How to Judge People by What They Look Like

by Edward Dutton

‘You can’t judge people by what they look like!’ It’s drummed into us as children and, as this book proves, it is utterly false. In this highly readable analysis of the academic research, Dutton shows that we are evolved to judge people’s psychology from what they look like, we can accurately work out people’s personality and intelligence from how they look, and (quite often) we have to if we want to survive. Body shape, hairiness, eye width, finger length, even how big a woman’s breasts are . . . Dutton shows that these, and much else, are windows into personality, intelligence, or both. Once you read How to Judge People by What They Look Like, you’ll never look at people the same again.

Genres: Psychology, Science, Nonfiction, Anthropology, Politics, Biology, Evolution

87 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 27, 2018

Reviews

[Argos · Rating 1 out of 5]

İçerik olarak birtakım saçmalıkları istatistiki olarak çok zayıf ilişkilendirmelerle bilimsel kılıf içine sokma gayretlerinden ibaret. Yazar aslında ilahiyatçı, ancak insanları dış görünüşlerine göre yargılamak üzere evrildiğimizi bu nedenle insan karakterini ve zekalarını dış görünüş ile kesin olarak söyleyebiliriz gibi bir absürd ama dikkati çekecek bir iddia ile topa giriyor, biraz genetik, biraz psikoloji az biraz sosyoloji ama çoğunlukla sansasyonel şehir efsanelerini biraraya getiriyor. Kısa sürede ülkemizde 3. baskıyı yapması da şaşırtıcı değil. Sonuna kadar bile-isteye okudum ki bu kitabı okumak isteyeceklere zamanınızı ve paranızı heba etmeyin demek için.

[A · Rating 5 out of 5]

As another reviewer pointed out, perhaps this book could use more contextualization for the findings it presents. However, Dutton takes the opposite approach of modern academia and presents as many studies as concisely as possible, like a machine gun shooting out information. I think that this "minibook" is essential for interacting with strangers, finding a mate, looking for prospective friends, and giving you some very interesting evolutionary detective stories regarding traits (using Rushton's r-K model). Knowing that someone will be more likely to be X because of Y trait gives you an advantage over everyone else who simply puts it all up to chance because of pseudo-religious convictions.

[Петър Стойков · Rating 3 out of 5]

Заглавието е по-противоречиво от самата книга и навява идеи за обсъждане на междурасовите разлики, но такива в книгата не се споменават. Тя самата представлява описание на подбрани от автора (cherry-picked) изследвания на връзката между външния вид на хората и мнението на другите за тях, които общо взето показват много слаба до слаба (0.1 до само в един случай 0.3) корелация между двете.

Разбира се, слаба корелация е повече от нищо и това няма как да е учудващо, предвид как хората сме еволюирали що-годе да разпознаваме нещо, когато го видим - така че не знам кого учудва факта, че можем понякога да познаем дали един човек е склонен към примерно агресия или към мързел, само като го погледнем.

Това обаче не прави книгата особено интересна, нито пък показателна за нещо. Авторът се опитва да прави някакви общи изводи от изследванията, но не му се получава - корелациите наистина са малки, изследванията също са малки и очевидно той ги е подбрал само такива, които подкрепят тезата му. Въпреки тия му усилия обаче, изводите са които могат да се направят са непълни и противоречиви.

[Vagabond of Letters, DLitt · Rating 5 out of 5]

10/10 or 2/10.

If true (which I am not qualified to discern), this book is enlightening and groundbreaking; if false, it's stereotyping taken to the nth degree (but those stereotypes had to come from somewhere, and they can't socially constructed in the type of case of high-testosterone men being more aggressive).

Dutton uses Rushton's inestimably important and incontrovertible life history theory throughout, and his findings dovetail with it and genetic similarity theory at several points, which lead me to lend credence to the thesis.

[Rutger · Rating 2 out of 5]

This short book by the anthropologist Edward Dutton intends to reposition physiognomy once again as a legitimate science. Because physiognomy, as once practiced, has been wildly debunked. Physiognomy is the idea that a person’s character can be deduced from their physical (especially facial) characteristics. Nasty people being ugly and deformed, Nice and warm people being beautiful, etc. Dutton’s method is to highlight interesting correlations collected over the past dozen years. Dutton doesn’t argue silly stuff like liars have big noses (like Pinocchio), but goes into, say, the aggressive nature of mesomorphs, the level of masculinization deducible from our finger length indexes, or the extraverted nature of objectively beautiful people (i.e. people whose faces are symmetric and match the golden ratio.)

I’d argue the opposite way from Dutton, because the correlations he mentions are so incredibly small. Ergo: is physiognomy never correct? That’s very hard to do. For example, tall men are more often in leadership positions; you can’t become US president if you’re under 6 feet (at least, so far, no man ever did). One could argue this is because of "height-ism", but maybe tall men really are more naturally dominant and confident? That certainly jives with many people's experiences. Also, pleiotropy (genes influencing multiple aspects of our body and mind) is real. The Soviet scientist Belyaev’s silver fox experiment is very interesting to mention. Belyaev bred silver foxes for tameness and aggressiveness. The tame silver foxes became like dog puppies; cuddly and cute -- but their bodies changed too: floppy ears, curly tails, different fur coloration. Physiognomy would, on average, work to indicate tameness for these domesticated silver foxes.

