Are people born good or evil?

Indiana Jones said:Look, if you run into them again, tell them to give me a shout—I’ve got some fresh intel for them.

As for judging someone's character based on their facial features... well, you really have to know what you're looking for. There's a certain way of reading faces that most people just haven't picked up on yet.

Take, for instance, when I first saw Angelina Jolie. To me, she looked unattractive right off the bat. Because I know how to read these things, I immediately spotted traces of metabolic imbalances, which led me to conclude there was an unbalanced personality at play—something I intuitively experienced as a lack of beauty.
And as we can see, she does indeed possess a rather unbalanced, somewhat flighty personality.

If you observe many of those actors and actresses that the general public considers "beautiful," those of us who actually know how to look will see numerous physical indicators of ugly internal deformities. Most people miss this because they get stuck on what I'd call the surface semantic level of a face—those meanings that mostly trigger common preoccupations, causing them to lose sight of everything else.
For example, a face that signals authority or power—especially sexual power and the ability to command others' desires and frustrations—will be highly attractive to many, simply because they are desperate to prove something to themselves within that specific semantic configuration.

However, people who don't have, or have moved past, the typical preoccupations and frustrations of the average person, see things through a completely different lens. They see things exactly as they are, because their own cravings and frustrations don't cloud their perception.

Well, not for such a large number of people, anyway.

And murder is a very specific thing that doesn't necessarily have much to do with honesty, especially when dealing with a weak, fragmented personality. Perhaps those are the kinds of signs one should also be looking for in physiognomy.

My point was specifically about the question of honesty and morality. I wasn't saying that dishonesty is a mandatory genetic condition, but rather that there are cases where it certainly is, and that it manifests in facial characteristics.

Any study concluding that facial features say nothing about a person's moral potential—simply because there are dishonest people without those traits (though, again, you have to know how to look, and I doubt many people on this planet can look the way I do)—would be incredibly simplistic. It ignores the fact that genes are extremely formative for psychology in some cases, while in others, they create much more "neutral" personalities that are easily shaped by their environment.
It also ignores the logic of the human species viewed as an evolutionary biological system, as well as the logic behind why humans constantly decode messages through facial physiognomy.

You have to look at all of this holistically, connecting every involved aspect and dimension, and only then does the full coherence of the system emerge.

-There is something in psychology called "non-verbal communication"

-which, for those familiar with the subject, reveals 90 percent of a person's true nature.

-For example: turn on the TV, mute the sound (so you can't hear a single word being said)

-and you'll realize a whole lot about that person, even if you're a complete amateur in this field.

Neli said:-there’s this thing in psychology called "nonverbal communication"

Mmm... I just happen to have five or six hefty textbooks sitting around on nonverbal communication...
And that's not even what I meant...

I’ve always figured we all start out at a perfect 100%. Then life happens—your upbringing, your zip code, how much money is in your bank account—and you slowly turn into whatever the world makes of you.

Indiana Jones said:Well... I happen to own about five or six hefty volumes on the subject of nonverbal communication...
And that’s not actually what I’m getting at here...

I really hope you’ve had a chance to dive into them, because I actually earned my Master's in this field. Believe me, a few thick textbooks are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the world of nonverbal cues.

If you have—

Then you definitely get where I'm coming from.

As for IQ tests, "physiognomy," and all that pseudo-intellectual nonsense, history has already moved past them. We've seen how people once tried to weaponize intelligence testing to claim certain groups were inferior, much like how physiognomy was tossed into the trash heap of discredited theories.

These are just a couple of examples of how science (or rather, "pseudo-science") and so-called experts can be manipulated. It’s a grim but very real part of the history of our supposedly advanced, rational, and civilized human race.

Best,🙂

thumbelina said:Or do they just become that way as they age?
Well, looking at the most basic premise: would a figure like Hitler have been Hitler regardless of the circumstances he was born into? 🙂

It seems to me that Hitler was simply a man driven by ambitions far greater than what his nation could ever provide for him. If we consider that a bit too much amphetamine might have played a role in his decision-making regarding Jewish people and the various other atrocities he committed—it’s possible he was merely acting with a cold, calculated logic.
People are inherently born good; the idea held by some that children are born evil is a fallacy, as the selfishness seen in youngsters is really just a reflection of their parents.

🙄 No one is born a bad person; life just molds you into who you are. But then again, I remember sitting through some criminal law lectures back in college and coming to this fascinating conclusion: there really are people who just have that "criminal gene" baked into their DNA. In certain eras or under different legal systems throughout American history, having that inherent predisposition was actually used as a mitigating factor during sentencing...

Neli said:The whole thing with intelligence tests and "facial physiognomy" was debunked ages ago—back when people were using bogus IQ tests just to try and prove non-white people were less intelligent, so physiognomy ended up in the trash right along with those theories.

First off, I wasn't even talking about intelligence—I was talking about other signals facial physiognomy might convey, specifically regarding an individual's "ecological niche" within social networks, I guess.

By the way, you're kind of fantasizing if you think it's been proven that all races have equal IQs—it hasn't.
But honestly, I don't see how that even matters here given we're discussing the social semantics of facial physiognomy. Let's call it "facial biosemantics," as opposed to so-called non-verbal communication, which isn't really anatomically constitutive.

If you actually have some concrete scientific evidence showing that facial physiognomy conveys information about certain psycho-social predispositions, then by all means, lay it out.

