March 13, 2013

Study: Less masculine men are more PC-whipped

From Vice:
Ironically, a Man's Face Can Tell You If He's Likely to Act Racist 
By Austin Considine 
What can we tell about a person from his or her face? Quite a bit, it seems. Psychological experiments since the turn of the millennium have indicated we do a good job judging people's sexual orientation, reproductive fitness, criminal proclivities, and even whether they're Mormon or not, all based on their faces.

A new study suggests there’s another trait we can add to the list: a man’s willingness to express racist beliefs. 
There’s an obvious irony to a study that says we can tell if a man will act bigoted based on the shape of his face. But the logic underpinning the study, conducted by researchers at the University of Delaware and soon to be published in the journal Psychological Science, is a circuitous and unexpected one, and makes a persuasive case. 
Turns out it’s all about the testosterone. 
Recent research indicates that men with high levels of testosterone have certain facial characteristics that set them apart from men with less testosterone. In particular, they have what researchers call a higher facial Width-to-Height Ratio (fWHR) which compares the distance between cheekbones to the distance between the upper lip and midbrow. Men with a higher ratio have faces that appear a bit wider horizontally and bit compressed vertically (see below). 
Studies suggest they also tend to behave more often in ways we commonly associate with testosterone—including (sorry, guys) a greater willingness to cheat, exploit other people, commit fouls on a hockey rink, and behave aggressively in general. 
The difference in fWHR commonly found between men and women seems to emerge during puberty, when most adolescent boys’ testosterone suddenly shoots through the roof. Their narrow, egg-shaped craniums get proportionally wider, a bit more block-shaped. ... 
Not all men’s faces change equally because not all men have the same levels of testosterone. And here’s the other thing past research suggests about men with high testosterone: They want to dominate. What’s more, we don’t want to stand in their way because, for starters, we probably find men with high fWHRs more physically imposing. 
As it’s written the study: 
… it may be more accurate to say that testosterone promotes the search for and maintenance of social dominance. Therefore, to the extent that a greater fWHR is associated with increased testosterone, fWHR may be a physical manifestation of dominance motives in males and may be best described as an inclination toward interpersonal social dominance and related behaviors. 
Among the ways men exercise dominant behavior is by breaking society’s rules. (“Neurological findings," the study notes, “have shown that high testosterone levels are associated with reduced activity in the orbitofrontal cortex, an area used in impulse control and inhibition.) And we, in turn, assume they’ll break them. Whether we know it or not, we know which men will break the rules because we know by the shapes of their faces which ones have more testosterone. 
In the world outside your local Tea Party Rally, of course, society says it’s bad to openly express racist opinions. So the Delaware researchers, led by psychology and brain science professor, Eric Hehman (now at Dartmouth), wondered if men with a higher fWHR might feel more comfortable expressing explicitly racist opinions because their high testosterone made them feel less socially inhibited. After gathering and testing 70 white males, researchers found that, relative to the others, they did. 
The researchers also wondered if observers looking at photographs of those same 70 men would more often assume the men with wider, shorter faces were more racist. They did. What’s more, their assessments fell right in line with what the 70 men had revealed about themselves: Those men whom the observers believed to be racist were also much more likely to have explicitly expressed racist views. ... 
In the course of several email exchanges, Hehman pointed out that he and his colleagues also tested the 70 men in the study on expressions of “implicit” racial prejudice, which he described as “an automatic association of other races with ‘bad things’”—a kind of unconscious response “that people are less able to control.” When it came to these implicit expressions of prejudice, they had no correlation with a person’s face shape. In that sense, we are bad judges. ... 

In other words, Dr. Hehman is measuring PC-whippedness. Within the security of one's own skull, there's no correlation between masculinity and noticing racial patterns, but the less masculine men tend to lack the courage to express their crimethink.
As Hehman emphasized, this is really a study about willingness to express racist views, not the views themselves. Still, there’s a deterministic quality to the research that, like earlier research linking face structure to criminality or Mormonism, suggests a certain inevitability—an idea many an anti-racist would fundamentally resist.

I suspect the reporter's views of how "many an anti-racist" would think are fundamentally out of date. They've moved well beyond attempts at principled consistency to a simpler paradigm of Good Guys v. Bad Guys.
Hehman doesn’t shy away from its implications: “Ultimately I think the [practical application of the study] is to help people learn when to trust their instincts regarding others’ personalities, and when and in which situations to doubt their instincts, as they are more likely to be incorrect in other situations,” he said.

Of course, in the interests of Science, we must observe the data point that is Dr. Hehman's own personal face:

141 comments:

Maxwell Power said...

Somehow this reminds of me the notorious encounter between WVIB-TV's Ed Drantch and Local Man

IHTG said...

So, going in line with your previous post, does that mean aristocrats are less likely to be racist?

Anonymous said...

Dead ringer for Kenneth the Page from 30 Rock.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XRrU8-3NmiY/S85oHU_w2kI/AAAAAAAABTQ/WdGDqMW6auk/s1600/Kenneth+Page.jpg

Anonymous said...

Vice guy's link to Tea Party racism was disappointing: just some obviously shop'd placards/bumper stickers, following a woman displaying a poster in reference to the White House "Lyin' African"--about which, if a fella has to pause 3-4 seconds to figure out the hatespeech, does it still qualify as incitement

Anonymous said...

"So, going in line with your previous post, does that mean aristocrats are less likely to be racist?"

Of course aristocrats were less likely to be racist. They've pretty much disappeared, didn't they?

racism recognition cameras said...

If you wore as much eyeliner as he does you wouldn't look so racist, Steve

Luther said...

So, going in line with your previous post, does that mean aristocrats are less likely to be racist?

The difference cited in the study was in the willingness to express (not have) what they deem racist thoughts.

Alfa158 said...

Just a second now. Surely that photo of Dr. Hehmann has been photoshopped. Nobody could possibly have a face that so perfectly matches the content of the article they write or what they purport to believe. In addition, no real man, even a gay guy, not in a movie costume would ever allow themselves to be caught wearing that shawl collar sweater.

Steve Sailer said...

Hehman's photo is from the Dartmouth website:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~freemanlab/people.htm

Perhaps it was hacked by members of Animal House?

Anonymous said...

There are variables to consider.
It could be dork-faced white men tend to be more studious and do better in school and are more successful. So, they do well in life and settle in a safe community. So, they don't have much contact with racial reality. For them, 'black threat' is at best an academic issue and, more often than not, a moral issue of 'black rage' due to a history of slavery and oppression. So, we have dork boys like Ken Burns making sympathetic documentaries. Also, even black dangerous-ness is something to romanticize about since it doesn't come close to home. For white guys who know the real-life danger posed by blacks, a movie like DJANGO UNCHAINED and hateful rap music is too close to home. But for privileged dork boys in their safe communities, black rage/violence is just a social issue or a fantasy, especially since so much black crime goes unreported or is attributed to 'youths'.

It could be thick-faced white guys tend to succeed less and tend to go into more manual labor. Thus, they make less money and come in closer proximity to dangerous blacks--and even some white trash thugs. So, they have fewer illusions about social violence rooted in racial differences. Thus, their views aren't so much 'racist' as 'race realist'. But that 'realist' part just doesn't register in the minds of dork boys in their safe environments. But if dork boys were to live in dangerous places and get whupped by crazy blacks, they might change their views. So, there could be other issues than mere face shape or size.

But even in areas with lots of black crime and thuggery, maybe white guys with thick faces tend to be more 'racist' than white guys with dork faces because the former are less willing to submit so readily to black dominance. A white dork boy will just wag his tail and accept the dominance of the Negro, whereas a white guy with a thick face will want to be either dominant or at least on equal terms with the negro. But in truth, even a tough white guy is no match for a tough negro when it comes to aggression and fighting. So reality is race-ist in the sense that races are indeed different. But this fact is something that the dork-boy writer of this article didn't take into consideration since he's such a PC-boy.

Derb's Mossberg said...

"In the world outside your local Tea Party Rally, of course, society says it’s bad to openly express racist opinions"

Of course, the truth is that the Tea Partiers are the ones who are race-neutral, and the liberals are the most race discriminatory, but why let facts get in the way of a good Narrative rant, right?

Nick Diaz said...

"In other words, Dr. Hehman is measuring PC-whippedness. Within the security of one's own skull, there's no correlation between masculinity and noticing racial patterns, but the less masculine men tend to lack the courage to express their crimethink."

This can't be it, because you love to note these racial diferences, and yet you are not exactly a titan of virility. The consensus of everyone who has met you in person is that you are pretty shy and introverted.

