Interesting Information about men's facial shape predicting their level of promiscuity

[Slaytaninc]

This is an interesting study that shows how your facial structure is a major factor in the relationships you have with women.: http://119.93.223.179/ScienceDirect/...rticle_007.pdf

Using a movie that morphs a very masculine male face (frame 1 of 700) into an androgynous face, the facial pictures and vertical lines indicate the mean location of participants’ dominant male (DOM), short-term mate (STM), long-term mate (LTM), average male (AVM) and androgynous face (AND) selections, with respect to experimentally assigned personality traits.

F1 (‘Friend’ factor) is composed of positive attributes such as sensitive, helpful and trustworthy.

F3 (‘Enemy’ factor) consists of undesirable attributes like selfish, controlling and threatening.

The ‘Lover’ factor (F2) includes sexually exciting, supportive and healthy.

The STM selection appears to be the best ‘good-genes’ choice (Lover factor), while avoiding the negative traits associated with high degrees of masculinity (Enemy factor). The LTM selection appears to trade off some ‘good genes’ attributes in favor of those required for a good friend and good father (included in F1).

[Nutsack]

Link isn't working. But, as much as I hate to be judgemental, I can kind of believe a study like this. I sometimes feel like I have the ability to read a personality based solely on another persons facial expression or face shape. But I also make my judgements based on movement style, etc. I admit though that I might as well be making this up.

[Slaytaninc]

Link isn't working. But, as much as I hate to be judgemental, I can kind of believe a study like this. I sometimes feel like I have the ability to read a personality based solely on another persons facial expression or face shape. But I also make my judgements based on movement style, etc. I admit though that I might as well be making this up.

This kind of ties into another study I came across that described men with high levels of testosterone are considered to be the best short-term mates, and men with lower levels were seen as better long-term choices. Movement style, behavior and other things can tie into the faces idea as well.

Not sure what the other fields' explanation for this is, but the Evo Psych explanation has to do with the idea that a man with those features shows more virility, but is less likely to stick around to help raise any potential children.

Seems like a feedback loop that needs resolved to me, but I'm not a researcher and refuse to go too deep with an explanation without digging through the data on the numerous studies. Might also have to do with pheromones as well though.

Link works for me, must be a browser issue. I use Chrome.

[Col. Tartleton]

This has some merit to it. I definitely read male faces on a scale from combative to submissive.

I'm Average maybe Long Term Mate which seems to be roughly normal among the 3 factors. Non threatening, moderately sexy, moderately friendly.

STM is IMO the most "handsome." DOM is bordering on feral. That's the kind of guy who kicked my ass at Lacrosse or would in general... I always feel slightly on defense in terms of masculinity in that company. It's just primeval power projection.

[Slaytaninc]

STM is IMO the most "handsome." DOM is bordering on feral. That's the kind of guy who kicked my ass at Lacrosse...

It is also where the lover factor was the highest. Many DOM guys probably get a massive number of partners, but doesn't stick with them. Then again, the DOM also has the highest "Enemy" factor, which might mitigate that.

F1, F2, and F3 are closest to each other for the LTM, which makes sense.

I'm probably somewhere between STM and LTM, although I've never been good with the ladies, but I'm not going to let my genetics determine my lifestyle.

Also, I believe this is based on what women say, not what they actually are attracted to. (Men lie too, although for different reasons.)

[Col. Tartleton]

It is also where the lover factor was the highest. Many DOM guys probably get a massive number of partners, but doesn't stick with them. Then again, the DOM also has the highest "Enemy" factor, which might mitigate that.

F1, F2, and F3 are closest to each other for the LTM, which makes sense.

I'm probably somewhere between STM and LTM, although I've never been good with the ladies, but I'm not going to let my genetics determine my lifestyle.

Also, I believe this is based on what women say, not what they actually are attracted to. (Men lie too, although for different reasons.)

I'm just saying that from my own male perspective these seem to be consistent with cues. They might not actually play out for a number of reasons, but mentally I see a new chiseled face guy as more of a threat to my status than some girly faced kid.

DOM looks like he'd fight me and take my girl. That's the face of a proper football captain. That's the face of the chieftain's son. AND isn't that kind of threat to me.

[Éorl]

BS.

Attributing any kind of mental/psychological/social traits to physical characteristics is ridiculous at best, and outright dangerously foolish at worst.

It's quite easy to cook up studies like that, as is drawing a connection between performing a dance and a draught turning to rain.

What this study (and this thread) does actually prove is that human beings are prone to drawing connections where none exist (as in the rain dance example). Evolutionary dead-ends, I call such.

