â„–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.
â„–102898[Quote]
this is a really good thread but it will be buried by low-brow bait–very sad
â„–102899[Quote]
Just out of curiosity, what got you into this field in the first place, OP?
â„–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.
â„–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.
â„–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?
â„–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.
â„–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.
â„–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.
â„–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.
â„–102914[Quote]
physiognomy stuff ended at this point
â„–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
â„–102928[Quote]
this is honestly gay, its basically astrology but for men
â„–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
â„–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.
â„–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.
â„–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.
â„–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.
â„–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.
â„–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?
â„–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.
â„–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.
â„–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.
â„–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?
â„–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.
â„–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.
â„–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.
â„–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.
â„–103118[Quote]
>>103106>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.Exactly. Although there are different opinions on situations like that, as some argue that one who gets plastic surgery will actually retain the personality that would come with the new features due to the structure of the face, and hence the structure of the entire body (the interconnected system; all is one) changes. Maybe in other situations where the change isn't as forced, like with exercising a muscle, then I'd say what you said is correct. Either that, or the muscle simply never develops in the first place despite the effort due to the psychological state. The state of muscles serves as the means of translating the inner state through the outer appearance essentially.
â„–103129[Quote]
>>103090>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.you started talking about physiognomy and there was a picture from that thread
>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 knowledgeafter searching for that I found the corresponding themes of each planet/god but there are different interpretations how it is applied to one's life. some say that this theme is a "challenge" you struggle with most while others suggest that it's your talent. so I'm still confused.
other thing I want to ask, does physiognomy apply to fictional characters and memes? and subconscious interpretation of their "would-be" personalities by the majority of people, even by those who don't know about physiognomy. if a meme character has no context people still try to predict what his personality would be like.
â„–103144[Quote]
>>103129>you started talking about physiognomy and there was a picture from that threadExactly my point geg. I had to make it obvious for anybody to make that connection, which even then it was purely accidental since I forgot that I've used that image before. So I basically just did an accidental avatarfag, but otherwise I would of still been anonymous. All of us still are anonymous even if I have some known moniker like "the physiognomy guy" or "the guy that types like X" because unless the site owner himself were to be after me, then there is no way they can ever find out my real identity unless I revealed information that brought it down to a significant (like less than 10000) minority. Again, your choice to have an opsec level: GOD or not, but sometimes I have to reveal things about myself like what state I live in or my temperament to have deep conversations, which I don't mind because I know it means nothing that people "know" me through a controlled identity online. If I were using something that required signups though then it'd be different unless I used only burner information to create the account.
>some say that this theme is a "challenge" you struggle with most while others suggest that it's your talent. so I'm still confused.Every god and archetype has a light and dark side, so it's both. It's both a blessing and a curse to be Martian, Venusian, Jovial, etc. in spirit. I'll give descriptions of each of the face shapes, and consequentially, the traits of each archetype/god.
<Mars is well known to be the god of war. The Martian spirit is stereotypically masculine and they're known for their loyalty to what they love and a fighting spirit, whether literal or more abstract, like fighting for a cause or in the realm of intellect. However, if you're thinking of a purely Martian essence without any other elements or strings attached, then it will probably manifest as physical. Conversely, they're known to hold strong hatred for things they dislike or that get in their way, which will trigger that instinct to fight. I think Mars is an easy one to understand see how it would manifest in both light and dark manners. On one hand, the light would be a loyal friend to the death and a great foot soldier or even leader for a cause. On the other hand, they can unnecessarily escalate things with their combative demeanor and create those kind of problems that would trigger them in the first place if they hadn't been more diplomatic. Benito Mussolini is a great example of a Mars face, as he used to sword duel his political opponents before he became the leader of Italy.
<If Mars is the most masculine, then Venus is the most feminine, which again is no surprise. Venus is concerned with all things aesthetically pleasing and beautiful, including love, although that isn't their main focus, it is often included because pure love is a naturally beautiful thing and a Venusian person that recognizes or believes their idea of love to be beautiful will desire it. Venus naturally aims for harmony in its quest for aesthetics and beauty, as conflict and war will tear down the more exquisite things in life in favor of practical needs, like when women started working in factories to produce supplies for the world wars. It's easy to see how Venus is stereotypically feminine, but interestingly, these contrasting descriptions of Mars and Venus also remind me of the dichotomy between introverted and extraverted feeling (Fi and Fe), so make of that what you will.
<Mercury is the god of communication, but also the god of thieves. Mercury is clever and attention-seeking, as they often feel the need to express what they think or feel. Hence, we find that Prosopa refers to Mercurians as archetypal Magicians (not in the manner of Jung's archetypes, which include one named the Magician). I imagine he came up with this name not because of actual magick, but in reference to a performing magician of stage magic; clever combinations of sleight of hand, subtle suggestion in body language and expression, and all other kinds of trickery simply for a show of their talent.
â„–103148[Quote]
>103129
Jupiter is the biggest planet and is known to have a large presence, hence they're interested in people, social dynamics, social causes, and justice. They're jolly and easy-going, yet also stern and demand that justice be served, so there is a similar motivation for keeping a harmony like Venus. However, while Venus does it out of aesthetic purposes, Jupiter has more in mind that it's for the greater good, as their foundation of their interest lies within the people, whereas Venus' interest lies within beauty, so interest in people evolves as a consequence of that for Venus. Being the biggest planet, Jupiter also loves to indulge and takes joy in doing so and sharing it with others. Big friend groups, big appetites, big personalities, it's all big with Jupiter. The dark side of this would be gluttony, overindulgence, and possibly very controlling of others with what they deem just even if it's wrong or they don't have the authority or knowledge to be making such a judgement.