In you case, I think you noticing these patterns is the result of a combination of your autism with being behind the safety of your computer. I doubt very, very much that you would say the conmdescending things you do about México and Mexicans in the presence of a bunch of Mexican men from the "barrio".

And racists are usually not tough at all, but cowardly bullies. I have seen very racist white guys being reduced to whimpering little girls in the presence of enraged black men. They talk a big game, but when push comes to shove they are exposed for what they truly are: men who feel emasulated by men of other races.

Anonymous said...

"dork-boy writer of this article"

I meant the dorkboy REFERENCED in this article.

Anonymous said...

It's weird.
Liberals used to be for total freedom of speech, even for Stalinists and Maoists. And to protect the far left, liberals even pretended to protect the speech of the right. Now, they want 'hate speech' laws to silence the Right.

Liberals used to mock Nazi skull-measuring. Now, they are into skull-measuring to show who's fully human and who's subhuman when it comes to moral advancement.
It kills me.

Anonymous said...

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~freemanlab/people.htm

Wow, I can't tell the boys apart from the girls.

Anonymous said...

Hey, where did your picture go????

Anonymous said...

"I have seen very racist white guys being reduced to whimpering little girls in the presence of enraged black men."
Mr. Diaz, this sounds like some kind of rough trade fantasy. Are black racists also reduced to this state in the presence of men of other races?

anony-mouse said...

Wouldn't even measuring your own face indicate a lack of testosterone?

Anonymous said...


This 'refined aristocratic look' vs 'crude fathead low class' dichotomy is somewhat ironic. Seen historically, perhaps even paradoxical.

During the Dark Ages when the West was in chaos and disorder, the weaklings sought protection from the warriors. Warriors were big muscled men who went ARRRGGGH! and swung their axes and conquered lands, sacked enemy settlements, and humped captured womenfolk. Weaklings were afraid of such folks but also sought the protection of such warriors, for in a world of might vs might, you needed might to protect your ass. It's like in SEVEN SAMURAI. With bandit thugs rampaging about, you need tough samurai to save your butt.

And the noble class came from the warrior class, and indeed the noblity remained the warrior caste. So, noblemen were the children of fatheaded mean nasty virile tough warrior folks. But as long as the big strong nasty warriors were on your side and protected you--as long as you served them--, you were protected from outside enemies.

BUT and it's a big BUT, over time, peace was established on the land, and the noblemen fought less and got more into privilege, luxury, and fancy stuff. They were no longer humping women all over the place--like the Vikings in EATERS OF THE DEAD--and into chivalry and courtship and fine manners and elegance. They began to marry the Heathers than hump the Helgas. They hired gays to design them fancy stuff--the kind seen among Polish nobles in the beginning of IVAN THE TERRIBLE II. Also, since nobility was inherited, even weakling and fruity heirs became noblemen. Thus, even though the noble lineage began with fatheaded mean guys who wielded the ax, the noble caste eventually got fancier and fancier and fruitier as well. In some ways, the dork-boy children of noblemen might have done better than fathead children of noblemen because, in a world of peace and complex social structure, brains matter more than brawn. If in the past, the warrior caste charged into battle and did the fighting themselves, in later European history, most of the grunt fighting were done by footsoldiers--often recruited from peasantry--while upper noblemen were more into strategy. A good example would be guys like the effeminate Frederick the Great and the theorist Clausewitz.
Thus, over time, the warrior caste of nobles got fancier and finer while the lower orders of peasants and ordinary folks got rougher and tougher. Things got reversed. (It's like the fathead Hugo Chavez married a good looking women, and his children are gonna look finer than him.)

Anonymous said...

That said, I don't think the the type that control the universities and higher institutions today are noble-istic. Their kind have another origin: clergy, scholar, and merchant-bourgeois.
In all societies, there were some who were devoted to the Truth and ideas: brahmins, rabbis, priests, confucian literati. Jews long had the rabbinical tradition. Such people didn't do manual labor and didn't fight. They worked with ideas. Another group that used their brains a lot was the merchant/middlemen group, and it is that group that rose to prominence in the 19th century. The nobility was shunted aside not by the fathead masses but by the middlemen class, the bourgeoisie. And the new institutions were occupied by the neo-rabbinical and priestly class of secular intellectuals.

Noblemen were bound to lose out. Though they had fancy manners, they inherited their privileges, and so there wasn't much in the way of meritocracy. Middlemen folks rose based on talent and diligence. Over time, the aristocratic class and royalty filled up with dummies like Tsar Nicholas II, Kaiser Wilhelm dummy of WWI, and the likes of Prince Charles(who isn't even good at being a playboy!)

And the intellectual class also had to study for exams and win the battle of ideas. Both the middlemen class and intellectual class were super-competitive. During times of war, noblemen could lose lives, but during long peace, they had little to do but put on fancy manners and dance. And though peasants labored hard, they rarely had to use their brains. They were like work animals, like the horse in ANIMAL FARM.

Anonymous said...

I'm now looking at Steve's picture of himself, and trying to figure out whether his face counts as "wide" or "narrow".

This was a deeply silly post, Steve.

Anonymous said...

In the world outside your local Tea Party Rally, of course, society says it’s bad to openly express racist opinions.


That right there discredits this entire piece of nonsense. Projecting your own biases onto other people is not science. And that goes double for Steve's peculiar that Irish people look like some caricature from a 19th century cartoon.

Anonymous said...

"So, going in line with your previous post, does that mean aristocrats are less likely to be racist?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Richard_Nikolaus_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

TomV said...

Nick Dumbass:

In you case, I think you noticing these patterns is the result of a combination of your autism with being behind the safety of your computer. I doubt very, very much that you would say the conmdescending things you do about México and Mexicans in the presence of a bunch of Mexican men from the "barrio".

Read the post and article again, idiot. The point is there's no correlation between "noticing" things and "saying" them. You're proving Steve's point by bringing the threat of Mexicans' violence.

By the way, which stock market has the largest trading volume, again, smart guy?

Anonymous said...

the Delaware researchers, led by psychology and brain science professor, Eric Hehman (now at Dartmouth), wondered if men with a higher fWHR might feel more comfortable expressing explicitly racist opinions because their high testosterone made them feel less socially inhibited. After gathering and testing 70 white males, researchers found that, relative to the others, they did.


Science!

All right, kids, who can point out the flaws in this "study"?

God knows I'm not fan of Kanazawa, but even he would not come up with something this infantile.

Anonymous said...

I doubt very, very much that you would say the conmdescending things you do about México and Mexicans in the presence of a bunch of Mexican men from the "barrio".


Sounds like Nicky thinks that those Mexicans in the barrio settle their disagreements with their fists.

If anybody else said that about the boys in the barrio, Little Nicky would jump up and down and scream "racist!"

Anonymous said...

A logical extrapolation from this study would be that blacks are more likely than whites to express racist views, since it is well-documented that blacks have higher testosterone levels.

Anonymous said...

No he looks nothing like Jack MacBreyer at all. Is this like an asperberger thing where you can't tell what people look like? Do you guys confuse David with the thinker too or is it only in real life humans that your ability to recognize shapes and features malfunctions.

Anonymous said...

it is well-documented that blacks have higher testosterone levels.


In spite of this view being practically universal in HBD land, it has never been demonstrated that blacks have higher higher testosterone levels than other races.

DYork said...

Nick Diaz said...

I doubt very, very much that you would say the conmdescending things you do about México and Mexicans in the presence of a bunch of Mexican men from the "barrio".


At 6'4" Steve would literally have to talk down to these barrio retards because no doubt they wouldn't know what the hell Steve would be talking about.

Mexicans in general and barrio types in particular not known for intellectual ability. Hell, most can't or wont even read a book.

And racists are usually not tough at all, but cowardly bullies.

White Spanish racists are the ones who conquered Mexico and subjugated your Indian ancestors. Racists are generally a confrontational lot. I'm sure you've heard about things like war, imperialism, slavery, etc. Are you saying the men who did this tended to be non racist? or cowardly? timid liberal types?

I have seen very racist white guys being reduced to whimpering little girls in the presence of enraged black men.

And then you woke up.

Anonymous said...

All I have to say is that Vice is the last website I would expect Steve to link.

Anonymous said...

Among the ways men exercise dominant behavior is by breaking society’s rules.


There's a tiny kernel of a truth hidden in there, but it's expressed so badly you'd have a hard time digging it out. Pick-pockets are not really "exercising their dominance", are they, even though they are "breaking societies rules"?

DYork said...

Anonymous said...

No he looks nothing like Jack MacBreyer at all. Is this like an asperberger thing where you can't tell what people look like?