[AqD]

It's quite easy to cook up studies like that, as is drawing a connection between performing a dance and a draught turning to rain.

How can you be certain that a dance can have absolutely nothing to do with a draught turning to rain?

[Elfdude]

BS.

Attributing any kind of mental/psychological/social traits to physical characteristics is ridiculous at best, and outright dangerously foolish at worst.

This is hilariously unscientific. The aggregate of how your body looks is a complex interaction of all of the parts of who you are. There are specific ways that your body shows how healthy it is, how virile it is, etc. All animals produce these signals and pick up on these signals it's rather silly of you to dismiss the idea that humans do too. Mental traits and physical traits have one thing in common, biochemistry. That biochemistry is the factor we're looking at. We know that in other ways based on first glances women prefer the most testosterone laden guys to the least ones. High testosterone is extremely obvious simply from looking at someone and it's one of the reasons why you can be relatively certain that man who has biceps as big as his forearm is probably on steroids.

It's quite easy to cook up studies like that, as is drawing a connection between performing a dance and a draught turning to rain.

The study is a empirical test of how women percieve certain attributes. I think you've got a vested interest in dismissing this idea. It's rather well-established scientifically. You may argue the degree at which this effect comes into play but you cannot argue the effect itself.

What this study (and this thread) does actually prove is that human beings are prone to drawing connections where none exist (as in the rain dance example). Evolutionary dead-ends, I call such.

True enough, but that doesn't support your reaction to this information.

Fark that. My face is shaped something between the far left and second from the left ones. I am a really nice guy with no "negative traits associated with high degrees of masculinity".

First off, if you weren't a nice guy, would you admit it? Probably not. You cannot objectively evaluate your own persona because your own persona will create ego-defense mechanisms to protect it from unconvenient truths. If you were in fact a domineering ass you would feel exactly the same way about yourself as you do now. What makes you think we would ever rely upon your self assessment as a nice guy? Lastly why would you pay attention to anecdotes. In science there is always exceptions to the rules. The rules exist not because they're perfect, but because they more often then not provide a good approximation of what you're dealing with.

I am very secure in myself but not dominant.

That's funny because being secure in yourself is a staple trait of dominance. You don't see security in your own independence on the far end of the spectrem often. On the other hand you do see it on the masculine end very often.

When I younger I was very insecure in myself.

You also had a tiny fraction of the testosterone flowing through you.

Selfish, controlling and threatening behaviour is usually from insecurity and I bet is correlated directly with not getting any.

Eh, this is kind of right and kind of wrong. There's two modes of perception people use, they either pay attention to how this affects people (including themselves) or how it affects them (and others second). It's very easy to see this stance politically when people begin to say things like "we gotta take care of our own first" or etc. A high load of testosterone makes you tend to fall into the second category, so though you have high amounts of security in yourself you also are fundamentally opposed to the world when it involves your loss. On the other hand a low load of testosterone makes you fundamentally less likely to fall into that mode of thought. You begin to think, well it's fair that guy got that because I would've gotten it to if I had done XYZ, with high testosterone you think, why does that guy have something I don't?

The problem gets more complicated when we add oxytocin into the mixture where which influences team building whereas testosterone influences competitivity. With oxytocin you can expand (even as a dominant type) your sphere of self to include your friends and family. On the other hand with lower testosterone your sphere of self is arbitrary. This is also the origins of one psychological dimorphism between men and women in which women tend to order people based on how they interact with others, whereas men tend to order people based on how they interact with said man.

That's as ridiculous as the study that claimed homosexuality is because men need some "feminine" traits to not be selfish, murderous neanderthals, and sometimes they "get too much".

The problem is not the underpinning concept but the gross oversimplification by the author. Testosterone does indeed drive one to be competitive to the point of complete selfishness (narcissism) which is very common with men. However I doubt that homosexuality has anything to do with that inherently. There's many factors which influence the aggregate of your sexuality, testosterone is only one of those. It's very possible to be homosexual and have high levels of tesosterone or visa versa. Genetics, Hormones, Environment, Order of Birth, Pregnancy etc all influence the end outcome with this. Testosterone can be driven drastically lower by the influence of your environment. However by about 19 a man's testosterone max is more or less set, after that he may have moderate upswings but for the most part he will never exceed this natural baseline.

Phrenology for the 21st century. Bring back eugenics.

lol.

Well, faces are one tiny factor in their whole appearance. They may look like scum, really shy or whatever and you can judge them on that, but their face has very little impact on that image.