<
Saturn is infamous for being worshipped by Jews, but that aside, Saturn is concerned with all things practical; time, conscientiousness, details, money, labor, etc. Saturnian people are naturally great workers with whatever it is they put their minds to, even if it might not be a typically Saturnian or practical matter, as their Saturnian energy allows them to easily approach all practical hurdles that might come with wanting to start a band as an example. For the dark side of Saturn, just think of a stereotypical Jew geg. Jokes aside, they can be greedy, controlling, working to the point of exhaustion, and too caught up in details instead of understanding the greater context or very purpose of the what or why of something. Prosopa calls this the accountant archetype, which again, is fitting for god of the Jews.
â„–103149[Quote]
>>103129Neptune is more obscure and could be hard to describe, but they're described as being highly sensitive and deeply emphasizing. Keep in mind that sensitive in an emotional context doesn't mean only that they're fragile, but rather it means that they're receptive; they receive signals easily and more strongly, which can lead to fragility, but is not always the case. Prosopa often links Neptune to new age spiritualists and whatnot, as Neptune naturally is spiritual in nature due to their dreaminess and intuition. If I wanted to correlate Neptune with cognitive functions, which keep in mind that you should not take these correlations very seriously, but if I had to then it seems obvious to connect this to introverted intuition (Ni), albeit it's probably more stereotypically presented in a Neptunian manner in the INFJ rather than the INTJ due to their respective auxiliary functions. I say this though because Neptune is naturally tuned into the inner world (introversion) and it's disillusioned with tangible reality by nature. The light side is that they can be very insightful due to their visions and dreams, making them possible trailblazers and innovators due to their spirituality and wisdom. The dark side is a disillusionment with reality and often far too idealistic, projecting the perfection of things that they imagined onto reality, like with a person they have a crush on, and then having it all crash down when reality hits, which again reminds me of Ni.
<Pluto, just like Neptune, is obscure and a bit more difficult, especially since it was the most recently discovered planet (for astrological purposes it is a planet, just like the sun and moon). The easiest way to put it is that it represents power and control, but it also often associated with death and rebirth. They have a very commanding presence, which if you want to connect it to lookism then I suppose they are the most stereotypically handsome, but Prosopa connects it to being an extension or Martian energy. While Mars can be hot-headed and quick to fight, Pluto is more calm and stoic, as Pluto can endure trauma, yet with the force of Mars. From what I've seen described in astrology, Pluto also emphasizes autonomy, mastery, and interestingly, intuition. Those combination of traits also remind me of Ni, but it sounds much more appropriate for the INTJ rather than the INFJ, so make of that what you will. The way Prosopa describes Pluto is typically as some superbuffed Mars that just negates all downsides and that they're the ultimate gigachads due to being handsome, smart, powerful, talented, but I think it's much more nuanced than that because that would be stupid and nonsensical. Correlating it to astrology, I'd say the dark side of Pluto would b using that intensity and drive for destruction rather than construction, so that could also manifest as being manipulative or in a more literal sense. Since they approach things in a more stoic and detached manner unlike Mars, I think the dark side can also be paranoid or even sadistic. Again, this sounds quite funnily like a stereotypical INTJ depiction, albeit you shouldn't take that stuff very seriously, but just another observation.
â„–103150[Quote]
>>103129The sun, like the sun in Plato's cave, is the light that illuminates all things. You can think back to the example earlier of Solar people being content whether they're invited to a party or not; they don't need it because they know they are their own light. The forms need the sun as the glue to illuminate them all and to be in harmony, but the sun doesn't need the forms to be the light. Hence, if somebody says they don't want the sun, that's no issue for them, it's their decision. If they do want the sun, then that's also fine, as the sun has no qualms with shining their light. The sun is also correlated with self-expression in astrology.The sun is often described by Prosopa as being intellectual and aristocratic; high-minded and not one to stoop to what they deem to be lower grades. That's why the party example may not be a great example, as a Sun person may think that such a party is a low form of being and that it's something the peasants can enjoy, but they want no part in it. They are content with socially connecting with people, but they're simultaneously detached and don't feel any need for it. It's easy to see how these traits could be seen as arrogance, so naturally the dark side of the sun would be one that is extremely arrogant, contemptuous, prideful, or even controlling and authoritarian due to a developed superiority complex over the masses and wanting to 'fix' or 'correct' them. I definitely see some of these aspects in myself, and judging by the outline of my face, I suspect the sun is the most prominent element in my face, but there is very likely more than one element.
>I'll continue with the Earth, moon, and Uranus later, but I don't have time right now.
â„–103277[Quote]
>>103144gemmy descriptions, now I understand it better. yet here's one more question. how should a face shape be interpreted if it looks like different ones under different angles of light? is the one mostly visible under soft "neutral" lights the main one? and others are kind of additional shapes which add extra details to the personality
â„–103286[Quote]
>>103277>how should a face shape be interpreted if it looks like different ones under different angles of light?That's a tough question to answer because I don't think there is one single answer to this. I would say it most commonly would come down to you interpreting your face shape differently, likely due to having multiple face shapes, which if combined with a very asymmetrical face, you could have multiple completely different combinations of face shapes on both sides and it's just hard to tell. That specific example is pretty extreme, but it is theoretically possible nonetheless and I think having at least one different face shape on each side is common. So as an example, you could be Solar on the left, but Saturnian on the right, or you could have significant Solar and Saturnian representation on the right, but only Solar on the left. Lighting, phone cameras, and the design of mirrors can also trick you or obscure what your true face shape is.
