But tongue posture varies by language (or race)

Given the lookism data and non-harmful, non-genetic nature of this, it seems fine.

However, it may only be possible to enhance certain races e.g. NW Europeans and native, dominant speakers of certain languages e.g. English, Old English.

I’m not messing with you. This once.

I haz receipts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation_of_English_/r/
Peter Ladefoged wrote: “Many BBC English speakers have the tip of the tongue raised towards the roof of the mouth in the general location of the alveolar ridge, but many American English speakers simply bunch the body of the tongue up so that it is hard to say where the articulation is”.[6]

AHA.

The ‘orthotropic’ principle!

The extension to the IPA recommends the use of the IPA diacritics for “apical” and “centralized”, as in ⟨ɹ̺, ɹ̈⟩, to distinguish apical and domal articulations in transcription. However, this distinction has little or no perceptual consequence, and may vary idiosyncratically between individuals.[7]

Culturally, actually. Close.

How many of these guys with facial issues speak American, not proper English?

Not judging, per se, just ….noticing.

Why are the Brits considered generally better looking than comparable American men?

Could it be that, to us, they sound stupid because, among other things, they sound drunk? They literally sound like they’re slurring.

Again English English is the only real English, tongue posture is immensely important. It would be like using a hammer wrong and wondering why it hurts, this is important. Common Core is opposed to elocution lessons, wonder why.
And reminder, language is genetic in origin.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3355373/

“Mutation rates are required only for adding a time scale to both trees. Based on the topologies of trees generated from both the genetic and linguistic data, the inference of the parallel evolution of genes and languages in Caucasus is supported, despite controversies about the mutation rates.”

Parallel evolution, you can’t just take another race’s language and expect fluency on par with a genetic native. This might contribute to, say, Africans’ lower tests score, at least a little.

If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree etc.

The blogs full of historical handsome men leads me to believe Victorian English was particularly good for male facial structure (on women you don’t notice so much)


e.g. the difference to now in

“Flapped” or “Tapped” R: alveolar flap [ɾ] (About this soundlisten) (occurs in Scouse, most Scottish English, some South African, Welsh, conservative Irish and Northern England English, and early twentieth-century Received Pronunciation; not to be confused with flapping of /t/ and /d/)

A lot of Welsh models, almost untouched pristine language rearing, just saying. If a beautiful Welshman moves to America and adopts the accent, over time his facial beauty weakens.

18th and 19th century Americans (listen on youtube) sounded British. Rural British.

This faded out mid-20th century, with the rise of TV monoculture, when the American man’s face seemed to weirdly cave in like a child’s.

Gay men with excellent facial beauty (women admire) also have precise language, old-fashioned dialect. They know, they’re shallow.

How many Hollywood actors are posh?

Schools used to teach elocution. Why no longer? It’s part of speaking a language.

I’ve actually had to tell men that texting over talking will weaken their jaw.

They didn’t know. It’s a MUSCLE.

The digital native Millennials have overall worse jawlines than Gen X. Coincidence?

When old people age, they have fewer people to talk to, speeding up atrophy.

I have met researchers on these disparate topics so can bring you these threads, albeit short of resolution. Research needed, obviously. It is just really interesting. Like, even eating with cutlery made white people have more civilized jaws.

But forcing the proven brain delay of bilinguilism is bad for them, not to mention could be impossible due to differences.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2016/06/13/success-in-second-language-learning-linked-to-genetic-and-brain-measures/

Genetic variations of the COMT gene and a measure of the strength of the brain’s communications network — known as “white matter”— jointly accounted for 46 percent of the reason for why some students performed better than others in the language class.

So girls are better at it.

A waste of a class, must never be compulsory.

But being well-spoken literally makes men hotter to women. We can see it in how their face moves.

How many rappers look like mouth-breathers? [Whites invented rap, called flyting].

Flyting is a ritual, poetic exchange of insults practised mainly between the 5th and 16th centuries. The root is the Old English word flītan meaning quarrel. Examples of flyting are found throughout Norse, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Medieval literature involving both historical and mythological figures.

