Joined
Jun 29, 2015
Messages
662
Reputation
1
Disclaimer. I am not the author of this post. It was posted by the user "just lol buddy boyo" on SH and I dug this from google cache.
This thread only got 2 pages back there, it deserves more.  The author claims to have written this himself as well.

Physiognomy Theory

Thesis: Your appearance, defined here as primarily your facial features/measurements but also your body shape and clothing/surroundings/postures/expressions, overwhelmingly determines what type of behavior people will expect from you and how they will react to your behavior around them. Deviations from this expected behavior will result in disassociation or shaming to make your behavior conform to your image.

Humans are visual creatures, and for good reason; visual stimuli is the most constant, stimulating, information rich sensory stimuli known, and humans have highly developed eyesight and visual processing areas in their brains. Humans are also arguably the most social species, and as such have evolved to address the problem of specialization of labor. Following the biological principle that bodily form reflects necessary behavioral function, certain percentages of humans developed different physical traits because they allowed them to perform their specialized social function with more success than humans with other combinations of features.

The subset of humans who are females have largely only one evolutionary purpose, to give birth and care for babies. Suffice to say for our purposes here that females' ideal mating strategy is to become fertilized by the alpha while she is at her peak in fertility, and then to trick a beta male into thinking her offspring will be his and extract resources from the cuckolded beta for raising the child. Her appearance, is she sexy, young and appearing fertile and able to give healthy birthed children, or not, advertised by her high hip to waist ratio, low body fat %, and youthful skin, is the main determinant of her value to males. Essentially the more attractive a woman is, the more men will want to fuck her, be willing to put up with her bullshit or demands to fuck her, and the more females will be envious of her.



The subset of humans who are males have evolved to fulfil many different evolutionary/behavioral functions and as a result are a less homogenous gender than females. The most important distinctions that society draws between men are those that are alpha and those that are beta. Alpha men are seen as valuable to society not just because of the behavioral role that they perform (ruling the society, leading, organizing and managing betas’ labor, resolving conflicts, being the strongest fighter/hunter/defender, etc.) but also “intrinsically” (akin to women) because of their higher genetic quality sperm with which to produce higher quality offspring descendants for the society. All an alpha male is expected and allowed to do can be boiled down to “being selfish”, simply because the alpha as the strongest and most desired man CAN do anything he wants. By being selfish, he will sleep around with women spreading good genes, defend women because he sees them as his property and children because many are his own cuckolded ones, control beta males and direct them to give resources to women because he wants the women he is fucking to stay alive without having to provide for them/their kids himself, etc. Alpha males, possessing the highest quality genetic material, reflect this in their appearance by being muscular, tall, and having masculine, sexually dimorphic and healthy, symmetrical facial features and skull shape; without taking too many of these dimorphic traits to a biological extreme so that they might induce too much fear in the woman to associate with him. Essentially alpha males look like they could kill someone in front of a woman and not only would she forgive them, she would get wet for him.

[img=484x484]http://images.sportsworldnews.com/data/images/full/5231/roman-reigns.jpeg[/img]

The beta male is seen as valuable to society only extrinsically for the material resources or functions that he is able to perform. He is seen as subhuman by essentially all women except maybe his family, and by most alphas, akin to a robot who is only useful as long as he can do his job. The beta is expected to work for the “greater good” (others, not himself), in exchange for occasional, reluctant prostitution contracts from women. Women only mate with him if they are economically dependent on him and cannot cuckold him without being discovered and abandoned (think Middle Eastern like countries) but always feel like they are settling and resent him for this. The beta male can be identified by his appearance of “not looking threatening like he could win a fight” because of lack of height, lack of muscle, smaller bone/skull structure, and has a more feminine, submissive, non-dimorphic face (bigger, more exposed eyes without strong brow, smaller nose, narrower skull, smaller jaw, less facial hair, etc.) that reflects his inferior genes. Because the beta appears that he cannot physically defend himself, he is assumed to comply with the alpha’s demands, and any deviation from this is met by scorn and ridicule by women to keep him in his place as a useful provider. 