<Also sorry for not finishing with the last three face shape descriptions, and VERY SORRY to
>>103037 for still not getting to two of your questions. Like I mentioned in the tarot thread, I've just been feeling down recently. I have to go to sleep right about now for work later, but I did have free time today, I simply didn't feel like doing anything. I feel like it'd be glorifying it to call it depression, but I guess I have consistently been feeling not great, so I've refused to do anything productive and I'll just lay in bed imagining things or trying to fall back asleep to continue my dream geg. I can't promise I'll be super active in the thread, but I will get those face shape descriptions done at the very least and hopefully I can do the other guy's requests.
<Back to the topic though: if you have the time, then watching Prosopa's videos will quickly give you a decent understanding. You could also read books on physiognomy, which of course is how Prosopa gained his knowledge, but you'd have to sift through all of the different philosophies and interpretations different physiognomists have, but Prosopa perfectly summarizes all of that into something concrete, easy, and practical, so I think his content is great despite my criticisms. That's one of the best things about video content, at least if it's made by well-intentioned, educated people, is that it can deliver information much more efficiently on a practical scale.
â„–103311[Quote]
My own physiognomy is an open book. I have short, stubby legs that bow inwards (knock-knees), a long torso, and anterior-pelvic tilt/rounded shoulders. I've been told that I look like I should be much taller, like 3-4" at least. Like my features are squashed/compressed. Yet I've been told numerous times that I'm handsome due to my face.
I feel like this reflects my personality perfectly. I'm a person who had a lot of potential in life, but has been totally unable to carry out this potential due to my parents' complete failure to raise me. Normally, a person who says stuff like this is just a loser. But I've been busting my ass every day for years trying as hard as possible to improve my life, to figure shit out and move up in the world. And I think that in that sense, I am a genuine chad. Most men in my situation would have given up by now, but I feel like I'm just getting started.
But my physiognomy almost makes me second guess things. It's as if my height and proportions are a literal metaphor of me as a person: A guy who had the potential to be something great, but never quite grew to that point. When I walk outside now, I often wear sunglasses because it doesn't feel fair for people to see me like this. For them to see some pathetic looking fag when I'm trying my hardest every day. I try to imagine what it would even look like if I became a real chad. It's not like my proportions are going to fix themselves.
â„–103317[Quote]
>>103311I'm glad I caught this reply right as you posted it.
>I have short, stubby legs that bow inwards (knock-knees), a long torso, and anterior-pelvic tilt/rounded shoulders.I find physiognomy aside from the face to be extremely intriguing. The body is an interconnected system where everything assists in the function of everything else through direct and indirect means, so logically, every facet of our body represents something of our consciousness/spirit/essence. However, Prosopa only ever really talks about the face, as while it does seem to be the most relevant factor, I am very curious as to what those features of yours would indicate about you. The only 'bodily physiognomy' he talks about is how fat and muscle distribution correspond with the temperament due to the type of energy, with nervous and finnicky energy corresponding with a thinner body in the Choleric and Melancholic due to their 'negative' perception, while the Sanguine and Phlegmatic are bigger and store more fat and muscle due to their relaxed demeanor that conserves energy from their 'positive' perception. I've always wondered what the implications are for specific bodily features, especially the genitalia for both men and women, as we see human genitals also often used, directly or not, as symbols often representing the masculine and feminine, the will and the willed, the experiencer and the experienced, etc. So what essence does the length or girth of the penis represent rather than the superficial outcomes associated with it? I don't know, this is just a tangent, but I hope I can find a physiognomic source that talks about this.
>I feel like this reflects my personality perfectly. I'm a person who had a lot of potential in life, but has been totally unable to carry out this potential due to my parents' complete failure to raise me.That's an interesting interpretation, but I wouldn't correlate height with direct potential, or at least not with literally everything material in life itself. I'm only 5'6-7 (don't say it) if that makes you feel better. Keep in mind that Beethoven was only 5'3 or 5'4 and Napoleon was just about my height. And before you say it's because that was the average height of the time, has nobody ever wondered how the average height has allegedly skyrocketed within just about a century? Regardless if you believe in the theory of evolution or not, large scale evolution like that can't occur within just a few generations according to the theory itself; it's logically impossible, so that's out of the question. People are the unhealthiest they've been in centuries with the monopoly on medicine, food, and finance held by
(((them))) resulting in everybody eating goyslop and effectively neutering themselves with medications that destroy their psyche and hormonal development due to Adderall and other shit being prescribed like candy. Yet despite all of this, zoomers just continue growing like trees. Something isn't adding up here.
â„–103318[Quote]
>>103311^Body too longThat whole conspiracy tangent aside, I disagree with your interpretation that your height metaphorically represents 'capped potential' and that's just an extremely self-deprecating way to view yourself. I don't know what it would actually mean in physiognomic terms, but if I use the same logic of energy conservation within the four temperaments, then it seems to be that height would represent something with general energy as well. Larger people can naturally hold a bigger threshold of energy and vice versa, but keep in mind that it doesn't determine the rate of which energy is used. Energy can never be created or destroyed, it simply goes through different phases and forms for whatever practical purposes the world asks of it. So when you're working out, you're not actually 'using' or losing energy, but you're cycling through energy at a quicker rate. This results in the creation of muscle, blood cells, hormones, etc. So when you 'use' energy, you're only temporarily converting it into something else until you later regain what you "lost" and with the additional energy now there that was gained, hence you're holding more energy in a sense. Now consider that it takes more energy to upkeep something of larger volume, so the larger a person is, the more energy required to maintain them at the basic and essential level. Hence, if you had a person that was 100 feet tall, that would be anatomically impossible without the person's weight immediately destroying their bones and organs due to the square-cube law. Of course, your average 6'3 chad isn't suffering to that extreme, but regardless, smaller people are naturally more agile and easy on their bodily structure in that sense. You could say it's all cope or whatever, but I know for a fact that due to the laws of nature reflecting the metaphysical that there IS a reason for everything and so there IS a reason that I (and maybe you too) are short little chuds, but I just don't know that reason yet. And that's why I study physiognomy, because due to the principle of correspondence, understanding the human body will allow me to understand everything relating to our nature.