Crushes on matinee idols are not a coincidence. Speech, song, poetry. All of it helps.

Etiquette had benefits. I very much want to benefit from telling men this.

Pro-casual sex likely to be psychopaths + Chad myths

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201902/why-are-there-so-many-jerks-in-the-world

The Chad trope has no actual basis in psychology. Journalists lie.

http://www.epjournal.net/articles/bodily-attractiveness-and-egalitarianism-are-negatively-related-in-males/

Anti-equalism is politics, not personality.
Attractive men are likelier right-wing (genetic attractiveness) and they didn’t study personality but attitudes.
Political attitudes.

Left-wing men score ‘better’ on generosity games because they believe resources are infinite, this does not make them kinder people. Lab conditions are not reality.
Actually when competing in studies, socialists cheat.

Attitudes are not personality.
“People who tended to favor their group over themselves were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”
Measure of self-loathing or social desirability bias/lying.
The fatter men would score higher…

“People who preferred socialism more were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”

See the bias?
POLITICAL STUDY.

If anything socialists are more selfish, but they didn’t study sense of personal entitlement.

Attractiveness actually correlates to IQ which correlates to earnings. Extremes mean nothing for the population.
Some of the most bitter men are not lookers, saying hot men are ‘mean’ because they know the history and purpose of socialism is just blatant envy and disinfo.

SJWs always lie.

Despite the rigged method, “Results indicated a moderate, statistically significant negative relationship”
MSM lies, don’t trust headlines.

CHECK. What did they actually test?

“there was a strong tendency of raters to perceive that more attractive men and women would be less altruistic and egalitarian in real life.”
Bias. Attractive people have to reject more, from the one person asking they don’t see how often that person is pestered. Thinking there’s something wrong with a person saying No to you doesn’t make them mean, it makes the entitled show up why the source was right to reject. I’ve seen ugly women or slutty women try to force a man to date them or touch them, only to explode in rage at the simple assertion of a right to refuse.

“After all, why wouldn’t we expect for attractive people to be less selfish and more altruistic?”
Dehumanizing and bitter.
Control for SES, attachment style, parent/childhood quality?
Mean people can be typical narcissists and clean up well, their temporary attractiveness doesn’t make them mean.
Genuinely attractive are nice if you respect their rights. Due to wrong ideas about their stupidity, they have a low tolerance for controlling bullshit.

“In any case, I can’t pretend these results were too surprising to us, since we did after all hypothesize that most of them would be true.”
Not science. You’re supposed to not bias it?

“Our hypotheses were based on the theory that because attractive people tend to (a) be highly valued by others as mates and allies, and (b) benefit from inequality, they have reduced incentives to (a) increase their value to others by being altruistic and (b) support egalitarian norms.”
It’s an equalism study, Harrison Bergeron bullshit.

Egalitarianism is meritocracy. Equalism is not.

“Our results were also consistent with related research which has hinted at lower altruism among attractive people, and especially among attractive men.”
Context? [And no, it doesn’t, plus studies don’t hint].
“Why is this tendency more evident in men than in women?”
Then it can’t be sexual.
Why should you be forced to give your property away to others?
Burden of proof.