I'm picking up more of a young, cleaned up "London After Midnight" - Lon Chaney look.

A legendary film that is long lost, only stills remain.

SFG said...

I get FHW of 1.69 for Steve, based on his site picture. (Mine's about the same.) In the middle, albeit closer to the long-face. Derb's about 1.6, closer to the long-face still. So not all dissidents are squat-faced?

Harold said...

My quick and dirty calculation from Steve’s picture gives a fWHR of 1.79

Hunsdon said...

Personally, I like it when Steve goes off on tangents. I'm here for the ride, this time.

Anonymous said...

"I have seen very racist white guys being reduced to whimpering little girls in the presence of enraged black men."

Details please. What could have possibly made these black men soooo enraged? What made these white guys "very" racist? Were they wearing their I-Hate-You-If-You're-Not-Me T-shirts?

Anonymous said...

All this 'crude fathead' vs 'fine thinhead' got me thinking of one of my favorite books: Ken Kesey's SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION. Though considered a 'NorthWest Pacific' novel, it gets to the core of the soul-conflict in American society in the 20th century: between East and West, between mind and body, alpha and beta, right and left, and etc. To be sure, the issues are not clearly etched in political or ideological terms. But in the central conflict in the novel between older brother Hank Stamper and younger half-brother Leland Stamper--a conflict that simmers and finally rages on so many levels--, we can see something of the tensions and divisions that redefined, realigned, and reconfigured this country. Hank is no dummy. He's resourceful and smart in his own way, but he's tough and strong. He's an outdoors guy. He's a ya-gotta-do-what-ya-gotta-do kind of guy. His father, though in his 80s, is like that too. Leland is the son of the father's second wife. Leland moved East with his mother when he was a young boy and didn't get into the lumber business. But even as a child in the NW, he was weakling and nerdy type. For certain reasons, Leland is filled with resentment against Hank. He wants to get his revenge. But since is bigger and stronger--though Leland is taller--, Leland has to use his wits and patience.

Hank is so tough that he even beats up a giant Negro, the real kind and not some fairytale kind that loves little white mice in movies dorky white liberals love. The negro starts pounding on Hank, but Hank is so tough that he absorbs the blows and comes back and whups the negro like Jerry Quarry knocked out Ernie Shavers in the first round. It's pretty wild. Though Hank is no KKK-er, he and his father freely use the enword. He aint exactly the most sensitive fellow.
Leland has a difference kind of relation with a black guy. Leland was going to some Ivy league school before he left for the NW to get his revenge on Hank. He writes long letters to a black friend named Peter who is also an intellectual.
So, Hank the tough white guy fights with a tough Negro, and Leland the sensitive white intellectual writes letters to a black intellectual.
The difference between Hank and Lee is kinda like what Eddie Murphy says of Michael Jackson and Teddy Pendergrass.

Anonymous said...

The conflict in SOMETIMES is interesting because, in a way, Kesey embodied both sides of manhood. He was a big tough guy. He was college wrestling champion and even tried out for the Olympic team--and came pretty close. He was steeped in NW lumberman lore. But he was also a bookworm and intellectual. There was some of this in Peckinpah too. A man who grew up with manly myths of the West but was also an excessively sensitive--even insecure--type who loved books and majored in drama of all things in college. (The Russian film BURNT BY THE SUN has a similar conflict as the one in SOMETIMES. The movie version of SOMETIMES is terrific but much gentler in tone and only a cliffnote in terms of plot development.)

It seems this conflict was especially charged in the 50s and 60s because of the changing nature of America itself. Prior to the boomer generation, most Americans grew up fast. Even if naturally sensitive, they had to 'put away childish things' and enter the world of adults. They got some school-learning and then they went to work, got married, and did mature stuff. Men were expected to be MEN, and women were expected to be women.

But in the post-war order, many more young people were able to go to college and try to 'discover' themselves. This generation was caught between the culture of toughness/manhood and culture of sensitivity/conscience. It's there in HUD. Hud is like Hank Stamper in some way, and the boy, who idolizes Hud, finally comes to see him as no good. Yet, we can't deny Hud's manly appeal. Larry McMurty, who wrote HUD and LAST PICTURE SHOW and LONESOME DOVE, offered a new kind of western sensibility. Even as he eulogized the loss of the Old West--as embodied by the Ben Jonson character in LAST PICTURE SHOW--, he was critical of the tough guy macho myths. One reason I never got around to watching LONESOME DOVE is it sounds a bit goo-goo for me.
I mean who wants to see a Western with 'dove' in it?

Anonymous said...

McMurty was born in 36, Kesey in 35. Kesey had the tougher vision, but both were riffing on similar themes. This conflict between hard man of body and soft man of mind was nothing new but especially charged in the postwar climate of new prosperity when far greater number of men could put off the future and be more sensitive in 'discovering' themselves.
But it was already there in RED RIVER, pitting big brawny mean John Wayne vs the pretty boy gay Monty Clift. It was also there in the SEARCHERS with Wayne as Ethan and the sensitive young Marty. And it was there, again with Wayne opposite the sensitive intellectual played by Stewart in MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. The problem got even more charged due to race issues. Traditional white manhood became associated with 'racism', and so the new generation of sensitive young white males became wary of the idea of white manhood in general. (Yet, ironically, they became infatuated with black manhood that was even more macho and more out of control than white manhood. Black manhood found moral justification in 'black rage against injustice', though it's got so out of control that Jews are using gay injection to bring it under control.)

In a way, the class situation was more interesting back then than is now. Many men who went to college in the 40s, 50s, and 60s were the first in their family to go. Many middle class white kids back then were raised by parents with working class or even farming class(like in GRAPES OF WRATH)backgrounds. Thus, they were moving from one mode of life to another. Not just economically but culturally, emotionally, intellectually, ethically, and etc. And this was an interesting time for Jews too. Many Jews in college had parents who'd been lowly clerks, small businessmen, or even factory workers; and their grandparents may have been dirt poor peddlers. So, there was something rough-edged about guys like Norman Mailer and Mike Royko. They came to work in elite journalism but they had contact with and roots in rough reality. Royko grew up tough and around 'bigots' who spoke freely about the negroes. But he also got some book-learning and had journalistic ambitions and wanted to rise above the old prejudices. He was a contemporary of Peckinpah, and they questioned some of the cultural assumptions of the worlds from which they'd sprung--even as they were emotionally and habit-wise steeped in those worlds. They were more self-critical of certitudes than their parents and older generation.
This is why, in a way, John Ford films are 'meaner' than Peckinpah's. Peck's films had more violence but Peck was grappling with the meaning of violence. He didn't just take violence for granted as manly stuff. In contrast, the violence in Ford films is far more casual and it is accepted far more complacently. In all those barroom brawls, bashing one other is simply presented as what real men do. There's an easy acceptance of violence as a manly thing that one doesn't find in Peckinpah's films. The very nastiness of violence is a sign of Peckinpah's problems with violence. But when Wayne trade hammer blows with the big Irish lug in QUIET MAN, it's done as 'what real men do'. For this reason, it's somewhat harder to take in some ways.

Steve Sailer said...

I think 19th Century literature is full of this kind of thing where the author sees himself as more refined and delicate than his father who made or kept the fortune that allows the son to be a novelist.

Anonymous said...

Kesey was born in a rough world but educated in the fine world. So were many of his peers. In a way, maybe the 60s generation was so rebellious and violent because it had rough roots, and their energies were channeled into 'radical' politics and counterculture. In contrast, generations that followed were born into nicer worlds, and so, they'd rather just be teachers' pets.
50s/60s generation of middle class generally didn't have parents who were born middle class. Very likely, the parents had risen from working or poor class to middle class in the postwar period.
The conflict was there between siblings too, and Buchanan mentions this in RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING where he says his older brothers were often at loggerheads with the younger ones. You see it in the dinner scene in BORN ON THE 4TH OF JULY.

In the post-war era, the vast middle class was coming into being. Most newly middle class folks didn't have a middle class background but a rougher background in rural outbacks or in urban tenements.
Since then, entire generations have known only middle class-ness. Today's college kids are born middle class to middle class parents to parents who themselves were born middle class. So, they are more 'sensitive' and middle class niceness is all they know and anything outside that--at least if it's white--is 'racist', 'reactionary', or 'fascist'. Thus, they tend to be much more conformist in their thinking. The only past they know is middle-class-ness and the only reality they know is middle class or upper middle class life with all its amenities and guarantees. Also, pop culture has become so youth-oriented, non-intellectual, and anti-historical that many young people know or care nothing of the past.