â„–103319[Quote]
>>103311Also a couple more things:
I heard once that northern Europeans and East Asians have longer torsos on average while Mediterranean people have longer legs on average. I don't know if this is true at all since I hadn't looked into it, so take it with a grain of soy, but something interesting to consider if you're a Hitlerlite Aryan or yellow. I don't know what it means in physiognomic terms, as again, I haven't found a source that talks extensively about bodily features.
<I don't know much about the skeletal system, but I suspect that knock knees may just be due to some kind of condition rather than being purely hereditary. I mean, it's possible that there are physiognomic conditions that make knock knees more likely to occur, but just as how you getting slashed on your face wouldn't necessarily change the personality (discounting potential psychological trauma geg), I wouldn't confidently say that has any implications on your personality. I'm not sure though because I'm not educated on that. Also at least you've been told you have a handsome face. True beauty is rooted in an objective good and beautiful features reflect that good, so a symmetrical face (individuation) or the sweet face of an old lady says a lot; a picture says 1000 words o algo. So fret not, I think you might have a lot going for you.
â„–103321[Quote]
>>103317>and Napoleon was just about my height.The myths about Napoleon being short ARE just that
myths but it's actually correct that he had a very unassuming bodily physiognomy. There's a famous anecdote about some general or diplomat walking into a room and waiting for Napoleon to arrive, but then some random guy in the room turns around whom the general anticipated to be a servant and it turns out that this man is none other than Napoleon. And ironically once the guy finally looked at Napoleon, he actually felt paralyzed because Napoleon's stare was so incredibly intense. So where it comes to bodily physiognomy, people underestimated him for sure.
>That's an interesting interpretation, but I wouldn't correlate height with direct potentialI wouldn't either. One of the most impressive figures alive (to me) is Kanye and he's 5'8". And you notice how some shorter guys don't give off the vibe of being short, but I think that Kanye does in a way. Like him being on the shorter end is not incidental to who he is, it's not something unrelated to his personality, it says a lot. Like you look at his body and he exudes this energy of almost being too big for it, it has this sort of weird tightness and compression, like he's literally fighting the limits of his own body. And that would actually make sense, because his entire life has just been a series of trying to smash boundaries and overcome things trying to hold him down. I notice people on the shorter end always tend to be, how do you put it, struggling against something? They never have easy lives. They're always struggling. Schopenhauer once made the comment that geniuses very rarely tend to be tall, and Goethe is an exception. But I think Goethe is interesting because in terms of geniuses he didn't struggle very much. His life is basically just a long series of successes.
>So fret not, I think you might have a lot going for you.Just the fact that I have the will to keep going matters a lot. If I'm a chad in any way, then it's because of this fact, and any external handsomeness that I have is probably only downstream of this. But I don't really buy into the concept of a "static physiognomy". Have you ever heard of those stories of Lord Byron, how he seemed to be completely different people depending on his emotions? I fully believe that, and I also believe this applies to all of us. Individual physical features may give us hardline rules about physiognomy, but these will always be inferior to how a person is aligned psychologically and spiritually. Even the most disgusting freak has to inspire awe in us if they're truly aligned with what's good in life. The fact that disgusting freaks rarely do this is not because they can't, but because they're starting at a bigger disadvantage than the rest of us. Deep down, anyone can do it, really.
â„–103361[Quote]
>I notice people on the shorter end always tend to be, how do you put it, struggling against something? They never have easy lives. They're always struggling. Schopenhauer once made the comment that geniuses very rarely tend to be tall
That's an interesting observation that I've noticed too. Is it any coincidence that you have the media archetype of the short, meek, but intelligent nerd? Nikola Tesla is another exception I can think of since he was a 6'6 giga that foids were begging for, but as you said with Goelle, I don't recall Tesla having much struggle in his work, but you can correct me if I'm wrong. Just as how any proper astrologer will say that squares are important aspects of the natal chart for your development and overcoming the issues they bring, so too it seems that tall people often seem to not develop much and are content with mediocrity. A looksmaxer will say that short men struggle due to modern beauty standards, but this does not explain the case for women then. Why is it that the stereotype exists that short women are crazy or neurotic? In fact, why is it said that ginger women are often fiery and hotheaded? Not that it's related, but just another interesting physiognomic trope common in popular culture.
<
>But I don't really buy into the concept of a "static physiognomy". Have you ever heard of those stories of Lord Byron, how he seemed to be completely different people depending on his emotions?
Before I give a proper answer, I want to state that technically, there is no such thing as 'static physiognomy' or anything static at all. Everything vibrates and is constantly in motion, as even a stone wall is moving on the atomic level. Vibration IS energy. The higher the vibration, the more powerful it is. Motion IS energy, motion is what keeps us running metaphorically and literally. Therefore, just as the physical is always in motion, so is the mental; you're not the same man you were yesterday. Your face is also not the same as it looked yesterday since the psychological conditions are constantly changing. It is simply so subtle that you don't notice it, so it will take a long time for you to notice any practical changes to the appearance, but subconsciously, you're constantly transforming from the information (IN FORMATION) you absorb from sensation.
