№102896[Quote]
I want to discuss physiognomy and it's practical uses. Essentially, physiognomy is the correlation of the body, especially the facial features, to that of the underlying energy, condition, psyche, or even spirit of a person. An example would be that a long nose is considered to be one of thoughtfulness and patience and vice versa for a short nose. I am only really familiar with western physiognomic uses, but eastern physiognomic traditions and teachings would also make a good discussion for anybody familiar, particularly with the medical applications that the Chinese have developed with facial features correlating to specific organs and their conditions.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7g65k0VtiwThis video and channel as a whole is a great starting point for the subject and I've learnt a lot of it. I recommend this channel for people interested, even if I'm critical of some of his ideas for physiognomy or some his content.
>inb4 you're schizo/retarded whateverYou can have any opinions on the validity of this and what I believe, but the fact of the matter is that this thread is, at the very least, a lot more fruitful than many threads on here made as obvious bait about how they goon to tranny porn or whatever snopes-verified bullshit. That isn't even mentioning the state of /soy/. You won't convince me of anything with a snarky (snappy) comment, so engage if you're interested, don't if you're not, and that's that.
<If anybody is interested, you can give me a general description of your personality and I'll try to mentally sketch out what your face would look like based off that. I don't know if I'll actually attempt to draw anything since I'm a terrible artist, but I'll at least describe the specific features that correlate with what is described to me, but keep in mind I have to make a lot of intuitive guesses based off the limits of language and our ability to both communicate and process it, so don't consider this a reliable form of physiognomic application, but instead as something I'm trying for fun. Otherwise, feel free to discuss whatever that is related to the thread topic.
№102898[Quote]
this is a really good thread but it will be buried by low-brow bait–very sad
№102899[Quote]
Just out of curiosity, what got you into this field in the first place, OP?
№102902[Quote]
>>102896 (OP)There is a comment Schopenhauer makes about physiognomy where he says it's always 100% accurate, and if we get someone wrong the mistake is always on our end. I have always liked that comment.
That said, I don't typically think about physiognomy in terms of proportions like "This guy has X length brow/nose therefore he has this trait". I actually find how people tend to hold their facial muscles far more interesting. You can basically understand a person's entire vibe or attitude towards the world through this alone. Like if a person is just lazily coasting through life, leeching off someone else, this will always show on their face. Conversely, if a person is actually locked in and trying their hardest every day, this will also show on their face. In lookism terms, you might get rejected by foids, but if you are actually trying your hardest and living your life to the fullest, you'll still look vaguely cool/good in a way that's hard to describe based on these muscle patterns.
№102907[Quote]
here's stuff from your previous thread
>I promise this is related, but do you know about physiognomy? It's something I've studied for about a year and I do genuinely believe it to be scientifically valid. I could elaborate more if you'd like, but I believe the ideas of physiognomy validate the existence of a sort of intuitive, magnetic energy.
<Physiognomy is not reliable enough to judge people imo.
>I'd like to drop a trvthnuclear physiognomypill, but I don't want to derail the thread. I do believe physiognomy tells us everything about a person though, as the mind, body, genes, hormones, blood, and everything are all one interconnected system. The example I hear the most is of testosterone; if you have someone with high testosterone, then they will look and behave as though they have high testosterone: large muscles and frame, aggressive/high will to achieve goals, etc.
<what about face surgeries?
>Good question, and I myself am conflicted on it, but there are two philosophies I've seen on it. The first, which is notably mentioned by Chinese physiognomists, is that it's simply a scar and does not represent the true self since it isn't what you were naturally given. The second perspective, which is more aligned with western face reading, and one that I lean towards, is that facial surgery can actually change how someone behaves in accordance with the applied meanings of the features they now have or altered. So for example, a wide bridge of the nose stands for general resistance to stress and pressure, so under this theory, a foid getting a surgery for a thin nose bridge would then become more volatile and stressed in general. The logic behind this theory is that since the body is an interconnected system, forcing the body, especially the face, to be structured differently will also change the internal structures of the body. For example, our jawline angle affects how we breathe, which our breathe affects our bloodflow, which affects how organs function, and etc. Hence, someone with a weak jawline (Melancholic temperament) compared to a strong jawline (Sanguine temperament) are practically complete opposites in behavior and in body, so a melancholic chud getting jawline surgery because of the looksmaxxing forums telling him to will actually behave like a sanguine afterwards. This is disputed in physiognomy discourse though.
<Have you encountered people who contradict these markers? For example someone who looks like a giga but is rather timid, or other way around (like a very confident manlet chinlet)
>Not from my experience, but keep in mind that we, as a society, are fed falsehoods relating to looks and told to ignore our intuitions of how someone looks. The weak jawlines, aka melancholics, are always going to be kind of moody and philosophical, but that doesn't necessarily mean not confident, but I'd argue many are very timid due to how society frames them for being ugly in the modern era. There's a video I want you watch, I'll send in the next reppey.
№102908[Quote]
<So it's rather an overview video, I didn't see any full exact lists "feature=trait". And at times this guy sounds like a salesman. Can you structurize some features as an example? Or give me such a list.
>Yeah, I can. I'm going to do it in a separate reppey since I might get carried away and so you know I'm still here. I agree he does have that salesman vibe though, as unfortunately his most educational content is paywalled on patreon. However, I've been watching for about a year and I've rewatched many of the videos and memorized most of the core features.