I can only speculate, but it may be related to the increased tendency of attractive males to pursue short-term, low-investment, low-empathy mating strategies.”
Wrong, more men see themselves married one day than women.
“Because they are more appealing to women as short-term mates”
Sexist and women are the less shallow sex in studies.
“attractive men are more likely to succeed with (and hence to pursue) such strategies”
Actually the most attractive men and women don’t sleep around, disgusted with other’s superficiality.
And hence to pursue – non sequitur. Men can think.
“Less attractive men, in contrast, need to be kinder and more high-investing in order to attract a mate.”
Look at the typical domestic abuse case. Not lookers. Criminals in general are uglier. This was found in the Victorian era.
Psychopaths, as covered prior, actually have a totally average IQ. They’re compulsive liars.
There’s also a confound of going to the gym (nurture) because genetic facial ‘hotness’ has nothing to do with your biceps.
Plus he’s implying all men fake being decent, which isn’t actually a Nice Guy.
Unless you mean r/niceguy
“Women also can pursue either short-term or long-term mating strategies, but unlike men, their strategy of choice seems unrelated to how attractive they are to the opposite sex ”
False. The sluttiest women are around 4-6 trying to poach 7-9. Sex is all they offer. The ugly mistress is actually more spiteful, having few sexual opportunities.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-006-9151-2
Men are more shallow, as as sex.
“On average, men ranked good looks and facial attractiveness more important than women did (d = 0.55 and 0.36, respectively), whereas women ranked honesty, humor, kindness, and dependability more important than men did (ds = 0.23, 0.22, 0.18, and 0.15). “Sex-by-nation ANOVAs of individuals’ trait rankings showed that sex differences in rankings of attractiveness, but not of character traits, were extremely consistent across 53 nations and that nation main effects and sex-by-nation interactions were stronger for character traits than for physical attractiveness.”

Good husbands are hotter.

Biased researchers assume everyone is desperate and r-selected.

“Attractiveness as a result of having certain personality traits”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03333351

Reputation is important.

Surprising no one, alcohol increased male lechery.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-017-0876-2
The Bible did say not to get drunk.

Old men are more petty and embittered than young ones in rating women, who are fair and more realistic.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10410621
“Both younger and older judges showed an attractiveness bias and downrated the social desirability of younger unattractive targets. Younger judges rated younger and older attractive targets as equal in social desirability. Older male judges rated older attractive targets as less socially desirable than younger attractive targets. Results are discussed in terms of cultural expectations of beauty.”
Classic projection, by being harsh on their own age group they felt better about their own aged situation.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1025894203368
“Physical Attractiveness and the “Nice Guy Paradox”: Do Nice Guys Really Finish Last?”
TLDR: No.
Do men like other men who aren’t douches? Women aren’t another species. They avoid Mean Girls too.
“Overall results indicated that both niceness and physical attractiveness were positive factors in women’s choices and desirability ratings of the target men.”

Facial attractiveness higher in the not-angry.
Weak men can think acting up by being angry or passive-aggressive will attract women. No. Abnormal behaviour is abnormal for a reason. Personality disorders, real or faked, aren’t attractive.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914003626
“We find that “what is good is beautiful,” with personality reflecting desired traits as facial attractiveness. This phenomenon can also be called the “halo effect.” We can thus presume that personality traits may contribute to judging facial attractiveness and that the personality traits desired in a person are reflected in facial preference.”

Think about it, alpha males don’t have to be insecure.
Judging all men off American teens is ridiculous.

And bullies? Insane reasoning.

The equalist guy’s topic was already covered. This is why you must check up.

e.g.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071129145852.htm
“The study finds that individuals — both men and women — who exhibit positive traits, such as honesty and helpfulness, are perceived as better looking. Those who exhibit negative traits, such as unfairness and rudeness, appear to be less physically attractive to observers.”

Note: on a one-to-one personal interaction basis, not political.

“Nice guys finish last” – consider the source.

The ugly angry men are literally trying to claim they have a “great personality”. It’s absurd. Having a bad boy persona won’t make up for their genes.

The halo effect is based on something real. A true stereotype.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12147-015-9142-5
And rule-breakers are considered uglier.

Bad ‘boys’ are the balding smelly guy at the bar with a pot belly ten years after high school.

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/education/childhood-bullying-adult-health-wealth-crime-social-outcomes-longitudinal/
“Involvement with bullying in any role — bully, victim, or bully-victim — was associated with negative financial, health, behavioral and social outcomes later in life.”
They are at high risk of low IQ habits.
“Bullies were at high risk for later psychiatric problems, regular smoking, and risky or illegal behaviors, including felonies, substance use and self-reported illegal behavior. …All groups were at risk for being impoverished in young adulthood and having difficulty keeping jobs. Both bullies and bully-victims displayed impaired educational attainment. There were no significant differences across groups in the likelihood of being married, having children, or being divorced, but social relationships were disrupted for all subjects who had bullied or been bullied.”

