6,353
edits
Physiognomy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Criminal/violent physiognomy
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
*A Chinese study claimed to be able to tell whether someone is a criminal based on machine learning, but the technique turned out to detect smiling instead.<ref>https://twitter.com/davidjayharris/status/1103636069180993537</ref> | *A Chinese study claimed to be able to tell whether someone is a criminal based on machine learning, but the technique turned out to detect smiling instead.<ref>https://twitter.com/davidjayharris/status/1103636069180993537</ref> | ||
*Stillman et al. (2010) had people rate the estimated propensity of violent behavior of a group of convicted violent and non-violent sexual offenders (N = 87) after a brief (2s) exposure to a static photograph of the offenders. It was found that participants were able to determine whether the offenders were violent or not above chance (d =.44), with no sex differences in these judgements' accuracy. However, women perceived a significantly higher level of threat from the men's photos than men (d =.38, though the significance was borderline marginal). An analysis of the individual target related factors that determined people's judgements of the men's violence proneness found that there was a mix of valid (predictive above chance) and invalid (not predictive or even deceptive cues) cues involved in rater's perceptions. The valid cues were generally markers of overall masculinity and robustness, such as facial masculinity and perceived strength, with age being negatively correlated with violent offending. Physical attractiveness, sadness, and smiles were poor cues of violent behavior, with the associations between these cues and actual offending being weak or non-existent. Interestingly, the deceptive cues included better grooming and general displays of positive affect (happiness), which were believed to be negatively associated with violent behavior. In reality, the actual link between these things and the presence of violent offending was non-existent. The strongest deceptive cues were certain displays of negative affect, such as anger and disgust, which contributed substantially to participants negative evaluations of the men in question, despite the link between these traits (as expressed in the static photos used in the study) and violent offending being non-significant.<ref>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.12.001</ref> <br /> | *Stillman et al. (2010) had people rate the estimated propensity of violent behavior of a group of convicted violent and non-violent sexual offenders (N = 87) after a brief (2s) exposure to a static photograph of the offenders. It was found that participants were able to determine whether the offenders were violent or not above chance (d =.44), with no sex differences in these judgements' accuracy. However, women perceived a significantly higher level of threat from the men's photos than men (d =.38, though the significance was borderline marginal). An analysis of the individual target related factors that determined people's judgements of the men's violence proneness found that there was a mix of valid (predictive above chance) and invalid (not predictive or even deceptive cues) cues involved in rater's perceptions. The valid cues were generally markers of overall masculinity and robustness, such as facial masculinity and perceived strength, with age being negatively correlated with violent offending. Physical attractiveness, sadness, and smiles were poor cues of violent behavior, with the associations between these cues and actual offending being weak or non-existent. Interestingly, the deceptive cues included better grooming and general displays of positive affect (happiness), which were believed to be negatively associated with violent behavior. In reality, the actual link between these things and the presence of violent offending was non-existent. The strongest deceptive cues were certain displays of negative affect, such as anger and disgust, which contributed substantially to participants negative evaluations of the men in question, despite the link between these traits (as expressed in the static photos used in the study) and violent offending being non-significant.<ref>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.12.001</ref> <br /> | ||
* Hoskin & Ellis found evidence for significant associations between several indices of both pre-natal and post-netal androgen exposure and criminal behavior. They examined the correlations between several proposed markers of pre-natal testosterone exposure such as 2D:4D ratio (the ratio of the index finger to the ring finger, which is sexually dimorphic, the ratio being typically lower in men, meaning their ring fingers tend to be longer than their index fingers) and anogenital distance (the length of one's perineum, which is strongly sexually dimorphic; it has been proposed to be a possible marker to | * Hoskin & Ellis found evidence for significant associations between several indices of both pre-natal and post-netal androgen exposure and criminal behavior. They examined the correlations between several proposed markers of pre-natal testosterone exposure such as 2D:4D ratio (the ratio of the index finger to the ring finger, which is sexually dimorphic, the ratio being typically lower in men, meaning their ring fingers tend to be longer than their index fingers) and anogenital distance (the length of one's perineum, which is strongly sexually dimorphic; it has been proposed to be a possible marker to use in order to predict the risk of an infant boys future potential likelihood of experiencing reproductive disorders.)<br />The association between other sexually dimorphic male traits and offending behavior was examined, such as bodily masculinity, masculine behavior, physical strength, and height. <br />Such associations were generally in the expected direction, though of the pre-natal markers, only AGD was significantly associated with violent tendencies in men (the association was stronger when not controlling for sex). Interestingly, a higher 2D:4D ratio (more feminine) was weakly, but significantly, associated with non-violent delinquency among women.<br />The authors had no explanation for this finding, though it is in line with the insights from [[timeless quotes on women|certain philosophers of a misogynist tendency]] that assert that feminity is associated with provocative and disruptive behavior.<br /> It could also be due to the fact that certain forms of delinquent behavior, such as shop-lifting, are sexually dimorphic in a direction that favors females. The effects discovered for specific masculine traits and criminality were most potent for muscularity, strength, and masculine behavior in men. This could be due to the obvious explanation that such men are more formidable and capable of violence. It could be that men with a general disposition towards criminality deliberately enhance their physical capabilities to carry out violent assaults (reverse causation) more successfully, though the link between masculine behavior and criminality suggests some innate link here as personality is generally both highly heritable and quite stable over time, though more behaviorally masculine men may also have a higher drive to attain muscularity. Of course, the tendency to behave violently is itself a behaviorally masculine trait to some extent, so these are likely overlapping constructs to a degree. It also could be that these traits are associated with higher levels of systemic androgens in the long term, with such long-term exposure potentially being necessary for androgens to alter brain function in a manner that is associated with a greater propensity for aggression and delinquency.<ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886920304712</ref> | ||
===Homosexual physiognomy=== | ===Homosexual physiognomy=== | ||