>The hierarchy of the face goes in this order:
>Temperament (jawline and forehead angle)
>Face shape
>Facial features
>The temperament represents what energy someone has, which is named after the Greek four temperaments of course. Cholerics are leader-like, as they're intense and want to get work done, hence they're extraverted, as the energy is aimed outwards, so you can think of it in the Jungian sense. Sanguines are the stereotypical gigas, not just by looks, but they're extraverted and calm, so natural party people. Melancholics are intense, but introverted, so all of that intensity is aimed inwards, hence they're moody and philosophical, as that drive similar to a Choleric is used for their inner world instead. Phlegmatics are calm, but also introverted like the Melancholic, so they really just want to maintain the current order of things since that brings them personal comfort. You can have multiple temperaments, so for example, you could have a Sanguine jawline, but Choleric forehead. The forehead represents intellect, so the intellect of this person would be intense and oriented towards long term vision, whereas their energy of action, represented by the jawline, has that typical Sanguine type of extraversion and charm, but short-term oriented and difficultly continuing things.
>Face shapes will be too wordy if I get into all of them, but just as some examples:
>Mars face is the warrior archetype, so these people are naturally aggressive, domineering, and determined. Mussolini is an example of someone with that face and a Sanguine temperament. Mercury is sensitive, moody, desires attention, and is naturally witty and charming in communication.
>For specific features, some of the most notable I can think of are:
>If your eyes are deep set, then that means you're calculating and observe before you do something or speak. So bulging eyes have the opposite meaning, as those people aren't calculating what they do or say much, they'll just blurt things out. Every feature's meaning relates to the physical function, so the eyes help us perceive, but they also tell us about one's perception. Another example with eyes would be how wide set they are. Close set eyes means that someone can pick apart and easily notice details, whereas someone with wide set eyes is one who prefers to see the bigger picture and may struggle with details. Another example is with the mouth, as it speaks and eats, so it tells us how one communicates and how they consume or desire. A small mouth means that someone is naturally quiet and introverted in the conventional sense, not the Jungian sense, whereas a wide mouth means the opposite. If you haven't noticed, every feature runs on a spectrum like that. I could give more examples if you need, but this is already very wordy, so I'll only give more examples if you'd like.
<The forehead and chin shapes I have don't match my temperament. Those "partial meanings" seem like stretching the definition to get desired result. Are there any statistics on this topic?
>Sorry for late reply, but keep in mind that isn't everything. I would describe it as the temperament being what kind of energy, the face shape being how it's expressed, and the facial features being where or how it's used.
>Also what do you mean by partial meanings? I don't recall mentioning something like that.
<>You can have multiple temperaments, so for example, you could have a Sanguine jawline, but Choleric forehead. The forehead represents intellect
<this
<btw did you pay anything to prosopa guy? I feel like you're being scammed, he puts everything on sale from pictures to guides to tshirts. His temperaments article just separates people into 4 groups with exact physical and psychological traits which is just obviously wrong.
<I understand this physiognomy idea as correlation of some genes of facial traits with genes influencing personality. Doe it's too weak and inaccurate to make certain assumptions on sight.
<have you used this to analyze people IRL? and with what success?
№102909[Quote]
^It's so weird to me that guys now are fixating on shit like face shapes and personality type now. This kind of stuff is meant for women. Instead of looking at your eyebrows going hmm am I a warrior or a genius how about you go find a battle to fight in or a topic to study. People are defined by what they do not how they look.
>It's more nuanced than the temperaments. Again, that's just the general energy of someone, but the minutia of people are within the face shape and features.
>>btw did you pay anything to prosopa guy?
>No, I'd never do that geg. He is the most informative media personality on the topic, but I don't care much for him as a person and especially his monetization tactics, but I can kind of understand it for spreading his message of esoteric knowledge. You can get the illustrations for free on the website btw or just from the videos, but like I said earlier, his actual good and educational content is mostly paywalled, so you have to really autistically pay attention to many videos and keep track to learn from his free content.
>>have you used this to analyze people IRL? and with what success?
>All of the time. I even gave my coworkers readings when we were hanging out one time and they were all surprised by the accuracy, but I will be fair and say it could be an effect of just describing vague things that can apply to many people since I can be pretty bad with details, but I was trying to be as detailed as possible and pointing out their most unusual and polarizing features. I use this to read the people around me constantly, but of course I can't get the best idea from a quick glance nor can I just stare at them while I'm working my retail job or something, but I tend to look at eyes, eyebrows, nose, mouth, and jawline for quick overviews of people and they tend to align with how the customers treat me at my job, especially the meaner ones.
>>Instead of looking at your eyebrows going hmm am I a warrior or a genius how about you go find a battle to fight in or a topic to study.
>It isn't about putting yourself inside boxes just for fun. It's a tool for understanding yourself and others.
>>People are defined by what they do not how they look.
>Disagree. Why do people look a certain way? Genetics, hormones, diet. But why do those things affect how we look? What else do they effect? Why do they tend to have correlating effects of physical characteristics and mental ones? An example is Thyroid disease. Thryoid disease is commonly diagnosed by the tail of the eyebrow thinning, but how would the eyebrow be related to the Thyroid? Why do these things seem to be connected within our body? Face reading was also used for medical purposes by the Chinese, although I'm not educated enough on eastern physiognomy practices to know much about that.
