What does /his/ think about physiognomy?
>>18496260It is natural that different races have different traits that are genetic rather than merely cultural, and their physical differences would naturally be an indicator of their race and therefore what traits they have. But the idea that within a race having a particular set of eyes or bumps on the head means anything measurable is on par with astrology and palm reading.European honeybees are well known for being quite docile, whereas African honeybees are known to be aggressive. Africanized honeybees made of a hybrid of the two are somewhere in the middle for aggression. If behavior such as defensiveness and likeliness to sting can be demonstrably genetic in something as simple as an insect, dismissing the notion that genetics has no effect on humans is foolish.I can tolerate a society where we say we will ignore such differences in the interests of fairness, but the society we have now where you are not allowed to acknowledge that there are these differences is pathologically altruistic.
>>18496407physiognomy doesn't necessarily have to do with race
>>18496421Read the post before you reply to it.
>>18496260It's real, and I hate people who look different.
Schopenhauer has a good essay on it. Well worth reading.
>>18496260I'm assuming you mean the perceived racial/intelligence side of physiognomy, because otherwise it's just a blanket term describing the physical features of groups or individuals.The phrenology stuff from the Victorian era is completely retarded. While yes races and ethnicities have physiognomical similarities, the idea that if your face looking more like some other ethnic group determining your intelligence or personality is even more baseless than astronomy.If there is significant behavioral or intelligence differences between ethnicities and races, that would obviously be a separate genetic component to said group. It wouldn't be associated with the way their face looks.
>>18496452>If there is significant behavioral or intelligence differences between ethnicities and races, that would obviously be a separate genetic component to said group. It wouldn't be associated with the way their face looks.This statement is not logically consistent.If there are behavioral or intelligence difference between races (and by the way, every study that's ever been allowed to enquire into this has found that there are) they would inherently be attached to that race's genepool. We are not yet in a world where you could detect the genes associated with intelligence in a population and just transplant them individually into a blank slate. Genetics are passed through breeding and reproduction necessitates the passing of genes related to appearance as well as mental traits. You cannot separate the two
>>18496421I mean if we're going by OP's pic, the idea that looking a certain way means a certain personality type, that's just astrology. It's creating distinctions that you will re-enforce with your own pattern recognition even if it has no basis in science or reality.I mean there something to say about how the way you look physically can give hints as to how your life was. Like identifying potential fetal alcohol syndrome, the wrinkles on an older person's face showing how much time they've spent smiling vis a vis frowning, but that's very different from what physiognomy is about.
>>18496461If you have genetic ad-mixture from another group, that's one thing. That's science, that's DNA.Just physical looks mean nothing.Some native american groups and some african groups have similar-looking noses. Does that mean genetic similarity? No.If you look Portuguese because you're part Portuguese, and thus may have a trait common to the Portuguese, that's one thing.If you are tall because you are Dutch, that wouldn't make you similar to the Nilotic ethnic groups of the Horn of Africa who are also tall.
>>18496407Even within a race, appearance can suggest class. It's obviously a much weaker association than between wholly separate races. But judging books by their covers works too well too often to be totally bunk. Although it is certainly more of a holistic, intuitive thing than trying to categorize individual features.
>>18496260OP here, something that I don't understand about Physiognomy is that....people's facial features change all the times...like if someone get's a surgery, does it change his entire personality and archetype? Makes no sense.
>>18496473>If you have genetic ad-mixture from another group, that's one thing. That's science, that's DNA.>Just physical looks mean nothing.I'm not sure how clear I can make it to you that your physical appearance is 100% reliant on your DNA>Some native american groups and some african groups have similar-looking noses. Does that mean genetic similarity? No.See the problem is you're still talking about traits in isolation and disregarding the fact that if you have African DNA and a nose that supposedly looks similar to a Native American (I've never heard this, Africans have squashed noses and Natives have prominent ones, but okay I'll go with it- if you meant North African you need to clarify that) then you'll also be part fucking black, have different hair, different facial shape etc.The classic example of this is that sub-saharan albinos don't look like caucasians. Even if their skin is pale, their eyes are light, and their hair is blond, you instantly recognize that they are not "white"I would highly recommend that you look into the online game Ethnoguesser. With practice people can become 99% or even 100% accurate in that game. It is demonstrable that races have distinguishing features that can be recognized at a glance, even where they mix with others.
>>18496452>I'm assuming you mean the perceived racial/intelligence side of physiognomyI mean the personal/psychological aspect of physiognomy. I think its a complete scam and a pseudoscience on that specific aspect...tho I'm inclined to research more about it.
>>18496487Bait
>>18496494>I would highly recommend that you look into the online game Ethnoguesser. With practice people can become 99% or even 100% accurate in that game. It is demonstrable that races have distinguishing features that can be recognized at a glance, even where they mix with others.But you guess phenotypes in that game not race or even ethnicity but I guess "ethnogusser" sticks out as a more catchy name. And if we go purely scientific, each race or even each ethnicity would have copius amounts of phenotypes to the point that it becomes a gradient rather than "fixed types". Which is exactly what mainstream anthropology says, so it stops being "based" and "truth".
