A man's facial bone structure can predict unethical behavior, according to new research.

I found this article to be pretty interesting. According to new research, men who have wider faces relative to their facial height are more likely to engage in unethical behavior.

The finding adds to the growing body of evidence that an individual's genes and hormonal development can influence that person's behavior. The research also supports that certain static physical characteristics — in this case, a man's facial bone structure — may serve as reliable visual cues to behavior.

So I guess this means that women should start carrying rulers in their purses. When they meet a guy they could avoid all kinds of future problems by measuring the guys face.

Other researchers have found that differences in facial width-to-height ratio (WHR) emerge around puberty," co-author Michael Haselhuhn told Discovery News. "As sex differences in facial structure, generally, are at least partially due to increased testosterone concentrations in boys, testosterone likely plays a role in determining facial WHR, specifically, as well.

Men with low width-to-height ratio include John Lennon (1.63), while an example of a man with high WHR include former President Bill Clinton (2.07).

Historical examples of men falling into this general range are John F. Kennedy (2.15), Richard Nixon (2.02), and Ken Lay (1.86)," he said, adding that Bill Clinton (2.07) and John Edwards (2.38) also exhibit the trait and "have notably been caught in ethically-compromising positions."

Unfortunately the same study conducted on women did not produce similar results, so there is no scientific way for a man to determine if a woman will act unethical or cheat.

"Our analyses indicate that this effect was driven by men's sense of power," Haselhuhn said. "Men with relatively larger WHRs felt more powerful and, in turn, this sense of power directly predicted the overstatement of the reported dice rolls. The effect does not seem to apply to women, probably because they are "not subject to the same selection pressures," he said. "Men with relatively wider faces are more aggressive and self-interested, which allows them to secure a greater share of resources when competing with other men."

Yeah the NAZI's got deep into this crap and look where that lead millions of people.


Why the elite cannot just # off and leave mankind alone I have no idea - unless they truely are the 4th rise of the NAZI's.

Put Hitler and Mussolini side to side and you see that this article is probably BS.

Its scary how much Berlusconi reminds me of Mussolini though.

Originally posted by Astr0
Yeah the NAZI's got deep into this crap and look where that lead millions of people.


Why the elite cannot just # off and leave mankind alone I have no idea - unless they truely are the 4th rise of the NAZI's.

I just found the article interesting... I don't think this is a sure fire way to judge someone. I personally think that this research is just another example of scientists wasting their time and money when they could be doing more meaningful things to help mankind.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


There is a sure fire way to judge someone if you are inclined to do so:

Get to know them.

And phrenology makes a comeback.

Chant along with me: "master race! master race! master race!"

And we've got the (pseudo) science to (pseudo) prove it.

Here's a link to the story since the OP is lacking one:

news.discovery.com...

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


You may of forgotten to post the link to the article.

Yes, this reeks intensely of "final solution-esque" propaganda, and it seems kinda master race-y.

Where did this come from exactly? If we start to see a lot of this, official or otherwise, then it's all the more eerie when timed with the recent airport scanning technology, like facial recognition, and body sensors. I think we're going to start seeing them "making a sell" on this level of profiling and "technology". It's not even technology, it's parlor tricks really, they say the device does magic by "scanning for threats", when really they use it as a 'hard-kill' blanket scan, and can point out anyone they wish, because no one can explain how the bogus technology works. Kind of like lie-detectors, if they want to "prove" you are lying, regardless if you are or not, they can manipulate the tests or your behavior as such. Or, hell, they could just lie themselves and no one can question it, because the technology is completely bogus and unproven.

It's not like it would be a hard sell to the American public, who are majorly obsessed with things like "daily horoscopes" where a stranger makes blanket statements, based on the month you were born, where they say, "Today you will have trouble, and be wary of spending too much money."

These people quite literally think they are being spoken too directly, by some divine providence. So it's kind of frightening (in a way) to realize they would easily (very, very easily) believe in something like this and promote it. Stupid people love to think and pretend they have "special abilities" and "extra-sensory perception". All the gossip-hens think they have God-like intuition, and some people feel their pets know if someone is "bad" or not.

This level of thinking wouldn't be hard to sell here.. just sayin'.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
And phrenology makes a comeback.

Chant along with me: "master race! master race! master race!"

And we've got the (pseudo) science to (pseudo) prove it.

Here's a link to the story since the OP is lacking one:

news.discovery.com...

edit on 6-7-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)

oops, I did forget the link. Thanks for posting it.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
And phrenology makes a comeback.

Chant along with me: "master race! master race! master race!"

And we've got the (pseudo) science to (pseudo) prove it.

Here's a link to the story since the OP is lacking one:

news.discovery.com...

edit on 6-7-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)

Yet more pseudo-science. Just goes to show any idiot can get a degree.