If we ordered bodies based on how much to pay attention, Faces, Hands, Feet, and Genitals get most of the attention with faces and genitals making upwards of 90% of the time we spend looking at any given person.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Fark that. My face is shaped something between the far left and second from the left ones. I am a really nice guy with no "negative traits associated with high degrees of masculinity". I am very secure in myself but not dominant. When I younger I was very insecure in myself. Selfish, controlling and threatening behaviour is usually from insecurity and I bet is correlated directly with not getting any.

That's as ridiculous as the study that claimed homosexuality is because men need some "feminine" traits to not be selfish, murderous neanderthals, and sometimes they "get too much".

[boofhead]

Phrenology for the 21st century. Bring back eugenics.

[Phier]

It's not exactly shocking that people make judgements like this based on looks nor is it modern phrenology. There are people I know that I can tell by looking at them I won't like the guy. It doesn't matter if I'm projecting or if they really are unlikeable.

I'm using a tablet so I won't link, but things as simple as dress color make a differnce in how people treat you so why would faces be immune from that sort of bias?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

It's not exactly shocking that people make judgements like this based on looks nor is it modern phrenology. There are people I know that I can tell by looking at them I won't like the guy. It doesn't matter if I'm projecting or if they really are unlikeable.

I'm using a tablet so I won't link, but things as simple as dress color make a differnce in how people treat you so why would faces be immune from that sort of bias?

Well, faces are one tiny factor in their whole appearance. They may look like scum, really shy or whatever and you can judge them on that, but their face has very little impact on that image.

[Phier]

Well, faces are one tiny factor in their whole appearance. They may look like scum, really shy or whatever and you can judge them on that, but their face has very little impact on that image.

Really?

It's oddly the first thing I look at. I would argue the face is the major factor that initial impressions are made on. Usually dress is rather uniform and it also covers the rest of the body.

[boofhead]

Undoubtedly most of you are smarter and know more about this field than the scientists that study it.

You can say BS all day, but you ain't swaying me without details.

This makes people uncomfortable, so they do anything to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend it isn't true. Well science isn't about making us feel all warm and fuzzy.

It's a study that came up with a generalisation of little significance.

[Phier]

It's a study that came up with a generalisation of little significance.

Knowing your own biases that are built in is not insignificant.

[Slaytaninc]

Well, faces are one tiny factor in their whole appearance. They may look like scum, really shy or whatever and you can judge them on that, but their face has very little impact on that image.

I should note that it's not really a conscious judgement, and I'll admit by it's very nature it prioritizes the Face above other aspects.

I first came across this on Hooking Up Smart, which displayed this image and a quote, however there is also results from analysis of women's faces and how men perceive them.

Undoubtedly most of you are smarter and know more about this field than the scientists that study it.

You can say BS all day, but you ain't swaying me without details.

This makes people uncomfortable, so they do anything to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend it isn't true. Well science isn't about making us feel all warm and fuzzy.

[Nutsack]

I believe that a persons facial expression sais more about their personality and mental state than their actual face. Like, their bone structure and muscle placements. I believe how a child is raised has a stronger effect on the outcome than their genetics. But I agree with what some people said here earlier, DOM looks like the type of guy who is a complete idiot and won't listen to reason. He reminds me of a Scientologist that I saw on a documentary once, always shouting his own opinion and being completely closed to anyone elses. I shouldn't be bias though, they all look pretty stupid to me.

I try not to judge anyone before I have eyecontact. Eyecontact is extremely important for me to judge who I believe someone else is. And besides, dominant/submissive behavior changes daily, I sometimes feel completely dominant and other days I'll try to avoid confrontations and keep to myself. I think it mostly depends on the level of serotonin we have in our nervous system, which can often vary heavily from day to day.

At the end of the day, we should try to keep our judgements based on fact and not speculation. It's good to have a feel for other people and what they're going to be like, but you should only be certain about someone when you have their history for review. What I mean by that is judge someone by their actions and nothing else.

Although as I said before I have no doubt that the info posted in the original post might be true. I don't know, I'm no scientist but I'm not going to straight away deny that it isn't true, as far as I know I sometimes also feel like I know a person before I really do.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

That picture looks like transformation phases of Hulk. Even their skin colour changes.

[Menelik_I]

This research must be from someone who just watched the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Of course some faces are more of a turn on for women, in fact there is nothing abnormal about people trying to take a shortcut while making an apraisal of others, imagine if you had to make an in dept honest study everyone you met ? It would be like being in an internet forum with trolls et al.