But in the 60s and early 70s, a whole bunch of films dealt with the tension/conflict between male toughness vs male sensitivity. Think of STRAW DOGS where a sensitive American intellectual is forced to be a Man. Or DELIVERANCE where the sensitive Jon Voight and Ronnie Cox are challenged by the tough Burt Reynolds character(who is, ironically, also the intellectual-philosopher, of the film, but then James Dickey was both a tough wild man and a poet intellectual, rather like Kesey).
The theme can be found in the father/son thing in GREAT SANTINI too. Also in WHO'LL STOP THE RAIN. And of course, Malick, who came of age in the 60s, made an entire film TREE OF LIFE on the conflict between male toughness and male sensitivity(drawn to feminine ideal of 'grace'). A kind of reversal is there in FIVE EASY PIECE where the Jack Nicholson character first appears as a tough working class type but turns out to be classically trained pianist from a good family.
It's the difference between Uther and Arthur in EXCALIBUR. Tough barbarian king and sensitive idealistic leader. Both succeed and fail in their unique ways.

Chicago said...

So this ultra-gay looking dude Haha-man likes to study 'masculine' men, eh? Hmmm, ok, we get the picture.

Anonymous said...

Of course, immediately after reading this I pulled up a photo of myself to figure out my ratio.

I then saw Sailer's photo on the sidebar and figured his.

I'm slightly more racist than Sailer.

Anonymous said...

"I think 19th Century literature is full of this kind of thing where the author sees himself as more refined and delicate than his father who made or kept the fortune that allows the son to be a novelist."

This is surely right. I guess Kesey was partly channeling Melville's BILLY BUDD and MOBY DICK, though to be sure, I only know them by their movie versions.

sunbeam said...

Anonymous said:

"A logical extrapolation from this study would be that blacks are more likely than whites to express racist views, since it is well-documented that blacks have higher testosterone levels."

They are quite racist. It's just never commented on for the most part by the media, or written about in print, or covered by television programs or movies.

I don't understand the consternation over this article. Doesn't it dovetail perfectly with the whole idea of HBD? Higher Testosterone -> Different expression of physical features, with a corresponding difference in behavior.

It's be kind of interesting to find some subset of blacks that have low testosterone for one reason or another and see if behavior differs.

You could open the police blotter, find violent white people, and do similar tests.

I think it might explain a lot about athletes, particularly professional ones. Since I personally have come to believe that absolutely all of them are on steroids now, it would be instructive to study ones that actually take testosterone and testosterone like substances.

Come on. How can you believe any of the arguments used in HBD, and not expect to find things like this?

That said, it might be too simple. It certainly seems reasonable to me, but this is the sort of thing that needs to be studied thoroughly and rigorously. It may not be true, but it would certainly make sense.

Of course some old geezer in a bar somewhere has some folk wisdom on the subject that has been dismissed as superstition until some guy in an academic department decides to notice it.

Part of the problem people may have with this, is that they are looking for the "Ghost in the Machine," as it were. Personally I think people are machines. Complicated, poorly understood ones, but machines.

Tweak some variable like testosterone and you just might kick Mr. Dork into another mode of existence, if you do it at the right time in life. If you threw anything resembling ethics out the window, it would be darned interesting to see what you could do with some kids and hormones.

Anonymous said...

Nicky:"This can't be it, because you love to note these racial diferences, and yet you are not exactly a titan of virility. The consensus of everyone who has met you in person is that you are pretty shy and introverted.

In you case, I think you noticing these patterns is the result of a combination of your autism with being behind the safety of your computer. I doubt very, very much that you would say the conmdescending things you do about México and Mexicans in the presence of a bunch of Mexican men from the "barrio".

And racists are usually not tough at all, but cowardly bullies. I have seen very racist white guys being reduced to whimpering little girls in the presence of enraged black men. They talk a big game, but when push comes to shove they are exposed for what they truly are: men who feel emasulated by men of other races."

Nicky, darling, so good to have you back, just when I needed a good laugh. Oh, spelling emasculated "emasulated" was the crowning touch.

Anonymous said...

"I have seen very racist white guys being reduced to whimpering little girls in the presence of enraged black men."

I'm sure many heretics fell silent at the sight of the holy inquisition too. Should we take this as evidence that the holy inquisition was good and the heretics were bad?

Anonymous said...

Really the quintessential father knows worst book is Gosse's Father and Son. Was Gosse's father a robber baron? Nope, just a world reknown marine biologist and naturalist. Except he believed in Biblical creation so Father had to get taken down a peg.


At the end of one of Scassia's novels maybe Equal Danger the detective knowing he can't convict the gangster who ordered the killing confronts him with the only real damage he can inflict on the mobster. He tells them that the mobster's daughters will despise him for his loucheness and shadiness.

Anonymous said...

Next Prof. Pussy Whipped can tell us whether long faced men are more passive aggressive.

Anonymous said...

So we're to judge the content of a man's character by his phenotype?

Interesting.

Marc B said...

"A new study suggests there’s another trait we can add to the list: a man’s willingness to express racist beliefs."

It's very interesting that they make the point of distinguishing between the expression racist beliefs as opposed to making bigoted comments or using slurs. I'd like to see what constitutes a racist belief and if they have a scale to measure which one's are more or less racist. They seem completely oblivious to the fact that they have deputized themselves as the thought police.

What they are really saying is that guys with balls don't mince words to curry favor with others. They will risk being a social pariah because it's more important to speak and think like a free man than it is to pretend and act like a subject. But a man like that also usually has a surplus charm, charisma and confidence, so he can get away with saying things others may get socially penalized for.

Anonymous said...

In other words in the presence of masculine black dudes, masculine white guys shouldn't project back masculinity but submissiveness, like the author of the study. Which is fine if you are gay I guess, but self-defeating around the estrogen rich females of the species who actually like masculinity in males ( Imagine that!!! ). White guys should voluntarily emasculate themselves and cede the mating game because they are the root of all evil. Ironic that the thing white weenies hate in members of their own group is what they admire in other groups. They condemn violence in whites but excuse it in blacks, by claiming it is caused by whites, but if black guys have the masculine markers in their face that their white counterparts have doesn't it imply per this study that it is innate? And therefore if a larger percentage of the blacks have the characteristics of racism that they are racist as well, only more so? CRIMETHINK!!!!!

This is why lefties always run away in terror from sociobiological arguments, they always lead to unpalatable ideas when taken to their logical conclusions. So the best thing to do is to promote the blank slate and deny, deny, deny anything biological in human nature.

mediakrig said...

It is childish to believe that there is only one kind fear.

Different people fear different stuff.

According to research, more Norwegians are afraid of giving a public presentation than they are of death. Negroes seems to fear solitude, but does not seem afraid to talk in front of others.

I bet we all know somebody that is tough, but are scared of the doctor.

Going back to the previous post about Becham, perhaps social fear gives rise to better warriors, as they are more afraid of failing their brothers in arms, than death?

Not being too afraid of death, was kind of obligatory for a fisherman as well, as it was normal for a quarter of the coastal males to die at sea in Norway for centuries, and I doubt the odds were much better before the written records, or in other nations like on the British isles.

David said...

Steve is just the messenger. He didn't do this dumb study (70 subjects?).

There is something Nazi about judging people's moral character based on their skull shape, as a commenter noted above.

"The morally pure people have longer skulls...." Where have we heard this before? I'm sorry to say that Dr. Hehman's face bears a close resemblance to that of Dr. Goebbels. If you think I'm sh*tting you, take a look.

Btw, I chuckled over this bit of typically dry Sailereque humor: "own personal face."

Anonymous said...

How about phenose-types?

I'll bet those with more protruding noses are likely to cook up BS as science.

I'll bet those with wider/flatter noses are likely to be more aggressive and criminal.

Anonymous said...

What about the KRAMDEN-NORTON THEOREM?

Kramden is the fat-faced aggressive male who likes to throw his weight around.
Norton is the thin-faced sensitive male who's mindful about things.

They belong to the same social milieu since they both gotta wake up early everyday to do manual work.
But it seems Norton is naturally predisposed to finer things. He even dresses up as a French aristocrat for the Halloween party.
But he's stuck in a world of bowling and working class manners.

But if they both had kids and if the kids could grow up to pursue their own dreams in accordance to their true natures, Kramden Jr. might turn out like his old man whereas Norton Jr. might finish college and become a professor, albeit an absentminded one.

Chief Seattle said...