>I think you people should be more open to the idea of physiognomy, but I'd like to remind everyone that this isn't the topic of my thread. I brought it up briefly in conversation because I thought it was interesting and could open the minds of people, but I'd rather make a separate thread on physiognomy for people open to the idea. I don't know why you guys are so trusting of modern jew science where they constantly lobby for studies to give biased results to "disprove" things is such fields as racial anthropology, which if want my opinion on it, is a large part of why physiognomy is classified as pseudoscience in the modern day, as it implies that if a certain look pertains to certain behavior, then that would mean your biological race affects how you behave and that the race would largely behave in a similar manner, which I think it's obvious to see why they would want to censor that in favor of the egalitarian worldview they push to achieve the kalergi plan.
№102910[Quote]
>>You can have multiple temperaments, so for example, you could have a Sanguine jawline, but Choleric forehead. The forehead represents intellect
>That isn't partial meanings. The jawline and forehead represent different things within the temperament of somebody, but are all part of it. The forehead is the temperament/energy of the intellect, the jawline is the temperament/energy of one in the material world. So if one has a Choleric forehead, but Sanguine jawline, that isn't a partial meaning, but it means that the intellect represents all that is Choleric and the physical represents all that is Sanguine. I remember prosopa got into a shitflinging contest with ubersoy and this was one of the points brought up, so if those videos are still up on prosopa's channel then you could watch those to see his counterargument, but it's essentially what I said. Ubersoy just misunderstood what it meant, just like you, and he conceded on that point, but I don't know if he indulged in physiognomy afterwards.
<That's called barnum effect, you should learn about it. With customers you cross-reference it with behavior and social manners which are more important and reliable indicators. I suspect you just subconsciously recognize social patterns and expressions and interpret it as mostly info from physiognomy. Quickly grasping others' mood and intentions is a good skill doe
>I look at the face first. The face is ALWAYS the first thing you see unless you're intentionally looking away. I have my assumptions first, which are then confirmed and validated by their behavior, not the other way around where they behave first and then I think "woah this relates to X feature" although I also do the latter often times with people I'm familiar with, even online friends that I don't know or fully know what they look like, which I draw an example of a feature I think they have, which they've always said is correct. So I'm able to reverse engineer a face by knowing characteristics as well.
<if it works so well then you should make a guide or visual feature table, something like that
>I believe you misunderstood the graph I posted. The extraversion and introversion isn't defined in the conventional sense. If you're familiar with how Carl Jung defined the terms, then I'd say it's exactly that. Introversion means that something, like an energy, is focused INWARDS, as in the subjective, the mind, us the individual. Extraverted means something is pointed towards the physical world, like work, investment, etc.
>I honestly might, that's a great idea. It just sounds annoying to try to visualize that on a single face with some features like wide set eyes and close set eyes for example, so I'd probably have to use a very average face mockup and use arrows and whatnot that are color-coded with the colors assigned meanings.
>Those features you described I'd say would be better represented by specific facial features rather than the temperament btw. The temperament is simply the broad stroke on a painting, as it's very general and defines WHAT energy, but the features and shapes define HOW or WHERE it manifests.
<that's the definition stretching which I was talking about. and I am rather reclusive and inactive so extraversion doesn't match me in any way
>Are you familiar with Jung's work? I'm not stretching the definition, I told you how the terms are defined in this context. Being that physiognomy explains the psychology of a person, it isn't crazy to think that Jungian terminology would be used to describe things. Plenty of Cholerics are introverted people by the conventional meaning, including me (Choleric and Melancholic), which would be represented in the features, not the temperament, because the temperament doesn't define literal introversion and extraversion. In fact, I think those terms actually had their meaning changed to what we know them now today, so I'd say the Jungian definitions are the actual meaning if anything, but word definitions change since they are a social construct.
<I'm not that deep into psychology, give me this definition then
<also there's a discrepancy in that image, sanguine and melancholic foreheads are the same.
№102911[Quote]
>Introversion means something, usually referring to the psychology or conscious of someone, is pointed inwards. That means it concerns themselves, how they think, feel, or perceive something, the subjective. Extraversion is the opposite, as it means that object is pointed outwards to objective reality and is concerned with how other things work, feel, think, ot perceive. But of course, if you're familiar with the cognitive functions, then obviously we all are introverts and extraverts in different regards. For example, one could have introverted feeling, but extraverted thinking, so their logic is pointed towards the objective, but their feeling is pointed inwards. It would obviously be impossible for someone to function as a "true introvert" or "true extravert", so the cognitive functions explain the variable psychology in how it expresses.
>>also there's a discrepancy in that image, sanguine and melancholic foreheads are the same.
>I'm glad you pointed this out. If you hadn't noticed, the Choleric and Phlegmatic also have similar foreheads. If you look closely, you'll notice that the Sanguine has a steeper angle to the forehead. Similarly, the Phlegmatic has more of a bump on the top of the forehead with a rounded appearance. This represents that the Choleric and Phlegmatic, with their rounded foreheads are more high-minded and long term thinkers, meanwhile the Sanguine and Melancholic rely more on quick wit and intuition.
<so it's what you're usually CONCERNED with most time, right? I can't name that intraversion in classic sense
<are there traits for each forehead? or is it more like a spectrum?
