
Physiognomy is a 19th-century pseudoscience. Why can’t we stop practicing it? - Vigier
https://longreads.com/2018/10/03/the-return-of-the-face/
======
qwerty456127
Isn't today the time of the rise of physiognomy actually, now powered with
neural networks?

E.g. [https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-
research/publications/d...](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-
research/publications/deep-neural-networks-are-more-accurate-humans-detecting-
sexual)

I'm actually afraid the problem of physiognomy is not it being a
pseudosceience but it being a severe threat to privacy and equality and a
potential source of false positives (as personality is not a 100% product of a
body but many people would argue).

------
logicchains
There's research suggesting it's not pseudoscience. E.g.
[https://www.medicaldaily.com/facial-features-predict-iq-
men-...](https://www.medicaldaily.com/facial-features-predict-iq-men-long-
face-and-wide-set-eyes-make-men-look-smart-not-women-273710),
[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/a-face-
for...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/a-face-for-politics-
new-study-shows-we-can-tell-democrats-from-republicans-in-head-shots/) and
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2017/09/1...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2017/09/12/researchers-use-facial-recognition-tools-to-predict-
sexuality-lgbt-groups-arent-happy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8be8f4bc3a85).
Unless those studies are extremely flawed, it seems possible to predict IQ,
sexuality and political affiliation to some degree of accuracy from a person's
face.

~~~
ntlk
The first study you link to doesn’t look at IQ, it looks at how people assess
one another’s IQ, which is not the same.

The study on predicting sexuality wasn’t looking at physiognomy per se, but at
photographs of people. One of the criticisms of the study was that instead of
predicting sexuality based on facial features it showed differences in how
people of different sexualities photograph themselves, eg. using camera angles
more associated with how people with a specific gender photograph themselves.

Neither of these studies convince me that physiognomy isn’t just prejudiced
guessing.

Edit: grammar.

~~~
logicchains
>The first study you link to doesn’t look at IQ, it looks at how people assess
one another’s IQ, which is not the same.

From the article I linked: "Each student in the picture completed a Czech
version of the Intelligence Structure Test that uses various types of tools to
measure the different types of intelligence. The images were close-ups of the
students’ faces, which featured a neutral, non-smiling expression, and did not
wear jewelry or cosmetics, Business Insider reported.

The raters took their time rating each photograph for either intelligence or
attractiveness. Of the raters, 43 women and 42 men judged photos for
intelligence, and 42 women and 33 men judged them for attractiveness using a
scale of 1 to 7 (1 being the highest score, 7 being the lowest possible
score). The researchers then averaged the intelligence and attractiveness
scores each student received.

The findings revealed both men and women were able to accurately evaluate the
intelligence of men by just viewing the facial photographs. Men in the photos
with a higher IQ were perceived as more intelligent much more than women in
the photos who also had higher IQ scores. In both sexes, a narrower face with
a thinner chin, and a larger, prolonged nose characterized the predicted
stereotype of a higher IQ, while a rather oval and broader face with a massive
chin and a smallish nose led to a prediction of low-intelligence."

Note the lines "Each student in the picture completed a Czech version of the
Intelligence Structure Test" and " The findings revealed both men and women
were able to accurately evaluate the intelligence of men by just viewing the
facial photographs." So the study did actually measure peoples' IQs using a
standardised IQ test, and compared the results of the tests to peoples'
assesment of others' IQ based on their faces, showing a correspondence between
the IQ people estimated based on faces and the actual IQ scores.

Here's a study that directly shows a correlation between sexuality and facial
anatomy:
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270290521_Facial_St...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270290521_Facial_Structure_Predicts_Sexual_Orientation_in_Both_Men_and_Women)

------
teddyh
Visual things are very persuasive, regardless of their rationality. Those who
want to persuade others will always have a useful tool in the visual –
especially faces, the most captivating type of visual image there is.

------
teddyh
> _Half of the United States looks at the face of Donald Trump and cannot
> believe that it is supposed to represent them. And half of the United States
> seems to look at this sallow, unhealthy, and time-ravaged frame, see the
> panicked flailing of the tiny-fingered hands, and recognize some version of
> themselves: Out of their depth, failing upward and ever upward on a warm
> cushion of unearned privilege._

Um, what? That sort of came out of nowhere, and is then left hanging, as if
every reader should obviously agree with it.

~~~
virmundi
If you do not divide people, then they may get together to create a tower and
become gods themselves. The media has to divide, but can't come out overtly in
the process. They have do it subtly. Little digs like this remind us all that
the important thing that matters is literally skin deep.

------
nestorD
An interesting fact is that, for a time, phrenology was linked to atheism :
both of them stemming from a materialistic point of view.

------
dogma1138
Why is it unreasonable that some facial chareteristics can be used as
heuristics to determine underlying genetic conditions?

I mean it’s pretty clear that people with Down syndrome have a very unique
look and this is not the only genetic disorder that has very defined an unique
facial charetarisrics.

------
guicho271828
> Physiognomy gave concrete shape to liberalism’s dark secret: the sense that
> reasoning and discourse are only part of how society and politics function,
> and that just looking someone in the face can be more revealing than
> listening to what they say.

Wait, what?

~~~
thomasfoster96
It just reads as though the author conflated every sense of the word ‘face’ in
order to make a thinly veiled jab at liberals.