However, Dutton’s book is full of speculation. He argues religious people or rightwingers to be more beautiful (probably because of lower mutational load) and atheists or leftists to be more ugly (probably because of more mutational load). If you argue this, you should be able to back it up, but there’s no study mentioned, nor any intention of such a study. Dutton does mention a few personal anecdotes, like a beautiful Finnish girl he once met being extremely religious, but that means absolutely nothing. There were also a dozen correlations mentioned, I know to have different outcomes in different studies -- this annoyed me. And some of his conclusions are very speculative. Am I really to believe people with, say, a lazy eye all have brain damage? What about infections or falling on your head?

Dutton makes some interesting suggestions though. For example he links the proliferation of tattoos (especially among younger people) and high time preference -- I’d add piercings and blue hair, too. Dutton then argues tattoos make you artificially less symmetrical and thus artificially less attractive. Thereby, according to Dutton, tattoos function as the handicap principle: only really beautiful people can pull off tattoos, because their beauty shines through *despite* their tattoos. Interesting idea, but plausible? Maybe. Tattoos are now so abundant, I don’t think they say much about anyone's personality anymore. It’s like deducing personality traits among people who ride bicycles.

Overall, the book is orderly structured, well-written and a decent conversation starter, but qua these there’s simply not much meat here.

[PolicemanPrawn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This short book is about physiognomy, which is the practice of judging a person's character and personality from their appearance, particular the face. One can judge based on race, body type, face, and anything else that might be relevant. There is academic research on this area, which the author cites. For example, one might suspect a fat person of having low conscientiousness, and this is indeed the case. When one spots a morbidly obese person, one can form judgements on that person that are very likely to be accurate. Large swathes of physiognomy is just simple common sense.

Physiognomy is very real from my personal experience. There have been several occasions when I've met someone and formed an instant judgement on that person, and on pretty much every occasion I was spot on.

[Tony · Rating 1 out of 5]

I don't think this book even deserves one star.....The following review demonstrates with clear citations. It also demonstrates how dangerous Dutton's views are, especially when based on debunked pseudoscience;
Reading E.Duttons book on Physiognomy after reading books for intelligent non-specialists by the likes of Dawkins, Cox, LEHRER AND HARARI, this felt extremely substandard for an academic. Poorly written, little methodology, citing already debunked work without any real coherent argument other than personal anecdotes and narcissistic observations. I felt uncomfortable at places, especially when Dutton raised the issue of race.
He deliberately had a little stab at the intelligence of the reader if they found race and intelligence emotionally uncomfortable.....but anyone with an ounce of intelligence will be able to spot the prejudiced connotations in Dutton's rhetoric. Even when he uses legitimate sources, he is highly selective in what he chooses to share from those studies. I checked all sources, only to find he rested a lot of his argument on some discredited psychologists - such as JP Rushton and William Sheldon. Shelton has had articles written on how he fakes his methodology and data. (cited below)
I am unsurprised to discover Dr Dutton lied about his status as a professor at the University of Oulu. He was sacked for plagiarism and the University have made a statement disassociating themselves from his flawed and biased research.