The unstable men who try to make others (including women) absorb their anger are simply defective.
Bullies haven’t actually matured. They’re just weaklings, all groups have them. Low emotional intelligence.
http://www.keepyourchildsafe.org/bullying/consequences-for-bullies.html

“What happens to many bullies is that their social development becomes stuck at the point where they win power and prestige through bullying, and they tend not to progress toward individuation and empathy as adolescents usually do. They get left behind.” – Sullovan, Cleary & Sullovan

“They are more likely to commit acts of domestic violence and child abuse in their adult life”
“Bullies are more likely to commit crimes, with a 4-fold increase in criminal behavior by age 24. By this age, 60% of former bullies have at least one conviction, and 35% to 40% have 3 or more.
(Sources: Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1992; Smith, 2010)”

The death penalty used to address this.
Emotional retards who can only be aggressive and have criminal kids. When they’re eventually losers, this is just the consequence of their anti-social behaviour.

Who wants to be like that? What woman wants a guy likelier to abuse her and their children?

Back to personality, EI also (as covered previously) predicts occupational success.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4873083/
“Research on personality has shown that perceiving a person as attractive fosters positive expectations about his/her personal characteristics. Literature has also demonstrated a significant link between personality traits and occupational achievement. Present research examines the combined effects of attractiveness, occupational status, and gender on the evaluation of others’ personality, according to the Big Five model. The study consisted of a 2 (Attractiveness: High vs. Low) x 2 (occupational Status: High vs. Low) x 2 (Target gender: Male vs. Female) between-subjects experimental design (N = 476). Results showed that attractive targets were considered more positively than unattractive targets, and this effect was even stronger for male targets. Occupational status influenced perceived agreeableness (lower for high-status targets) and perceived conscientiousness (higher for high-status targets).”

Perceptions. Not reality. And they’re probably judged by the average earner and comparatively less attractive, a bitter bias. Like the average woman who calls all better-looking ones slutty despite how that’s actually less likely.

Men are deluded about the importance of genetic looks and refuse to believe in their own ugliness despite world cues.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/louis-c-k-assortative-mating-men-overestimate-level-attractiveness-83197
“Generally, the fewer men at a level of attractiveness, the fewer total messages women sent. The fours, for example, constituted only two percent of the population, and they got only four percent of all the messages.”
As a group, women know their league and most of them are smart enough to date in it.
Men are rejected so much by an ignorance of their league.
Maybe in both sexes the exceptions are personality disorders e.g. histrionic, narcissistic, borderline entitlement.
“What about those with so-so looks? Women rated as twos received only about 10 percent of the messages sent by men. But men at that same level received 25 percent of the messages women sent. The women seem more realistic.”

Average and ugly men actually ignore average and ugly women.
They choose to be alone.

Deny assortative mating all you like, marriage studies prove it.

Unexpected idol

I came across this picture again.

And it reminded me of something.

Side by side.

Coincidence, right? Same face shape, chin, all features of the mouth (that’s a lot of data), philtrum, eye distance. Change the eye makeup, stop squinting into the camera and look at the shape of her new nose (thinner). It’s a match.

Even the bloody hair parting is the same. The so-called Asian (Korean “ideal”) face didn’t have the characteristic Asian flatness of face (which babies do NOT have but they share in common with Africans, since it’s typical in the centre of the face, with a depressed nasal bridge and broader, flatter cheek area).

It can look younger, can but not guaranteed.

It’s called Asian flat face if you go and look for it, I’m not being mean.

NB: “Caucasian” shouldn’t be a real term, that’s European.

Because I know someone will take issue:

http://www.manuelbastioni.com/guide_asian_phenotypes.php

CENTRAL ASIAN (general racial type)

“This category of phenotypes includes Asians and Amerindians, identified by some recognizable features: ephicantal fold, flat profile, prominent cheekbones. Often the legs are shorter than the trunk, with narrow hands and feet.”

Type mainly from central Asia, and also present in the whole Asian area.

“Skull:

Mesocephal to brachycephal

Main features:

Round head, small mouth, wide face and small eyes.

