Is physiognomy real?

Obviously.

Attached: Socrates Contra Nietzsche.jpg (749x692, 206K)

Whoever made this image proves physiognomy is real. Schopenhauer: "style is the physiognomy of the mind." Who the fuck would approve of the top font, not to even touch on the snarkiness that comes with the bottom picture and its font choice. And the title of the image? Tired of you fucks.

It's pseudoscience user.

>You got duped
t. Never read Nietzsche

>only just realizing that Yea Forums is either full of pretentious pseuds falling into retardation or retarded intellectuals falling into pretense
Do you see?

Attached: 9357297592.jpg (480x360, 10K)

NEETzsche looks even worse than Kant.

the point is that nietzsche looks like a bully whereas kant looks like a nice old man and that can be seen in their philosophies

Why else would you grow a moustache for?

It might be:

>Schopenhaure, ugly as fuck, had a dog who his neighbors called "Mrs Schopenhauer"

>Camus, handsome, many girlfriends, offered a job to model for magazine

i love you user

I have read Nietzsche, and it seems like you're inplying a very misguided reading along the lines of DUDE APPEARANCES ARE REALITY LMAO

I thought it was a meme but now I can accurately predict certain things,
there are certain faces that look empathetic and gentle, and some other faces
that look angry and mean and 95% of the time they match their personality.

Probably hormones and certain gene clusters.

NOOO IT'S ALL SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED REEEE

fuck you derrida

Maybe some of them act as they do as a result of the reactions to their face.

Actually this though. Your appearance opens up certain modes of behavior for you. The reason why there are no aggressive doughboys is because no one takes them seriously.

>there are no aggressive doughboys
there are loads of them though. Every other cartel member seems to be some fatfaced manlet

It was the first thing that I thought desu but I don't think that's the case.

Nah, test levels for example are directly linked to certain faces and no matter how they are treated for example, their energy levels and interests align with the test, including the behavior.

If you really want to hold on soc const, no one is stopping, without being rude I'll say you're just rationalizing it.

free will got btfo

Even if that was the case it would still mean that the reaction at least to the faces is hardwired/genetic

Show me your free will.

You didn't read my post, you illiterate nematode. Key word was "some". Of course the sterotypical physiological-behavorial groupings where born out of real causal genetic connections, but there can still be cases of mismatch so the otherwise agressive, weak bodied male is conditioned to be timid.

*unzips pants* here it is

This is what I'm saying

Woops I'm And this was meant for

Attached: 1489784370187.jpg (612x861, 195K)

Strawman.
Literally no one, even the most rightie conservative would believe otherwise, after all, the righties constantly cry about how lefties normalize all kinds of behavior.

I merely said that behaviors have strong connection to hormones.
As for your post
>Maybe some of them act as they do as a result of the reactions to their face.
It's not that it's wrong it's how you just are desperate to hyperfocus selectively.
Just like trump would say "they're both good and bad people on both sides of extremists" obviously it's a cringy thing to say, but the focus on certain thing just shows certain things about you.

Keep coping kysboy

Bruh, look at this dude

You started your response with "Nah, ..." implying a contradiction. We cleared up the confusion, we both agree, no need to get so defensive.

Also I'm not hyperfocusing I'm just adding an a detail so people don't look at the issue one-sidedly

Your physiology certainly effects the extent to which you can successfully operate within the world. This in turn effects your attitude and behaviour. People who have a negative disposition towards sexuality for example, are virtually always physically undesirable -Kant of course, being a perfect example. If denied certain biological imperatives on the basis of physiological inferiority people often times adopt some sort of ideological coping mechanism. Philosophy is a perfect example of this. Without fail all philosophers are ugly, autistic manlets that can't get laid. Coincidentally, someone like Cammus who doesn't suffer from this inferiority , is barely a philosopher. He can brush the whole ordeal aside with a simple 'just be happy bro ;)' because he doesn't need to construct some sort of nonsensical framework to cope with the difficulties of reality; he's crushing mad pussy instead.

What about someone like Kierkegaard that actually left his woman because of his religious and philosophical beliefs. Or Schopenhauer, who was always criticizing sex but was a degenerate irl

>Kierkegaard
There's always an exception to the rule I suppose.
As for Schopenhauer, he's a classic example of coping. It's no coincidence that an extremely ugly manlet is also extremely misogynistic. If Schopenhauer had male model tier looks he'd never written something like 'On Women'. His degenerate out-lashes were also a cope; he primarily had to resort to prostitution (which is of course a massive cope).

We're just typically unreliable but neural networks can take a lot more into account.
>Given a single facial image, a classifier could correctly distinguish between gay and heterosexual men in 81% of cases, and in 74% of cases for women. Human judges achieved much lower accuracy: 61% for men and 54% for women. The accuracy of the algorithm increased to 91% and 83%, respectively, given five facial images per person. Facial features employed by the classifier included both fixed (e.g., nose shape) and transient facial features (e.g., grooming style).
osf.io/zn79k/

>memes are an individual style choice
>t. butthurt NEETchean

>Chads take the incel ideology on women

>dude don't be snarky in a meme about Nietzsche
>don't parody physiognomy in a meme about physiognomy
Imagine being this stupid.

What sort of material did she go over?

I'd say it probably is, but because of the methods of the day a lot of it was also probably post-hoc reasoning. There is something real there. People with higher levels of testosterone have differently shaped faces. Computer algorithms can guess peoples' political inclinations just by looking at their faces and some basic data like height, weight and BMI.

Problems emerge of course.
A: Any serious reappraisal of physiognomy in the West is completely impossible in our political climate. Imagine being the poor bastard who has to publish that paper. You know the one. The one where you describe the physical characteristics of the average murderer and it's more and more obvious with each line that you're just describing 16-30 year old black men. If you think they crucified Watson, just imagine what they'll do to you.

B: Everyone already fucking knows. The human animal literally evolved to read facial features and discern traits because we were hunter gatherers for like a million years before we invented the wheel.