The current geopolitical realities have forced any ideas concerning disparity and individual limits down to the status of marginal, non-politically-correct and outdated absurdities. We have to merely label an opinion racist or sexist or cynical or fascist or prejudiced to deny it, these days. We find support in our struggles to exclude anything creating rifts in those who, like us, seek total inclusion and the shielding of their right to participation and belonging within the whole. The need for inclusion, so as to achieve social harmony, demands that all should be offered the illusion of equality and unlimited personal potential. Beauty, intelligence, strength, talent are all spun in ways which makes them irrelevant or ambiguous and accessible to all indiscriminately. Often the terms are reinterpreted to become more accommodating and less demanding. We lower our standards, when they cannot be wholly done away with or labeled prejudiced and outdated, so that more can measure up and not feel outcasts or inadequate. Total discipline to the whole and complete devotion to it is accomplished by nurturing the myth of equal potential. This process is called leveling. For this reason any hypothesis concerning the connection between outward appearance and character or psychology are deemed counterproductive, prejudiced or primitive. Psychologists are now taught, as gatekeepers of normalcy, to consider any hypothesis which creates social disharmony as diseased. The healthy mind is now the one which wants to completely disappear and be assimilated within fold. It wants to be a carbon copy of an average ideal. Even beauty is now considered skin-deep or a chance occurrence with no deeper implications or it is diluted in significance by making it a matter of taste and perspective, ignoring the evolutionary implications of physical symmetry and the part it plays in natural selection. Perspectivism, in general, is often recruited as a method of making all opinions and judgments equal and insignificant. The prevailing ‘truth’ is that we all have a right to our own truth. What’s ‘truth’ when any truth will do? The idea that things are more than they appear, a Kantian outgrowth, and that we can only perceive the world superficially leads us to the wrong conclusion that there is more there than meets the eye. Wherever an unknown exists man places a deity there. So it has been with the thing-in-itself. Its very inaccessibility makes it a perfect place to plant a comforting myth forever protected from our curiosity. Yet, others have proposed the idea that there is nothing underneath appearances. Reality exhibits itself completely and uninhibited and it is only our lack of perception or our misinterpretations that cause the error which results in us comforting ourselves with the idea that there is more there hidden and inaccessible to the human mind. Of course what is “hidden” is always given a positive hue. Man escapes reality into hope. I’m more inclined to support the second proposition where reality is there entirely and it hides nothing, that it is our emotions and human limitations that cause disparity in understanding it and that success is determined by how closely we’ve managed to interpret our limited perceptions of it. We live in an approximation of something actual. Thusly the concept that physique is indicative of character cannot, in my mind, be entirely dismissed. One could confront many of the suppositions concerning some of the opinions of what each individual physical trait means but not that it participates in a pattern that exhibits something real. If we take the opinion that the physical and the mental are different manifestations of the same thing in a different context then we are lead to the conclusion that physical traits, inherited from our past or mutated due to present conditions, say something directly and honestly about us. Ernst Kretschmer separates the physical types into schizophrenes and pyknics with the analogous psychological types. He, furthermore, subcategorizes these groups into schizophrene athletic, schizophrene asthenic types and circular types, and admits to a hazy delineating line between the types with many intermingling and exceptions. He also proposes psychological predispositions corresponding to each physical type. The accuracy of his interpretations and generalizations aside, he opens up a subject which makes many, raised with western social sensibilities, uncomfortable. Racism, sexism raise their uninvited heads and we feel threatened by the implications. But our discomforts alone are not arguments against the hypothesis and can only point to our own prejudices concerning certain possibilities. Nevertheless if we can distinguish ourselves as belonging to the same species using physical markers then we cannot deny the specific implications of each physical marker. In my opinion physical characteristics expose psychological dispositions, as we can intuitively recognize them even if we rationally deny them, and they do affect our judgment concerning individuals.
