Averages matter

No moving the goalposts.

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/eurasians_more_attractive_than_ugly_caucasians_not_average_caucasians_a_rep/

“blending pictures of Caucasians and Asians to form a hypothetical Eurasian composite”

not how miscegenation works

The authors wrote:

The disadvantage of computer-generated mixed-race composites is that they may not precisely capture the appearance of mixed-race individuals.

Damn right!  However, the major problem is not one of precision but of accuracy.  Caucasoid/Mongoloid hybrids generally look more Mongoloid than Caucasoid because: 1) Mongoloids have retained more ancestral traits such as robust cheekbonesrobust mandibles, and various primitive (ancestral) indices of facial flatness [American Journal of Physical Anthropology 111:105-134; year 2000]; 2) some trait variation is due to dominant and epistatic genes; and 3) the genes associated with primitive features likely comprise of an excess of dominant genes with respect to the newer mutations behind the more-recently-originating facial features disproportionately found among Caucasoids.

One quibble: Broad cheekbones are robust but not attractive.

They’re flat. Very very flat.

“However, in contrast to the first two experiments, the hypothetical Eurasian composite was not rated as more attractive than the Caucasian composite, a result that has been previously reported in a different study.”

When you didn’t skew your method enough to be PC.

“Therefore, the individuals that went into the average female Caucasian likely disproportionately included ugly, obese white women (possibly of mostly Irish ancestry).  In this case, the blending appears to have improved the attractiveness rating from ugly to unattractive.”

Yeah, that’s a fair test.

Figures 5 and 6 below show the pictures used in the third experiment.  One reason behind the attractiveness of the actual Eurasian composites (EurasianAV) in Figures 5 and 6 is the narrower face due to less prominent cheekbones, narrower than even the Caucasian!  The Eurasian facial breadth should be in between the European (narrow) and the Asian (broad).

They do that on purpose to rig the finding.

Supposed Cauc75 looks Celtic, ancient Briton type.

Fuck-all to do with even Eastern Europe!

Their upper fake average is noticably more white than the actual lower pic average.

Again, fellow Brits have more good looking people by volume than other European countries.

So-called Cauc75 looks like my relatives, so I know it’s full of shit to call that a mix.

Genetic isolation from the invasions of European landmass preserved our features.

That’s why so many models are from our isles over Denmark/France/Germany/Poland etc, same reason applies to Asians with Japanese models, more sought after (by genes) and have a higher volume of Lookers than Asia mainland.

They also rig what data they release, omitting profile data.

Notice that Gillian Rhodes has not addressed the attractiveness of facial profile (side view).  I’d be damned if Caucasians consider facial flattening resulting from Mongoloid admixture as more attractive than the attractive Caucasoid norm.  Additionally, how can the following traits resulting from Mongoloid admixture among Caucasians be considered more attractive than the norm among Caucasians: reduced height, less muscularity in males, slanted eyes, flatter buttocks, smaller breasts in females, relatively shorter limbs, relatively longer trunk, and a smaller penis?

How dare you know statistics.

How DARE you.

Flatter faces in whites are considered by neonate doctors a sign of genetic disease. If they spot it in a newborn white, they do other tests for specific things, most of which are linked to retardation of the mind too.

Nasal bridge low, flat midface, short nose – Eurasian traits.

Williams Syndrome nose:

Our gut reaction as white people against mongrelization (in this case, Eurasian mixing) is an aversion to severe genetic disorder.

It could be a coincidence or not, who knows? What does it matter, since an aversion is there?

And has every right to be.

As for the eyes….

Look up downies, harsh but true.

Similar eye shape, tilt angle and placement on face to the Asians without monolids too.

So… there’s that.

Whites don’t find flat faces or stretched, narrowed eyes attractive.

even in fellow whites like Cumberbatch (for the eyes).

Technically, it isn’t about race but avoiding deformed offspring (or deformed looking, who’ll meet the same sexual selection ‘success’).

Caucasoid v Mongoloid skull

Health of mixed race discussed here:

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_health_consequences_of_race_mixing

The authors controlled for age, sex, verbal IQ, grade point average, family structure (living with one or both parents), and family education

On the other hand, there exist several examples in the animal literature where matings between more genetically distant individuals within the same species/different races result in offspring that are less healthy than the parents, on average, [30-37]  and this cannot be blamed upon struggle with identity formation.  There also exist examples of hybrid vigor, but nothing remotely close to hybrid vigor is seen in Udry’s data. 

Udry’s data are compatible with the likelihood of race mixing improving one or more parental traits in some mixed-race offspring, who may be better off than both parents on multiple counts, provided that a greater number of mixed-race offspring are overall worse off than both parents.  The former possibility is surely not implausible given that the tremendous racial and species diversity out there implies that nature does not rule out equally-well functioning/better functioning novel genetic correlation structures, which could be brought about by race mixing, though the chances of improvement would typically be slim if more distant races are involved.

it’s selfish

the parents improve their own DNA at the expense of the child

It is seen in Table 2 that those identifying as mixed race have worse health than even populations known to be highly admixed (American black, Native American, Hispanic).  This could be accounted for if one assumes that first-generation hybrids who have the worst health/behavior problems would disproportionately not be very successful in reproducing, i.e., the healthier mixed offspring could, within a few generations, set up a mixed-race population that is healthier, on average, compared to the first-generation hybrids, but for this mixed-race population to approach or exceed the overall health of the original single-race populations, it would take many generations of [naturally] weeding out the unhealthy and settling toward a novel population-typical genetic correlation structure that corresponds to good health (more on this and on hybrid vigor in a subsequent post). 

