site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   3511 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for September 6, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How much do you believe in physiognomy?

Sure, its obviously a pseudoscience. But it's also obviously real in some aspect.

I mention that because everyone in the Lindsay Clancy trial looks exactly like you think they would. The witch who murdered her children. The wronged husband. The elderly women who wanted to let her free. The lone juror who stood by his code. The kindly old defense attorney with a bleeding heart.

It feels like you can read a book by its cover, at least more than random chance would suggest.

We have Tik Tok women who believe Patrick Clancy's is obviously guilty because he looks mean. I think its easy to project a certain image of whatever stereotype you want because we literally have thousands of stories we can pull from that can likely fit any mental image we have. In fact I think being more well read (or more watched?) might make you more susceptible because you have a greater mental library to pull examples from.

If I had a steelman an argument, it's possible that "good" looking people are treated better throughout their lives and are more likely to develop a nicer/charismatic temperament. Conversely, "ugly" people are treated worse by their peers and are more likely to develop a negative temperament. But a big component of beauty is a reflection of the effort put in by the individual (as much as it can be faked by filters, make up, plastic surgery etc, even that requires some effort) and people that put effort into their appearance are more likely to be social (since they understand the social advantage of good looks). Good looks can be considered somewhat synonymous with good health, and healthier people are likely to be more positive compared to unhealthy people.

I dunno how much of that is just projecting what we already know about Lindsay on to her appearance. If her photo had been used in a human interest story about a local mom running a bake sale to raise money for sick kittens, I very much doubt you'd look at her twice. To me, she looks like a completely unremarkable suburban mother which, if anything, makes the enormity of her crimes even more disturbing than they would otherwise have been.

Look at photos of any convicted con man or fraudster, and my guess is that you'll consider them more handsome than the average person – many of them will likely have been said to have "a face you can trust". Despite what third-wave feminists would have us believe, most convicted rapists are not sexually frustrated incels, but rather men who already have lots of casual sex. The cad (the handsome, charming man who sweet-talks his way into a woman's knickers only to ditch her when he's had his fun) is an established archetype in basically every culture in the world. If physiognomy was a reliable guide to people's conduct, why do domestic abuse shelters exist (in countries which don't practise arranged marriages)? Why are there so many single mothers? Looking at the poor sexual and romantic choices made by women (made by people, arguably), the underlying cause in most cases is placing too much stock in physiognomic appraisals rather than too little.

Your con man argument actually argues for physiognomy, just an imperfect one.

I have a kind and approachable face, so people often approach me for directions or other things. And they’re right to. I am kind and approachable.

But let’s say that 1% of people with my physiognomy have criminal tendencies. Would it not be easy to prey on people? Certainly much easier for me than for the guy who looks like an extra in a mob movie.

But this is assuming the conclusion. How do we know that the majority of people with faces perceived to be "kind and approachable" actually are "kind and approachable"? How do we know that those two things are correlated at all? Why is that the null hypothesis?

We don't really. I feel that it's true but obviously no one is studying this rigorously.

Appearances definitely matter but it's hard to say how much is clothing and broad gender/racial characteristics. Nevertheless, if I see a guy with a face like this, I'm giving him some space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Valuev#/media/File:Valuev-nach-Haye-Fight-2009.jpg

Wow, you're giving some space to the checks notes seven foot tall 324 pound guy? Can you give me some tips on your methods of physiognomick deduction?

Lol. But doesn’t he also have just about the ugliest face you’ve ever seen?

Acromegaly will do that to you.

It's a face that has just about no "beauty", but I wouldn't call it ugly. It's not deformed or anything, just a stereotypical testosterone gopnik face. It has the nobility of a well-formed specimen.

Should also consider that the picture was probably taken in the context where threateningly mugging at the camera is appropriate.

Nevertheless, if I see a guy with a face like this, I'm giving him some space.

Are you "giving him some space" because of his "physiognomy" (i.e. drawing inferences about his psychology from his physical appearance), or because he's built like a brick shithouse and could beat the stuffing out of you if he so chose? Just because the latter is true, doesn't imply that the former is.

Looking at the poor sexual and romantic choices made by women (made by people, arguably), the underlying cause in most cases is placing too much stock in physiognomic appraisals rather than too little.

I'd argue that this is a case of the opposite, it's just that the person choosing the romantic partner, whose radar for these things is broken for some reason. Everyone around are almost always able to tell immediately that the person is rotten, from barely more than a glance.

Looking at the poor sexual and romantic choices made by women (made by people, arguably), the underlying cause in most cases is placing too much stock in physiognomic appraisals rather than too little.

I'd argue that this is a case of the opposite, it's just that the person choosing the romantic partner, whose radar for these things is broken for some reason. Everyone around are almost always able to tell immediately that the person is rotten, from barely more than a glance.

If only there were some third party with a vested genetic interest in the woman's well-being to whom the choice of romantic partners could be outsourced...

Same goes for men. People insist on keep sticking their dicks in crazy.

But are they able to tell that the person is rotten based on their physiognomy or based on their demeanour?

A combination I'd wager. I doubt many people would make a confident prediction based on appearance alone (unless there is something really wrong), but I do think it communicates a fair bit.

Yes, I believe in it. There's no more advanced face-analysis system than that which is inside our heads, considerable evolutionary pressure went into our ability to understand other's nature and intentions. If someone looks like an evil witch, then there's some signal in that.

Like radar, it can be spoofed and jammed or evaded or pick up false positives. But it does work.

I largely don't, since it's mostly selection bias etc. There is potentially sometimes some truth to it, but not much. (There are some exceptions for, for example, autistic/Asperger's facial features. But autism is a lot more than just a personality trait.)

It is funny to joke about but it's mostly just right-coded pseudoscience and pseudointellectualism.

It's definitely pseudoscience. Can you imagine someone rigorously trying to study this in the academy. When that happens, I'll freely admit that woke is dead.

But what do you mean by "selection bias"?

I assume @monoamine meant something like: it's easy to look at a photo of Lindsay Clancy and think that she "looks" evil, but you probably see a hundred people who look a bit like her every day without thinking that any of them look evil, because they haven't done anything that might make you think that.

Or conversely, you might see someone with a "kind and approachable" face, learn that they volunteer for a charitable organisation in their spare time, and think "that checks out". But it never occurs to you that many other people who volunteer for charitable organisations don't have "kind and approachable" faces.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats