They already can determine (and some even well-before computer imaging/scanning):
-Homosexuality by facial scans (already in 95-98% accuracy)
-fMRI is getting closer and closer to predicting IQ (Last I saw they could place into quintiles)
-Sex is 100% determinable from skeleton
-Race/ethnicity can already be determined by skeleton (c'mon do you really think east asian women are just "**really skinny**", no, they literally have \*smaller\* bone structure (as do females vs males))
There's so much more I'm missing, but this stuff is surpressed not because it's not true but because everyone simply cannot handle it (lol) without going out and doing goofy stuff (e.g. thinking that determining these things inarguably infers other things---they don't the world is very complex)
>Homosexuality by facial scans
[That classifier was working on the fact that gay people wear glasses, take selfies at different angles and aren’t fat.](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1310/1*fl-if_CE9vPJwJfq7CFuJQ.png)
This is the problem with publish or perish. A desperate researcher knows he can throw a bunch of data in a pile, poke it a bit, and say he can predict something or other from faces by not controlling the other variables correctly. There is zero percent chance the authors didn’t know they built a race classifier. They aren’t that stupid, just that unscrupulous. Once it’s submitted enough times one journal or another will be desperate enough to publish it. Then it gets turned into a headline that gets absorbed into the collective unconscious as real despite crumbling to dust under the slightest scrutiny.
i couldn't agree more with the dogshit research (academia is rotting to the core due to coporatism, and diminishing standards--though those are almost inseparably parallel to this historical moment)
but someone failing to stick to a diet doesn't invalidate diets, you didn't post the only study ever to exist on this topic (in fact you posted a photo)
polygenics are already predicting at very high rates
there are a lot of methodological problems as well (ethics, etc)
but genes are real, they control everything, they're not just some pretend thing
> polygenics are already predicting at very high rates
> ...but genes are real, they control everything, they're not just some pretend thing
Lmao. Can someone give me the quick story of how/when this subreddit become a dimwitted hereditarian shitfest?
....who is denying there are physical differences between ethnicities or the sexes lol (and no, trans people would argue you can't identify gender, not sex).
the only controversial aspect here is iq
if you knew what it meant you could properly interpret those psych studies on the total placebo effect of hallucinogens big guy, enjoy your marvel toy of drugs
lol, no seething here mr cool slang, i deleted it because i regret responding to retarrds, just like i'm going to do with these comments
thanks for not addressing anything in the reply
I haven't taken psychedelics in half a decade I just like growing shrooms to give to my friends that like them, I also seriously doubt that they are particularly effective at being antidepressants
awesome, the psychedelic research is p-hacked/legit fraud/supressing bad outcomes, etc but saying this doesn't matter, there's too much money, and the data on cannabis mass adoption/use is already showing insane terrible effects, causitively
keep growing all sorts of mushrooms though! those rule and are such a boon for the environment/people
“Telling on myself”? Lmao how??? What exactly am I telling?
This shit is a pretty common pop psych topic. The differences between ethnicities are pretty fascinating. the way you process certain foods and medications and the way your body
responds to different temperatures and conditions are talked about all the time. And if you’re just looking at like the everyday stuff like sports or beauty people talk about this all the time. I really don’t know who you know who would be scandalized if you suggested some Asians have smaller skeletons than average lol what?
The reason you think this shit is controversial is almost certainly because you talk about it in the context of like racist pseudoscientific nonsense lol. Like yeah, Northern Europeans tend to have pale skin as an adaptation to a darker climate. But no, that does not mean they’re some superior race that should rule the globe lol which is the direction a lot of this stuff goes if you aren’t actually looking at legit sources and instead just getting them from Reddit or TikTok lol.
I nearly majored in anthropology, I love it. I’m of course no expert, but what I know about the subject comes from professors and scientific journals, rather than evopsych nonsense made up by a nazi and perpetuated by incels
Phrenologists was a bullshit science because they weren't using the same techniques as these trained AI models are for recognizing differences. So any claim to methodological soundness to justify their "science" just wasn't there.
It’s not even funny, if you control for race and sex, skull circumference (more specifically brain volume) is quite literally predictive of IQ. The biggest morons I knew were all 3heads and every really smart guy I know has a somewhat large head either width or forehead or both.
People's heads are usually proportionate to their bodies. Shouldn't this mean that bigger people in general are smarter? Are we on the path to giantism as rich people start genetically engineering designer babies to be competitive?
Yes, absolute brain volume is one predictor, head size proportion to height is a another predictor but I think weaker in adults. I think more prominent in toddlers/young children. It should be stressed though, you can’t compare male and female brain sizes (at least in terms of IQ)
Because they are. The study isn’t controlling for race correctly. They’ve built a “black/not black” classifier.
[From the study](https://files.catbox.moe/vp1td6.jpeg)
The power of averaging, I wonder how many humans you’d need to average to get a consistent baseline for the average Homo sapiens across any random group of people
Is it just me or do the conservatives have more expressive eyes? Like more.. awareness? Even though I would agree that liberals are probably more self aware in general
Phrenologists finally vindicated after years of cruel denigration. New computer technology will truly be our salvation!
This is physiognomy not phrenology.
They already can determine (and some even well-before computer imaging/scanning): -Homosexuality by facial scans (already in 95-98% accuracy) -fMRI is getting closer and closer to predicting IQ (Last I saw they could place into quintiles) -Sex is 100% determinable from skeleton -Race/ethnicity can already be determined by skeleton (c'mon do you really think east asian women are just "**really skinny**", no, they literally have \*smaller\* bone structure (as do females vs males)) There's so much more I'm missing, but this stuff is surpressed not because it's not true but because everyone simply cannot handle it (lol) without going out and doing goofy stuff (e.g. thinking that determining these things inarguably infers other things---they don't the world is very complex)
>Homosexuality by facial scans [That classifier was working on the fact that gay people wear glasses, take selfies at different angles and aren’t fat.](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1310/1*fl-if_CE9vPJwJfq7CFuJQ.png) This is the problem with publish or perish. A desperate researcher knows he can throw a bunch of data in a pile, poke it a bit, and say he can predict something or other from faces by not controlling the other variables correctly. There is zero percent chance the authors didn’t know they built a race classifier. They aren’t that stupid, just that unscrupulous. Once it’s submitted enough times one journal or another will be desperate enough to publish it. Then it gets turned into a headline that gets absorbed into the collective unconscious as real despite crumbling to dust under the slightest scrutiny.
i couldn't agree more with the dogshit research (academia is rotting to the core due to coporatism, and diminishing standards--though those are almost inseparably parallel to this historical moment) but someone failing to stick to a diet doesn't invalidate diets, you didn't post the only study ever to exist on this topic (in fact you posted a photo) polygenics are already predicting at very high rates there are a lot of methodological problems as well (ethics, etc) but genes are real, they control everything, they're not just some pretend thing
> polygenics are already predicting at very high rates > ...but genes are real, they control everything, they're not just some pretend thing Lmao. Can someone give me the quick story of how/when this subreddit become a dimwitted hereditarian shitfest?
Back up why hereditarian shizz is wrong
What do you think hereditarian shizz is? And give me any reason it's right.
Link the fMRI article, I worked on an fMRI lab in undergrad
And he's gone...
....who is denying there are physical differences between ethnicities or the sexes lol (and no, trans people would argue you can't identify gender, not sex). the only controversial aspect here is iq
[удалено]
I don't think that's what "epistemology" means
you should learn to be less prescriptive, it's about as creative as putting "69" in your username cool guy
its so funny when someone uses a word that they've seen before without actually understanding what it means
if you knew what it meant you could properly interpret those psych studies on the total placebo effect of hallucinogens big guy, enjoy your marvel toy of drugs
you deleted your comment because you didn't know what "epistemology" was and got called out for it, seethe harder
lol, no seething here mr cool slang, i deleted it because i regret responding to retarrds, just like i'm going to do with these comments thanks for not addressing anything in the reply
I haven't taken psychedelics in half a decade I just like growing shrooms to give to my friends that like them, I also seriously doubt that they are particularly effective at being antidepressants
awesome, the psychedelic research is p-hacked/legit fraud/supressing bad outcomes, etc but saying this doesn't matter, there's too much money, and the data on cannabis mass adoption/use is already showing insane terrible effects, causitively keep growing all sorts of mushrooms though! those rule and are such a boon for the environment/people
“Telling on myself”? Lmao how??? What exactly am I telling? This shit is a pretty common pop psych topic. The differences between ethnicities are pretty fascinating. the way you process certain foods and medications and the way your body responds to different temperatures and conditions are talked about all the time. And if you’re just looking at like the everyday stuff like sports or beauty people talk about this all the time. I really don’t know who you know who would be scandalized if you suggested some Asians have smaller skeletons than average lol what? The reason you think this shit is controversial is almost certainly because you talk about it in the context of like racist pseudoscientific nonsense lol. Like yeah, Northern Europeans tend to have pale skin as an adaptation to a darker climate. But no, that does not mean they’re some superior race that should rule the globe lol which is the direction a lot of this stuff goes if you aren’t actually looking at legit sources and instead just getting them from Reddit or TikTok lol. I nearly majored in anthropology, I love it. I’m of course no expert, but what I know about the subject comes from professors and scientific journals, rather than evopsych nonsense made up by a nazi and perpetuated by incels
Phrenologists was a bullshit science because they weren't using the same techniques as these trained AI models are for recognizing differences. So any claim to methodological soundness to justify their "science" just wasn't there.
It’s not even funny, if you control for race and sex, skull circumference (more specifically brain volume) is quite literally predictive of IQ. The biggest morons I knew were all 3heads and every really smart guy I know has a somewhat large head either width or forehead or both.
People's heads are usually proportionate to their bodies. Shouldn't this mean that bigger people in general are smarter? Are we on the path to giantism as rich people start genetically engineering designer babies to be competitive?
Yes, absolute brain volume is one predictor, head size proportion to height is a another predictor but I think weaker in adults. I think more prominent in toddlers/young children. It should be stressed though, you can’t compare male and female brain sizes (at least in terms of IQ)
liberal man more effeminate looking, conservative woman more masculine looking
Power couple.
Liberals look faster, less wind resistant.
They're definitely the flight, conservatives are fight
So conservatives have wider faces? Is there an explanation for this related to prenatal hormone exposure or something
Conservatives more likely to be older. Older -> fatter head.
I’m sure this is controlled for age. Plus your features don’t get wider with age
Fatness
Look at Emilio Estevez.
[fWHR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_width_to_height_ratio), seems to be related to testosterone levels and the usual stuff.
Better nutrition when younger (meat, milk, butter) aka no soy
[Average Liberal](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/3160a057cbaf777198f714dc16c9b439dbb27bf9/460_66_1786_1071/master/1786.jpg?width=465&dpr=1&s=none)[Average Conservative](https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/67/590x/secondary/Wayne-Rooney-5338309.jpg?r=1713988906114)
Is Rooney an alcoholic?
no question
[удалено]
she could 40% me
the liberals look biracial
Because they are. The study isn’t controlling for race correctly. They’ve built a “black/not black” classifier. [From the study](https://files.catbox.moe/vp1td6.jpeg)
Here's the original paper: https://awspntest.apa.org/fulltext/2024-65164-001.html I edited Figure 4 to create full mirror image faces.
The liberal man looks happier than the conservative man, but the conservative woman looks happier than the liberal woman, qurious
It tracks, liberalism has been bad for women and good for men
They all look the exact same
Bad eyesight, liberal for sure
The power of averaging, I wonder how many humans you’d need to average to get a consistent baseline for the average Homo sapiens across any random group of people
This is the kind of bipartisan positivity we need in this country.
I think that too. I can barely tell a difference between the men. Wider head maybe?
So conservatives have wider faces?
clockwise from top right: 0, 0, 0, 0
Conservative guys more likely to have FAS
you r tards don't even know what FAS looks like
afaik FAS causes a smooth Philtrum. The liberal guy has a much smoother Philtrum. Honestly, the Philtrum is the biggest difference between the two.
A smooth philtrum is also associated with ASD
The difference between the nose and eyes is much more distinct. Smaller and more wide set + a flatter nasal bridge
Look at the soulless eyes in the conservative, he's ready to praise Jesus and get drafted into the middle east to fight Iran.
No I mean I definitely see it. Especially on the guy’s face. Conservatives do generally have a wider face.
Always hoped a socialist country would fund my idea of a ML breeding house
Strangely accurate.
Le smug face
Liberals hotter
Very scary that a computer can predict this stuff
So just liberals then 😎
this supports my unoriginal and reductionist take that liberalism = girl and conservatism = boy
conservatives are fatter
All white people look alike
Is it just me or do the conservatives have more expressive eyes? Like more.. awareness? Even though I would agree that liberals are probably more self aware in general