I remember a lot of kids from Math League that looked like Dr Hehman. I couldn't put it into words back then, but it was a distinct sort of uglyness. I guess it could be called nerdy, but it wasn't Hollywood nerdy like a decent looking kid wearing a pair of glasses with bad frames. It was just plain wierd looking. Definitely the worst part of math league was the other kids.

Anonymous said...

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/03/13/you-must-be-this-rich-to-live-in-nyc/

Anonymous said...

Shiite!!! I just found the most racist dude in the world. Just check out the width of his face.

Second most racist dude.

But in the universe, no one beats this dude in the racism department. His face is wider than Mao's.



Anonymous said...


Rich Blue State motto:

"Give me your creative, your rich,
your chattering classes who can afford high fees, the lavish privileged, for our sunny shore.
And we'll
send you the homeless, the illegal, the unskilled, and none-too-bright. I lift the gate of the golden state!"

Anonymous said...

Marc B,

"Racist beliefs" as defined in these sorts of studies are typically just realistic views on race. Believing that blacks are more likely to be violent criminals than whites is an example. Of course, this "racist belief" happens to be a statistical fact, one that most people, of every race, are aware of either by having looked at the data or simply through watching their local newscast every night and noticing that the murderers/thieves/rapists are disproportionately black. But even allowing oneself to recognize this fact is a racist thought-crime.

On a related note, this reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:

"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved..."

- Jesse Jackson, race hustler extraordinaire and, by the standards of the Left, apparently a horrible racist

Anonymous said...

I always imagined "It's Haych-Bee-Dee, dear, not racism" sounds more authentic with a posh accent and passive aggressive manner spoken by an ectomorph anglo.

OSS said...

Wait, I thought phrenology was proven to be racist pseudoscience decades ago.

Anonymous said...

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj290/TheWoodenBlock/coolstorybro-2.jpg

Cool story bro dude may be racist, but unlike most (of us) other fatheads he would never acknowledge it.

Diversity is strength? "Cool story, bro!"

European colonisation due to guns, germs and steel? "Cool story, bro!"

I'm not racist, and even some of my best friends are black (hi there Uncle Truth!), I just moved to an expensive suburb because of the quality of the schools. "Cool story, bro!"

Dr Van Nostrand said...


"I have seen very racist white guys being reduced to whimpering little girls in the presence of enraged black men."

So you have pulled the big black man vs wimpy white bigot card. Ok lets play it. I am neither white nor black but of Indian(dot not feathers) origin so I suppose that would put be in a notch below whites when it comes to stereotypes of physical self assertion.

In my personal experience, I have noticed about blacks and Arabs in particular what Winston Churchill said about Germans -they either at your throat or at your feet.

I have quite a few Russian friends who studied in America, one of them resided in East St Louis and informed me he wasnt the least bit intimidated by blacks as they were mostly all bluster.

I had similar experiences with individual blacks who I had altercations with and stood up to on more than one occasion whether cutting inline, road rage or what have you.It never came to physical blows but I stood my ground ,stuck to my position and he backed down.

Ditto with Arabs,they are all full of hot air. The trouble is they actually start believing their own hype (witness the Saddam and Assad regimes) and end up dragging others into their backyard because they cant afford to lose face!

Mexicans and Puerto Ricans are genuinely tough though but better organized groups can clobber them.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

Currently on isteves blog when you scroll to Dr Lehmans face, you can see an instructive contrast to Steve Sailer own face just to the right.

QED!

The guy seriously reminds me of some feminist author(Kay Hymowitz?)

Anonymous said...

I feel sorry for Hehman. He didn't make his face, blame Nature for that.

David M. said...

"Hehman doesn’t shy away from its implications: “Ultimately I think the [practical application of the study] is to help people learn when to trust their instincts regarding others’ personalities, and when and in which situations to doubt their instincts, as they are more likely to be incorrect in other situations,” he said."

Hmmm, I wonder if Hehman has applied this logic to any other physical features, such as..

Never mind, I think we already know the answer to that question.

Derb's Mossberg said...

This guy's face looks a bit wider than usual:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg

Its pretty common among Africans and African Americans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harriet_Tubman_cropped.jpg

For that matter, Asians have wider faces in comparison to their length. Probably even more so than blacks.

Also brain scans have found that Asians were the most racist and whites the least racist group at a suboconscious level, so all of these things agree.

Danger! Danger! Too much reality!

Never worry, white men are the racists, end of story, because we say so.

Phillip KD said...

"They talk a big game, but when push comes to shove they are exposed for what they truly are: men who feel emasulated by men of other races."


That's why quiet little head-down Latinos who agree with whatever you say is the rule, and not the exception, I guess. The neighborhood I currently live in is probably 3/4ths Hispanic, so I get a pretty clear picture every day. Not to mention walking around the city here, which is probably 1/2 Hispanic.

Anonymous said...

"And racists are usually not tough at all, but cowardly bullies. I have seen very racist white guys being reduced to whimpering little girls in the presence of enraged black men. They talk a big game, but when push comes to shove they are exposed for what they truly are: men who feel emasulated by men of other races."

No matter how tough you are, if you face tougher enemy, you're gonna go wee-wee in your pants.

Michael Spinks was a tough guy but when he walked into the ring with Tyson, he was scared shitless, and you can tell. Or Lesnar after loss to Cain Velasquez.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN9bpOV9beQ



In a way, this study is obvious. Those with bigger muscles, more aggressive temperament, and fewer inhibitions will speak more 'rashly' and 'openly'. I mean we know that. Ali had a big mouth. So did Ralph Kramden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYNDVaPrTMs

Drunk Idiot said...

Dr. Hehman (He Man?), looks more than a little bit like Johnny Deep's Willy Wonka.

BTW, have been waiting for iSteve, Heartiste or somebody on the alt right to skewer this study since it started getting attention 2 weeks ago or so.

Science turns on a study of 70 college aged men?

The comments on the lefty site where I first encountered this story (can't remember if it was Salon, Slate, PuffHo or somewhere else) were laughably, but also depressingly, predictable. Lots of denigration of testosterone and masculine traits as being markers for the stupid & "right wing," and lots of talk about femininity being associated with smarter, enlightened, more progressive and more evolved people (including smarter, more feminine males).

Anonymous said...

Hehman sure aint no he-man and seems to be 'racist' against white he-men for the same reason white he-men are 'racist' against tougher black he-men.

Mebbe Jews and liberal dorks fear bigger angrier whites the way the latter fear blacks.

All said and done, mebbe Hehman secretly wishes to be a he-man himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jfvHBFRk9Q

Anonymous said...

"Dead ringer for Kenneth the Page from 30 Rock."

More like a cross of Ken Burns(who makes my skin crawl) and Carl Sagan.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEp7yunwVF8

Hehman in a movie.

Anonymous said...

Steve, you earn my respect due to your obvious attention to my comment in your last post. In which, I said below....


Anonymous said...



Upper class people behave with best self control or almost lack of anger outbreak. English people lack of aggressive outbreak in comarison to Irish. Low testoterone might explain it for the physical feature and personality.

3/13/13, 8:26 AM

----------------------------------

This set you apart from a lot of your followers who never care for the truth due to their political agenda or studipity. The reason I follow your blog is because you respect truth, not opinion or emotional judgment based on personal value. As science guys, we only care for the truth.

Carry on good work.

Londoner said...

Clearly "white males" (not "white men" - we're just zoological specimens now) are the only people to whom the skull calipers need to be applied in order to ascertain the hideous crimethink churning within. No other specimens merit any examination whatsoever.

I'm sure we can all think of some of the commoner facial features that we see in the mugshots displayed on the wikipedia pages for e.g. Tom ap Rhys Price, Ben Kinsella, etc.

I suspect that this story is not unconnected to the wonderful facial recognition technology that is currently burgeoning at MacGoogle and MacFacebook.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJT2vJMsYc4

'Racist' whitey says a mouthful to Dr. Hehman.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNuyDZevKrU

How do boob size correlate with open racial hostility?

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5lqUMPB3oY

Anonymous said...

A the moment, you can make a side to side comparison of Steve's and Eric Hehman's face. It's obvious that Eric has to pay for it whereas Steve looks like he gets it for free.

Anonymous said...

"I had similar experiences with individual blacks who I had altercations with and stood up to on more than one occasion whether cutting inline, road rage or what have you.It never came to physical blows but I stood my ground ,stuck to my position and he backed down."

That doesn't mean he was afraid of you. It means he was either rather amused or afraid of going to jail.
Like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLYYJOOV_dU

Anonymous said...

http://www.amren.com/news/2013/03/breaking-inspector-general-report-on-racialist-dysfunction-inside-doj/

What Jews did to White America by using Obama.

Anonymous said...