Nature’s laughing at all of us, really. That time never exists.

This also assumes the mixed race want kids – no or fewer than average, from what I read and talking to them.

Zero or below replacement level, and lower numbers for kids they actually have.

To conclude, it is irresponsible for any scientific organization to pretend that race mixing has no adverse health effects and it is obviously inappropriate to portray race mixing as desirable or virtuous.

30. Aspi J: Inbreeding and outbreeding depression in male courtship song characters in Drosophila montana. Heredity 2000, 84 (Pt 3):273-282.
31. Edmands S, Feaman HV, Harrison JS, Timmerman CC: Genetic consequences of many generations of hybridization between divergent copepod populations. J Hered 2005, 96:114-123.
32. Garnier-Gere PH, Naciri-Graven Y, Bougrier S, Magoulas A, Heral M, Kotoulas G, Hawkins A, Gerard A: Influences of triploidy, parentage and genetic diversity on growth of the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas reared in contrasting natural environments. Mol Ecol 2002, 11:1499-1514.
33. Miller LM, Close T, Kapuscinski AR: Lower fitness of hatchery and hybrid rainbow trout compared to naturalized populations in Lake Superior tributaries. Mol Ecol 2004, 13:3379-3388.
34. Neff BD: Stabilizing selection on genomic divergence in a wild fish population. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004, 101:2381-2385.
35. Peer K, Taborsky M: Outbreeding depression, but no inbreeding depression in haplodiploid Ambrosia beetles with regular sibling mating. Evolution Int J Org Evolution 2005, 59:317-323.
36. Thornhill R, Moller AP: Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 1997, 72:497-548.
37. Livshits G, Kobyliansky E: Lerner’s concept of developmental homeostasis and the problem of heterozygosity level in natural populations. Heredity 1985, 55 (Pt 3):341-353.

comment

Charles Darwin on race mixing; more here (don’t take this very seriously):

These latter facts remind us of the statements, so frequently made by travellers in all parts of the world, on the degraded state and savage disposition of crossed races of man. That many excellent and kind-hearted mulattos have existed no one will dispute; and a more mild and gentle set of men could hardly be found than the inhabitants of the island of Chilce, who consist of Indians commingled with Spaniards in various proportions. On the other hand, many years ago, long before I had thought of the present subject, I was struck with the fact that, in South America, men of complicated descent between Negroes, Indians, and Spaniards, seldom had, whatever the cause might be, a good expression.(1) Livingstone,- and a more unimpeachable authority cannot be quoted,- after speaking of a half-caste man on the Zambesi, described by the Portuguese as a rare monster of inhumanity, remarks, “It is unaccountable why half-castes, such as he, are so much more cruel than the Portuguese, but such is undoubtedly the case.” An inhabitant remarked to Livingstone, “God made white men, and God made black men, but the Devil made half-castes.”(2) When two races, both low in the scale, are crossed the progeny seems to be eminently bad.

Sixth commandment…..

thou shalt not adulterate

Thus the noble-hearted Humboldt, who felt no prejudice against the inferior races, speaks in strong terms of the bad and savage disposition of Zambos, or half-castes between Indians and Negroes; and this conclusion has been arrived at by various observers.(3) From these facts we may perhaps infer that the degraded state of so many half-castes is in part due to reversion to a primitive and savage condition, induced by the act of crossing, even if mainly due to the unfavourable moral conditions under which they are generally reared. 

nurture has been debunked (adoption studies)

[1] Journal of Researches, 1845, p. 71.
[2] Expedition to the Zambesi, 1865, pp. 25, 150.
[3] Dr. P. Broca, on ‘Hybridity in the Genus Homo,’ Eng. translat., 1864, p. 39.

A study on cruelty would be interesting.

Mixed women just look higher sexed

worlds away from considerations of beauty, which, for women, involve a narrower than group average face – NOT broader, which is high T aka libido
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zhanavrangalova/2017/09/27/what-the-shape-of-your-face-says-about-your-sex-drive/#1efda635564f

Can we call this r-face?

R-types would logically have the sluttier face.

Past research has consistently found that men with shorter and wider faces are more aggressive, more prejudiced, more likely to deceive others, more dominant, and more driven to succeed compared to men with longer and narrower faces.

Low trust, sluttier, violent, compulsive lying – r-types in a nutshell.

This is even true for non-human primates, and among women this link is found for dominance, but not aggression. Furthermore, other people pick up on these facial cues, perceiving wide-faced men and women as more masculine, dominant and threatening.

R-selected women, more aggressive as sole protectors of their spawn.

