Physiognomy is roaring back as a legitimate field of research. Will phrenology soon follow a similar path to realtalk respectability?
We CAN judge a book by its cover. We can tell with a quick glance at a person’s face who is prone to criminality, who is stupid or smart, who is a cad or a slut, and who is rich or poor.
Surprisingly, researchers co-discovered people can tell which Whites live around blacks; they never look relaxed.
We age into the face we deserve a fairly conventional bit of wisdom that has a big kernel of scientific validity. Related, it’s the reason why successful womanizers have that “unperturbed and in charge look” which seems to exert a preternatural pull on women, and why incels aging into bottled up, scrunched up, constipated faces push women away, regardless of baseline facial attractiveness. A satiated cad walks into a roomful of Betties pre-radiating a glow of unflappable confidence and libidinal fulfillment, and it’s all the women can do to control their curiosity. I.e., the hungry dog is the last to get fed.
CNBC, like most leftoid outfits, chooses to interpret the findings of this Narrative-exploding research with a rhetorical dissembling that would spare their blank slate-committed egos.
“That’s a reminder that snap judgments can have real consequences, and contribute to the cycle of poverty” CNBC, dribbling typical shitlib boilerplate.
Realtruth: “That’s a reminder that snap judgments are based on concrete biological cues of human worth, and can contribute to efficiently filtering people for purposes of association.”
Physiognomy doesn’t create poor people, shitlibs. Physiognomy notices who is likely to have the inherent characteristics that predispose to poverty.
It’s that NOTICING which really bugs shitlibs. They hate that a reality exists that constantly makes mockery of their antiquated religious orthodoxy.