Dutton cites Eysenck, In 2019 26 Eysenck’s work considered as unsafe by Kings College London, showing it as not scientifically rigorous. Eysenck has also been accused of supporting extreme right politics. (Leonie Knebel and Pit Marquardt 2012)
Dutton on the Big 5 Personality traits - again, Dutton does not mention the flaws and criticism of the Big 5, which are therefore associated with GFP. 5 came from 16 adjectives subjectively whittled down to 5. Why? Convenience? It’s saturated with biased views of what is liked in society.
This categorisation of Big 5 criticised as arbitrary. There is no connection with reality and categories of Big 5. Where is authoritarianism, pigheadedness stubbornness? ‘Dirty secret of 5’ is ‘correlation’. Eg. Extroversion and Conscientiousness supposed to be independent but have correlations up to 0.4!
E.g. Correlation of height and Intelligence is 0, correlation of height and weight is 1. But in Big 5, the correlation between extroversion and Conscientiousness is 0.4! S0 they can’t be independent! The theory breaks down with simple logic.
Dutton shows little understanding of his subject matter. Dutton makes a direct link between 'race' and subspecies of 'animal world'. WRONG! 1 - we humans are in the 'animal world'. 2 in biology races are genetically distinct populations within the SAME species. Race is NOT subspecies as homo sapiens are one race - the human race.
A race has not branched off enough in evolutionary terms to warrant the term subspecies (used deliberately by racists to suggest a lesser species). There merely is a tiny genetic variation.
incredibly inaccurate and pouring with racist pseudo logic. Dutton “you could argue that there are more differences within humanity and chimpanzees than there are between individual humans and chimps”. Humans have not been around long enough
Humans have not been around long enough in evolutionary terms for Dutton to make any sense concerning biased view on race. Our genetic differences are tiny- demonstrating race as a social construct, which is backed historically.
Dutton cites JP Rushton - another controversial psychologist who used his work for racist ideology, not to mention his controversy for using students as lab rats! So far most of Duttons cited psychologists have questionable political leanings! Respected Geneticist David Suzuki states “There will always be Rushton’s in science, and we must always be prepared to root them out!" In fact, Rushton’s work has been used to demonstrate what is wrong in academic psychology.
Dutton attempts to back this bold statement using William Sheldon’s theory of somatotypes as evidence. What he doesn’t tell you is that this is a widely discredited form of 1940s taxonomy. Again he tried to paint this as the latest research! It’s not only old; it is debunked!
The only truism in somatotypes is stereotyping - which can also be argued for Physiognomy as a whole. Sheldon's theory is not a theory; it is an assumption widespread at the time my exponents of eugenics and racism. Today Sheldon is dismissed as ‘quackery.’
Dutton continues to expand on this ‘quackery’ as if accepted pedagogue in psychology - Sheldon’s data is also known to be falsified (Honeyman, B). This renders the next few chapters and much of Dutton’s argument null and void! :-) i.e. DEBUNKED by association.
All Dutton's links continue with Sheldon’s ‘theory’ on Constitutional psychology. It is utter nonsense - proven to be for years (Roeckelein, Jon E.)… yet Dutton perseveres without mentioning any of the criticism. Why would he in what is becoming clear, a highly prejudiced and subjective book.
Dutton’s dismissal of physiognomy’s critics is unsurprisingly brief and again subjective - he cites Leslie Zebrowitz. A beautiful irony is that he gets Zebrowitz’s gender WRONG! “He argues…” Zebrowitz is female!
Dutton is again demonstrating his lazy research methodology by not even knowing the gender of who he criticises - a beautiful irony when arguing physiognomy.
Zebrowitz is far more respected than Dutton in her field and her research. Her criticism can NOT be ‘satisfactorily dismissed' without explanation. Yet Dutton dismisses the criticism without argument - no logic or even a sentence to back his dismissal of a highly respected scientist.
Dutton dismisses criticism of ‘overgeneralising’ from Todorov and Oosterhof. His evidence for his rebuttal is simply ‘It can be responded that there is more than a ‘kernel’ of truth” (no evidence).
... more subjective opinion about Todorov and Oosterhof's experimental design without showing any significant understanding of that design - more lazy research?
Todorov and Oosterhof succeeded in demonstrating correlations ranging between 0.60 and 0.80, with meticulous methodology. This is hugely significant, and Dutton's dismissal of it seems embarrassingly petulant and naive.

[Diana Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great read

Dr Dutton has a light and humorous style of writing that makes the research he summarises very interesting and accessible. Fascinating!

[VEL – The Contemporary Heretic · Rating 3 out of 5]

Never judge a book by its cover—or so a famous proverb advises.

However, since Dutton’s ‘How to Judge People by What they Look Like’, represents a spirited polemic against this received wisdom, one is tempted, in the name of irony, to review it entirely on the basis of its cover.

Certainly, one point is evident from, if not its cover, then its external appearance—namely, it is very short.

Perhaps this is because physiognomy, the field of research Dutton purports to review, is not a recognised science. There is no Journal of Physiognomy and no Departments of Physiognomy at major universities.

Thus, little research has been conducted, and what does exist is difficult to track down.

Thus, Dutton omits some interesting studies (e.g. Rosenberg & Kagan 1987; 1989), and some whole areas of research (e.g. Minor Physical Abnormalities: see below).

Yet Dutton is not entirely consistent in identifying his subject-matter. He talks about ‘Physiognomy’, a term usually associated with using morphology to assess character. Yet ‘What People Look Like’ includes also how we dress and act.

Thus Dutton ventures beyond morphology, discussing tattoos (p46-8) and beards (p60-1).

I suppose the decision to get tattooed or grow a beard reflects both genetic disposition and cultural influence, just as all aspects of phenotype, including morphology, reflect an interaction between genes and environment.

Also, both tattoos and, since they take time to grow, beards are relatively more permanent than clothing.

Yet Dutton also discusses the significance of what he calls a “blank look” or “glassy eyes”—a mere facial expression (p57-9).

Yet he omits discussion of other facial expressions which, unlike his wholly anecdotal discussion of “glassy eyes”, have been researched by ethologists since Darwin’s The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals.

Thus, Ekman famously demonstrated that some facial expressions are cross-culturally universal. For example, smiling is posited to be homologous with an appeasement gesture (‘fear grin’) among chimps.

With regard to ‘How to Judge People by What They Look Like’, it is suggested some facial expressions lie beyond conscious control – e.g. blushing when embarrassed, going pale when shocked, microexpressions.