<
Semantics aside, since the body will always reflect and correspond with our essence, then physiognomy is 'static' in the sense that it will always reflect us perfectly. In your example of Lord Byron with his constantly morphing emotional state, do our emotions not show on our face? Can you not clearly see when somebody 'looks off'? When they're exceptionally angry, sad, ecstatic, etc.? Just today at work, I was starting to wonder off in my head while waiting for something, to which I started spiraling and feeling pretty sad. My coworker then passes by and says "Don't look so sad" despite the fact that she had no empirical way of knowing that I was sad since I never told anyone there anything, I gave no signs I was sad, and arguably, I might have a generally 'sad' or 'lost' look (debatable, but have been told this). When our state changes, we always react. I don't know much about Lord Byron, but do keep in mind that there are features and combinations of features that indicate neuroticism, so he may have those. Even so, is it really a surprise that a romantic-era poet would be a bit neurotic?
<
Also, don't mistake me for meaning as saying "good = beautiful; bad = ugly". While true on the basis that beauty reflects objective goodness, we are not able to perceive perfect goodness, hence that's where subjective tastes come in as we have different beauty radars picking up on different beauty signals and their strength. Hence, we call this attraction, and we have all kinds of principles for that like "opposites attract", which I can't comment on if that is entirely true or not, but regardless, while beauty is objective, our perception of it, as with everything else, is subjective.
â„–103362[Quote]
>>103361>>103321Forgot to give your (You). I also might get to your previous questions tonight, but I don't know.
â„–103384[Quote]
>>103361>Nikola Tesla is another exception I can think of since he was a 6'6 giga that foids were begging for, but as you said with Goelle, I don't recall Tesla having much struggle in his work, but you can correct me if I'm wrong. Tesla was 6'2, and he did have one incredibly depressing moment in his life where he tried to build a 200 ft tower on Long Island to experiment with wireless power/info transmission but his main investor pulled out a couple years in and the research was ruined forever. The guy was also incredibly lonely and became friends with a pigeon, and also no one really ever took his later work seriously.
Howard Hughes is a similar man in that he was also a 20th century icon, 6'4", basically the 20th century version of Elon Musk. Made some iconic films in the golden age of Hollywood, founded his own Aircraft Company, and then set a bunch of world records like "fastest plane in air" "fastest landplane", "fastest intercontinental trip" etc. Got caught in a brutal plane crash in 1946 which basically fucked him up for the rest of his life. He got addicted to painkillers, had really bad OCD, shit hygiene, chronic pain, and became a NEET hermit for the rest of his life.
And then there's Abraham Lincoln. I don't have to tell you about him, you already know.
Obviously, height didn't give these men an easy life. But I do think that in each case, height does say -something- very important about their personalities. Because you know, not only were they tall, but they also had this sort of gaunt and withered vibe to them, as if they're scarecrows being slowly pecked away at by life. Slowly worn down etc. The logic that Schopenhauer used when he claimed that geniuses are rarely tall, is that he said geniuses are people with an extraordinary degree of sensitivity, and so when a person is taller, it takes more time for the nerve signals to travel up to their brain, which means they won't be as sensitive as a man of average height. I have no idea whether or not this is true, but I get where he's coming from. Modern science wants to tell us, "Oh no height and personality have no correlation, that's not scientific!!!", but clearly we're all noticing SOMETHING, right? Tall people clearly have a different "vibe" about them, which produces different archetypes. Even if it's really hard to define, we can all vaguely feel the difference.
â„–103385[Quote]
>>103384My bad for getting Tesla's height wrong, I might of confused that height for somebody else.
>The logic that Schopenhauer used when he claimed that geniuses are rarely tall, is that he said geniuses are people with an extraordinary degree of sensitivity, and so when a person is taller, it takes more time for the nerve signals to travel up to their brain, which means they won't be as sensitive as a man of average height.That's a really good physiognomic insight to consider if that's true. It also makes me think of what I mentioned earlier with body types corresponding with temperament, as the Melancholic, associated with sensitivity and thus, genius, has a naturally small and wiry body. Shorter people are going to be generally smaller, even if they're fat and have a 'positive' temperament like Sanguine or Phlegmatic, they would still naturally be at least marginally more agile than a tall person of similar proportions. It does make me wonder if there is also a correlation between height and temperament? It also makes me wonder what was so exceptional about those taller men if it's true that shorter men are more inclined to genius?
<I've also always wondered what hair color symbolizes. We often hear the idea of the 'dumb blonde' which I think is slanderous, but I do think there could be an essence of glee or carefreeness to blondes, like a golden retriever. Similarly, you often hear that redhead women are fiery and hotheaded, which has been true from my experience, although strangely I haven't heard the same said for the men. This could be biased being that this is my color of hair, but I find that both men and women with brown hair are more likely to be drawn to intellectual interests. To make a loose connection to the great idea you've shared with height, Mediterranean people are much shorter than their lighter European counterparts on average besides maybe Alpinids, and both Alpinids and Mediterranean people are darker than average as well, most especially with their hair color. What do you think the hair color could mean? Prosopa and other sources have talked about hair being a spiritual radios in a sense, with thicker hair giving off more signals than receiving and thinner hair receiving more signals than giving. I never see hair color mentioned as having physiognomic meaning though, but again, by the logic of physiognomic principles, EVERY ASPECT of the body must have meaning. Do you also think hair types (straight to curly spectrum) and hair thickness relate to intellect? Since it's claimed that geniuses are sensitive and receptive of stimuli, would that mean that someone with thinner hair is more likely to be intelligent? Or is that in a separate realm since it relates to spiritual signals of the subconscious?
