|
|
|
|
|
|
by polm23
1724 days ago
|
|
|
I also can't disprove the existence of unicorns, but I can cite a preponderance of the evidence. Why is the shape of your face different than the lumps on your head? Even if you find a correlation in the data why would there be a causative relation? If I'm innocent one day but steal a loaf of bread do you expect the shape of my face to change? The idea makes no sense. |
|
|
This is statistics, so an n = 1 doesn't really help your argument.
I agree though, that physiognomic "accuracy" based on self-assessments is of little value, like most self-assessments, and not very different from tarot readings or online IQ or MBTI tests.
Now when there are external assessments, these types of correlations are to be handled carefully in social sciences, because they can be self-fulfilling prophecies (people don't trust you because you look untrustworthy, so you end up behaving the way that gets you treated that way anyway) or straight up spurious, so the independent variable(s), if any, can be extremely non-evident: nutrition, environmental, cultural... This is, again, not unlike intelligence tests.
The best hard data we have is on a less delicate subject: aggression in hockey, where certain facial features correlate with quantifiable aggressive behaviors [0].
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2570531/