Racial differences accounted for in beauty science [face only]

I have noted the Marquardt mask before and the frequent misconceptions about it. I glossed over one valid criticism because I couldn’t find the data on hand at the time and didn’t want to say ‘just trust me’. #dodgyAF
I’m not going to insult anyone because that’s for people who lack empirical proof. I never met someone who chose to be ugly and we cannot help what we are born.

I’m not going to make cross-comparisons because that would be mean and likely biased to certain ascribed values.
Instead, this is how they vary by pure mathematics from the universal template for the human species.

There are only female masks and examples here and I do admit there needs to be equal research on male beauty.
Please, believe I want this as much as the next woman.


Here are the European, Asian and African variations.

Try to claim ‘cultural standards’ now, chewing on humble pie.

European example, frontal/anterior view.

Description given, italics mine because ‘slightly’ on this scale is huge: “EUROPEAN VARIATION FROM RF MASK Slightly vertically thin upper and lower lips Flat eyebrow (very little arch) Slightly wider nose Lateral border of the face slightly wider than the Mask Possible: Narrow eyes, longer vertical chin, longer nose.”
For example comparison, here’s the Asian prototype. A blind man could feel the difference. Yellow fever is creepier than White fever because Asian women resemble children, with faces most like babies (see, bust size, band size is fairly objective) whereas European women tend to resemble teenagers.

Description given, italics mine: “ASIAN VARIATION FROM RF MASK Medial epicanthic fold Lateral epicanthic fold Lateral border of the face significantly wider than the Mask Eye brows slightly superior to that of the Mask with shorter tails Slightly wider nose and nostrils (nasal ala and nares extend laterally) Superiorly positioned nasal columella creating a longer upper lip.”

Note: there are differences and the legal contrivance of a portmanteau ‘Caucasian’ is a myth based on geography (see the MRH), there is as much distinctiveness as between, say, European and African. As with all Asians, if you split by the demographic of sex as well, there would be greatly reduced sexual dimorphism (the men and women look more alike than Europeans by the same token comparison). This explains the great lengths the cultures go to, to distinguish themselves (makeup and what I and others consider fake femininity).

Further note: nobody meets the universal human standard. Nobody. This isn’t a point of so-called white supremacy, but white raced-women tend to conform to more of it on average, by chance.

Bear in mind, facial beauty is a reliable indicator of Darwinian fitness (see The Mating Mind) and positively, quite strongly correlates to IQ. That’s right – hot people are smarter too. The smart thing to do in an age that despises intelligence is to hide it.

Why don’t I make more scholarly posts?

1. The data isn’t collected to parse. 2. The data is suppressed (publication bias, left in the metaphorical drawer). 3. It’s behind a paywall or similarly hidden from sharing, meaning you’d have to trust my word and discussion, being less reliable and a general waste of everyone’s time. 4. These posts are literally my least popular but the most true. C’est la vie, mon amis.

What am I forced to do? Post gifs for every occasion and go under-appreciated.

notyourtypebeautifulthoughtshide

You know what goes well with Elon’s global warming alarmism?

Snow in the Sahara!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/21/sahara-desert-first-snowfall-37-years/

Falling like rays of judgemental sunshine.

chaplin joy confetti happy lol

The last time this happened, they were pushing global cooling.

happy bateman

Nothing like watching false piety dashed on the rocks of stubborn reality.

I put the shade in schadenfreude.

angel cary grant harp playing happy

Allow me to sing you the song of my People.
It goes, if your predictions are shit, and you don’t know it, keep repeating it, idiot. If you believe, if you dream, if you weasel enough taxpayer money, maybe your magic thinking will change scientific reality!

I am not good with music. But at least I don’t make my living as a musician.

yes lestat dancing happy cheery morbid black comedy

Where’s the snide post about the inconvenient truth [1] of Big Oil behind this on twitter?

Somehow Big Oil isn’t bumping him off or stopping his subsidies or meetings at the Pentagon. Are they the Big Cheese or the fat cat that gets the cream?

[1] They are remaking that trash, compacting it into a trashy nucleus of shit predictions.

Meanwhile, drink in the delicious irony.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/robin-lustig/one-thing-we-havent-menti_b_13528832.html

7 issues with the modern academia calling itself Science

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process

science is a process, not a system of employ

why confused what wtf

why do they keep acting as if the power structure is the only science?

Newton self-published and Tesla went to VCs, screw them

Note: no mention of political bias.

Uhuh. O.K.

Video: Hancock’s Ice Age and other ancient civilizations


I think this would match up nicely with the timelines of A Troublesome Inheritance and other theories of NW European genetic drift ascending to cultural supremacy, in that they got the (what we’d now call) evolutionary jump on other peoples.

There are Russian theories of alternative history too. The MSM dismisses those, even though the Russians don’t come out looking good.

It reminds me of Stonehenge, every one looks at the same thing and sees something different.

To appeal to the authority of older theories is typical academia. And they say they hate outdated traditionalists….

There is an issue with postmodernism in that it arrogantly presumes modernity is always superior to history when the evidence contradicts this e.g. average 19th century IQ versus the lowest, dysgenic 21st century (racial confound notwithstanding). This isn’t a matter of speculation but solid fact. It cannot be explained away, like that temple and like Stonehenge and like continental drift and population genetics. That won’t stop the liars from trying. Academic fraud should be illegal, embezzling taxpayer funds.

Geology is a harder science than archaeology, which is purely observational and speculative.

A key assumption of archaeology is that If it’s important, it’d still be around.

Look at what IS is doing to ancient monuments built by people with slaves smarter than them and say that again.

bullshit

The blurred boundaries of science

http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/are-there-barbarians-at-the-gates-of-science

“As is often said, knowledge is the only natural resource that grows when used.”

…..No?
How can accumulated data grow? It is grown, acted upon, but no, it isn’t a plant growing by itself or a fountain of endless findings. Humans toil and add to it. It’s a body of information, no different than the growing discography of a singer.

Scientism creeps up in the most intriguing places. See;

“Some speak of the modern citizen as a “proto-scientist,” emulating, no doubt incompletely, some of the well-established practices of academia. It is no longer enough for experts to argue by means of what mathematicians fondly call “proof by intimidation.” The authority of science has been eroded by these public debates, a subject that deserves a separate discussion. One of the immediate consequences is that the scientific community will have to spend much more time engaging with policy makers and the public, not only communicating the products of research, but also the scientific method itself.”

Which is fine. Which is absolutely fine. Activism but we presume balanced, right? They explain themselves too.

Until….

“Science increasingly becomes a public good.”

correction ohuhno idiots

Hold the fucking phone, they aren’t priests.

You don’t get to be a priestly authority with a p-value.

They aren’t special and flawless, incapable of deception or falsehood. In fact, people like Popper warned against this. Scientists are no better than the common man. That’s the beauty of it. It’s about the findings, not the finder.

Every breach of ethics in history began with that presumption of moral virtue.
There is no normal, no moral standard in science. There would need to be a superhuman absolute to compare it to, a yardstick, and secular science denies this.

We’re doomed.