It all FITS.

Why would all these personality traits be related to this seemingly random facial feature, also known as facial width-to-height ratio (FWHR)? Because they are all thought to be influenced, at least partly, by exposure to the masculinizing effects of testosterone. Although data are mixed as to the exact timing of this exposure (in utero, at puberty or in adulthood), more testosterone generally means higher behavioral masculinity, dominance, aggression and also a higher facial width-to-height ratio.

(polite coughing)

Examples of measurement of the FWHR in faces with relatively low and high FWHRs.

 FROM GENIOLE ET AL., 2015, PLOS ONE

Find the more attractive woman, I fucking dare you.

Also applies to retro women:

A long face is more attractive in women (read: feminine).
As history shows, feminine women like Vivien Leigh can have low testosterone but a fiiiiine sex life.
[despite gaslighting from a gay bitch of a husband]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140423101718.htm

Feminine face = better WHR measures, so best of both worlds, actually!

Wide hips – higher sex drive, partnered or not.

Long face in women is not horse face.

Except SJP but she isn’t white so… who cares?

Now, a set of two new Canadian studies find that FHWR is also linked to several aspects of people’s sexual psychology (sex drive, casual sex and infidelity), also known to be influenced by testosterone.

Water is wet, go on.

In the first study, 145 heterosexual Canadian students (52% female, 82% White, mean age = 22) currently in romantic relationships answered questions regarding their sex drive (like how often they experience sexual desire or how often they masturbate). They then had their face photos taken by the researchers (under identical distance, lighting, and backdrop conditions for all participants), and those photos were later carefully measured by two raters for width, height and some other facial features like cheekbone prominence.

Note: libido doesn’t equal promiscuity in women, which warrants separate study so hot does not equal slut. Discernment among the most attractive women in studies prove this (the sluttiest women are average or slightly above to hook more attractive mates). Yet it does explain partially why men would find certain women better options sexually if not marriage material (sexy over beauty). There’s a mutual exclusive at play here between availability (broad, manjaw) and beauty (dimorphic female, narrow face and soft jaw).

Because their average genes want to survive with anyone v no one.

And naturally propaganda and rhetoric factor below awareness.

This must change based on r/K cycling, what percentage of men find mannish women ‘hot’ rather than meh or repulsive (probably charts onto the man’s wing leaning too).

Could she be a porn star and how good (you imagine) at it? That’s sexy in our gross pornified culture and a 10 for Hotness.

Could she be portrayed as an ancient goddess in a sculpture? That’s beauty and a 10.

Beautiful, but by modern standards (which are dumb and/or anti-white, generally) – not hot.

sorry about the meme but you get the point

There’s a distinct look, defined or softer.

Like popular celebrities

Beautiful face + voluptuous body = Ideal.

By comparison, note how the limbs look thin? Odd side effect.

Shows natural fat % (so limbs must be less to be within range) but not obesity (female fat deposition, see WHR posts).

Rarely…. a woman is both.

QE-fightme-D:

Fuck you, Monica. Fuck you and your flawlessness.

The analyses confirmed the researchers’ hypothesis: Wider-faced men and women reported higher sex drive than their counterparts with narrower faces. This link remained even when other facial features were statistically controlled for.

A second sample of 314 students (57% female, 91% White, 93% heterosexual, mean age = 20) from a different Canadian university confirmed these findings regarding sex drive. This second study also asked participants about their desire for, attitudes towards and experiences with casual hookups and their expectations of future infidelity to a partner. The men with higher facial width-to-height ratios reported greater openness to hookups and a higher likelihood they’d be unfaithful to a partner compared to their narrow-faced peers. A link between FWHR and propensity for casual sex or infidelity was not found for the women in this sample.

potential

but libido finding is solid

Together with prior research on this facial feature, this study suggests that the facial width-to-height ratio, and our ability to perceive and interpret it, may be part of an evolved system that emerged long ago in our evolutionary past in order to help us figure out who may be dangerous vs. safe, trustworthy and faithful vs. likely to deceive or cheat on us, or more likely to stick around and raise babies vs. “hit it and quit it.”

Maybe r-oriented men don’t care if the woman is available to other men because, in times of r, any port in a storm, right?

R-selected men = low investment, might as well be low EFFORT.

Sorry but…. true, right?

Whites on average have the narrowest faces plus highest trust societies.

Japs are the closest non-whites. Says it all.

This is the first study to ever link FWHR to an aspect of human sexual psychology, so the findings need to be replicated in other samples and more diverse samples, including teens and older adults, non-whites, nonheterosexual and trans populations and using additional measures of sexual psychology before we can accept them.

Those studies can’t be published, you’ll kill them.

They’re in a drawer somewhere. PC people, you play yourself.

We should also remember that even if there is some positive correlation between FWHR and these personality and sexual traits, that this correlation is far from perfect. Not every person with a wide, short face is likely to be violent, cheat, hook up or crave sex several times a day. Being aware of our perceptual biases is an important first step in correcting our automatic tendency to stereotype someone based on the shape of their face.

Why did Marilyn make her face look broader with hair?

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.