If you go to that Dartmouth website ( http://www.dartmouth.edu/~freemanlab/people.htm ) and scroll over the photo of Hehman, you'll see that he looks much different when he's in the dessert in a black t-shirt. His profile says he "frequently wishes he had a dog". I suspect he frequently wishes he could be an Alpha-male but knows that would put a crimp in his academic career.

Mr. Anon said...

"Nick Diaz said...

In you case, I think you noticing these patterns is the result of a combination of your autism with being behind the safety of your computer. I doubt very, very much that you would say the conmdescending (sic) things you do about México and Mexicans in the presence of a bunch of Mexican men from the "barrio"."

And just what aspects of Mexico that Steve has discussed offend you so - not the thing itself, that is, but rather the mentioning of it? The Narco-Gangs? The Beheadings? The San Muerte cult of death? The drunk-driving? The illiteracy?

"And racists are usually not tough at all, but cowardly bullies. I have seen very racist white guys being reduced to whimpering little girls in the presence of enraged black men. They talk a big game, but when push comes to shove they are exposed for what they truly are: men who feel emasulated by men of other races."

Says a man venting steam on a blog.

Fuck off, dipshit.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/mar/21/what-makes-dogs-dogs/?pagination=false

Are dogs very diverse because they have an innately flexible DNA or because they've been bred that way?

Suppose we breed humans like dogs.
Squat people with squat people, tallies with tallies, dorky with dorky, etc.
We might end up with divergences as wide as among dogs. Suppose we mate 7 footers with 7 footers. Tiny midgets with tiny midgets.
In terms of 'personality' or emotional temperament/expression, humans are prolly the most diverse, from Ken Burnsy dorks to vile Mike Tysons.

Anonymous said...

"I have seen very racist white guys being reduced to whimpering little girls in the presence of enraged black men."

Toughness is relative, not absolute. Loudest and fiercest dog cowers before the wolf.

Truth said...

"Blogger TomV said...

Nick Dumbass:"

Come on, Tommie, you and Nick are both minorities, you're supposed to present a united front here.

Reg Cæsar said...

So this ultra-gay looking dude Haha-man likes to study 'masculine' men, eh? Hmmm, ok, we get the picture. --Chicago (my kind of clown)

Reminds me of the scene in the lesbian classic Triumph of the Will. A couple of swarthy officers drool over a flaxen-haired recruit, eying him up and down. (How many times did Tom of Finland watch this?)

In Churchill's Britain, blond boy would be giving them the orders.

Anonymous said...

Sexual differences are only 'social constructs' but homosexuality is BIOLOGICAL.

Personality and intelligence are determined by environment, but some are born liberal, smart, and confident while others are born conservative, dumb, and fearful.

Skull-measuring is evil because it's 'racist' but face-measuring is good because it's anti-'racist'.

Apartheid was evil but Ziopartheid is justified.
Speaking truth to white privilege is heroic but speaking truth to Jewish privilege is 'hateful'.

Anonymous said...

Mark Potok and Tim Wise appear to have relatively high fWHRs.

rec2man said...

Who is more Racist "Mr. Brain" Jay Leno or "Iron Jay" Jay Leno?

Svigor said...

So you have pulled the big black man vs wimpy white bigot card. Ok lets play it.

He's just the resident Jewish guy with hangups about blacks and Anglo-Saxons. You can give him a good whipping, but he'd probably just enjoy it.

Svigor said...

There are variables to consider.

Bla bla bla. WNs are more successful than the mean. Might want to plug that variable into your equation, Poindexter.

Svigor said...

"In other words, Dr. Hehman is measuring PC-whippedness. Within the security of one's own skull, there's no correlation between masculinity and noticing racial patterns, but the less masculine men tend to lack the courage to express their crimethink."

This can't be it, because you love to note these racial diferences, and yet you are not exactly a titan of virility. The consensus of everyone who has met you in person is that you are pretty shy and introverted.


Now the consensus of everyone who's read you and matters is that you're pretty innumerate.

Svigor said...

And racists are usually not tough at all, but cowardly bullies.

And who said media indoctrination doesn't work? Fascist=synonym for bully. Ask anyone, that's now the technical definition of fascist, lol. Racist=synonym for bully. Ask anyone, they watch enough TV to know the right answer.

Gotta watch libtards for their ad homs, they really do depend on them entirely.

Nothing says manliness like conformity, and nothing says conformity like "anti-racism." Guys, give staunch anti-racism a go, the ladies will love you for your roguish conformity.

Svigor said...

In you case, I think you noticing these patterns is the result of a combination of your autism with being behind the safety of your computer. I doubt very, very much that you would say the conmdescending things you do about México and Mexicans in the presence of a bunch of Mexican men from the "barrio".

Wow, angry Spaniard fop with mestizo stand-ins, much? Few years back I did lawn maintenance with a gaggle of mestizos. A bunch of short, quiet, relatively diligent pussycats with big funnybones.

Maybe they weren't from the "barrio."

BB said...

Of course, in the interests of Science, we must observe the data point that is Dr. Hehman's own personal face

My gaydar just went wild! If Dr Hehman would only prove me wrong, I´d adjust the thingie accordingly.

Svigor said...

Noblemen were bound to lose out. Though they had fancy manners, they inherited their privileges, and so there wasn't much in the way of meritocracy. Middlemen folks rose based on talent and diligence. Over time, the aristocratic class and royalty filled up with dummies like Tsar Nicholas II, Kaiser Wilhelm dummy of WWI, and the likes of Prince Charles(who isn't even good at being a playboy!)

Nah, they did fine if they transitioned to commerce. It's not like there's any more of a meritocracy among the greedy than among the warlike. They both have to deal with nepotism's curse.

Dutch Boy said...

Damn! I knew that wide face of mine would give me away eventually.

Svigor said...

I'm sure many heretics fell silent at the sight of the holy inquisition too. Should we take this as evidence that the holy inquisition was good and the heretics were bad?

Or, more to the point, that guys with narrow faces didn't shut up faster?

Ironic that the thing white weenies hate in members of their own group is what they admire in other groups.

Not ironic; self-serving; the urge to disparage their competition.

Hail said...

From the comment-thread at Vice.com:

"So...Let me get this straight.....If we discriminate scientifically, then it's not a generalization, and therefore not bigoted? okay, got it......"

heartiste said...

"Dr." Hehman - watery-eyed house eunuch. For good reason, I picture Cartman offending him with realtalk and then licking his tears as they streak across his downy cheeks, while taunting "I taste your tears of unfathomable sadness.... mmm, so good."

Svigor said...

Surely Nick Diaz knows that white men are more racist than non-white men. And more warlike, right? Sure, everybody knows that. So what's the problem with putting the two together? Don't warlike, racist white men as the bad guy seem a lot like Nick Diaz' Narrative? What, the racists were all cowering under the bed while the brave anti-racist white dudes were conquering and enslaving the new world?

Hail said...

"For thousands of years white men have used racism as a tool to control and dominate"
--A Vice.com commenter on this article parroting the "John 3:16" of Multiculturalism.

Another commenter mocking the same:
"Why were only White males tested? If we are going to try to correlate facial features with behavior, why not test Black and Hispanic males as well? Are there any facial features of Black males that correlate with a propensity to commit racist acts? Oops, I forgot. Only Whites can be racist."

hardly said...

My FWH ratio is 2.06. Ive never been so proud in my life.

Anonymous said...

"I have quite a few Russian friends who studied in America, one of them resided in East St Louis and informed me he wasnt the least bit intimidated by blacks as they were mostly all bluster."

A lot of blacks are full of bluster, but the reality is a lot more complicated.

Many white folks have this image of Negroes acting mean and nasty all the time, talking like Mr. T. and all that shit.
In reality, it's not so simple.
Blacks, more than whites, grow up in places where there's a good deal of violence and thuggery. So, blacks learn from a young age when to fight, when to take flight, when to bark, when to shut up, when to act tough, when to act nice.

I remember there was a muscular black kid in class in my 5th grade. His name was Darryl and he loved to flex his muscles and talk tough. But when he was around Halva, the tougher black kid, Darryl was gentle as a lamb.
Blacks have few illusions about power. They know if they make the wrong move at the wrong time in the wrong place, they can get in SERIOUS trouble.
Generally, blacks feel superior to whites when it comes to badassness, so whites are more likely to see the thug side of blacks. But most blacks aint gonna be talking shit around guys like George Foreman at his prime(or even now).