>That's one way to put it, yes. Hopefully me agreeing with that doesn't result in you explaining some contradiction that was implied in wording it that way that I didn't realize, geg. But yes, at least for now, I think that's a good way to describe it.
>The traits of the forehead just correlate with the traits of the temperament, but concentrated on the intellect, as that's what the forehead defines.
>>or is it more like a spectrum?
>Genuinely a good question, as I've wondered this too. From how mr prosopa nigger describes it, the temperaments seem very rigid, unlike features which are definitely on individual spectrums. It could be possible that the temperaments are on a spectrum, but that would bring the question of how that would manifest and look like in reality, like where on the spectrum would Sanguine be in contrast to Melancholic? So can someone be 32% Choleric, 20% Melancholic, and 48% Sanguine? I'd say probably not, because there's no clear way to divide one temperament into being on a more extreme end of a spectrum than another, they're all wholly distinct. They can only be split in what they are in individual features, the jawline and forehead, but I don't believe the individual parts of a temperament can have multiple temperaments.
<with that definition it's more true, I'm rather no-nonsense utilitarian guy and hate hesitation when doing what I want. I'm skeptical about this theme because it's too vague, there are no exact guides available.
>I understand your concern. Keep in mind that psychology is a very new science in general, there is so much about the mind, soul, and consciousness we just can't understand, as due to the very nature of consciousness, a lot of the truths we can gather come from subjective, intuitive processes rather than objective metrics, which is why it can often be difficult to even label some psychological work as science. As prosopa said in the video I linked, physiognomy is more of an art form than science. I partly disagree with that sentiment, but for most of the history of physiognomy this was true, as the ancients did not have the knowledge and metrics of modern psychological science to measure and compare with physiognomic observations. I can be rigid too, but I think many people do need to learn there is a value in indulging the intuition you have instead of going purely off observable things, as of course, our very perception itself is subjective and a distortion of reality, as we project ourselves onto it, so we can't even fully trust what we observe. Modern physiognomy right now is a balance between the sensory and the intuitive in a sense, but with how the ancients understood it, it was almost entirely an intuitive process.
№102913[Quote]
<Using intuition is giga. It is effective in-built heuristics tool, I somewhat learned to use it to extent which is considered "cheating" or even "foresight" by other people. In fact it processes stuff outside of consciousness which is faster than traditional thinking. You need to double-check results for important stuff doe
>>You need to double-check results for important stuff doe
>This is definitely something I can struggle with. Even in this very thread, you can see people saying my ideas are retarded and womanly or whatever, but these are just ideas my mind goes to once I have even a slither of a grasp of a topic. I do try to be self aware and say that I can't confirm these ideas to be wholly true, but they intuitively make sense to me. Hence I created this retarded schizo thread connecting two seemingly different worlds of topics together and backing it up with even more of my nonsense to backup both sides of an argument I completely made up.
<This feeling when you can't grasp something out of your mind and properly elaborate? Yes you need to train this, since you use intuitive thought a lot external-reliant argumentation is the thing you need. You may be right, just need to structurize this mess.
>Yes, constantly I struggle with this in the real world. I constantly try to perfect my arguments with imaginary debates in my mind, but every time, when it actually comes to it then I just don't have the words. Call me retarded for this, but today I tried to explain Jews, masonry, and international banking to my mom and I just didn't have the words in the moment, then of course she got upset with me geg. My bad for being socially unaware there to be fair, but I do care a lot about what's true and having the truth be known for a better future.
>Anything in specific you could tell me that was messy and difficult to understand? I know I can often speak abstractly, but I don't know how else to describe an abstract concept, I'm sorry.
<Write stuff down, use graphs and other visual clear representation. You're not retarded, rather unbalanced. Your capabilities of abstract thought are too much to quickly interpret into understandable language. What you think in seconds would take minutes to extensively explain. That's what I think is happening
<With previous explanations you provided "express" overview like assuming everyone knows psychology and adjacent stuff in depth. Also some words (like introversion) can be interpreted differently by other people.
>I will try to do this for the future. This also probably explains why I have a much better time explaining these things to online chuds in contrast to real life, even though I still clearly struggled itt.
>Also a good note, but to be fair, I think there is a degree in which there is a bar of knowledge expected to be passed in order to partake in a discussion of a thread topic. If someone came in here asking what semen retention is, I might try to explain to get them on the right path, but it would distract from the discussion and would bother me trying to explain to a noob of the topic when I wanted to discuss the complexities of it. I likely just set that knowledge bar too high in many topics I discuss. In fact, I'd say I can generally be very impatient with 'stupid' people, which is basically just the majority of normies, which of course is very broad, and that make reflect more of an issue with me than with the society, even if there's many issues with it.
<I have some knowledge (like jung functions) but misinterpreted "extraversion" because commonly it = sociable.
<>I likely just set that knowledge bar too high in many topics I discuss
<exactly this, and using words in uncommon sense. dumb normies are really annoying doe. I tried to explain to a foid why in lotteries you always statistically lose (and what is expected mean value) and it was insufferable
>Geg, this reminds me of when I was indirectly explaining per capita to a nigger coworker and he just couldn't get it. It wasn't about per capita, but it was the same principle of mean averages since I was trying to explain how women, on average, are weaker than men, but he kept insisting "but some women are stronger than men" and it was just a back of forth of that and "Yes, but ON AVERAGE…" so niggers not understanding per capita is real GEG.