On sight, people automatically and subconsciously profile you according to your appearance and what you are wearing, etc. and assign you to the closest stereotype they have in their mind of you, and then respond to you and expect you to act congruent with that stereotype. They do not treat you like a special snowflake blank slate and attempt to create a highly accurate personality profile of you based on all of your behaviors, they simply do not have the time or desire to. A heuristic cognitive approach is much more time and energy efficient and in most cases just as accurate. 



If you do not act congruent to their image of you, they will not know how to react to you and their brain will give them cognitive dissonance, they will want to stop interacting with you because you are contradicting their deeply held beliefs and they do not like that at all. This is why ugly beta males literally cannot be perceived as good, confident, charming, etc. because they are initially unconsciously assumed to be the opposite by anyone who meets them, and then everyone ignores any contradicting evidence if he acts differently because of their cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias (Failo effect). Similarly attractive people are unconsciously assumed to be better people and thus all of their actions are interpreted in the best possible light (Halo effect).

As a result of the Failo effect, people actually DO become more in line with society’s image of them because they become jaded and bitter at society and give up trying to be good, acting as a positive feedback loop to reinforce the stereotype that ugly people have bad personalities. 



The Halo effect makes attractive people actually have “worse” (more selfish) personalities because they can get away with it in some cases, or makes the attractive people so happy that they are naturally nice and happy around other people so they actually get a “better” personality.

In conclusion, if you want to change how people treat you, you MUST change your image to be congruent with the behavior you want to be able to get away with so that you are being categorized as your desired stereotype to people and giving them “correct” information on what they should expect from you.
This was posted by another user in the same thread as well
Change Your Face - Change Your Life
 

Sociopath1983

Normie
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
1,819
Reputation
1
it was a good read except the part about facial symmetry being the result of high T and good genes has been refuted by science. Good non traumatic development creates high symmetry not 'good genes'
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2015
Messages
662
Reputation
1
Might be a newer study out there. I was familiar with the good genes theory of facial symmetry.

This whole post followed by that one article regarding plastic surgery makes me wonder how people changed since undergoing PS. Would a chin or full mandible implant make someone experience more respect and assumed leadership to such a degree that the person will eventually assume the role and overcome old beta male conditioning? It would at least make it easier to try and overcome it.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2015
Messages
662
Reputation
1
just lol buddy boyo said:
I'm glad someone saved this, imagine my surprise when I found it here. I don't understand why we didn't pay more attention to this field even to this day.  
Sociopath1983 said:
it was a good read except the part about facial symmetry being the result of high T and good genes has been refuted by science. Good non traumatic development creates high symmetry not 'good genes'
I would say that a symmetric face implies "good" genes (at the very least not bad genes that would sabotage) AND good development but not necessarily that good genes will always result in a symmetric face.


I think that changing our appearances is and should be the first step to changing the rest of ourselves, and that over time with enough new positive feedback it would eventually change our personalities to follow suit as well. (Yes that means we still have to leave the basement after PS to change our personality). The human brain is very adaptive and one of its main purposes in evolution was to figure out its place in the social heirarchy and act accordingly.
In case SH servers went down again or something I figured this was one I wanted to save.

You can repost it if you would like to be OP of the actual thread on here. We've got a Theorycrafting section now since when I reposted this which would be more suitable and I'll just lock this version of the thread with a redirect link.

As OP you would get a notification when anyone responds where as otherwise it is only when someone quotes you.
 

scar_face40

Coper
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
882
Reputation
1
So legit.

For all our retarded theories, this one is completely evident in day-to-day life all the time.
 

MaleModel

Incel
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
146
Reputation
0
If this theory doesn't prove that I am a man of good looks, this theory is a wrong theory.
 