Black bluster usually comes into play when the power situation is uncertain and being gauged among blacks who don't know one another. It's like two strange dogs barking like crazy at one another to out-bluster the other. But once one is established as the top dog, the other dog will whimper and hide its tail.
Same with blacks. Among blacks whose power hierarchy has been settled, the lower blacks don't act tough with the upper blacks.
But when new blacks meet and they don't know who's tougher, there's a lot of bluster going on. And it's partly an act because both guys are unsure of who might win in a fight, so they try to out-psyche the other guy.

Black bluster against whites can be tricky. While, on average, blacks are tougher than whites, not all blacks are tough and some whites are very tough. There was a half-white/half-Indian kid in 6th grade who whupped a bunch of blacks, and once blacks got whupped, they respected him.
Because there's the general impression that 'blacks can kick white boy's ass', some blacks-who-aint-so-tough think they can intimidate any white guy. We saw what happens when such blacks meet someone like Epic Beard Man.

Much of the bluster is by lesser blacks against whites. The upper blacks know they don't have to say much to show that they rule the hood. But the lesser blacks often vie amongst one another for the crumbs of lesser manhood hierarchy. Also, lesser blacks are somewhat anxious about whites. They know that, generally speaking, blacks can whup whites, but as lesser blacks, they aren't sure if they themselves can just whup any white. So, they are into a lot of bluster to intimidate whitey into thinking, 'since he is black, he too must be as tough as Mr. T or Mike Tyson and kick my white butt.'

Foolish negro full of bluster as defensive mechanism.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9GBuciv20A

The thing about black bluster is it isn't only aggressive but sort of humorous and jiving. So, it has like a dual purpose. To intimidate the other side but also to ease the tension with funniness so that both sides might just laugh it off than come to blows.

It's like 8:00 in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9GBuciv20A

Anonymous said...

If two lunkheaded Russians got in eachother's face or two rigid-emotioned Japanese locked horns, they might be more likely to fight than two negroes who be talking shit. As likely as not, the negroes might just walk away laughing and treat it like a joke. But to play this game right, you have to have a jazzy sense of the situation. You gotta be more improvisational.

Anonymous said...

"In other words in the presence of masculine black dudes, masculine white guys shouldn't project back masculinity but submissiveness, like the author of the study."

Being cool and calm and gauging the situation is not the same as being submissive. It's just being smart.
Even 007 knows when to be tough, when to be calm and smooth.
And Blondie knows when he better do as Tuco orders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPH0DGvU9Ng

Anonymous said...

Wide face and thin face.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgcQaCnOEj4

pat said...

So what do we call that? A punchphoto?

Brilliant!

These kind of articles about men and testosterone always strike me as examples of backwards thinking. Masculine men are a reality. That means that since humans split from our Most Recent Common Ancestor seven million years ago there have been good solid Darwinian fitness reasons for masculine men to prosper. If today it is unfashionable to be manly according to some ideology, I would argue that just disproves the correctness of that ideology.

I used to have a brother-in-law who was a warrior. He was a major in the Air Force. He was a very sweet and decent guy. Soft spoken and civilized. But I wouldn't want him as an enemy. He was half my size but there was something in his character that terrified me. You knew that he was the kind of guy who would have volunteered to climb Pont du Hoc.

Why does the human race have such people? I think that recently (last 10,000 years or so) it has been because of slavery. When the slavers come into your village a lot of the men will see the inevitable and surrender. But guys like my brother-in-law would fight to the death. If your clan had enough warrior genes you stayed free.

Much the same sort of thing seems to happen in the 'battle of ideas'. Girly men acquiesce.

Albertosaurus

David said...

>Wait, I thought phrenology was proven to be racist pseudoscience decades ago.<

Nothing is false or true. The only thing that counts is who's up or down - all this, at least, is the view of certain ethnicities. "Who [insert verb of choice] whom?" is, according to Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov, the basic question of human life.

Anonymous said...

"A logical extrapolation from this study would be that blacks are more likely than whites to express racist views, since it is well-documented that blacks have higher testosterone levels."

Whatever the issue or subject, people with higher t-levels are likely to be more OUTSPOKEN about EVERYTHING. Not just on racial matters but on sexual matters and political matters. They are less likely to be sensitive or afraid of what others think of them.

But physical power comes into play here. In a society where physical violence is taboo and frowned upon, the most aggressive and outspoken will be the smart and witty with high T-levels. So, in many white schools, there's more 'verbal bullying' by the wits than physical bullying by the big and witless. Big witless guys know they'll be looked down upon--and be punished severely--if they use their muscle advantage to lash out at wit-bullies. So, a lot of Jews in safe communities are really 'verbal bullies'. They know they can pick on even big dumb lugs; they know it's considered uncouth for anyone in their social sphere to lose it and react physically. So, runty wits can go on the attack but the big witless 'Polacks' better just take it. In a way, national politics is like that. Jewish comics and liberal pundits full of wit attack and insult big dumb white conservatives, but the latter just gotta take it.

But in places where physical violence is considered okay, wits with high t-levels will think twice about picking on big lugs with low t-levels. Even a gentle giant can be pushed to anger and violence, and in some communities, it's no big deal for a big guy to whup a small guy, especially a smartass punk.

Because those with higher T-levels and aggressive genes are likely to be more outspoken, such people will likely be more 'anti-racist' as well as more 'racist'. A brow-beaten Chinese-American might have just kept silent but more aggressive blacks and Jews had the balls or chutzpah to 'make trouble' against the 'racist' order. So, it cuts both ways.

Of course, over time, it's hard to distinguish what is 'anti-racist' and what is 'racist'. Once whiteness is fixed to 'evil racism' and blackness is fixed to 'noble anti-racism', that is a kind of 'racism' since it apportions virtue by race.
So, even a loud, aggressive, and hateful Negro like Al Sharpton is called an 'anti-racist' when he is nothing but a tribalist and black power supremacist. In contrast, even a mild-mannered white guy who brings up the issue of black-on-white violence is an 'evil racist'.
Same thing with Jewish power. What began as anti-antisemitism has morphed into a kind of Jewish supremacism. All-powerful Jews silence and blacklist anyone who criticizes Jewish power, but we are supposed to make believe that the former are victims while the latter are crypto-Nazis. Or consider Israel. Zionists smash houses and expel Palestinians from their homes, but Jews would have us believe that Jewish bulldozers and IDF are being defensive against Palestinian neo-Nazis.

Anonymous said...

Given the cult of 'empowerment', I think PC is appealing to many dorks and dorkettes(at least among non-whites, women, and liberals)because it offers empowerment via the formula.
Alphas make their own way and speak their own minds. They got the fire and the confidence. They feel empowered all the time. They are go-getters, like Steve Jobs or Alan Dershowitz. They know how to gain power and respect as INDIVIDUALS.
But not all people are like that. Because the cult of progress says one must be 'empowered', dorks and dorkettes are disadvantaged. If you're a dork or dorkette and can't find empowerment on an individual basis, what are you to do?
The only way you can feel 'empowered' is as a part of the group and signing onto the ready-made of 'empowerment'. So, a lot of dorky girls become 'radical feminists'. In reality, they are nothing but running dog pets of the BIG SISTER, but by barking along to the 'empowerment' song, they feel collectively 'empowered' though all they are really doing is bowing down to orthodoxy. It's like the woman in OLEANNA. As an individual she is a nothing and a zero. A nitwit who understands nothing and won't amount to anything. But as part of the GROUP with its warmed-over truisms about 'oppression' and 'liberation', she finally feels the power--paradoxically as a mental slave of her chosen ideology and those who control it.

Finally, being more outspoken doesn't necessarily mean being more honest or truthful. Too often with high T-level outspoken people, their egos get in the way of truth and sincerity. Their great confidence about themselves paradoxically makes them overly sensitive, touchy, and fearful of any evidence to the contrary. So, guys like Lenin, Hitler, and Mao were brash about what they thought and believed, but they couldn't stand to listen to anything that contradicted their sense of truth and their sense of greatness/destiny.
And too many bigshots are like that. They are so full of themselves that they know how to speak and blurt out their feelings, but they are deaf to words of others that contradict or undermine what they say or what they believe about themselves. Look at those crooks who ran ENRON.

So, the ones who initially seemed to have the most guts to speak the truth, be daring and bold, and go the extra mile, could, once they gain the power, turn into the same ones who are most eager to silence anyone who disagrees with their truth and sense of their own greatness. Same on the left and right. Lenin and Stalin.

Obama is full of talk, but he can't take any criticism.

Anonymous said...

Interesting facial types:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_sntqchzyE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9aTfJa0LQU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GIHfNqyx_U

Derb's Mossberg said...