I’m really not being mean, it’s forensic. It literally isn’t personal.
It can be proven with a ruler. There is no room for subjectivity here.

NORTH ASIAN:

Type characterized by the cold adaptation features.

Left profile almost African? Same nose. Different jaw.

“Skull:

Mesocephal to brachycephal.

Main features:

Very small eyes with “double eyelids”, prominent cheekbones and a long, flat face, squaring at the bottom. Flat and broad nose.”

Not being mean. It’s literally genetics.

EAST ASIAN:

“Type mainly diffused in East Asia and east islands.

Skull:

Mesocephal to brachycephal.

Main features:

Small nose, wide mouth, longer chin and thin lips. Presence of prominent face angle.”

Angle is unusual but not infantile, as seen on left profile.

Prominent on lower face.

SOUTH ASIAN:

“Type mainly diffused in South and South-West area, in particular isles.

So South-East is political, not biological.

Skull:

Mesocephal to brachycephal.

Main features:

Fuller lips and larger eyes In comparison with previous types, a less pronounced curve to up, flat and wide nose.

Okay, definitely an African styled mouth.

For giggles

CENTRAL AMERICAN (we know there’s Asian origin DNA):

“Type mainly diffused in Central and South America.

Skull:

Brachycephal.

Main features:

Straight or slightly convex nose, receding forehead, broad mouth.”

Breadth is the similar feature, Europeans are more compact.

This breadth of feature can give a very sexualized look e.g.

very popular and very modern

regardless of race e.g.

Above: her jawline has changed since but this is a good face-on photo.

Breadth of features does vary by race but you can find rare, extreme examples in each.

With the disadvantage that it easily looks heavy with any makeup other than “natural”.
So it isn’t that Asians lack the skills or cultural taste to do any other makeup “look”, it just doesn’t suit their bone structure.

NORTH AMERICAN:

Type mainly diffused in North America.

Skull:

Mesocephal to dolichocephal.

Main features:

Long face, pentagonoid head, receding forehead, pronounced cheekbones, convex nose, broad mouth.”

Seems about right.

We demand unmasking laws

Notice the efforts to ban hoodies went away and crime spiked?
Scientifically, it produces more antisocial behaviour.
http://www.academia.edu/331707/The_Role_of_Anonymity_In_Deindividuated_Behavior_A_Comparison_of_Deindividuation_Theory_and_the_Social_Identity_Model_of_Deindividuation_Effects_SIDE_

I’ll believe it’s religious when the men fully adopt it.

It’s called deindividuation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10600364_Deindividuation_Anonymity_and_Violence_Findings_From_Northern_Ireland

The findings revealed that significant positive relationships existed between the use of disguises and several measures of aggression

It’s a known finding over many, many studies. It’s Established Science TM.

(Police wearing facial protection have ID numbers displayed.)

If they have a public cause, the purpose of appearing in public about it is to lend your face and voice. Anything less is terrorism and intimidation for the reasons below.

Sumptuary laws are culturally encouraged for preservation of the peace.

https://www.thoughtco.com/medieval-sumptuary-laws-1788617
Jewish leaders issued sumptuary guidelines out of concern for the safety of their community. Medieval Jews were discouraged from dressing like Christians, in part for fear that assimilation could lead to conversion.”

It directly damages social trust to allow any group to go about publicly with their face covered.

It’s evolution!
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2011/05/facial-expressions.aspx

“Arguably the most important contribution basic science has made to our understanding of emotion concerns the universality of facial expressions of emotion. Darwin (1872) was the first to suggest that they were universal; his ideas about emotions were a centerpiece of his theory of evolution, suggesting that emotions and their expressions were biologically innate and evolutionarily adaptive, and that similarities in them could be seen phylogenetically.”…

Yes, since established.

Real World Applications of the Basic Science of Facial Expressions of Emotion

Findings concerning the universality of facial expressions of emotion and the existence of microexpressions can help people in a range of professions requiring face-to-face interactions improve their skills in reading the emotions of others. Reading facial expressions of emotion, and especially microexpressions, can aid the development of rapport, trust, and collegiality; they can be useful in making credibility assessments, evaluating truthfulness and detecting deception; and better information about emotional states provides the basis for better cooperation, negotiation, or sales.