â„–103389[Quote]
>>103385>That's a really good physiognomic insight to consider if that's true.Read Schopenhauer's essay on physiognomy if you haven't. The quote on genius isn't from that essay though. I would guess it's from World as Will and Representation Volume II in the genius chapter, but insights like that are littered throughout his entire body of work almost at random. Just lots of small mind-blowing thoughts like that.
>It also makes me wonder what was so exceptional about those taller men if it's true that shorter men are more inclined to genius?Well, if shorter people are wiry and fidgety, then tall people are reverse (that is another claim of Schopenhauer by the way, that you can tell a man's intelligence from everything he does, down to how he moves his body. Anecdotally I had a physics professor in college who moved his body in an interesting way, like he had really fine and delicate control of his arms. If you see a dumb person move around, you notice they tend to "fling" their limbs outwards from the spine area, and the level of control decreases the further from the spine they get. A really smart person has a lot of fine motor control because their nerves are sensitive). Tall people are languid and they take things slower.
>What do you think the hair color could mean?I'll never be able to stick to one definition, like "Brown hair means
__", "Red hair means ____". That said, I do agree that people with brown-hair tend to have an intellectual bent (I am brown-haired myself). What I've noticed is that red-haired, blond-haired, and even light-brown haired Europeans often have this sort of "non-critical" approach towards European culture as if they're just embracing it and loving it in the moment, treating it like the most natural thing in the world. But Europeans with darker-brown hair will always have this slightly skeptical attitude towards it, like they will enjoy it and love it too, but also have this very strong awareness deep down that all these things we take for granted were constructed, they're recent inventions, and from other points of view they don't make any sense.
If that sounds oddly similar to the Jews, well sure, it is. They both stem from the cutthroat old world Mediterranean. The difference is that the Jews picked their stance on this whole topic many, many years ago, whereas white guys have no stance. It's not even something a white guy's going to notice unless he's upper-percentile IQ, and it has to be a specific kind of white guy as well. So when it does happen, you tend to get interesting results.
>Do you also think hair types (straight to curly spectrum) and hair thickness relate to intellect?There's not a stereotype around this AFAIK. Curly hair became trendy in Europe after the Revolution, but it was associated with Romanticism and not really intelligence itself.
â„–103414[Quote]
>>103389>Read Schopenhauer's essay on physiognomy if you haven't. The quote on genius isn't from that essay though. I would guess it's from World as Will and Representation Volume II in the genius chapter, but insights like that are littered throughout his entire body of work almost at random. Just lots of small mind-blowing thoughts like that.I think I will read that alongside much more of his work. I never would of guessed that he spoke on physiognomy. I don't know if I can properly put this into words, but I'm deeply inclined to connect with and understand tangible reality. It's always been a struggle and has been dream-like for me, so often times I discount it and retreat to my inner world, but like I mentioned in the thread earlier, physiognomy showed me the mirror reflecting the spiritual on the other side through tangible reality. It reminds me of Plato's philosophy and how he himself, despite having a seemingly otherworldly wisdom and abstract connections, also stressed the importance of tangible reality. After all, his name literally means "strong" or "broad-shouldered" which is quite the contrast with the typical small and meek stature we think of with intelligent archetypes in media and, allegedly, in real life according to Schopenhauer. I think this suggests that Plato was a very well-adjusted and possible individuated person.
>I'll never be able to stick to one definition, like "Brown hair means ", "Red hair means __".I do think everything is underlying on a single, objectivee truth and thus everything does have one singular, unchanging, true meaning. I explained earlier to the other guy that the specific meanings of features are never actually so literal and rooted in the material such as "a small mouth means you don't talk much", but rather, it represents a pure essence of some objective truth that then manifests into reality, sometimes in more common ways than another. Using Prosopa as an example, he gets some features right by cutting right down to the core principle of what they represent, but then with others he only gives a definition of behavior (character) rather than the essence (content). So yes, I do believe there are exact meanings for the hair color, but I don't know what it is, as we only recognize archetypes that tell us about character rather than the explicit content.
â„–103415[Quote]
>But Europeans with darker-brown hair will always have this slightly skeptical attitude towards it, like they will enjoy it and love it too, but also have this very strong awareness deep down that all these things we take for granted were constructed, they're recent inventions, and from other points of view they don't make any sense.
Another good observation that I'm inclined to agree with due to my own experience, although many consider me eccentric and odd in general so I don't know if I can owe that to my hair color. I can't speak on behalf of Europeans since I'm American, as you might of been able to tell from me using imperial units geg, but I noticed a similar pattern with lighter-haired Americans in contrast to darker-haired Americans of European ancestry. I myself have fairly dark brown hair and I have always felt that skepticism towards many customs, although I tended not to love, but instead often loathed it or wanted to do things my way instead. Again, I'm probably just a weird person, but the underlying essence of skepticism is still there to drive that behavior regardless. Just as how we say that more colorful hair is 'lighter', maybe it is also lighter as in the matters of their mind or spirit (represented by hair) are not as heavy as those with darker hair? That could be a stretch though. It also makes me wonder what this would mean for black hair? But that's hard to say because nearly every race of the world has black hair and they all obviously behave very differently. By my previous logic, the majority of the world would actually have very weighty matters on their mind, which not to sound arrogant, but that's hard for me to believe, so I don't confidently believe in my interpretation there.
â„–103495[Quote]
btw you forgot to answer this
<other thing I want to ask, does physiognomy apply to fictional characters and memes? and subconscious interpretation of their "would-be" personalities by the majority of people, even by those who don't know about physiognomy. if a meme character has no context people still try to predict what his personality would be like.