>>18496508Play the fucking game before speculating about how it works.
>>18496512I've played it actually.
>>18496496Yeah I get what you mean>>18496467I wrote that ^ to give my thoughts on that idea.It would be fun to look into, though. Same as how astrology is really fun to get into, even if it's bullshit.
>>18496515Then you would know the game shows you composite facial imaging to create prototypical faces among men and women, for different regions within the area of a particular race, and with guides on what features distinguish the ethnicities, instead of saying:>each race or even each ethnicity would have copius amounts of phenotypes to the point that it becomes a gradient rather than "fixed types"Funny that someone who claims to have played the game made a statement that strongly suggest he has no idea how the game works, isn't it?
>>18496530>Then you would know the game shows you composite facial imaging to create prototypical faces among men and women, for different regions within the area of a particular race, and with guides on what features distinguish the ethnicitiesNo it displays fixed phenotypes. Take picrel as an example, it has a fixed name "Gracile Indid". Gracile suggesting softer and delicate features Indid suggesting that its a Jeet. Old anthropology treats this as "fixed phenotypical features" while modern anthropology rejects the rigidness of the "phenotypes" and instead treats phenotypes as a gradient which is objectively the most scientific way to look at it. The game ethnogusser, uses the framework of old anthropology in which you guess the phenotypes..not the ethnicities or the races. If you'd really be paying attention while playing the game anon, you'd see the description section where it mentions the frequencies at which the phenotype that you guess appears among different ethnicities. Even if we use the framework of old anthropology your stance doesn't stand.
>>18496497???
>>18496260all true
>>18496559>I'm a sperg and I don't understand categorizationGot it
>>18496562>durrrrr what if u put on a mask does dat change ur phrenology too???
>>18496577I accept the concession, have a good day :)
>>18496579Physiognomy explicitly suggests that physical features determine personality. If such physical features change, the personality should also change.....is it really THAT illogical?
@18496623You can't bait me.
>>18496260Tantra MagazineMAN is divided into three classes, viz. the hare man, the bull man, and the horse man, according to the size of his lingamWoman also, according to the depth of her yoni, is either a femme deer, a mare, or a femme elephantThere are thus three equal unions between persons of corresponding dimensions, and there are six unequal unions, when the dimensions do not correspond, or nine in all, as the following table shows
>>18496567gypsy is the hottest
>>18496494>I'm not sure how clear I can make it to you that your physical appearance is 100% reliant on your DNANo it isn't.Your physical appearance is made up a lot of diet, exposure to disorders or diseases, exercise, how you keep your head held, whether you were breast-fed or bottle-fed is a major thing. Also posture and hygiene are massively relevent to looks.And even ignoring that, it's dumb to just use physical appearance as a stand in for DNA because that's not always correct. There's no reason to go for the way people artificially look when you could just directly use genetics.
>>18496260Well, what do you mean? Just the way people look, or like, using people's physical appearance to tell things about them? You can do that, but I think physiognomy as presented in the 19th century (like the book your image comes from) was very much a pseudo-science. You cannot tell if a person is good with money by looking at their chin; it bordered on complete superstition; I've found better trains of reasoning reading about traditional Chinese medicine. It was also closely linked to phrenology, which is never a good sign.>>18496452It's funny that we owe the modern meaning of 'thug' to phrenology.>>18497123A magazine classifying the types of men and women by their size of their spirit penises and depth of spirit vaginas respectively.
>>18497405>your physical appearance is 100% reliant on your DNA>No it isn't.Okay, we're doing that leftoid thing where you pretend not to understand something simple so the conversation about the thing you don't want to acknowledge can't even begin? Don't expect anymore (You)s then
>>18496623That is one interpretation. Other is that personality determine physical features. Thus artificial changes in physical features would not affect personality too much and eventually personality would assert itself again over physical features.
>>18497138have some more>>18497724NTA but he is right. Its more about karotypes than DNA, sound similar but is not.
Incredibly sill and childish it says more about lifestyle, nutrition and juvenile environment than anything else
>>18497926All of them would affect your personality and character
>>18496567>>18497924I'm not sure you understand what OP is actually asking about. He is asking if you think it's possible to tell people's personality from the shape of their nose.
>>18497957not just from the shape of the nose, that is just over simplification
>>18497970That's the whole point
>>18498028not just a nose but whole face, eyes etc
>>18498034Oversimplification was the point
>>18498036in your mind, maybeI used internomimy on you and deducted that you have really big nose and half choped penor(very small).
>>18498044>>18498036Now kiss.
>>18498073Can't, his nose is too big
>>18498044>big nose I have a nose similar to picrel but it looks a bit hooked due to my slightly weak jaw.>choped penor(very small).I'm uncircumcised and its above average conclusion: Physiognomy = bullshit
>>18498077that is what big nose would say