Multiculturalism is impossible with covered and concealed facial expressions.

It is anti-assimilation, it is intolerant and breeds a sense of alienation, hostility and distrust.

Fixing the inbred face

I was going to do this on Prince Harry but managed to resist.

JUST.

Like I said here, it’s all about the chin.

Using the most primitive corrections, you’ve probably seen this guy.

Well I felt bad about pointing this out and also wanted to demonstrate why jaw surgery is by far the most extreme of all. Like, it shouldn’t count as the same person for legal (and genetic) reasons.

In most cases, if the genes were otherwise good, there’s little wrong with the central face.

All you need do is add back the bone’s structures (corrected for race and sex), reduce and slim the ears and actually, he could model!

His jaw would be broader than this but the bare minimum structure has the same effect. This is what I wanted to show. Jaw surgery can turn what we’d normally consider “hideous” people into model material.

So Prince Harry’s children could easily be better-looking than he is because his wife’s strong masculine features would dominate his inbred ones!

The worst living case is Zuckerberg. He looks permanently ill in every photo. The chin causes the lower lip to protrude in a classic gormless expression. There is historical precedent for his look.

Gene for nose shape found

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0516/190516-nose-shape

Figured I’d remind you this exists in light of  How To Judge People By What They Look Like’s detractors.

The four genes mainly affect the width and ‘pointiness’ of noses which vary greatly between different populations.

Populations = races

Pic or it didn’t happen

Compare to Marquardt’s work, which should be compared to character traits and faults in a meta-analysis.

Are people who fit this mask just good-looking or good people, period?

The researchers identified five genes which play a role in controlling the shape of specific facial features. DCHS2, RUNX2, GLI3 and PAX1 affect the width and pointiness of the nose and another gene – EDAR – affects chin protrusion.

See attractiveness tag.
Perception is invaluable.

“Few studies have looked at how normal facial features develop and those that have only looked at European populations, which show less diversity than the group we studied. What we’ve found are specific genes which influence the shape and size of individual features, which hasn’t been seen before.

try looking

“Finding out the role each gene plays helps us to piece together the evolutionary path from Neanderthal to modern humans. It brings us closer to understanding how genes influence the way we look, which is important for forensics applications,” said the first author of the report, Dr Kaustubh Adhikari, (UCL Cell & Developmental Biology).

Isn’t it a little superficial to assume the genes just code for appearance of the face and not the brain behind it? What about forehead size and brain size?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/sep/28/research.health

The study identified genes that are involved in bone and cartilage growth and the development of the face. GLI3, DCHS2 and PAX1 are all genes known to drive cartilage growth – GLI3 gave the strongest signal for controlling the breadth of nostrils, DCHS2 was found to control nose ‘pointiness’ and PAX1 also influences nostril breadth. RUNX2 which drives bone growth was seen to control nose bridge width.

hooks?

The genes GLI3, DCHS2 and RUNX2 are known to show strong signals of recent selection in modern humans compared to archaic humans such as Neanderthals and Denisovans; GLI3 in particular undergoing rapid evolution.

You should be forced to disclose any and all plastic surgeries before marriage, with photos of the real face. Otherwise it’s genetic fraud.

Guardian quote

Proper nourishment in early life and providing a stimulating intellectual environment are vital for achieving good brain growth and development and this lasts through life. In other words, brain growth in childhood is important not only in determining how bright you become but how bright you stay,‘ said Martyn.

‘That is the real message from this study: that we have to ensure infants and children are brought up in conditions that optimise brain growth – partly to provide us with lots of bright young adults but also to reduce risk of decline in higher mental function in old age.’

When I object to poverty, I see the long-time consequences.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/04/08/but-foreign-aid-is-important/

Lower national IQ. We’re sending all those nutrients overseas.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/population-r-selection-food-supply-and-famine/

Literally.

Gen Z grew up with organic food. Coincidence?