№102914[Quote]
physiognomy stuff ended at this point
№102916[Quote]
not reading all dis but I just want your opinion on ugly chuds, is it just natural for chuds to be ugly or are we chuds because we're ugly
№102928[Quote]
this is honestly gay, its basically astrology but for men
№102929[Quote]
>not reading all dis but I just want your opinion on ugly chuds, is it just natural for chuds to be ugly or are we chuds because we're ugly
chuds cuz ugly
№102989[Quote]
I went to bed after I made the OP, so sorry for the late reply guys.
>>102899I remember back in 2025, somebaldi linked the Prosopa video of Nick Fuentes' face reading on /pol/. Like many, I thought the concept was retarded and pseudoscience at first, but I looked into the channel out of curiosity and a lot of things just started making sense. In particular, the main premise of physiognomy being that the whole body, mind, and spirit is an interconnected system, which is a common theme among how ancients describe the human body, whether it be in Chinese medicine with the need to preserve Qi, or within Abrahamic religions that tell us that our body is a temple (Solomon's temple). I don't know what exactly it is about physiognomy that fascinated me so much, but I'd say part of it may be the fact that I've always struggled to live in the present or that I'm in control of a tangible body, so the fact that physiognomy is a bridge that links the mental to the physical has helped me see the value in tangible reality, such as taking care of my body.
>>102902>if we get someone wrong the mistake is always on our endI agree with this comment 100%.
>I don't typically think about physiognomy in terms of proportions like "This guy has X length brow/nose therefore he has this trait"I wouldn't think of it exactly like that either, but it's close. Essentially, I see every facial feature as being on a spectrum or pole. Every single feature, whether it be eye width, canthal tilt, eyelid thickness, whatever, is on a spectrum from the minimum to maximum of whatever thing is expressed. You could think of the Hermetic principle of polarity; all things have an equal opposite and all opposites are the same thing, but on opposite poles. I do agree facial muscles play a part in physiognomy, but I'd say it's because the facial muscles start to wretch a default state of expression of a feature over time. Of course, physiognomic principles apply to all states of being, not just our default, so if we are surprised then that will show in the face through more open eyes, raised eyebrows, maybe a gaping jaw, etc.
>>102914I'm not sure what you mean by this. You mean the practice is out of scientific favor? I'm well aware, but I have many criticisms of modern science in general and in fact, the entire soyjak meme is partially based on this concept due to the concept of a 'soyboy' which is scientifically disproven, but the consensus by many in the public still holds that soy does increase estrogen. I have no opinion on if that's true or not, but just an interesting observation.
>>102943I've actually discussed this with some people before, and it's an interesting point to bring up. We need to separate lookism from physiognomy, as they are separate perspectives on how to interpret looks and beauty. Lookism's primary focus is looking as good as possible by the standards of wider media and society, so lookism's ideal form of a person is based primarily off subjective factors since there isn't really an objectively best feature. In fact, I would say that for the most part, there isn't really objectively good or bad features, but a good or bad face is determined holistically by the harmony or disharmony of the combined features of a face, which we then subconsciously recognize as good or bad depending on what image the face paints for us. So yes, while Sanguines and Cholerics are the most attractive by the standards of lookism and may turn out to be more well-developed individuals due to how society treats them, this is purely due to a propagated social media culture way from Jews that did not exist for literally all of humanity until our perception of beauty was put into the control of mass media.
<For example, not long ago from medieval to maybe around Renaissance-era Europe, melancholy was actually celebrated and seen as a sign of genius. European nobility and aristocrats often commissioned folly structures of what looked to be ancient ruins or small little sheds accompanied by somebody they hired that looks homeless to live there just for the sake of procuring a melancholic vibe. You can argue that this is also just as superficial as the modern day pedestal that Sanguine looks and Sanguine traits occupy with the fun-loving, spontaneous, sometimes brutish and generally not thoughtful or intelligent being seen as most attractive to the average whore. Look past this crafted narrative you see on media and the goyim that follow it though, and you find that people are still individuals with their own individual tastes. Some girls really do love a Melancholic, thin, sensitive man.
№102990[Quote]
>>102907>>102908>>102909>>102910>>102911>>102913Thank you for this btw. I'll read this in a bit, but if you don't mind, you could give me a general description of your character and I could try to procure some image of you in my mind. Think of it similarly to Jung's cognitive functions or MBTI; describe the inner processes of yourself, not the outer behaviors as a result of it, since that can be determined by other factors like the environment.
№103017[Quote]
>>102989I meant that in the previous thread I dumped here we stopped discussing physiognomy at that point and switched to psychology
>>102990as I said previously a guy with strong logic and intuition which I use in tandem. I tend to make things utilitarian, clear and somewhat orderly, with no excessive elements. I'm fine with my personal stuff being messy however I clean it up if I'm presenting smth to others. messy = incomprehensible, thus it loses its purpose. I'm rather skeptical but I don't immediately ditch an idea if it seems schizo.
№103029[Quote]
>>103017I'm going to start with features that I'm almost certain you have, then progressing down to features I'm more iffy on. You could say I'm cheating a bit since you already told me your temperament and knowing your MBTI type also helps, but regardless here's what I imagine:
I'm absolutely certain you have at least above average nose length, if not a long nose. This shows thoughtfulness and patience; a thinker more than a doer. However, if you're a well-integrated person then maybe it's closer to average length if you're great at materializing your plans, but I think that is likely to express in other features rather than diminishing the thoughtfulness.
