Talk:Physiognomy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 31 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Metermaid666, Vansybil, Jiffy98, Everwind30, Soulkiley, Meg's Goldfish, AnnieCarlson09, Sunbess.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 September 2021 and 21 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Msdemure, ERSIEBER, ProbSteve, Naowa, Jerman0822, Nabourbeau.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Chisom-Ok.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

micro expressions

Does Paul ekman's work have no place here? We know about things like smile lines { crow's feet } only appear on people who have a baseline of joviality. Because a wrinkle near the eye is a sign of a genuine smile. There should at least be a footnote... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.114.72 (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Quandary

For all of my years the term has been thought to be much more at simply the vastly subtle differences to be found IN THE VISUAL OBSERVATION OF THE FACE (of humans); these differences being remarkable in that no one has ever looked exactly like another person. The Physiognomist may be a person who is particularly keen on noting the similarities within these subtle confines of two people, perhaps most often when congenital relationships exist. Perhaps there is a more apt word for this description; the way it is defined here (and elsewhere) is much more concerned with deducing inner characteristics of person (personality type) than simply the appearance of the face as defined by its many variables (skeletal structure, presence/absence of adipose tissue, etc.) Cisum.ili.dilm (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

NEW HEADING

I read something today. It was from an article in a scholarly journal. Physiognomy is real and NOT racist (but it is UNIVERSALLY AND RIGHTLY regarded as a mixture of racism DISGUISED by science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.111.68 (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Norwich Connection

What is the 'Norwich connection' mentioned in the last paragraph? It isn't explained anywhere in the article that I can see. R Lowry 04:40, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Physiognamy

• Physiognamy is also used in classification of natural communities. How does that apply?
• What about non-European theories of physiognomy? I understand, for example, that some Sufis at some point had developed (and perhaps still hold to) a system of beliefs regarding the relationship between ones physical appearance and personality/spiritual capacities. Anyone?
• I'm no expert here, but doesn't the explanation for the 2nd type of "physiognomy" in the Intro. sound kinda backwards or something? Sfahey 19:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Physiognomy was used quite a bit in ancient China, and I don't see any information on that mentioned in the article. Also, in the Modern Physiognomy section, I believe someone should mention the semi-famous face reader Barbara Roberts and her contribution to the field. It's also mentioned in the introduction to physiognomy that it's credits are disputed and some don't believe it works scientifically and that the only thing that is somewhat proven is that people who are aggressive have wider faces. Articles can be found on all of these things all across the internet.

Misleading introduction

The introductory sentence makes it sound like there is absolutely no connection between a person's face and character or personality. That's throwing the baby out with the bath water, is it not? It is the attempt to lay down hard and fast "scientific" rules about this that founder. Can we clarify the opening somehow? Hgilbert 20:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

NOV Dispute

I came here after reading a study on physiognomy in The Economist. It may be politically incorrect and intellectually unfashionable to point out connections between genes, body, and personality, but to say that it is a pseudoscience without evidence is unfair. In the article, reproduced below, women were able to tell by looking at men's faces what their level of testosterone is, and whether or not they like babies. And while such studies are admittedly new, and I wouldn't say that such things are conclusively proven, some connections between head and personality are. For example, the correlation of brain volume with IQ is quite high - around 0.3 or 0.4. That's measured with an MRI - it is less if you use the volume of the skull rather than the brain, more like 0.25 or so. But that still means that *one quarter* of a person's intelligence is determined solely by the size of their head.

EDIT: HINT: Correlation does not equal causation. END OF EDIT

You are correct in stating something u must have memorized for a statistics exam, however one should avoid the EITHER/OR mode as well SDY

Not one quarter. Actually, the amount of variation explained by a variable is r^2, in this case, .0625. That's only 6.25%, not very impressive, even less so when SDY's point is taken into consideration. Side note: this explains where Pratchett got the idea for Captain Swing in Night Watch.65.96.201.130 (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sad that this field, in which there are modern studies, is being judged by its state hundreds of years ago.

Here is the article:

Oochy woochy coochy coo

May 11th 2006 From The Economist print edition

Women can read men like books

A GROUP of scientists has discovered that women are attracted to men who are fond of children. In years gone by, that announcement might have qualified for one of the late Senator William Proxmire's Golden Fleece awards for pointless scientific research—except that what this particular group of scientists has shown is that women can tell who is and is not fond of children just by looking at their faces.