So if im dating a guy with a big head that means hes gonna be a cheater ? If thats the case maybe i should start looking with a guy with a small head lol .. Im not sure i understand this "study"

The day when Physiognomy returns is a day closer to incarcerating people based on palm readings.

Not exactly news, as these techniques have been in use for some time now;

The modern and quantitative study of craniology derives essentially from the nineteenth century, when it became widely accepted that evolutionary ideas could be explored through detailed comparisons of skulls. In effect it is a specialized branch of anthropometry, the quantitative study of the human body.

The development of craniometry owes much to many pioneers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, of whom perhaps the most important was Rudolf Martin, professor of anthropology at the University of Zurich (1864-1925). He provided the systematic basis for craniology, much of which is used today.

Craniometry

From the above studies and others, personality types have been created in the past, for example the uni brow or crooked eye brow etc..

To see modern science and technology supporting these theories may solidify them into fact. More research obviously still needs to be done before that. But it may be some thing to keep in mind. Facial recognition scans might profile certain types of faces for alleged "random searches and stops".

Originally posted by blackmetalmist
So if im dating a guy with a big head that means hes gonna be a cheater ? If thats the case maybe i should start looking with a guy with a small head lol .. Im not sure i understand this "study"

My advice for you is to forget you ever read this article (if you actually read it). First, note this from the article:

"Although the effect is reliable, it explains less than 10 percent of the variance in how people behave,"

So even if the study is right, if you measure the guy's head there's still 90% of his behavior not accounted for, so I take that to mean it's not much of a predictor on that basis.

However if you keep that in mind plus the study may be flawed, what it's saying is a short and wide face is possibly more dominant (and perhaps more likely to be more unethical) than a tall, skinny face. But given that leaves 90% of the behavior unaccounted for, I don't see any reason why the guy with the tall and skinny face couldn't be unethical, and the guy with the short wide face could be ethical.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
And phrenology makes a comeback.

If you're comparing this to phrenology, you don't understand it.

I don't see it as very useful for evaluating other people since it leaves 90% of behavior unaccounted for, so I don't plan to even try. I can tell a lot about somebody by just talking to them for 5 minutes. Having said that, I don't find it that implausible that certain appearance characteristics can be correlated to certain types of behavior, though this doesn't establish cause, so relating this to phrenology I think misses the point. This is way different than phrenology.

This theory has more to do with psychological feedback based on appearance and there is precedent to show that our behavior can be influenced by our appearance. This is a better analogy than phrenology:

School uniform improves pupils' behaviour both in and out of schoolObviously there's nothing physical about a school uniform that makes children behave differently, the difference in behavior is psychological. I believe the psychological correlation is what the authors are claiming, so it's not physical like phrenology was thought to be.

Likewise, there's a pretty strong correlation of height with CEOs:

10 Things in Life That Aren’t Fair — and What to Do About Them (Part 2 of 2)

1. Most CEOs are tall.

90% of Fortune 500 CEOs are of above average height. Some 30% – compared with only about 4% in the general population – are 6’2” or taller....

confidence is key, and the handful of shorter-than-average CEOs out there (less that 3%) are distinguished by their confidence.

So with height there is some type of correlation to behavior, but I've never seen any evidence it's directly causal. In other words, being taller doesn't cause you to be more successful, but it may help you to feel more psychologically confident and it is the greater confidence that leads to success. It's really psychological and I've known some very successful people who were short but they had lots of confidence as that article suggests.

So I'm not too quick to dismiss correlations between physical appearance and behavior, it's only a direct causal connection I'd dismiss in favor of an indirect psychological correlation like the school uniforms, or the height study.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Unfortunately the same study conducted on women did not produce similar results, so there is no scientific way for a man to determine if a woman will act unethical or cheat.

Not even science can figure women out.

Originally posted by The Cusp

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Unfortunately the same study conducted on women did not produce similar results, so there is no scientific way for a man to determine if a woman will act unethical or cheat.

Not even science can figure women out.

The Chinese have the largest brain size and an average IQ of 106.

Deborah Harry was nicknamed Moon by her schoolmates.

AND Home land security believes that Al Queda may surgically implant explosives inside a suicide bomber. So says the talking head on the MSM. What they fail to tell you is the so called expert they interveiwed was from the "Chertoff Group" and they are big into the full body (unzip your DNA) scanners. So.. Problem: bad guys have bad faces & people have explosives inside them. Reaction: Holy Sh$t! We're so scared, Big Sis protect us! Solution: Everyone everywhere needs to be FULL BODY SCANNED by TSA... Everywhere!! AND CCTV camera's everywhere and Facial recognition software too!! It's ALL BULLSH$T, to take away your freedoms and make big $$$ for Chertoff and his ilk!!!