Even a Duchenne smile is distinguishable from a fake one.

Hence the importance of reading faces when playing poker or interrogating suspects.

Physique
Dutton begins by attempting to resurrect Sheldon’s theory that human physique predicts personality. This is now widely dismissed as pseudoscience, but Dutton provides compelling theoretical reasons why physique is indeed associated with personality.

Obesity
In Western societies, where there is a superabundance of food, obesity is associated with willpower, as those who lack willpower likely lack the willpower to diet.

What Sheldon called endomorphy is thus a correlate of the personality factor known to psychometricians as conscientiousness (p31-2).

Obesity is also, Dutton claims, associated with intelligence (see Kanazawa 2014).

First, because IQ is correlated with time-preference, low-IQ people:

“Are less able to forego the immediate pleasure of ice cream for the future positive of not being overweight and diabetic” (p31)

Also, low-IQ people:

“Are likely to understand less about healthy eating and simply possess less knowledge of what constitutes healthy food or a reasonable portion” (p31)

However, while there are borderline cases (e.g. foods misleadingly marketed as healthy), everyone knows that lots of cake is unhealthy. But resisting the temptation to eat another slice is often easier said than done. I therefore suspect willpower is a better predictor than IQ of weight.

As well as predicting obesity, intelligence and conscientiousness also predict income. One can also, then, judge income from physique.

However, there is a let-off clause for offended fatties. Obesity is also associated with extraversion.

“Extraverts simply enjoy everything positive more, and this includes tasty (and thus unhealthy) food” (p32).

Both conscientiousness and extraversion are indeed associated with BMI (Bagenjuk et al 2019; Sutin et al 2011).

Dutton thus confirms the stereotypes of, not only the fat lazy slob, but also the jolly, gregarious fat man, and the ‘bubbly’ fat woman!

Muscularity
With regard to mesomorphy, Dutton concludes, “Sheldon’s theory… fits quite well with what we know about testosterone” (p33).

Thus, testosterone is associated with muscularity, but also masculinizes, not only our bodies, but also our brain and behaviour, being associated with aggression and dominance.

Testosterone, Autism & Maths
Dutton also proposes:

“We would also expect the more masculine-looking person to have higher levels of autism traits” (p34).

This is based on Simon Baron-Cohen’s Extreme Male Brain Theory of Autism.

But the relationship between testosterone and masculinization is not always linear. Thus, Kingsley Browne reports:

“The relationship between spatial ability and [circulating] testosterone levels is described by an inverted U-shaped curve… Spatial ability is lowest in those with the very lowest and the very highest testosterone levels, with the optimal testosterone level lying in the lower end of the normal male range” (Biology at Work: p115; see also The g Factor: p534)

Dutton claims, “There is evidence that testosterone level in healthy males is positively associated with spatial ability” (p36). But the study he cites for this involved older men (Janowsky et al 1994). Since testosterone declines with age, this study is consistent with the relationship between testosterone and spatial ability described by Browne (see Moffat & Hampson 1996).

In short, math nerds and autistic males are rarely athletic alpha-males!

Testosterone & Height
Indeed, Dutton himself shows that high-T males are not necessarily more extreme with respect to all sexually dimorphic traits:

“Men who are high in testosterone… tend to be of shorter stature… High levels of testosterone at a relatively early age have been shown to reduce stature” (p34)

Thus, eunuchs castrated before puberty are said to grow taller than other men.

This might even explain the supposed phenomenon of short man syndrome, whereby short men are said to be especially aggressive and domineering.

However, short man syndrome is a myth. Big men are more aggressive (Ishikawa et al 2001; Salas-Wright & Vaughn 2016; Malamed 1992).

Height and Intelligence
Height is also associated with IQ. Unlike other associations discussed by Dutton, this finding is robust and well-established.

Dutton proposes that intelligence and height “have been sexually selected for as a kind of bundle”—because, since both height and intelligence are attractive in a partner, and because attractive people are able to attract more attractive partners, the two traits, though caused by different genes, came to be associated (p46).

An alternative explanation might be that increases in both height and intelligence reflect developmental stability, an index of genetic quality.

However, this alternative explanation is inconsistent with the finding that there is no ‘within-family’ correlation between height and intelligence. Thus, within a family, there is no tendency for the taller sibling to have a higher IQ then his shorter sibling (IQ and Human Intelligence: p6).

Mate Choice
In evolutionary psychology, much research on mate-choice depends on the assumption that the physical characteristics used as mate-choice criteria (e.g. waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and fluctuating asymmetry) reflect genetic quality or other traits desirable in a mate.

Dutton reviews this literature. Some of his speculations are unpersuasive. He claims:

“Hipsters with their Old Testament beards are showcasing their genetic quality… Beards are a clear advertisement of male health and status. They are a breeding ground for parasites” (p61).

But why then have beards come into fashion only recently?

