Social Anxiety Support Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
852 Posts
As in the example below correlation does not necessarily imply causation, so I choose to remain skeptical of studies like this.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
Lookist and stupid.
How is it stupid? Multiple scientific studies show different behavior in animals based on looks and interaction. Why is it all of a sudden different when the animal can walk and talk? Just because it hits close to home doesn't make it any more or less valid to study on.
 

·
SAS Member
Joined
·
7,407 Posts
How is it stupid? Multiple scientific studies show different behavior in animals based on looks and interaction. Why is it all of a sudden different when the animal can walk and talk? Just because it hits close to home doesn't make it any more or less valid to study on.
It's a ridiculous correlation and it promotes lookism.
 

·
.
Joined
·
6,040 Posts
I usually don't take such studies seriously. They look more like pseudo-science and judgemental generalizations.

Besides, according to the same study:
For instance, Haselhuhn emphasized that while they found wide-faced men were three times more likely to deceive their counterparts than narrower-faced men, "the majority - 60 percent - of men with relatively wide faces did not engage in deceptive behavior."
So, the point is, even according to this arguable study, the majority of people with wide faces are harmless. Q.e.d.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
It's a ridiculous correlation and it promotes lookism.
That's an emotion, not based on any sort of logic. No matter what it may promote, it's still a valid topic of study. Physical differences, and a person's behavioral patterns based on how others may interact with them based on that difference as well as their own behavioral patterns prompted by their own physical self image.
 

·
SAS Member
Joined
·
7,407 Posts
That's an emotion, not based on any sort of logic. No matter what it may promote, it's still a valid topic of study. Physical differences, and a person's behavioral patterns based on how others may interact with them based on that difference as well as their own behavioral patterns prompted by their own physical self image.
No...just no. By that logic, a study saying that people with large teeth are unintelligent would be "valid". I doubt people react very differently to people with wide faces...unless they read stupid studies like this which promote discrimination based on how wide or narrow someone's face is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
No. I doubt people react very differently to people with wide faces...unless they read stupid studies like this which promote discrimination based on how wide or narrow someone's face is.
You doubting something doesn't make it any less of a valid study. You can't just play the racist/bigot/prejudice card whenever a topic comes up that you don't like to try and discredit it. I mean, you can, but no one will give a ****.
 

·
SAS Member
Joined
·
7,407 Posts
You doubting something doesn't make it any less of a valid study. You can't just play the racist/bigot/prejudice card whenever a topic comes up that you don't like to try and discredit it. I mean, you can, but no one will give a ****.
Please tell me how it's valid. It's just plain idiotic. And of course nobody cares - most people (especially young ones) love discriminating against people based on what they look like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
Please tell me how it's valid. It's just plain idiotic. And of course nobody cares - most people (especially young ones) love discriminating against people based on what they look like.
Tell me how it's not valid. You've said the reason it's not is that it's ridiculous and idiotic, which are comments that are in and of themselves ridiculous and idiotic for a counter point as to why something is not a valid topic of study. And there are plenty of young people who are willing to endanger their own lives ignoring evidence and taking stupid risks all in the name of equality and PCness. Darwinism ho!
 

·
SAS Member
Joined
·
7,407 Posts
Tell me how it's not valid. You've said the reason it's not is that it's ridiculous and idiotic, which are comments that are in and of themselves ridiculous and idiotic for a counter point as to why something is not a valid topic of study. And there are plenty of young people who are willing to endanger their own lives ignoring evidence and taking stupid risks all in the name of equality and PCness. Darwinism ho!
Did you read this part of the article in the OP?

The scientists cautioned the public to not take such findings to extremes.
"Are we advocating for the active discrimination of men born with relatively wider faces?" Haselhuhn said. "Our answer, of course, is 'no.' While our findings provide compelling evidence that men's facial structure is a reliable physical cue of the likelihood of engaging in ethically questionable behavior, we stress that it is but one of many factors that affect unethical judgment and action."
The authors of the study are cautioning against the very thing that you're advocating. There are many different factors that contribute to immoral behavior - a wide face is only a correlation, and one of many at that. I would say that factors such as being born into an abusive household carry a lot more weight.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top