<Secondly, I'm also certain you have deep-set eyes. Deep-set eyes show calculation and a hesitation to speak or act before observation. Naturally, bulging 'frog' eyes have the opposite meaning.
<The next feature I imagine is long eyebrow length. Eyebrows represent our decision-making, hence we emote with them when deciding, so long eyebrows would naturally mean that one is thoughtful with their decision making. The overarching theme here so far is a long-term vision being prioritized over spontaneity or risk.
<You said in the previous thread that you consider yourself a conventional introvert, which to no surprise, means that I think you most likely have a smaller mouth width than average. This signifies multiple things, of course the most obvious being that a wide mouth means somebody that talks a lot, so naturally you aren't one that would talk a lot. However, it also means you aren't as apt to chase your desires, as the mouth also represents appetite of all things, not just hunger. This isn't to say you aren't determined to achieve your goals; goals and desires are distinct things, even if they may commonly overlap. So when it comes to desires, especially ones that don't seem to have a practical conclusion, like purely pleasurable things like sex, then you're not so apt to fulfill those desires, especially in the case of lust knowing your stance on that. That allows me to segway into the next feature:
<You likely have a thin philtrum. This is a more subtle feature and it can be hard for some to visualize and contrast what a thin or wide philtrum is in contrast to an average one, but the philtrum is an energy indicator and relates to how we express ourselves. In the case of philtrum width, it stands for how tolerant or 'loose' somebody is with expression of themselves and others. You can think of it like a valve, where a tight valve restricts and focuses all of the energy into a constrained area, but a loose valve allowing water to travel freely and in a larger area, but not so focused. People with thin philtrums are often considered uptight or prudes since they won't tolerate things like casual sex, bad manners, or other manners of things like that because things should be a certain way that is ideal and correct. The opposite is true of wide philtrums, where I've actually discussed with somebody on here before how they observed that girls with wide philtrums are often slutty and should be avoided geg. That isn't universally true of course, but it's a good indicator. So I believe your philtrum is thinner than average and I'd also posit that your philtrum is 'thicker' or 'sticks out' more than average, meaning that you don't struggle with expressing yourself. Relating it back to MBTI, it does remind me that the INTJ is often seen as infamously individualistic and contemptuous of others due to perceived mediocrity of everybody around them, and that isn't the say that's what you think (even doe I think this all the time geg), but I'd say the aspect of individualism is likely there and so I think you might also have a thick philtrum. This one could be confusing, so I suggest searching up images of different philtrums for reference.
№103030[Quote]
>>103017^Body too long awardFrom this point, I'm less sure of these features and it's more of guesswork, but I still think they're noteworthy if I'm correct. I think your eyes are likely wider-set, albeit likely not a ton, but I'd say it's because wide-set eyes indicate seeing the big picture. So you can think of it as wider-set eyes literally expanding the horizons of what you see, but at the cost that you can miss details right in front of you at certain angles. The opposite is true for close-set eyes, as they're detail-focused and can see details in front of them clearly, but the perspective is limited. As prosopa said once, wide-set eyes miss the trees for the forest, and close-set eyes the forest for the trees. I don't think you'd have super wide-set eyes though since you don't strike me as spacey or ungrounded, but just enough that you might miss details that seem obvious to others sometimes, but with the benefit that you have a larger vision.
<I forgot to include this, so it's out of order of the most to least likely features, but I definitely think you have almond-shaped eyes. This is caused by the shape of the lower eyelid. If the lower eyelid is straighter, it creates an almond-like shape and means that you perceive the world through your intellect more, while rounder lower eyelids means you perceive the world through your feelings and emotions.
<There are other more obscure features I could delve into it, but I think this is good for now. The last thing I'll get into is face shape, as up until this point I haven't acknowledged it even though it's very important. I said in my previous thread something along the lines of temperament representing the what, face shapes the how, and facial features the where. I disagree with this now and I'd reorganize it to say that facial features are the what (minutia), the face shape the where, and the temperaments the how (type of energy). So I know with you that your energy is driven and focused for the long term and that is achieved through your thoughtful, patient, and detached or objective demeanor. However, where this is being used, the face shape, is really difficult to say. It's hard to diagnose face shapes even in real life, so trying to figure it through a description alone is difficult, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's likely a sun or Saturn face shape. The sun shape represents a generally intellectual and detached disposition, but not necessarily cold. Paraphrasing Prosopa, he described the sun face as "Being happy to be invited to a party, but not upset to not be". That analogy may not literally apply to you, but I think you can understand the essence behind it being that they're content, or even happy to connect with others, but are also fine being left up to their own. They are also described as being aristocratic and high-minded in nature. The other face shape is Saturn, which is oriented around work, details, and being conscientious of time, which is fitting for the god it's named after. This emphasizes more of the pure work ethic and determination of achieving one's visions that, but at the cost of being colder, a general tunnel vision, and interestingly, an increased sex drive. I want to remind you though that of all the things I listed, the face shapes are definitely what I'm the least sure about; I'm not even fully sure of mine (I think sun and possibly combination of another like Mercurcy?), but I wanted to do your reading justice. Use the pic related for reference for what you think you are.
№103037[Quote]
OP can you give some examples of people whom you consider to have both (1) melancholic features and (2) really high IQ/thoughtful physiognomy?