The members of the group in question, led by James Roney of the University of California, Santa Barbara, are part of the revival of a science that once dared not speak its name—physiognomy. In the late 18th century, and during most of the 19th, it was believed that the shape of a person's head could tell you something about his character. Such deterministic thoughts fell out of favour during the 20th century. Most behavioural scientists thought that environment, not biology, shaped behaviour, and even those who did not could not see how the shape of the head or features of the face could possibly be relevant. What Dr Roney and his colleagues have found is that they are.

Their 39 male subjects, selected from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, were shown 20 pairs of pictures, each depicting an adult and an infant. They were asked to signify their preference for either the adult or the child. Some reported no interest in the child at all. The rest expressed a range of interest, including a few who always preferred the pictures of infants. The men also provided saliva swabs to assess their testosterone levels. The researchers then took digital photographs of the men and doctored the images so that their hairstyles were obscured, and could not affect the judgments of the female subjects.

These were a group of 29 women, from equally diverse backgrounds, who were shown the photographs. They were asked to rate the men according to whether they thought the men liked children, and whether those men appeared masculine and physically attractive. They were also asked to say which men they preferred for short-term and which for long-term relationships. The results, which have just been published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, confirm that women are very good at reading faces.

The first part of the study provided confirmation of work done previously by other groups, using different methods. When asked to rate the men's masculinity, the women agreed on who was top and who was bottom, and their rankings correlated with the testosterone levels from the swabs. What was novel was that when asked to rate the men's liking of children from the photographs, they ranked them in the same order as the researchers had done from the interest the men themselves had shown in pictures of infants.

In physiognomic terms, the first result is easy to explain. Testosterone has multiple effects. When its production rises during puberty, it causes both body and mind to be reshaped, so it is little surprise that the former (square jaws and so on) reflect the latter (lust). But Dr Roney and his colleagues were unable to quantify what it was about the faces of the baby-friendly that signalled this attitude to women.

When asked with whom they would prefer to have a short-term relationship, women tended to pick the high-testosterone males. This makes sense from an evolutionary point of view, since testosterone suppresses the immune system. Like the proverbial peacock's tail, an excess of testosterone suggests that an individual must have particularly disease-resistant genes in order to compensate. These make desirable partners for a woman's own genes in her children. The problem with testosterone-fuelled males is that they are less likely to remain faithful to their partners.

By contrast, men who show an interest in children are also likely to make good partners, because they will care for their offspring. The study showed that women prefer these men for long-term relationships. Again, no surprise.

The surprise is this: some men were perceived both as masculine and as interested in children. From an evolutionary point of view, a trade-off between the two would have been predicted. That would produce what is known as an evolutionarily stable strategy in which the child-loving men father fewer babies to start with, but see as many live to maturity because they help to raise them rather than deserting the mothers. From the female point of view, the existence of men who are both hunky and child-friendly might seem too good to be true. For the men involved, it certainly seems like a lot of hard work.

- Patri Friedman, 5/13/2006

Thanks for filling this page up with the latest psychobabble propaganda written only yesterday. The fact remains that it is not taken seriously by any reputable scientists as anything other than a pseudoscience, and this article is 100% correct. If you just wait until tomorrow, women will have forgotten all about their imaginary newfound ability bestowed on them by some newspaper to "read men like a book" (and how dreary life would have to be be if it were _really_ possible to read people like books anyway! LOL) By the way, if they can really "read" anyone "like a book", there's plenty of spy agencies and the like who have been trying to hire someone like that for centuries!! They can make real good money!! There will be no more need for lie detectrors, or even courts!!! LMAO ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, just because an article has a silly headline doesn't mean it isn't scientifically valid. There is no serious claim here that women can read men like a book, only that they can determine certain character aspects which are important evolutionarily. You're attacking a strawman. Look, the effects of testosterone levels on facial features are not some kind of highly disputed "psychobabble" or "pseudoscience". I defy you to find a scientific article disputing the fact that levels of testosterone alter facial features (causing square jaws, for example). And the connection between skull size and IQ - which also fits into this field - has been rigorously established.

Here is a Google Scholar search for [testosterone facial features], in case you actually want to review studies on the subject instead of making things up: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=testosterone+facial+features&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search

Here is a Google Scholar search for [skull size iq], in case you actually want to review studies on the subject instead of laughing: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=skull+size+iq&btnG=Search

Notice that I'm presenting scientific evidence, and you are responding by calling it names and laughing at it. If that's the quality of scholarship that goes into Wikipedia, I'm not impressed. - Patri Friedman, 5/14/2006

(I didn't really care if you were impressed!) So, you're actually pointing to some "scientific study" that claims to show that "testosterone" causes "square jaws"???! Pardon me, but that sounds to me suspiciously all too much like most of the "science" that came out of "scientists" in Germany in the 1930's, now beginning to rear its ugly head again...!