â„–103521[Quote]
>>103495Sorry for forgetting + still not getting to the others. But yes, we constantly apply physiognomic principles to character designs and memes because we subconsciously associate certain traits with certain features since our subconscious is much wiser than we are. I remember Prosopa talking about how the Chud meme is a representation of Saturnian energy and how the cultural zeitgeist that Chud represents has far taken over the image of Patrick Crusius, the one the drawing is based on, himself. Even in just character design, we see that elves have point, Mercurial ears showing they're clever and may also be tricksters, which Prosopa also talked about in a video, but to add onto the design of elves with what we talked about, they're also often very tall and gaunt with a mystical calmness to them. Of course, being that physiognomy as a proper science is "debunked" by modern science, most people don't realize this and so more specific physiognomic features often don't align perfectly with actual character traits due to it being designed by a human mind that lacks knowledge. However, with broad archetypes of characters like the small and meek nerd or especially some large memes, which are often purely organic with their creation and cultivation, then they often do carry proper physiognomic meanings since they become popular due to it speaking to us on a subconscious level and us recognizing it as right. You can go further than just physiognomy and go full Meme Analysis mode with recognizing archetypes and symbolism within fiction and popular culture.
â„–103537[Quote]
>>103415>It also makes me wonder what this would mean for black hair?Black hair has the closest ties to the old world, generally. People with black hair tend to have the most old-fashioned mindsets in society, which can be both a good thing and a bad thing. Like I remember finding these old pictures of my dad in high school (he's genetically Italian), and he gave off this really intense impression of being like Caravaggio's youths. But most of you won't understand what I mean, and you'll say "Oh he was like a femboy?" Nah. It's really hard to explain.
Like they had this shirt hundreds of years ago which was called the Poet's Blouse. It was a loosely flowing blouse with lots of ruffles. To men of today, this probably just looks gay, but back then it had a specific purpose. It was like a statement saying, "Emotional and poetic and artistic stuff isn't bullshit. It's not just for show. It's a core part of the meaning of life, and that can't be changed." And so appropriately, this "Poet's blouse" has actually become trendy across the world at every point in time where people affirmed this value, where people said, "YES! Emotions and poetry and art do matter!". Hence it trended in Romantic Europe, and also at the height of the hippie era in the late 1960's and throughout the 70's. And when I saw those pictures of my dad, I always got a very strong reminder of this trend. And he was very big into hippie type stuff and music and blah blah blah, so I know I'm not mistaken.
The point is that my dad was tapped into something very old and traditional. Am I saying then that hippie stuff was "old and traditional"? Absolutely not! But the way my dad interacted with it was really traditional. Traditional in a way that 99% of modern Americans would never understand. It's a viewpoint on life that is broadly speaking only common in Southern Europe. So to fully explain this viewpoint to an American, you're tasked with trying to explain why Southern Europe is the way it is. But what makes it funny is that my father had almost zero contact with Italians over his lifetime. He was raised by two anglo parents and turned out that way anyways. Genes are pretty powerful, man.
â„–103539[Quote]
>>103537But it's also wrong of me to bring up this "old world mindset" without really explaining it.
Basically, none of you alive have ever experienced this, but there was a time where the poetic, artistic, and humanistic side of Western culture was 100%, completely integrated into the core of what our culture was. So nowadays, if you're a teenager who's like, "I'm super into music and art!", that's by default a counter-cultural stance. Because in Western Society there is literally no place where art or poetry or architecture or literature or emotions or values or feelings or love are taken seriously by anyone. We have no way to affirm to ourselves that any of this matters. It's a side of life that has been completely erased.
And now, when we look at people in the Humanities, we see them often being cringe and tell ourselves, "Hah, look at those gay faggots who read poetry! No wonder we don't care about this shit anymore". But they're only faggots because they're social rejects. If you take a person with a certain nature, and drop them into a society that has literally no way to healthily express or foster that nature, then you get Chris-chans and trannies and faggots. If you DO give them a healthy path through society that corresponds with their nature, then they build beautiful cathedrals and murals and paintings and give us timeless poetry. Some faggot who is drawing Deltarune shipping smut right now is probably a direct descendant of a man who designed a gorgeous Medieval tapestry. The old world just gave these people something to care about, a way to be good and meaningful to society.
â„–103540[Quote]
And if you really want to, you can argue that Scholastic Europe is the inverse scenario, where the Humanities-brained "wordcels" have triumphed so hardover the STEM-brained "shape rotators" that nearly all of the naturally engineering-brained people in society, have been left in an awkward little hole where they're just handed the ancient Aristotelian philosophy and told to construct meaningful science out of the interpretation of a corpus that can't even adequately explain momentum. Descartes was 100% correct to point out that all this was cringe, but he didn't understand that it was cringe precisely because society had failed to give all of these STEM-brained types a better use of their lives. It was really like a bizarre 21st century, where the Deltarune shippers of today were the intelligent and honorable and respectable members of society doing important things, while the programmers and engineers were stuck in little monasteries reading Aristotle by candlelight to write some text that meant fuck all. It's really crazy to think about
â„–103581[Quote]
I remember finding this channel when the Charlie Kirk video came out, and then he got killed 3 weeks later lmao
â„–103582[Quote]
I have found that i can often tell how someones personality or temperament is just by how they look and how they carry themselves, i think it is just our natural intuition
â„–103619[Quote]
>>103537With the logic that the darkest shade of hair is the most traditional, could we say the opposite that the lightest shade of hair is the most unconventional or inventive? It's interesting to recontextualize those conspiracies of Nordic people being aliens with the physiognomy of other races and Nordics in mind, but that isn't to say I believe that geg. If that is the case, then could we say that hair color determines a spectrum of how traditional to otherworldly, or even mystical somebody is? Maybe that's why light-haired Europeans are content and adore their culture so much, as it is so unique to them and they fully embrace it. So perhaps that is also why dark brown-haired people have the tendency to be skeptical and intellectual as you said, since they would occupy a middle ground between traditionalism and modernism or conventional views, which I think the contemporary side is often intellectually expressed through technology.