I believe that, for the most part, the idea of physical characteristics revealing psychological characteristics smacks of phrenology. I do believe, however, that physical characteristics can shape a good part of the psyche as a result of social reaction to those characteristics. A person who is not at least physically acceptable visually will be made to feel more like an outsider and may suffer from an inferiority complex. Or they may be made to feel somehow "special" and develop an overblown ego. This is often seen in people with Down's Syndrome who have no mental handicap but tend to behave standoffish as a result of most people assuming that they do and basically treating them like they're retarded. We can't say it's the Down's Syndrome that makes them standoffish, rather it's the reaction of people to the Down's Syndrome. In the other direction, tall people are seen to be natural leaders. They receive job promotions more often than short or normal-sized people, and are more readily forgiven for not living up to expectations. We are programmed to believe that the biggest man in our tribe is the leader, and if he can't lead, well, it can't really be his fault. But if the short guy can't lead, the general reaction is one of "I told you so" or "I didn't think he could do it". Height doesn't seem to matter as much for women. Women are judged largely on physical beauty (the standards for which change from time to time) and proportion. Short Fat Fanny isn't going to get anywhere except with a very small, select crowd, but Legs O'Hara has the world at her feet. Even though Fanny may be a scientist who has discovered the cures for cancer, AIDS, etc, she will still be mariginalized as "the short, fat chick", but MAN Did you see Legs walk to the water fountain? As a result, Fanny will tend to be more of a loner (unless she overcomes her own prejudices to her appearance, enforced by society's reactions) while Legs will be the life of the party. Of course, this isn't true for 100% of the people 100% of the time, but it's probably a pretty decent assesment.
I've been up for about 28 hours, but you're saying that you can tell what kind of personality someone has just by looking at them? I completely agree, I do it all the time, and I'm right a lot. Something else that I do seemingly automatic when I meet somebody is compare the picture I have of them to myself.
I think it's complete BS. Physical appearance tells you very little about the individual psyche. All it tell's you is what their parents may have looked like. Physical beauty to me is almost completely worthless outside of the bedroom. The fact that we still go on job interviews where they judge you on the clothes you wear and on how smart you look moreso than how much you actually know, should tell you something about how primitive people actually are. We are acting like monkeys in suits who judge each other like a monkey or ape would, which monkey is the biggest? Which monkey has the biggest penis? And then when we decide, we all get in line to worship it like we don't care what mind the monkey has.
Yeah, it took me a long time to read that post too. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Absane yes, but thats in personality not always or usually in appearance. If the father was a jerk there is a chance the son will be a jerk, even if they both were good looking jerks.
I think he means like when you look at someone, and you can Judge if they would beat you in a fight. Not racism, maybe I'm wrong though. Why is the J capital? ...Too lazy to fix it.
And isn't character inherited along with looks? Does not “what the parents looked like” express their lineage and historical background, as the sum of how environmental conditions have affected and been ingrained in the family trees which combined to create an individual? Do you believe physical characteristics are accidental and that nature mistakenly uses physical markers to differentiate and expose quality or are you simply trying to escape the personal implications? If looks mean nothing then why does it play such a dominate part in natural selection and procreation? Why do peacocks grow such elaborate feathers? Why do we find physical symmetry attractive and why is beauty so powerfully affecting? How do species differentiate themselves from one another if everything is the same, rooted in the same universe and only superficially different? Why do we even see color if it means nothing? How do we separate friend from foe if we do not discriminate? Why do you automatically presume that good looks mean a friendly disposition? I never attempted to interpret what each physical characteristic means but only that it points to a psychological predisposition. Outer appearances are expressions of psychosomatic effects – some inherited and passed down from generation to generation (character and psychological traits are passed down along with physical traits) and some mutated due to immediate environmental effects which accentuate or minimize the inherited traits. Why do midgets or those suffering from Down Syndrome have distinctly similar outer appearances, looking almost as if they are related, if physical and mental development does not result in corresponding physical mutations. perplexity Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ooooh, the dreaded 'R' word. Here is where social conditioning kicks in to establish a defensive posture against a possible threat. The herd arranges itself in a circle. The weak and young must be protected from the big bad world. The “Are YOU…” casting a distancing inquisition creating a chasm of us and you or us and them. I don’t know, what do you think? Am I a racist? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What about you, are you an imbecile?