I suspect that most male secondary sexual characteristics reflect intra rather than inter-sexual selection—i.e. male fighting, not female choice (see Puts 2010).

Consistent with this, Dutton notes:

“[Beards] have been found to make men look more aggressive, of higher status, and older… in a context in which females tend to be attracted to slightly older men, with age tending to be associated with status in men” (p61)

But why then, today, do most men prefer to look younger.

Dutton also suggests that the type of relationship sought might influence mate-choice criteria, claiming:

“A highly feminine face is attractive, in particular in terms of a short term relationship… [where] a healthy and fertile partner is all that is needed” (p43).

In contrast, he concludes that for a long-term relationship a less feminine face may be desirable, since “being extremely feminine in terms of secondary sexual characteristics is associated with an r-strategy” and hence infidelity (p43).

Yet, since men have a more unrestricted sociosexual orientation than women, more masculinized females may be more male-typical in their sexuality and hence even more prone to infidelity. Thus, Symons cites evidence that women exposed to high androgen levels prenatally:

“Exhibit… an autonomous, initiatory, appetitive sexuality which investigators have characterized as evidencing a high sex drive or libido” (The Evolution of Human Sexuality: p290)

This would suggest masculine-looking women are more prone to infideltiy.

Politics and Looks
Dutton also cites studies showing that conservative politicians, and voters, are more attractive than liberals. He speculates:

“[In ancestral environments] populations… so low in ethnocentrism as to espouse multiculturalism and reject religion would simply have died out… Therefore… the espousal of leftist dogmas would partly reflect mutant genes, just as the espousal of atheism does. This elevated mutational load… would be reflected in their bodies as well as their brains” (p76).

But this seems unlikely, since atheism and liberalism are also associated with intelligence, probably an index of good genes.

Moreover, if there is an optimal level of ethnocentrism and religosity, we would also expect extreme racists and religious fanatics to be ugly too.

2D:4D
Along with facial width to height ratio (fWHR), another presumed correlate of prenatal androgens is 2D:4D ratio. This has been found to correlate with autism, ADHD and homosexuality.

However, Dutton misunderstands what 2D:4D ratio is, writing:

“If the profile of someone’s fingers is smoother, more like a shovel, then it implies high testosterone. If, by contrast, the little finger is significantly smaller than the middle finger, which is highly prevalent among women, then it implies lower testosterone exposure” (p69).

Actually, both the little finger and middle finger are irrelevant to 2D:4D ratio.

Indeed, for everyone, “the little finger is significantly smaller than the middle finger”. This is why it is called the “little” finger.

Actually, 2D:4D concerns the ratio between index and ring fingers—the two fingers on either side of the middle finger.

At any rate, research suggesting a link between 2D:4D ratio and behaviour has largely failed to replicate.

Developmental Disorders & MPAs
One study found that observers can guess a man’s IQ from his face at better than chance level (p50). Dutton speculates:

“[Since] Down Syndrome and Foetal Alcohol Syndrome are major disruptions of developmental pathways and… lead to very low intelligence and a very small nose… even minor disruptions would lead to slightly reduced intelligence and a slightly smaller nose” (p51-2).

Indeed, foetal alcohol syndrome is itself a matter of degree.

Meanwhile, Down Syndrome represents a good starting point for physiognomy and a good counter-example to cite against those who dismiss the idea of physiognomy a priori.

The ‘look’ and personality associated with another developmental disorder, Williams Syndrome, has even been posited as the basis for the elf figure in folklore.

However, Dutton fails to discuss the literature on Minor Physical Anomalies (MPAs), which correlate with criminality and conditions such as autism, schizophrenia, psychopathy and ADHD. These MPAs are the often same traits (e.g. simian line, sandal toe gap) used to diagnose Down Syndrome.

Ethics
But is it not wrong to judge by appearances? Did not our Lord and Saviour, Dr Martin Luther King, advocate that people “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”?

Dutton concludes that it is sometimes okay to judge by appearance.

True, the correlations are modest, but:

“Let us be consistent. It is very common in psychology to find a correlation between, for example, a certain behaviour and accidents (or health) of 0.15 or 0.2 and thus argue that action should be taken based on the results. These sizes are considered large enough to be meaningful and even for policy to be changed” (p82)

Using physical appearance to make assessments is particularly useful, Dutton observes, “in extreme situations when a quick decision must be made” (p80).

Thus, if we see someone coming at us with a knife and take evasive action, we are, strictly speaking, judging by appearances. The person appears like they are going to stab us and so we act accordingly. But no one would judge us morally wrong for doing so.

However, the more information we have, the less we need to rely on appearances. Here, a Bayesian approach is useful.

In 2013, psychologist Geoffrey Miller caused outrage tweeting:

“Dear obese PhD applicants: if you didn’t have the willpower to stop eating carbs, you won’t have the willpower to do a dissertation #truth”

According to Dutton, willpower is indeed correlated with obesity. But a PhD supervisor has access to more reliable information regarding a person’s personality and intelligence, in the form of their application and CV, than is discernible from physique. The outrage Miller’s tweet provoked was, then, not entirely unwarranted.