In truth, I really doubt as much is known about "testosterone" as they would like to convince. It would be truly difficult to convincingly establish any such correlation with "square jaws" in the first place. Even some women have "square jaws". It's not even possible to say that "levels of testosterone" is something that is static, or fluctuates with stage of life, even from day to day. I think it's perhaps possible to get a first impression of how masculine someone is, but that may or may not have anything to do with "testosterone", is more likely a cultural judgement (standards varying from one culture to the next), and indeed may be something like, judging a "book" by its "front cover"...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 09:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It is true that testosterone levels fluctuate, and that the research on testosterone and facial features is not conclusive. However, your argument is that all physiognomy is complete bunk. Therefore, it only takes one counter-example to prove you wrong. Since skull size / IQ is measuring something definite and consistent throughout life, and the evidence is much better, let's stick to that. Do you disagree that a significant correlation has been proven between skull size and IQ? Do you disagree that this qualifies as physiognomy?

As for your argument using the Reductio ad Hitlerum, do you really think that adds anything to the debate? Or are you deliberately trying to transform the discussion into a competition to see who can label the other side with the most emotional symbol, instead of using logic to compare facts. Y'know, I bet that's how Hitler argued... -- Patri Friedman

As I mentioned before, the "science" of connecting "intelligence" (as defined by uneven IQ tests) and "skull shape" was a cornerstone of Nazi "science". Look into Nazi "science" just a little bit, and you will see that this is an indisputable fact. The fact that I have called you on it does not mean that I am wrong, or have lost the debate. Are you invoking "Godwin's Law"? Because I recognise no such law. On the contrary, my motto is "never again". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Patri is not disputing the claim that Nazis did their own studies of physiognomy. His point can be summarized by: "Pretty sad that this field, in which there are modern studies, is being judged by its state hundreds of years ago." Or I suppose, 50-something years ago. 213.131.238.25 14:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC);

I agree. Patri has raised a very important point; a priori dismissal of a field of research on political grounds is a shortcut to scientific stagnation. Physiognomy has quite a dubious history, but so has any modern science. Check this out, from the Pseudo-Aristotelian Physiognomonica: "He whose forehead is fleshy, and the bone of the brow jutting out, and without wrinkles, is a man much inclined to suits of law, contentious, vain, deceitful, and addicted to follow ill courses." Great fun, but here's a serious point: the way to dismiss preposterous claims is not brand them as "pseudoscience", but to check them out. I daresay we're not likely to ever see a study of the correlations between fleshy foreheads and lawsuits (wouldn't that be something!), the point is only that until we do such a study we do not actually know if there is one. Unfortunately "Never Again" above seems poorly informed and unwilling to keep the debate at an academic level. Physiognomy itself did not cause Holocaust any more than Wagner operas or lederhosen did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukade (talk • contribs)

Patri's reference to reductio ad Hitlerum is quite apt, because emotional statements such as, "Because I recognise no such law. On the contrary, my motto is 'never again,'" add nothing to a debate about the scientific validity of contemporary physiognomy. You imply that because Nazis conducted studies on physiognomy, the field cannot be scientific; but this does not follow.Iainuki

One point you seem to be missing is that Wikipedia is not a ground for researchers to conduct research. In fact, it is expressly forbidden; please read WP:NOR. All we can do is report on the actual state of mainstream science, which still classes this as a pseudo-science. If you can somehow get that changed, and this is not the place to do it, but if you did manage to do get Physiognomy indisputably recognised as a discipline, only then could you reflect your accomplishments in the article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

But this is not original research, this is research in published journals. You claim that "mainstream science" classes this as a pseudo-science, yet you have not provided any evidence that shows that is a widely-held opinion, as opposed to your opinion. Iainuki

I'm saying physiognomy today just isn't "mainstream science"... If you think you've got anything that says it really is "mainstream", cite your reference. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Patri already provided references above! These are published papers written by academics working for major universities. How is that not "mainstream science?" Meanwhile, you still haven't presented any evidence for your contention that it isn't. Iainuki 20:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You could also cite some Nazi scientists. That doesn't make it "mainstream science".

