Gentlemanslut writes:
In short:
– I can understand the idea of human ancestry being comprised of more than one species. It would make us unique, but it’s not impossible. It has weight.
– I cant see the argument for a gene cluster/clusters passing down Thal traits, bypassing cro-mag genes “like oil and water”. That’s a big point, and one I take issue with one several levels.
– I reject the idea of the ‘noble autist’. Completely. Have you met someone with autism? Or Aspergers? It seems to be a very loose, PUAHate-definition of Aspergers, which isn’t really the same thing.
It’s a spectrum, granted, but it’s a spectrum of how you relate to the other people and the world. The idea that anyone on this spectrum is ‘more loyal, more trustworthy’ is so idiotic, so laughable, so rooted in Romanticism that it makes me want to put on the thickest gardening glove I can find and fist my own throat.
– Following on, the idea that introversion is a reliable indicator of genetic inheritance to the degree implied is ridiculous. Extroversion rates since they’ve been measured have crept up around 50%, and that’s over much less than a century (hint: parenting practises). Introverted parents are having extroverted kids. “Oil and water” my ballsack.
– I reject the idea that a large brain = better brain. Again, idiotic.
– I reject the idea that red-haired people have the attributes listed more than other people. I’ve been to Scotland, bitches.
Power in facial analysis? Possibly. There’s power in gait analysis (v. interesting). Anthropologically plausible? Sure. But ultimately it relies on several leaps of faith, a few hops, skips, and wilful suspension of logic. If anything survives from this, it will be MUCH reduced, with the bitter ravings removed.
Overall, some interesting facets, but certainly no ‘new body of knowledge’, and definitely not a sound theory to base your social beliefs and behaviours around. At all.
My reply:
You don’t understand what you’re attempting to refute.
Your points:
1. Asperger’s people are unpleasant
2. Extroversion is increasing
#1 is one of the key predictions of the model. Those with deep sockets are chronically stressed by large-group social dynamics. Given the Thal tendency to internalize, this frequently results in anger, depression and social maladjustment. Add in disproportionate food intolerances due to herder/carnivore genetics, and you get some very unhappy, unpleasant people.
You are confusing genetic programming with actual performance in the present day world. The model argues that deep sockets are worse at lying and experience greater emotional strain when doing so. Not that they don’t lie.
#2 is what one would expect with rising urbanization, economic progress and a decadent phase. Greater societal extroversion should be accompanied by greater Thal dysfunction.
The bitter component is inextricable from the message, and the main reason for its popularity despite a lack of formal evidence.
There are at least two sources of red hair, melonheads and Thals. Supposedly the Neanderthal red hair gene is not the one present in modern human populations. I haven’t observed a correlation between Thalness and red hair.
Lastly, recessive genetic traits exist regardless of whether you personally “can see” them. Nobody is claiming it’s some sort of binary switch, as you imply. There are clearly gradations.
Spoos in August writes:
Craniofacial development is linked to frontal brain development (the two processes make use of the same cell lineage: the neural crest). This is part of the reason facial symmetry is an honest signal of genetic health. It’s certainly not implausible that faces reflect personality, which likely has a large genetic component.
This explains the mechanism whereby facial structure is linked to personality.
Here is a test for those who are skeptical of my face reading theory. I’ve noticed that people have trouble accurately gauging socket depth. So ignore that. Instead, pay attention to eye spacing and eye size. Wide set eyes will be generous and other-centric, and large eyes will be sensitive and emotionally open.
If you want to gauge socket depth, look at the person in profile. You need to see how deeply recessed the EYEBALL is. Someone can have a pronounced surrounding socket with an eyeball that pops out, but they will still be extroverted.
Practical utility
Here is how I use face reading theory. When I’m out and about, I’m most keenly attuned to socket depth. I adjust my levels of depth/shallowness and openness/shielding and contempt/respect accordingly. Then I adjust again based on secondary attributes as the conversation continues.
This seems to work very well. I.e., people, with deep sockets do not punish you for genuine warmth and openness.
Most people do not have deep sockets, except perhaps in super nerdy locations like engineering campuses.
There is an anti-racist lesson in all this. A heavily Thal white man has more in common with a heavy Thal Thai like Buakaw Por Pramuk than he does with a Cro Magnon white like Brittni Colleps. Armed with face reading, you can go anywhere in the world and find sympathetic, trustworthy friends.
Check out his fights on Youtube. I don’t think there’s any more painful sport in the world than lightweight traditional Muay Thai. You need extreme pain dissociation, i.e. socket depth, to succeed.