But, even at job interviews, employers still judge by appearances. This is why we advise applicants to dress smartly.

Full (i.e. vastly overlong) review here.

References
Bagenjuk et al 2019 Personality Traits and Obesity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16(15): 2675
Ishikawa et al 2001 Increased height and bulk in antisocial personality disorder and its subtypes. Psychiatry Research 105(3):211-219
Janowski et al 1994 Testosterone influences spatial cognition in older men. Behavioral Neuroscience 108(2):325-32
Kanazawa 2014 Intelligence and obesity: Which way does the causal direction go? Current Opinion in Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity (5):339-44
Malamed 1992 Personality correlates of physical height. Personality and Individual Differences 13(12):1349-1350
Moffat & Hampson 1996 A curvilinear relationship between testosterone and spatial cognition in humans: possible influence of hand preference Psychoneuroendocrinology 21(3):323-37
Puts 2010 Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans Evolution and Human Behavior 31(3):157-175
Rosenberg & Kagan 1987 Physical and physiological correlates of behavioral inhibition Developmental Psychobiology 22(8):753-70
Rosenberg & Kagan 1989 Iris pigmentation and behavioral inhibition Developmental Psychobiology Jul;20(4):377-92
Salas-Wright & Vaughn (2016) Size Matters: Are Physically Large People More Likely to be Violent? Journal of Interpersonal Violence 31(7):1274-92
Sutin et al 2011 Personality and Obesity across the Adult Lifespan Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101(3): 579–592

[Tariq · Rating 1 out of 5]

Started this book expecting to have a good laugh yet was confronted with inconclusive arguments and circular reasoning. For example: physiognomy exists because (long list of biblical and cultural reference), thus its existence is true and therefore physiognomy is real. Had to stop when statistical significance was being explained at page 8. In addition to classes in rhetoric I would also recommend proofreading your work to fix numerous grammatical errors and spelling mistakes.

[Grips · Rating 3 out of 5]

Be extra cautious reading this if you have a poor grasp on scientody as you can easily mislead yourself. What the clumsily named HTJPBWTLL does is make certain that physiognomy exists, but it’s far from bringing it from an artform down to a hard science.

The signal to noise ratio varies considerably and there are plenty of nits to pick with many of the claims explored. In light of the reproducibility crisis looming over a scientistry bloated with low iq research grant parasites, Dutton too lightly glosses over the work ethic in these experiments.

Consistent with this, Lewis (2012) exposed 20 men who were white, black, and East Asian to 300 Facebook photos of university students aged between 18 and 30 from these three races. He found that, among students at Cardiff University, men of all races found East Asian women the most physically attractive, black women the least physically attractive and whites intermediate. Conversely, when the experiment was repeated with 300 photos of men, the 20 women of these races found black men the most physically attractive, East Asian men the least, and whites intermediate. Lewis hypothesized that a significant reason was testosterone, as expressed in average levels of femininity and masculinity and in coloration.

Note the ridiculously low sample size of 20. There’s a plethora of factors that it fails to account for such as cultural biases and inculcated tastes that might be peculiar to a college student of a certain age range, ovulation, relationship or social status, sex drive. Lewis isolates none of these attraction-modifying dimensions, the experiment is haphazardly done and the conclusions half baked. It is no surprise then that it contradicts the readily observable reality and greater body of evidence
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/...
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...
https://rationalconclusions718810052....
One study of which he mentions shortly after as a cautionary tale against cross-cultural biases in interracial attraction.

It is good to know something better than random, but it is less than ideal to be less than certain of it. This book can be the beginning of a great work but as it stands it is barely an introduction and a starting point to the so-far-artform of physiognomy.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

A truly fascinating book. I have listened to Edward Dutton (aka The Jolly Heretic) every now and again on BitChute, especially his discussions with some of the Patriotic Alternative people. He is an eccentric character, as are most Right-wing academics (many of whom do not have jobs. I wonder why that might be?), yet has many interesting insights. I have long been of the opinion that you can make at least some judgements about a person based on their appearance, and this book confirms a fair lot of what I had previously thought.

Although it is true that "man looks at the outward appearance" while "God looks at the heart", this principle is not to be taken to ridiculous extremes. The fact that someone is physically weak does not mean they are not morally strong. Conversely, if someone has tattoos on their face, it obviously raises questions about their character. The author looks at things from an evolutionary perspective at times, which I dissent from, yet there is still much food for thought in this short book.

[Michael A. Simmons, Sr. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Confirms what I've always felt

The title caused me to be somewhat skeptical. I've always been a good judge of people and now I know why. You can judge a book by its cover. I've often felt guilty by prejudgeing people by appearance, but my guilt was assuaged when I found my initial assessment to be correct. The author presents his case with science, logic and genetics on his side. Well worth the read.

[Robert Obszanski · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well-cited and concise.