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
142
Reputation
0
"On sight, people automatically and subconsciously profile you according to your appearance and what you are wearing, etc. and assign you to the closest stereotype they have in their mind of you, and then respond to you and expect you to act congruent with that stereotype. They do not treat you like a special snowflake blank slate and attempt to create a highly accurate personality profile of you based on all of your behaviors, they simply do not have the time or desire to. A heuristic cognitive approach is much more time and energy efficient and in most cases just as accurate."

I used this as part of my signature on sluthate.
I think the OP is good but it focuses in on too much about the alpha and beta paradigm whereas I believe physiognomy goes much deeper than that and if we didn't have so many shitposters wed be able to

I made a thread back on puahate about how all of this relates to there being an objective ideal for human faces and that its all about humanness since we need to be able to identify other members of our own species etc.

The more beautiful you are, the more human you look like as you can see in this illustration:




Heres some info explaining humanness theory from beautyanalysis.com where a lot of this information stems from (I don't uphold everything on here to be true and I don't believe that the marquardt mask is correct):

"We believe that it is not strictly an image of “beauty” – but actually an image of “HUMANNESS”. That is, it is the way we identify our own species, and individuals within our species. Like all other animals we need a way to identify our own species for mating, bonding, self- protection and other survival purposes. Also we need to be able to distinguish healthy and disease free individuals within our species for similar purposes. Other animals recognize their own species through one or a combination of their senses. Moths and butterflies, for example, recognize each other through smell – the olfactory sense. They are able to recognize or identify other moths by their scents (or “pheromones”) from up to 3 miles away. This is how they identify “mothness”. Dogs recognize each other by a combination of vision and smell. They initially visually identify another animal as a “dog” and immediately approach it tosmell it and ascertain its degree of “dogness”, as well as other information about that dog. Dolphins recognize their species and individuals within their species through the sense of sound.The degree of one dolphin’s acceptance of another is its dependent on its perception of that other dolphin’s sounds like a dolphin. These sounds create its species identity, or “dolphinness”.Elephants appear to use a combination of sound, vision and smell. Few people have any argument that these animal behaviors are all instinctual behaviors that are genetically encoded and subconsciously driven. We are animals too. Humans, however, have historically had a hard time seeing and regarding themselves as “animals”. We have named ourselves “Homo Sapiens Sapiens” or “Man Wise Wise”. In fact if other animals had an opportunity to rename us they would more likely have called us “Man the annihilator of all species and destroyer of the planet” or something to that effect. We have taken great pride in understanding and controlling our planet and all the other species on it. But our own ego has led us somewhat astray with regard to understanding ourselves. We are, in fact, much like other animals. And like other animals, to a tremendous degree, we are a product of our genetic makeup. Most of us in science now believe that genetics, much more than environment, determines the lion’s share of who we are and who we become. Humans are animals, but more specifically we are a visual animal. We essentially recognize each other by sight. We cannot smell each other more than a few feet away, and if someone yells our name we immediately turn to see, or “visually”identify, who they are. Part of our genetic code is a subconscious image of what “human” is supposed to be. The primary image of “humanness” is the genetically coded visual image of an “ideal” human face. The more a face resembles this “Ideal Human Face Image” – the more we perceive it to be human. When a face is perceived to be human that perception sets off in us a conscious response of “attraction” and “positive emotion”. If this subconscious visual perception of “humanness”, if strong enough (that is if the face we see looks enough like our subconscious image of “humanness”), then the conscious response will be elevated to a combination of a sense of “strong attraction” and a sense of “strong positive emotion”. “Beauty” is defined as “the quality or combination of qualities in an entity which evokes in the perceiver a combination of a sense of “strong attraction” and a sense of “strong positive emotion”. Thus we can postulate that the perception or “recognition” of beauty is actually nothing more than a strong correlation of what we subconsciously expect “humanness” to appear to be.



ARCHETYPES:

Plato (427-347 BCE) discussed his “Forms”, postulating that all objects have an “ideal” “form” or structure. In particular, he taught that these “Forms” were pure or perfect objects of mathematical or other conceptual knowledge. He felt that these “pure” forms existed only in the realm of knowledge and never in the reality of human everyday existence.