I guess you just didn't read in the article. Courses teaching the lore of how to do "physiognomy" haven't been taught in academia for some 500 years, but when you find it offered on someone's actual curriculum, and not just a student's thesis, let me know... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

People who observe traits in others are not Nazis. Nazis took small observances and went to extremes with them, continually saying: "oh look if we observe this trait it's like being a Nazi" and "oh why don't we ask the Nazi scientists then since they're just as genuine" not only shows the person has absolutely no grasp of history, but that sort of extremeism is the root of Naziism in the first place.

Aristotle

"The Greek here is quite hard to express, but Aristotle seems to be referring to characteristics in the nature of each kind of animal thought to be present in their faces, that he is suggesting might be analysed for correspondences — for example the noticeable fondness of the Koala for eucalyptus leaves."

Well, that's speculative. He might also have been referring to the fact that a habitually happy person has laugh lines, a habitually worried person has frown lines, and that drunkenness does characteristic damage to one's face.

Works after Aristotle

The short list of works after Aristotle has it written that they were written in the 2nd and 4th centuries AD. The links however, go to the second and fourth centuries BC. Which is wrong? machinebuster

I'm not sure of Adamantius (though his postdating Aristotle would suggest AD), but Polemo was most definitely a second century AD physiognomist, so it's certainly the link that's at fault there.

Wiper 20:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Physiognomy (Physiognomancy?) is Pseudoscience?

Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this page, and to the Physiognomy category in general, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this page and also from the Physiognomy category. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Homoeopathic Facial Analysis

The Victorian College of Classical Homœopathy (VCCH) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.82.61 (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor remarks, since the page is protected

As the proud bearer of a degree in pedantry, I would like to indicate that there is an asterisk at the start of the section "Middle Ages", which Firefox renders as a blue dot behind the text. Hexadecima (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference Formatting

I added a reference to a study by Tufts University, but was unsure of how to format it properly and where in the article to find the necessary information. Hopefully I can get back to it, but if not, it'd be nice if someone could take a look. GarrickW (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting, but it somehow seems to be referring to an extremely local situation, with people experienced in conditions in their own part of the world. It reminds me of how many Ethiopians can tell at first glance if someone is Amara, Tigre, or Oromo - but a non-Ethiopian might not know any Ethiopian from a Somali. And it would probably be harder for someone in another part of the world to guess what political party you belong to. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is the critique?

Physiognomy is proofed as a pseudo-science and absolutely discredited. It is often used as a medium to discriminate and judge people just by their appearance. In particular during Nazism in Germany it is used as a further "scientific" reason to murder 6 million jews - "... they have faces and so they behave like rats ...". Please insert a critique-section and change the article-entry so that this fact is mentioned!--78.55.147.206 (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Modern Science and the Sexy Son hypothesis and others.

The modern science section seems a little sparse, there have been more than a few modern scientific theories relating to facial characteristics and personality, like the chad v dad faces in the sexy son hypothesis among others.

Should I just add these links in or does there have to be some sort of vote or discussion beforehand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.25.46 (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The lead uses this source to state that "There is no clear evidence that physiognomy works." Asides from the source explicitly stating that "There is, however, some tantalising evidence that our faces can betray something about our character", it list several recent studies that indicate a connection between personality and appearance which the lead painstakingly omits. Ankh.Morpork 20:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Morphopsychology

The "morphopsychology" article is short and not often edited or expanded, and has only one source. Since from what I can tell its methods and goals are essentially the same, and is basically just a neologism for a specific subtype of physiognomy, it would be best just to try and merge this in, unless someone wants to expand it considerably and explain how it is different. anamedperson (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Strong Merge The morphopsychology article is just a stub summary of physiognomy. Fold morphopsychology into the latter. Easy one... Cesium 133 (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. 206.218.223.151 (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)  Done

Expanding the Science Section

Below is my plan to expand the science section of this page (as a part of assessment for a university course), please let me know if you have any suggestions and advice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SkyRepublic76/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyRepublic76 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Rationale: Although the article aims to provide an introduction of the history of physiognomy, it includes a very limited amount of information of the modern science of physiognomy. Nevertheless, in the recent decade researchers and scientists found much more empirical evidence that demonstrated the link between people’s traits and their physical, especially facial, appearance. Therefore, in the current project I want to fill the gap in the Modern Science section of the physiognomy page.