Why sir, don’t sell your self short….you do look like one. You don’t have to do anything. Just be yourself.
Velvet socialists, don't like Darwinism. And ironically velvet socialists seem to have infiltrated every nook and cranny of the western world--according to figures that have just come in (snigger). Interestingly, they are virile little tinkers who have been rampantly screwing us for fourty years or so. Their ejaculate is a jism of memes. Plausible yet, for those of us with rare-sense, counter-intuitive packets of socialist ideas neatly tied up in a layer of defence nemes seemingly garnered from the studying the Spanish Inquisition. Nemes are a bit like tongue studs, a cool fashion item that you've just gotta be seen with, though you don't really know why. And here's the thing, you don't actually see them until, of course, a person opens their mouth. But you sort of know, by the persons demeanour, that the chances are high of a lump of metal being inserted somewhere in the tongue, or somewhere else not so cool Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Oh, and the term racist is also a meme since (when used in the context Mr Ron used it, which is most often when it's used--to stiffle debate) it serves less to describe a person, but rather as a device to humiliate, undermine and marginalise them. Huh, further irony. Ad Hominem alert indeedy.
I don't know what my physique could possibly tell you about my character, aside from perhaps suggesting that I make an effort to be in good physical and cardiovascular health... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Does not “what the parents looked like” express their lineage and historical background, as the sum of how environmental conditions have affected and been ingrained in the family trees which combined to create an individual? Sometimes appearances and character do not match. There are a lot more genes involved in character than in appearance. The brain is the most complicated organ in the body. Yes you can figure out a persons character by their genetic profile if you had a deep understand of what every gene did, but we are far far away from a time where you can scan a person and predict behavior. What we can do is scan a person's brainwaves and know if they are a threat or not, and we can scan a persons genes to know some clues. The point is, you cannot judge genetics with your eyes anymore can you can smell a person and tell me their genes, or taste a person, or hear their voice. It's not that simple.
All my comments have already been made, but I have to say that Satyr's original post is perhaps the finest piece of writing I've yet seen on this forum. Its the only post I've ever printed...out of thousands. Scales and spectrums are always created from the top down.
Allow me to bask in the glory. You sir, have an eye for talent and the humility to show it. And I have the over inflated, ego to accept flattery and ginore insult....so we make a good team...is what I'm saying. :bugeye: Nevertheless, my original intent in all my writings is to reveal how many of our modern thoughts and opinions and scientific insights and beliefs we take for granted, especially the ones dealing with human value and diversity and equality, are really political in nature. Science, is no less affected by culture and social necessity than any other discipline. Not only is race, gender and physicality relevant but nature has endowed us with the means to differentiate and use the information our senses provide to us. Things are different or alike for a reason.
When it comes to the various skin colors/features associated with a certain race, you can absolutely use physical characteristics to determine a person's character. But what about just looking purely at symmetry or dynamics of the body, are we supposed to read into that as indicative of their mental capacity? There are a lot of stupid beautiful people. You are saying that physical and mental quality have a definite positive correlation?
I never specified what each characteristic might mean. I only said that it points to a psychological disposition. I never said beautiful people are smart. I said symmetry points to genetic fitness. If anything the mind is that which can compensate or overcome nature.
There is a psychological disposition resulting from the cultural background. Of course. We relate certain physical features with certain cultures. Of course. But you are implying that we should infer deeper mental disparities from race to race. Genetic, and not ingrained, differences. What are your reasons for this?
Each of us have a clump of genetic information, which under the right circumstances can develop into a beautiful, healthy person, or a diseased and ugly bastard. The real difference here is habit energies... Some of which are taught and some inherited, but mostly cultural in origin. Fat, ugly people tend to come from fat, ugly families and fat, ugly nations. They are the product of mind, not minor genetic variation.
http://www.unm.edu/~hebs/pubs/Proko....pdf#search="intelligence "body symmetry" iq" This might be relevant.
