reality is horrible. I bet they aren’t including in those numbers the men who got to the last phase of marriage, where wifey divorces him and takes everything he worked for and makes his life a living hell of custody battles and child support & alimony slavery. A more fair comparison would be all 60 year olds who ever got married, including all those who experienced divorce in the post feminist age, to those guys who learned Game by the time they were 25 or 30 and enjoyed their life of freedom.
on July 12, 2011 at 1:18 pm So basically, you pick and choose what scientific studies you’d like to get behind. But if you are the final arbiter of what is true, then basically you should admit truth is “relative” (to your beliefs). [Editor: You misunderstand. The wide-faced study is not saying that there are no environmental effects. Similarly, neither am I claiming that the happiness of married men is wholly an artifact of selection bias. But the study in this post certainly reveals something about phsyiognomy that the mainstream commentariat is unwilling and/or afraid to discuss.] I’m just pointing out that if this blog is going to cite one scientific study for something, and then completely disagree with another scientific study done with the same level of rigor, then it’s not clear how it’s not just polemical! As I said regarding this scientific study, they expressly said that people’s faces and body shapes conditioned them to become certain people based on the feedback they received their entire lives. Short guys are funnier and more abrasive because they compensate for their shortness and want to draw attention away from it. Big people have experiences that condition them to be thugs more often.
on July 13, 2011 at 6:43 am Speaking as a married guy, I agree with Roissy’s editorialism. Married, as defined by the state and society now, means a legal relationship based on a state granted license with an ability to dissolve the relationship at will (generally to the benefit of the woman). Just because someone doesn’t have the state license doesn’t mean they aren’t perfectly happy as official “single” people who are actually living together in a state that at any other time before 40-50 years ago would have been recognized as common-law marriage.
on July 12, 2011 at 6:07 am Testosterone produces LONG faces that are shown to be more aggressive, if you divided height of face by width, Height/width, high testosterone men would have the highest number. High T men often give the impression of having “wide faces” because they have prominent features like jaw and cheeckbones, but proportionally their faces and skulls are longer. The guy in the picture is fat, if he was slim his face would be more rectangular. Women actually have proportionally much wider faces
on July 12, 2011 at 11:09 am Keep punching those paunches, brother Firepower.
on July 12, 2011 at 10:07 pm What about if your neck is wider than your skull?
on July 13, 2011 at 2:12 am psuedo scientific horseshit… roissy if it weren’t for posts like this more people would take you seriously
on July 17, 2011 at 10:37 pm […] http://roissy.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/phrenology-is-legit-wide-faced-men-are-untrustworthy/ Posted by Heartiste at 10:37 pm […]