Plan: I plan to write a summary of selected findings for each main topic (e.g., personality, ideology, sexual orientation, leadership, and life outcomes) of the scientific investigation of physiognomy. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, I will collect three to five primary research articles of each topic from published academic journals (e.g., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Psychological Science, etc.). After that, I will follow the rules of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to present the findings fairly, proportionately, and without bias, objective judgments, or my own analyses. Also, I will only present findings of published research and make sure to cite them accurately and clearly. In addition, I will consult Wikepedia:Writing better articles and the Talk page of the target article for instructions and suggestions regarding how to write in a coherent, precise, and concise manner that flows well from the previous sections of the target article. Moreover, given that I aim to focus on and expand the Modern Science section, I will have to use subheadings to organize the topics of my choice. Furthermore, I will try to write in the summary style and formal tone as suggested by Wikipedia, while also trying to avoid using technical terms to make the content accessible to the lay public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyRepublic76 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes Made: To expand the Modern Science section of the Physiognomy article, I summarized and added the findings of 15 most influential relevant scientific experiments that are published in scientific journals. I organised my work into five topics (i.e., Life outcomes, Ideology, Sexual Orientation, Personality and Traits, and Leadership) under the modern science section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyRepublic76 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello

There are missing information especially the middle ages in Middle East 50.190.221.210 (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Typo in a title?

In the first section (Ancient physiognomy), there is a reference to a major extant work in physiognomy by an anonymous Latin author, de Phsiognomonia. There seems to be a letter missing in that title; I would expect either "Phisiognomonia" or "Physiognomonia". Is the typo in the original, and even if so, should it just be 'fixed', perhaps with mention of the original spelling?

More data

Hello, I've found an article about Physiognomy, it might be useful as a reference/external link for this article:

• BBC - Future - How your face betrays your personality and health, 13 March 2015, David Robson, BBC

—  Ark25  (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

AI/ML revival

I have removed the paragraph in the lede

There is no clear evidence indicating that physiognomy works as a means to assess a person's character, but the rise of artificial intelligence and machine learning for facial recognition systems has brought a revival of interest.

It lacks a citation and, while I am aware of some [1] projects [2] that fit this description (and which I regard with a similar contempt as the quoted paragraph), I don't think it meets notability requirements at present, especially for the lede.

A Lesbian (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your editorial analysis here. In order to present the implication, as that prose clearly did, that serious researchers think that AI-mediated mass data set heuristics are going to somehow shift the scientific consensus on such theories, rehabilitating widely debunked psuedoscience and placing it in the light of a viable avenue of empirical inquiry, we would at a minimum need a significant number of reliable secondary sources that meed WP:MEDRS standards. That's clearly not the case here, even if we can find some primary sources by way of self-interested commercial entities advancing dubious claims about the capabilities of their proprietary AI analytics or an odd fringe article written for a publication mill without any real peer-review editorial controls. So not only does the statement as original added, not meet WP:V for the very obvious reason of not having had even a single source to support it (and being very vague in the implied support for these notions), but even if a couple of these primary sources had been attempted as the verifying sources, the content would still run afoul of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and WP:WEIGHT. I think this was very much the right call, though I understand, given the contentiousness of the over-arching topic, why you chose to explain your edit here on the talk page. Good call and good catch on this generally. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Better reporting of BBC coverage

I'm changing

According to BBC News, "The work has been accused of being dangerous' and 'junk science'".

to

A director of research of Human Rights Campaign evaluated the study to BBC as "junk science."

since the evaluation is made by a director of research from HRC, Ashland Johnson, and not by BBC News. As it stands, this invokes the wrong authority figure. I would actually like name Ashland Johnson in the article, but I wasn't sure how to refer to a researcher by name which is in turn referenced in a news item.

Also, the BBC item actually quotes a professor from the Face Research Lab at the University of Glasgow:

These 'subtle' differences could be a consequence of gay and straight people choosing to portray themselves in systematically different ways, rather than differences in facial appearance itself,

I believe adding this (not necessarily as a quote) may make the main article reflect the nuanced perspective of another scientist on the paper. This means the article would reflect the study better. However I'm not sure if this level of detail to a specific, widely discussed research study appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Anyone? --Ozan Ogreden (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Scientific investigation section

Most of this section was added by a single IP editor here. Tagged instead of blanking because it is all sourced and there should be a section about AI and contemporary interest in this pseudoscience. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

This section should be at the top of the website. However it seems like the cited study by Kosinski mentions barely anything about physiognomy. --Chlebashořčicí (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems likely. Deleted. Remsense诉 17:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)