site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   2801 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.

2
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.

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.

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.

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