Worth reading, even if just as a reference with other, more mainstream knowledge. The author addresses some of the criticisms levelled at physiognomy and cites a lot of studies.

[Howardstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

I couldn't ask for a more succinct, scientifically accurate+substantiated, and readable book.

[Thomas Lange · Rating 4 out of 5]

Menschen greifen instinktiv auf physiognomische Merkmale zurück, um in kurzer Zeit - bevor eine anderes Kriterium vorliegt - andere Menschen einordnen zu können, und etwaige Gefahren erfassbar zu machen. Z.B. erscheint ein kleines Mädchen weniger gefährlich als ein Mann in seinen Zwanzigern. Aber nicht nur über potenzielle Gefahren lassen sich Hinweise erlangen, sondern auch über die Intelligenz und die Persönlichkeit des Gegenübers.

Somit erhält man durch die Lektüre auch gleichzeitig eine Einführung in die psychologischen Grundlagen der Persönlichkeitsforschung. Dabei insbesondere dem Big5 Modell und dem General Factor of Personality.

Dutton erzählt zuerst die Geschichte der Physiognomie und warum sie - zuletzt natürlich durch die Nazis - so in Verruf geraten ist. Zurecht lässt er das Argument nicht gelten, nur weil die Nazis in ihrem Rassenwahn die Erkenntnisse der Physiognomie ad absurdum geführt haben, das komplette Feld seine Relevanz verlieren würde. Er merkt immer wieder an, Vergleiche seien nur innerhalb von Rassen zulässig und somit Merkmale nicht rassenübergreifend vergleichbar.

Über den Vergleich von körperlichen Merkmalen wie Körpertyp, Umfang, Muskulosität, Testosteron, Haut/Haar, Größe sowie Verzierungen aller Art, arbeitet er sich zum Gesicht vor, das für die Beurteilung eine Schlüsselrolle einnimmt. Dort wird auf Breite, Augenabstand, Haar, Größe, Augen, Haut und Symmetrie eingegangen. Im letzten Abschnitt widmet sich Dutton den Händen.

Dutton argumentiert strikt evolutionistisch unter Berufung auf die Life History Theorie, die erklärt, wie sich Körper unter dem Einfluss der eigenen Reproduktionsstrategie entwickeln. Mir war nicht klar, was für eine überwältigende Rolle Testosteron für die Beschaffenheit des Körpers spielt.

Besonders interessant war für mich die potenzielle Abschätzung der Intelligenz einer Person durch verschiedene Merkmale des Gegenübers. Ebenfalls sehr interessant ist war Teil ab Seite 57, der sich mit Attraktivität und politischer Einstellung beschäftigt. Es handelt sich bei dem Thema natürlich um vermintes Terrain, aber m.E. nach kennzeichnet Dutton die spekulativen Passagen ausreichend, und bleibt wenn nötig im Konjunktiv, um ungesicherte wissenschaftliche Hypothesen zu identifizieren.

[Mathijs Aasman · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent book, goes over physiognomic trends that most people intuitively know, and some that are more unknown but still intuitive. Effect sizes tend to be pretty small, so the usual caveats about 'pre-judging' apply. The correlation between height and intelligence is about .16, so the vast majority of variation between individuals is not explained by height. It is somewhat interesting to see folk wisdom achieve some scientific backing. FUrthermore, explanations of some of these correlations can be interesting.

[Joseph · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting read

This book wss rather science based and definitely was informative. While it was written by a supposed white supremacist, whatever that means anymore, he denied and refuted common arguments made by mainstream eugenicists in relation to race, without denying the bell curve of course.

[blaz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fun little book arguing that we can reliably intuit people’s character traits just by looking at their physical features, i.e. physiognomy. Physiognomy was a massive field of study until the middle of the 20th century when the you-know-who’s got a bit too enthusiastic about the ol’ race science, but it reliably works within racial groups and is born out by dozens of research papers, which Dutton presents in the book. Dutton argues on the grounds of evolutionary biology and psychology that physical features tend to cluster with character traits as an outward way of indicating genetic health and viability as a mate or group member. For most of these findings the result is weak but statistically significant. Also some interesting stuff on r-K selection.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this because the title seemed offensive/wrong, or at least highly provocative, and I was curious to see if the author could make a reasonable and data-supported argument in favor of physiognomy. He made some reasonable arguments, but not conclusive. There were also a lot of editing failures in the book (bad formatting, inconsistent levels of detail). However, I'm going to be pretty charitable because it wasn't completely and obviously wrong while making a provocative assertion; it just wasn't definitive.

One of the immediate responses to this idea is that it's racist -- ironically that's one thing which he pretty clearly and convincingly argued against, as almost all of the correlations are only valid within a given race (and generally only within even more closely related groups, such as ethnicity or nation). The nazi abuse of phrenology was cited as being particularly abusive to data. There are reasonable gender-based arguments, supported by both data and biology, but a lot of the most interesting pieces were differences with 0.1-0.3 level correlation internal to gender/ethnic groups.