Individual things in the realm of appearance are beautiful only insofar as they participate in, correlate with, or approach in structure these universal “Forms” of Beauty.

Karl Jung (1875-1961) took the concept of Plato’s “Forms” further and presented his own Theory of Archetypes.

In Jungian Psychology an Archetype is “an unconscious idea, pattern of thought, image, etc., inherited from the ancestors of the race and universally present in individual psyches”.

In simpler terms we could basically refer to an archetype as an “instinct”.

That is, in essence, an instinctual idea, pattern of thought, image, etc., inherited from the ancestors of the race and universally present in individual psyches.

We now believe that the image of the “ideal” human face is indeed an “Archetype”; a subconscious image which we are born with and carry throughout our lives.
This archetype has evolved in order to help us identify members of our own species and further sort members of our species according to their relative health and ability to successfully reproduce and to provide other resources to us and those who are close to us."


mod edit: trying to fix whatever the fuck happened to the format
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2015
Messages
662
Reputation
1
sensorydeprivation said:
long post
There was something going on where random embed codes were appearing in HTML form on the post its self that did not exist in the window view so I fixed you post up with some trial and error. Also that embed link to a thread of yours never worked. All the text leading up to the picture was just one wall of text link to postimg.org

If you got that thread your mentioning just edit it in there.
 

Vertu

Incel
Joined
Jun 29, 2015
Messages
384
Reputation
27
If this is an alpha:

Essentially alpha males look like they could kill someone in front of a woman and not only would she forgive them, she would get wet for him.
Where does your typical pretty-faced slim built male model fit into all of this? And please don't say that Lachowski or Garrett Neff are the epitome of masculinity and can kill me or anybody with their bare hands LOL.

Either 1) male models are actually beta or 2) as our society advances, the prerequisites required to be an alpha are changing.

So which is it?
 

lono

Banned
Joined
Jul 4, 2015
Messages
2,606
Reputation
9
just lol buddy boyo said:
I'm glad someone saved this, imagine my surprise when I found it here. I don't understand why we didn't pay more attention to this field even to this day.  
Sociopath1983 said:
it was a good read except the part about facial symmetry being the result of high T and good genes has been refuted by science. Good non traumatic development creates high symmetry not 'good genes'
I would say that a symmetric face implies "good" genes (at the very least not bad genes that would sabotage) AND good development but not necessarily that good genes will always result in a symmetric face.


I think that changing our appearances is and should be the first step to changing the rest of ourselves, and that over time with enough new positive feedback it would eventually change our personalities to follow suit as well. (Yes that means we still have to leave the basement after PS to change our personality). The human brain is very adaptive and one of its main purposes in evolution was to figure out its place in the social heirarchy and act accordingly.
There's two kinds of Assymetry. Functional Assymetry like crooked nose or uneven eyes are genetic.

Directional Assymetry like flattened cheekbones from sleeping on one side or uneven jaw from chewing on one side are environmental.

A study showed that functional Assymetry affects attractiveness while directional Assymetry does not.

That's why that guy from teen wolf can be considered hot and be the star of an mtv show even though his jaw is more crooked than Halliburton

He couldn't get away with having eyes or a nose that crooked.

And before u start talking about handy, there's a difference between crooked nose and broken nose.
[hr]
Vertu said:
If this is an alpha:

Essentially alpha males look like they could kill someone in front of a woman and not only would she forgive them, she would get wet for him.
Where does your typical pretty-faced slim built male model fit into all of this? And please don't say that Lachowski or Garrett Neff are the epitome of masculinity and can kill me or anybody with their bare hands LOL.

Either 1) male models are actually beta or 2) as our society advances, the prerequisites required to be an alpha are changing.