<That still has me wondering what red hair would signify though? My idea is that similar to the shape pf the lips, which is compromised of two separate spectrum features: the sun-moon spectrum as I call it, with a Solar lip being a broader and lower arch, while a Lunar lip is a higher and more compact arch. This represents the form or shape of communication from how concise to how poetic it is, represented by the sun for the former and the moon for the latter. The second spectrum is what I'd call the Cupid's bow spectrum, which of course physically would be how extreme of a Cupid's bow one has. A higher "percentage" of a Cupid's bow would show the communication is more seductive and vice versa. With all of that context out of the way, I think there is something similar with red hair; it's the Cupid's bow of hair so to speak. This is due to the fact that it isn't dictated by the "default" spectrum, like the sun-moon lip spectrum, but is its own feature part of the whole. More specifically, red hair is caused by the amount of iron in the hair while the color is simply the amount of melanin in the hair. So we can say that, under my hypothesis, the melanin in the hair represents traditionalism-mysticism (can't think of a better term), while iron in the hair represents something else that I'm unsure of yet, but perhaps how expressive one is with the elements represented by the color of hair, similar to how the Cupid's bow alters the communication of an underlying base communication style represented by the sun-moon shape. What do you think it could mean?
â„–103620[Quote]
>>103581Geg I remember that too. Very fortunate timing for him since it gave him a good boost in viewership for the time, although his growth seems to have reached a plateau now, possibly because he decided to dedicate his main channel to ramblings about physiognomy and other vaguely related things and put the readings that got him popular on a second channel for some reason. He also focuses too much on anthropology in my opinion. I don't find him to be a great anthropologist, albeit he knows a lot more than me, but the stuff he talks about isn't anything groundbreaking and I just find it boring. People there, like me, are there for the personal and spiritual implications and meanings, not the history of whatever race of people that I could find a billion soyence-approved channels talking about. Albeit I'm a bit salty because it seems like he canned the video idea of determining MBTI type from physiognomy because of the retarded anthropology stuff.
â„–103623[Quote]
>>103539>Because in Western Society there is literally no place where art or poetry or architecture or literature or emotions or values or feelings or love are taken seriously by anyoneAbsolutely, and I'd say that this place itself is a hub for a lot of those countercultural people you mentioned, as the soyjak meme itself is rooted in doubting the mainstream scientific consensus on the effects of soy, and thus that theme of skepticism of the soulless and bureaucratic research organizations is present in a lot of the memes and lingo here. Have I not gone on about my skepticism of certain mainstream scientific "facts" in this very thread? If I could put it in terms of Jung's cognitive functions, it's like western society has chosen to prioritize thinking judgements over feeling ones, as feeling functions judge by value while thinking functions judge by logic and practicality. Ignoring how a lot of systems, such as modern architecture, are actually shittier and less practical than they used to be (besides how cheap they are to produce), the way people often justify these things is by saying "It just makes more sense" or "It's more efficient". Our ancestors seemed to have clearly understood the value in beautiful things, which ironically, created a much more functional and efficient system in my opinion, as it synthesized both aspects well. It also reminds me of the meme of alcoholic societies versus weed societies; the weed societies are depicted as primitive, but very spiritual and kind, as they feel no need to conquer or arm themselves much for conflict, so you can say they rely too much on feeling functions in a sense. An example of that would of course be the Germanic tribes of Europe, which may also play a bit into my idea for hair color. On the other hand, an "alcoholic" society like the Romans, while dependent on what era we are talking about to say whether it was generally good or bad, was a society of much strife and conflict between many different kinds of people. By the time that the empire was collapsing, while both of these examples are very vague and I wouldn't confidently say there is too much correlation, you could say they were too reliant on thinking functions, which I would point towards their decline of art, lack of harmony between people groups and even themselves, and yet still insistent on the bureaucratic systems to somehow save them. Like just about everything I've been saying here though, this is mostly conjecture and is extremely speculative.
â„–103624[Quote]
>>103539>If you take a person with a certain nature, and drop them into a society that has literally no way to healthily express or foster that nature, then you get Chris-chans and trannies and faggots.I don't have a wordy response for this, I agree 100%.
>>103540That's a good observation to ponder. It makes me that, just like a pendulum, we could be swinging back into a more feeling or artistic era for the west. I know by the current situation it doesn't seem to be, but even if a lot of is is internet propaganda, I do believe people are being radicalized, which of course requires some strong feelings invested into an issue to occur. But looking past the politics, I also notice that psychology is a very popular science, however it is often considered a meme degree and isn't very useful on a practical level. I bring it up though because psychology is essentially a bridge between the humanitarian and the scholastic, as it's trying to explain scientifically why we feel and the implications of that. At the very least, this was the intention of psychological work founded by people such as Jung and Freud, although with the rigid scholastic frame of our society that you described, modern psychology is often a lot more soy-coded since it disregards the mental origins and very essence of behavior and expression, and instead chooses to say it's caused by le heckin' chemicals n shiet, but never discovering the root cause of WHY those chemicals and hormones behave the way they do and why they behave uniquely in every individual beyond saying its genetics and environment. However, I know the many foids getting psychology degrees don't care about that snca and are genuinely interested in the spirit of psychology, the humanitarian side of it. I think this is why I'm so fascinated by these topics if you couldn't tell already.