Don't just give me Einstein or Descartes or whatever. Like go through this podcast if you can and tell me "yeah this and this guy has those features" etc
https://www.youtube.com/@DwarkeshPatelAlso do you think the famous bust of julius caesar has melancholic features?
№103040[Quote]
>>103037>OP can you give some examples of people whom you consider to have both (1) melancholic features and (2) really high IQ/thoughtful physiognomy?>Like go through this podcast if you can and tell me "yeah this and this guy has those features" etcWell I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'melancholic features'. I'm assuming you mean features that show a melancholic or emotional disposition, so in the conventional meaning of the word, as otherwise it doesn't make sense if you in the context of the temperament, as any feature can be combined with any temperament and the temperament gives it a different context based off of that. Sure, some temperaments might stereotypically have some features more than others, but there isn't truly 'melancholic features'. With the graph I posted in my previous reply as an example, iirc Prosopa himself said he hasn't observed some temperaments having some face shapes more commonly than others, but rather he groups them together like that because he just finds them to be the most fitting for that temperament's energy. I disagree with the way he categorizes them like this and I don't see any use for it, but regardless I'll try to follow your request by looking for people with thoughtful features and a melancholic temperament and other people with thoughtful features and other features that can show deep underlying feelings or melancholy in the conventional meaning of the word. I'll probably do that in the next reply since I can quickly answer your next question.
>Also do you think the famous bust of julius caesar has melancholic features?With what I just explained, since I don't really know what you mean by that, I'll just go off of the requirements you asked of the first request. It seems obvious to me that he doesn't have a Melancholic temperament, as there isn't a bow-like shape to the profile like what I have despite being mostly Choleric. His face is pretty straight (discounting the nose of course), forehead is high and rounded with only a slight slope, so it seems clear to me that in both intellect (forehead) and material (jawline) matters his energy is Choleric. To start listing features under your criteria though, he has a long nose, which is by far the most significant feature to look for when it comes to thoughtfulness in my opinion. In terms of melancholy, his nose has a bump, which is quite appropriately named the Roman nose, as it signifies a conquering spirit, but also reactivity that may had sometimes manifested as impatience. I don't think it's a surprise that Julius Caesar of all people would have this feature.
№103041[Quote]
>>103037^wordswordswords againIt also appears that the bust looks like it has very long eyebrows, which again, shows that a lot of contemplation is put into decisions. Despite that, the eyebrows are low-set, meaning he was very decisive and generally quick to decide. It's a great masculine combination to be both very contemplative, yet quick to judge and make a decision, which is fitting for him. However, what's interesting to me is how thin his eyebrows are, showing very little energy in decision making. Maybe this is just an inaccuracy carried over from me perceiving the bust incorrectly, wear and tear, or the eyebrow just not being translated perfectly, but I like to think that they would of known better than to not portray their leader as close to his likeness as possible, so it does seem to me that this was the case. Or maybe the outlines that I'm perceiving as eyebrows are just a result of the sockets made by his eyes, although they don't appear super deep-set to me. Nonetheless, the thin eyebrows would mean his energy in decision-making was more refined and gentle, as there wasn't so much of it, which is strange considering his position, so take that as you will, maybe a bad read on my part. Back to his eyes, they actually seem to bulge more than they are retched inside the eye sockets, meaning he wasn't one to observe something for too long before speaking or acting. He probably cared a lot about having his opinions be heard and wasn't one that cared to hide his intentions much beyond practical means. He also has deep nasolabial folds, showing deep spiritual purpose, but I've also seen Prosopa link it to ability to command. I don't think that's what the feature directly means, but nasolabial folds are a great sign of wisdom and knowledge, so it isn't crazy to think that people with it could be in a position to lead. His nose bridge is somewhat wide, showing that there is a lot of energy in general, as the nose breathes in air that is required for the function of the entire body, so the nose gives us a picture of how somebody functions at base, perhaps you could the default base being our consciousness and resulting thoughts if you go by mentalism, so there is a lot of energy in his thought and general function. Back to the theme of melancholy, his upper eyelids are thick, meaning he did have a strong need for intimacy. That intimacy could be any kind, whether romantic, sexual, or platonic, he had a strong need for it. The last interesting feature I'll point out is the asymmetry of his ears. Our left side from our perspective represents our true self, while our right is the public self. Another way to put it is that the left is the masculine, the will, the experiencer, while the right is the feminine, the action, the experienced. His left ear has a very large top third, showing a strong intellectual interest, but his right ear is more balanced in the size of each third of the ear, even if the top third is still large on his right. His antitragus is also huge on the right side, but still big on the left side. Respectively, the former indicates that he had a strong intellectual or even philosophical interest in his private life, but it was more balanced out by social and material interests in his public life. For the latter, he was an incredible speaker in his public life, but not as much so in private, even if still relatively good. Hitler also had a large antitragus in the ears if that matters. Those are all of the interesting and relevant features I can think of.
№103042[Quote]
>>103037I think I'm going to do the quick readings on that podcast channel tomorrow night, I hope you dont' mind that. I spent longer on those replies than I thought I would and I have to work today, so I shouldn't be up this late geg. Goodnight 'teens, I'll probably be back tomorrow, or later today depending on your timezone.
