mistycrane9 said:A few months back, I caught this fascinating documentary on German television that dove deep into this exact subject. It went through an entire litany of names and various studies—though, if I’m being honest, most of those specific researchers have already slipped my mind. The core idea was that a wealth of neurological research has uncovered a compelling link between dysfunction in the prefrontal cortex—those brain centers located right behind the forehead—and psychopathic behavior. Or, to put it more accurately, it seems "psychopathic brains" simply process things differently than what we would consider "normal." Apparently, certain impairments in how that specific region functions—whether caused by something congenital or perhaps resulting from a physical trauma like a fall or a blow to the head—can significantly diminish a person's capacity for empathy, which in turn makes criminal behavior much more likely. They also touched on physiognomy, comparing facial structures—specifically the area from the eyebrows up to the top of the forehead—among various notorious serial killers and confirmed psychopaths. Interestingly, many of them shared strikingly similar characteristics in that region. It felt quite clear, and I’d venture to say it was convincingly demonstrated, that there is something vital happening there that absolutely warrants further study.
The practice of facial reading has been around in China for thousands of years. There was a time when people viewed many methods and principles of traditional Chinese medicine with massive skepticism, yet today, their validity is being proven more and more frequently. It seems that humans often pick up on subtle patterns long before we actually identify the underlying phenomena or the concrete connections behind them. Whether or not one chooses to acknowledge it, human intuition will always have a tendency to outpace pure "reason." To me, that's exactly what drives those fascinating new discoveries—those moments where something feels intuitively right, even if others see it as irrational, while for some, it simply feels like a perfectly logical and natural progression of thought.
It’s only natural that, given the limited scope of knowledge available at the time, a person would logically conclude the world was just a flat plane; honestly, anything else seemed completely unfathomable back then. But as we start gathering more diverse pieces of information that point toward a different reality, those doors begin to swing open, presenting us with an endless series of entirely new possibilities and perspectives. It's a fascinating cycle, really.
The attempts to prove that killers, criminals, and similar types are born with a certain "gene" date back at least seventy years—if not much longer—but that was really the era when it finally started being documented, discussed openly, and published as official research.
Not a single scientific theory or methodology out there has ever actually proven the existence of some kind of "killer gene" or a genetic blueprint that dictates whether someone turns out to be a criminal or a peacekeeper.
It’s a well-established fact, backed by rigorous scientific methodology and proven time and again, that we aren't just born with a fixed nature. While we definitely arrive with certain innate traits, those don't stay set in stone forever. Our personalities shift and evolve based on our surroundings, the society we live in, and various cultural nuances. Even in studies involving identical twins, you see significant differences emerge depending entirely on the specific environments and social influences they were raised in.
If you decide to walk into a prison filled with murderers while clinging to one specific idea, you’re bound to find common ground with every single one of them.
I find myself wondering if we would see these same patterns playing out across every continent and among every race. It makes me curious about why certain individuals end up turning to violence while others don't, especially when you consider that many people actually start from such similar, comparable positions in life.
When it comes to documentaries, they’re made by people—real individuals—and they cover everything from various political systems to social structures. You can find them filmed about pretty much any country out there.
What we were diving into was the whole concept of facial physiognomy and those specific traits that supposedly go along with it.
To this day, there’s still no scientific proof that facial physiognomy has any actual connection to Intelligence Quotient, personality, or how someone thinks.
What people have been trying to prove is nonverbal communication, which isn't exactly a universal rulebook anyway. It really depends on specific stages of human evolution, cultural heritage, and all that other stuff.
It used to be widely believed that your Intelligence Quotient was a fixed number, something set in stone from birth, but we now know that isn't actually the case. It turns out that if you aren't keeping your mind active, your Intelligence Quotient can actually start to slip over the years.
Misuse in science has always been a thing, just like there will always be "documentaries" versus actual documentaries.
But there’s a massive difference between accepted scientific theories built on rigorous criteria and mere theses where you start with a conclusion and then go hunting for evidence to back it up—which is purely subjective and has nothing to do with actual research. That’s really the core of the disagreement between me and mistyrider7.
Take those intelligence tests they designed—they were tailored specifically for white people in a certain environment, making them completely invalid for any other culture. It’s similar to how, at one point in American history, there were attempts to use science to prove white intellectual superiority over Black Americans; they actually succeeded in doing that by abusing the system because the tests weren't adjusted for the cultural background or specific characteristics of Black Americans.
I honestly wonder if a white person, say someone from Europe, would even pass an intelligence test designed for a completely different race, climate, or cultural and civilizational heritage.
And since you brought up China—even though that wasn't quite what you meant—people in the more remote parts of China, away from heavy Western influence, often view us Westerners as totally uncultured barbarians.
As proof, they’ll point to something as simple as a knife left on the table during a meal, pointed toward a guest. To them, we're being aggressive, because they chop everything into small pieces and never serve a knife on the table, as they consider it uncivilized.
The same logic applies to acupuncture; despite its recognition in the West, it doesn't yield the same effects or results as it does for the "yellow race."
As for intuition, most of it is pretty much well-known, depending on which school of thought you follow.
It's the same deal with autosuggestion, the placebo effect, and so on.
Here, mistyrider7 is trying to use non-scientific methods to stumble upon a new science, which I naturally contest from my own scientific perspective.
An intuition or an idea can certainly serve as the starting spark for research, but to prove anything scientifically, the most vital requirement is maximum objectivity—things like controlled samples, specific conditions, keeping logs, experiments, and so on.
Back in the day, biology tried to prove similar things, but you can't just walk into a psychiatric ward and conduct your research there.
Or go to a prison and run studies on murderers.
That’s called manipulating science, because a characteristic you think defines murderers might actually be found in the general population to some degree.
You could satisfy every single scientific criterion, but if you don't apply that same study to different samples—volunteers with varying levels of progress, different civilizations, or different cultures—you wouldn't get the same results, or you might, and then what would that even prove?
Similarly, Chinese people, for instance, have a physical makeup—certain enzymes, to be specific—that is entirely different from white people. So, something that holds true for Chinese people might not hold true for everyone else.
By that logic, Australia would be a continent of criminals. It feels a bit pointless to me to debate mistyrider7's personal musings when there isn't a shred of evidence provided, aside from subjective biases that have nothing to do with intuition or autosuggestion.
Even meditation methods that originated in places like Tibet or India had to be adapted by their teachers to fit Western culture, simply because otherwise, they wouldn't work.
The yoga that Americans practice today isn't the same as what the original teachers taught or what you'd see practiced in India; it has been completely modified for the Western person, taking into account our culture, history, and civilization.
Oh, and just as a reminder, most major discoveries happen by accident—you're researching one thing entirely, and something else pops up instead.