[Michał Wojas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this you've read the book:
Yes you can judge someone by physical appearance.


Between 3-4 stars. Section 2 definitely lost a star. Good information but only as useful as books like the 48 laws of power. Common sense, but if you over think it it leads down deranged and dangerous roads. For example it would do no good for an incel type to read this or an antagonistic type. This information is only good to understand our judgements are relevant but only should be a small factor in decisions. Interesting content and good backing. Provides many sources to look into.

This is NOT a guide to diagnosing and reading people.

If you want to read it go ahead if you are on the fence there are better books to read.

[Ayyuce Demirbas · Rating 1 out of 5]

O kadar kötü ki yarısına bile gelmeden bıraktım. Verdiğim tek yıldızı bile hak etmiyor ama yıldızsız yorum yapılamıyor. Yazar siyahilerin, kadınların ve kilolu insanların daha az zeki olduğunu iddia ediyor. Belli kaynaklara atıflarda bulunmuş tabii ancak bu çalışmaların yazarları kitabın yazarının fikirlerini destekleyecek şekilde seçilmiş. Karşıt görüşlere asla yer verilmemiş. Aynı zamanda yazar, testesteronun zeka seviyesini artırdığını söylüyor ve esmer insanlarda daha fazla testesteron bulunduğunu söylüyor. Bunun yanında beyazların daha zeki olduğunu söyleyerek de kendiyle çelişiyor. Zeki kadınların erkeksi yüz hatlarına sahip olduğu gibi saçma şeyler de savunuyor.

[Jay · Rating 1 out of 5]

It isn’t morally right to judge a person based on how they look, but we still do it anyway until we get the chance to know a person. In the past we had to do this to protect ourselves from danger. The main thing this book has taught me is that people are liars and do judge by appearance, because that’s literally the only thing you have to go off of most of the time. As long as you’re able to change your assumptions is what matters at the end.

[K. · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not sure why I read this since I can't see. While interesting, it's too short to be really comprehensive. It also mostly goes into things like height and facial features; it would have been interesting to cover more "chosen" features such as choice of clothing. I'm glad I got it on Kindle unlimited rather than paying for it.

[Hemen Kalita · Rating 5 out of 5]

We always judge people by how they look like. This book helps us to do it better. It provides a case for the controversial and virtually obsolete science of Physiognomy- judging character from appearance. Correlations involved in Physiognomy are often weak, in the range of 0.1-0.2. But they are nevertheless statistically meaningful and successful predictions can be made more often than by chance.

[Morgan Rooke · Rating 3 out of 5]

this book is genuinely interesting, but it's written in such an insensitive way. that said, i am a gay leftist with a tattoo of a plug socket on my knee, so i'd imagine i wasn't really the target audience here

[Nazlı · Rating 1 out of 5]

Berbat…Büyük beklentilerle başladığım kitabı kısa olmasına rağmen zor bitirdim. Yazar bize sunduğu analizlerini makaleler ve bilimsel çalışmalarla süslemiş ve genellemelerle bir yere varmaya çalışmış ama 90 sayfa boyunca saçmalamış. Zaman kaybı okumayın.

[AusPopulare · Rating 4 out of 5]

Would have gotten 5 stars if he added pictures for reference

[Việt Hùng · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great book that links the appearance of people (body shape, face, hand, etc.) to their general intelligence and personality. The practicality of physiognomy is related to natural selection, as it is still used now. Those could not use it in the pass had already died and could not pass on their genes. Moreover, under extreme circumstances when people barely have time to know a person well, they must make quick decision based on the information gather from the appearance of that person. Such extreme circumstances were common in the past, hence the important of physiognomy.

The book is a little bit concise, and it focuses significantly on genes, testosterone, and of course, intelligence based on the general factor (including both IQ and EQ) and personality based on the Big Five Model. The reasoning in the book is backed with research in the fields, as well as probablity and statistics, as the correlation between physiognomy and intelligence and personality are statistically significant. Therefore, it is suitable for modern readers, while people looking for an explanation and practices of physiognomy in the past like me might be a little bit disapointed.

The author did examine his reasoning and arguments clearly, also counter the criticism of physiognomy with science. So, even though it might sound a little extreme, the knowledge in the book is rather useful. And of course, everything must be taken with a grain of salt.

[C · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall an interesting and informative read. I had to knock off a few points for incorrect information on diet, although this kind of misunderstanding is common in medicine. Refer to research mentioned by David Ludwig of children that showed that a poor diet deficient in essential animal-sourced micronutrients led to lethargy and depression and caused an unhealthy appearance, rather than laziness and weak willpower leading to an unhealthy appearance as is the common assumption. However, the connected temperament is the same as Dutton stated; the causality is just reversed, and laziness is a reversible environmental circumstance, that may be contributed to by heritable factors but it's not entirely caused by them, as some are just the result of misinformation of the general public (a misunderstanding of nutrition). Other than small (and common) mistakes like this, it was a good but brief book.