How about seeing if face and height correlate. Have you ever seen a guy who looks like the guy on the right, or for that matter Rooney, who aren't squat? They may be built like a tank, but they're also ~5'6" usually.

jody said...

i knew it was simply a hit piece and not a serious academic study when i saw references to hockey rinks and the tea party. then of course the money shot, that N = 70 white males. of course, of course. only white males can be racist, so let's tease out their poker face tells and catch those white racists when they're thinking about being racist.

Anonymous said...

To Nick Diaz:

You are such a clown. A few days ago you told us all you had come to the conclusion you were too intellectually superior to debate people on this blog. WE had all hoped that was the end of you. But like a bad penny, you keep coming back. Now you tell us that not only are us whites your intellectual "inferior" but that we are emasculated too. You have some real issues hombre.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

To Nick Diaz:

You are such a clown. ..... You have some real issues hombre."

When addressing Senor Diaz, rather than "Hombre", I suggest using the more appropriate "Pendejo".

Anonymous said...

Late to the party, I know. I wonder if the wide-headed Mike Ditka is racist. Wikipedia lists him as ultra, ultra conservative.

question!!! said...

Andre the Giant: biggest racist in human history?

Dr Van Nostrand said...


That doesn't mean he was afraid of you. It means he was either rather amused "

Thats quite a taunt. I hope for your sake you dont make those in real world than behind an anonymous facade.



or afraid of going to jail.
Like this:"

Idiot. If that was the case then why did he start the altercations in the first place?


Dr Van Nostrand said...

Now I remember why that face is so familiar , he is so familiar.Indeed he is not Dr. Lehmann but 'he' is Lindsay Crouse,David Mamets eternally ugly ex wife
http://www.screenweek.it/star/4427-Lindsay-Crouse

Brian S. said...

How much you wanna bet this guy engages in 'Rough Trade'? Hey, maybe that's the basis for his interest in those baaaaad white guys with tough faces.

Svigor said...

The thing about black bluster is it isn't only aggressive but sort of humorous and jiving. So, it has like a dual purpose. To intimidate the other side but also to ease the tension with funniness so that both sides might just laugh it off than come to blows.

It's not dual-purpose. It's an excuse if the bluster doesn't work. It's a standard sociopath's ploy. You intimidate, and if it doesn't work, you call it a joke. A jackal's ploy.

So, guys like Lenin, Hitler, and Mao were brash about what they thought and believed, but they couldn't stand to listen to anything that contradicted their sense of truth and their sense of greatness/destiny.

While I agree with your post, I don't think this example does. When you're in Hitler or Mao or Stalin's shoes, you don't have the luxury of letting people talk shit. They get ideas, and more importantly, they give others ideas.

Anonymous said...

"Now I remember why that face is so familiar , he is so familiar.Indeed he is not Dr. Lehmann but 'he' is Lindsay Crouse,David Mamets eternally ugly ex wife"

She's not ugly, just homely. But she was kinda attractive in PRINCE OF THE CITY as supportive wife and in HOUSE OF GAMES as adventurist shrink.

I think Hehman looks more like this:

Hamilton and Sukarno!! Alas, your faces are too wide, wide, wide!

Anonymous said...

"When you're in Hitler or Mao or Stalin's shoes, you don't have the luxury of letting people talk shit."

But they intentionally created systems where such would be the case.

Btw, where do you suppose Asia would be without Anglo/American influence?
Postwar Japan was pretty much made by the US. South Korea and Taiwan too. US is or was Anglo-American.
Successful HK and Singapore owed much to British Anglo rule, and that is inspiring China today.
What did France inspire in Asia? Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam and Pol Pot's Cambodia. What did Russia inspire? Maoist China. What did Germany inspire? Militarist Japan.

Of course, today's biggest players are Judeo than Anglo.

Ola said...

To me it seems like Andre the Giant had a really long face (look at photos of him as a young man before he got fat) like most people with acromegaly (like Tony Robbins for example)
Also, isn't the enlongation of the face that happens to boys during puberty what really makes them stop looking girlish and androgynous?

Ola said...

According to this study there are different effects of circulating t-levels and pre-natal t-levels:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16417137

"We found some evidence for opposite effects of early androgen action (via 2D:4D ratio) on the upper and the lower face respectively (i.e. low 2D:4D ratio results in a relatively robust and prominent lower face), whereas circulating testosterone seems to cause a rather uniform elongation of the face."

All this talk about feminine aristocrats seem really suspect to me. I think Steve's original question has yet to be answered in the two threads:

Why are narrow faces associated with higher class?

I'd guess because of the correlation with height. But I suspect there is more to it than that.

sunbeam said...

Ola said:

"All this talk about feminine aristocrats seem really suspect to me. I think Steve's original question has yet to be answered in the two threads:

Why are narrow faces associated with higher class?

I'd guess because of the correlation with height. But I suspect there is more to it than that."

Yeah. I also think you can ask another question:

Are narrow faces correlated with higher intelligence?

There is a whole stereotype associated with nerdish individuals, "pencil necked geeks."

I think there is also a stereotype associating scholars with being lean.

Does it differ with culture? Is is some kind of anglo-saxon thing?

Can you correlate higher intelligence with lower testosterone levels?

Unless you are running a protection racket, or treading the jeweled thrones of earth beneath your sandaled feet, thinking with your dick or fists -> poor economic performance.

People with lean faces are less likely to do dumb shit that keeps them from amassing wealth, and becoming aristocratic?

I don't know, but why wouldn't you see physical features that can be associated with mental and behavioral traits? It's very similar to the concept of race after all. Why couldn't you observe further definition within the borders of a group you identify as a race or ethnicity?

Anonymous said...

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/33461125/Ernie+And+Bert+3.gif

Rev. Right said...

SFG said...
I get FHW of 1.69 for Steve, based on his site picture. (Mine's about the same.) In the middle, albeit closer to the long-face. Derb's about 1.6, closer to the long-face still. So not all dissidents are squat-faced?
---------

No, because this "study" is complete bullshit. For one thing, facial width would correlate with a high testosterone surge in early puberty, which may or may not correlate to testosterone levels in adulthood. For another, it used a smaple size comprised all of 70 guys. It is just another attempt to use pseudo-science to diagnose white racism for the purpose of rationalizing some sort of treatment (i.e. further punishment) for white males. Either that, or little Eric Hehman got picked on by someone with a wide face.

Anonymous said...

as my face has grown broader, I have grown less daunted of PC. or maybe it's from reading isteve.

Anonymous said...

Lindsay Crouse, whom I believe I first saw co-featuring with Marilu Henner in "Between The Lines" (workplace dramedy about some hacks at a counterculture alt-weekly in Boston--considerably duller stuff than Ally McBeal), always looked plenty feminine to me. But then again I think muppet-du-jour Anne Hathaway is a throwback shoo-in for any "female" role of the Elizabethan stage, so it could be my tastes are out of the mainstream.

On another note (?) Crouse's ex is a rough-faced/racist guy out of central casting. Presumably he, along with Neil LaBute, is in that line of work for the chicks; or if it's not the reason he got into theatre, it surely has to be why he stuck with it.

neil craig said...

Be worth applying that to people inn history from the invention of photography. Was Abe Lincoln unaggressive? Was Hitler more pussy whipped than Churchill or Tesla moreso than Edison?

On the 2nd hand various pre-Columbian cultures bound heads in childhood. Did they think they were producing more conformist citizens for what was a very hierachical society. If so were they right?

sunbeam said...

neil craig wrote:

"Be worth applying that to people inn history from the invention of photography. Was Abe Lincoln unaggressive? Was Hitler more pussy whipped than Churchill or Tesla moreso than Edison?

On the 2nd hand various pre-Columbian cultures bound heads in childhood. Did they think they were producing more conformist citizens for what was a very hierachical society. If so were they right?"

No ideas on head shaping. But if would be kind of interesting to analyze mug shots using this method.

What would be even more interesting is to use the new facial recognition technologies and see if we can come up with some correlations that would be interesting.

Of course this thead is dead now. But any time I read something like this I'm struck by how small these investigators think. All the tools are there to actually do some real work, and this guy is just not doing it the way it could be done.

Anonymous said...

side-tracked by the standard anti-white racism masquerading as anti-racism but stepping back from that

could columnar skulls be a compromise between the benefits of large volume skulls (IQ) and the costs (childbirth)?

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online without a prescription tramadol 50mg tablets used - overdose of tramadol side effects

Anonymous said...

Men with more oval face and head are more attractive than roboust. See the photos of the male models with the top highest salary: (The so-called money guys) http://models.com/rankings/ui/MoneyGuys/