№103077[Quote]
>>103029>>103030your description is mostly true, you ordered these by your confidence in it right as well. I can see the logic of your choice of features so it doesn't look like a lucky guess. however I won't indicate which ones exactly are true or not as it'd be a form of selfdox.
>People with thin philtrums are often considered uptight or prudes since they won't tolerate things like casual sex, bad manners, or other manners of things like that because things should be a certain way that is ideal and correct.>where I've actually discussed with somebody on here before how they observed that girls with wide philtrums are often slutty and should be avoided geg.I do not tolerate sexual degeneracy as it spreads when not opposed and destroys any society but I don't care about rituals, manners and such. just to clarify, does a philtrum show one's attitude mostly towards sex or is sex attitude a part equal with its other factors?
I still can't understand what is represented with face shape. are these strictly connected with jaw and forehead shapes? like, man with sanguine ones can have only first four face shapes and so on.
tried to find the descriptions of faces from pic but couldn't, it's paid content I suppose. can you write down traits of each face shape?
№103090[Quote]
>>103077>however I won't indicate which ones exactly are true or not as it'd be a form of selfdoxPersonally, I think people here are too worried about being doxxed or revealing any kind of information. There isn't any way I could realistically figure out who you are with that description, even if I knew what country/state you lived in, but that's your choice and I understand it. I'll just say that I've posted in a self-identifiable manner many times, although not as a namefag or avatar, and you're the only one to have ever noticed that I'm the same person. And you only recognized me from one thread I made, not the many other things I've said mostly on this board in the past. The anonymity here is something I see to be leveraged for easy access to deeper and meaningful conversation with no risk at all. Sorry if I come off as a fed, but that's just my opinion on the matter. I don't want people posting their faces or anything like that in my thread doe.
>but I don't care about rituals, manners and such. just to clarify, does a philtrum show one's attitude mostly towards sex or is sex attitude a part equal with its other factors?To be clear, the philtrum doesn't specifically represent any of those things. There is no feature that represents something specific and tangible like that, but rather, every feature is an image of a part of our inner selves, it gets down right to the essence of what it is and means. So for example, I could never tell from somebody's face that they've had sex with 24 men and 940 women, but I could see that their face paints a picture of a very lustful person. It gets down to the essence of things, but it's impossible to tell every practical detail from somebody's face without context outside physiognomy. Hence, when I say things like "You likely have X behavior an Y trait" you shouldn't think of it as the feature being correlated with that specific behavior and causing it, but the feature simply represents that and is one stroke apart of the larger picture of yourself.
<As for the actual meaning of the philtrum, think back to my example of the valve. A loose valve allows water to frow freely and occupy as much space as it feels like. So the vice versa is that a tight valve constricts the water and only allows the water to flow (to express) in a specific and rigid way that the valve's mechanics allow, as it's deemed correct. So I said the philtrum represents your stance on sexual immorality and I gave an anecdote that a thin philtrum commonly expresses as an archetypal prude or puritan, but the opposite situation can be true and still express as a thin philtrum, as all opposites are equal. So for example, you could have an extremely sexually immoral man and he insists that anal sex and sodomy are the only correct or righteous methods of sexual pleasure. Of course, this isn't a common sight at all because of how retarded that belief is, but regardless, if a man genuinely believed that the only proper manner of sex was sodomy and he was prudently against vanilla sexual practices, then this man would have a thin philtrum; a tight valve so to speak. Prosopa's video on Aleister Crowley's reading is a great example of this and I think that was one of his best readings in general.
№103092[Quote]
>I still can't understand what is represented with face shape. are these strictly connected with jaw and forehead shapes?No. That's just a Prosopa thing to link the face shapes towards certain temperaments, but as I said in another reply, I recall that he himself said he didn't see a correlation between temperament and how common any specific face shape was. He categorizes them under temperaments because he says the traits of those shapes are the most befitting of those temperaments, but this is one aspect I'm critical of and I see absolutely no use in these categorizations to claim that one expression of Sanguine energy is more proper than another.
>are these strictly connected with jaw and forehead shapes?No.
>can you write down traits of each face shape?Yeah I can later, but I need to go to work soon. If you care to investigate yourself, just look at the names of each face shape. They're named after the Greek gods, which of course originate as ancient astrological tradition with the stars they're named after. So I think some face shapes like Mars or Saturn are fairly easy to understand with just that knowledge, but I'll elaborate later when I have the time. Just remember what I said: facial features are the what (minutia; tangible expression), face shapes the where (things the minutia are aimed towards), and temperament the how (the type of energy; the approach or method for achieving the where).
>>103037I didn't forget about you btw, but like I said to the guy above, I don't have time right now so I'll do your request when I'm off work or tomorrow.
№103093[Quote]
>>103077Oh one last thing I forgot, but you can also consider the temperament to be the why rather than the how, as the drive behind going to the where.
№103106[Quote]
>>103041> Our left side from our perspective represents our true self, while our right is the public self. Oh yeah, I remember the Proposa channel making this observation. I think he said it in reference to Jung but it applies to everyone. Personally for me I have a heavily over-developed masseter muscle on my right side, which causes my face on the right to be very tight, and at the same time prevents the left side masseter from developing, which means that that part of my face is sunken. A person who has to wear a mask at all times and show the world a controlled version of themselves will probably develop this same asymmetry. Even if they correct the masseter overdevelopment on the right side, in time it'll just happen again unless they change the psychological state that produced it.