So which is it?
There's different criteria for good genes. Pretty boy romancers like Leo in titanic - and rough fuck and chuck slayers like that wrestler
 

Ethnik God

Banned
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
625
Reputation
1
lono said:
just lol buddy boyo said:
I'm glad someone saved this, imagine my surprise when I found it here. I don't understand why we didn't pay more attention to this field even to this day.  

I would say that a symmetric face implies "good" genes (at the very least not bad genes that would sabotage) AND good development but not necessarily that good genes will always result in a symmetric face.


I think that changing our appearances is and should be the first step to changing the rest of ourselves, and that over time with enough new positive feedback it would eventually change our personalities to follow suit as well. (Yes that means we still have to leave the basement after PS to change our personality). The human brain is very adaptive and one of its main purposes in evolution was to figure out its place in the social heirarchy and act accordingly.
There's two kinds of Assymetry. Functional Assymetry like crooked nose or uneven eyes are genetic.

Directional Assymetry like flattened cheekbones from sleeping on one side or uneven jaw from chewing on one side are environmental.

A study showed that functional Assymetry affects attractiveness while directional Assymetry does not.

That's why that guy from teen wolf can be considered hot and be the star of an mtv show even though his jaw is more crooked than Halliburton

He couldn't get away with having eyes or a nose that crooked.

And before u start talking about handy, there's a difference between crooked nose and broken nose.
[hr]
Vertu said:
If this is an alpha:


Where does your typical pretty-faced slim built male model fit into all of this? And please don't say that Lachowski or Garrett Neff are the epitome of masculinity and can kill me or anybody with their bare hands LOL.

Either 1) male models are actually beta or 2) as our society advances, the prerequisites required to be an alpha are changing.

So which is it?
There's different criteria for good genes. Pretty boy romancers like Leo in titanic - and rough fuck and chuck slayers like that wrestler
Crooked nose and uneven eyes could be caused by maxilla issues, which is not necessarily genetic. Could be entirely environmental.
 

Brutus

King of Chads
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
12,471
Reputation
502
When you behave like a beta and don't even act like it bothers you, then alphas suddenly start being nice and welcoming

It's a cope to say that all nerdy ugly guys and losers. Plenty of sub5 guys that I know are very popular "funny" guys. They act like nice, slightly cocky guys. The cockiness is an example of this:


Since it's unexpected behavior that is still socially acceptable, it comes across as funny, not douchey.
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2015
Messages
743
Reputation
0
There was not enough discussion of race, (not nearly enough), but the study is somewhat lehgit. Preaching to the quire I'm affraid.
 

ethmlethiqcel

Gigachad
Gorilla Crew
Joined
Feb 20, 2018
Messages
7,687
Reputation
296
Vertu said:
If this is an alpha:

Essentially alpha males look like they could kill someone in front of a woman and not only would she forgive them, she would get wet for him.
Where does your typical pretty-faced slim built male model fit into all of this? And please don't say that Lachowski or Garrett Neff are the epitome of masculinity and can kill me or anybody with their bare hands LOL.

Either 1) male models are actually beta or 2) as our society advances, the prerequisites required to be an alpha are changing.

So which is it?

Lachowski could kill everyone on this forum with his bare hands, including realrob.
 

bain

Normie
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
1,716
Reputation
11
ethmlethiqcel said:
Vertu said:
If this is an alpha:


Where does your typical pretty-faced slim built male model fit into all of this? And please don't say that Lachowski or Garrett Neff are the epitome of masculinity and can kill me or anybody with their bare hands LOL.

Either 1) male models are actually beta or 2) as our society advances, the prerequisites required to be an alpha are changing.

So which is it?

Lachowski could kill everyone on this forum with his bare hands, including realrob.


yeah f sure. lachowski is fucking primal i was legit scared first time i saw him

vs


muh viking muh roids  :giggle:
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
612
Reputation
8
final black pill

also

interesting...

Sociopath1983 said:
it was a good read except the part about facial symmetry being the result of high T and good genes has been refuted by science. Good non traumatic development creates high symmetry not 'good genes'