The reality is, there just isn't any evidence like that.

sbg said:🙄 No one is born inherently corrupt; rather, life acts as the sculptor that shapes a person's character. However, I recall a fascinating observation from my days studying American criminal law: there are certain individuals who seem to possess an innate predisposition toward malice, a trait that, in certain eras or specific legal jurisdictions, was almost treated as a mitigating factor during sentencing...

That supposed "genetic predisposition" can often serve as little more than a convenient smokescreen used to mask the involvement of hired muscle. At their core, most people are fundamentally decent, yet they can certainly be conditioned to embrace cruelty.

thumbelina said:Or do they just become that way over time?
Well, keeping it simple—would Hitler have been Hitler regardless of the life he lived? 🙂

It’s really more of a pedagogical question at this point—it touches on psychology and philosophy all at once.
It’s one of those age-old debates, though recent studies suggest we might be about 70% genetically determined, leaving the remaining 30% to our upbringing—all those various influences, whether intended or not.

That doesn't quite settle whether someone becomes good or bad due to nature or nurture (in the broadest sense).

As for Hitler... since he was clearly mentally ill, it's likely his circumstances played a huge role, rather than just his DNA. Though, I suppose genes often carry the predisposition for illness. Most of the time, anyway.

All in all... it's a complicated cocktail.

Madonna said:this is really a pedagogical question at its core—which then ties directly into psychology and philosophy.
It’s one of those eternal questions! If you look at recent studies, they suggest humans might be roughly 70% genetically determined, while the remaining 30% is shaped by upbringing—basically all those intentional and unintentional influences.

But even that doesn't give us a straight answer as to whether someone becomes "good" or "bad" due to nature or nurture (in the broadest sense).

As for Hitler... since he was clearly mentally ill, it's highly probable his path was driven by life circumstances rather than just raw genetics—though, of course, genes often carry predispositions for illness. Most of the time, anyway.

All in all... it's a wild mix.

Every single person is unique and incredibly complex—just because someone has certain tendencies doesn't guarantee they'll actually grow up to be a "good" or "bad" person.
Genes provide us with a roadmap, sure, but what we actually *do* with that map is entirely up to us.
And let's not forget how much our environment and everything within it plays a role.
It's just like being in driving school—they teach you how to shift gears, but it's up to you how you actually handle the car when things get complicated on the road.
When people talk about what makes a great athlete, the pros usually say it's 30% talent and 70% pure training.
Life works the exact same way.
I know it's a pretty simple analogy, but it hits the nail on the head.
People who happen to have stronger genetic leanings toward "darker" traits will likely need more time and effort to manage—or rather, channel—those qualities into something positive.
They'll probably struggle more with stress and high-pressure situations than someone without those specific traits...
Humans are complex machines, but ultimately, it's all about how we choose to operate the controls.

mistyrider7 said:First off, I wasn't talking about intelligence; I was referring to other signals conveyed through facial physiognomy—signals regarding the "ecological niche" an individual seeks to occupy within a social network.

By the way, you're just fantasizing if you think it's been proven that races have equal IQs; quite the opposite.
But I don't see how much relevance that question actually has in this discussion about the social semantics of facial physiognomy. Let's call it "facial biosemantics," as opposed to so-called nonverbal communication, which isn't anatomically constitutive.

If you have any concrete arguments showing that science (with evidence) has dealt with the idea that facial physiognomy transmits information about certain psycho-social predispositions, please, feel free to present them.

The truth is, no such evidence exists.

Intelligence quotient hasn't been one of the most significant metrics for quite some time now—there are people with above-average intelligence who are complete failures, or those with various diagnoses and so on, so IQ (in its broadest sense) proves absolutely nothing. Secondly, you can't use the same intelligence test for different cultures, races, or upbringing conditions (or whatever you're calling the "ecological niche")—it simply doesn't work, and that's been proven for ages.
It's also been established that IQ can change (it was once thought to be constant throughout one's life) under the influence of educational and environmental factors.
Heritage, environment, and activity would be the primary developmental factors, rather than facial physiognomy or anything like that.
Besides, there's social intelligence, emotional intelligence... it’s not just IQ.
No two personalities are identical; even identical twins, despite sharing the same biological heritage, develop into two distinct personalities (of course, they share far more similarities than most people, but they are still two different individuals).
Just like all other psychological tests—your closest comparison would be PTSD testing (which faces the same issue: different environments, backgrounds, and cultural differences)—there are completely different versions, or they are adapted and modified depending on certain set criteria.
So, discussing psychometric tests is entirely misplaced because there are hundreds of versions and variants depending on countless factors.

As for facial physiognomy, I really wouldn't even want to comment on it because it is 🤮
That’s the gentlest way I could put it without using much harsher language.

What are your specific proofs and arguments, regarding facial physiognomy and psychological factors that science has actually proven, and what is the full name of the scientist (assuming, of course, their work has been accepted in international professional circles)?

Otto said:Hitler was just a man who wanted more than his people could actually provide. He leaned a little too hard on the speed, and well, things happened regarding the Jewish community and those other "crimes"—he was acting purely rationally.
People are born good. Those who think some are born evil just because kids can be selfish and egoistic forget that children are basically just reflections of their parents.

- I’m not really one for psychological diagnoses (the whole "tortured artist" trope or mother issues), but Hitler—much like all those "Napoleon" types in psych jargon—fit the profile perfectly and was a total manipulator- short, dark-haired, dark eyes, yet he preached about an Aryan race of tall, blue-eyed blondes.
- So, who’s really to blame? We could spend days or even years debating this
- Personally, I’d go with that old saying: "every nation gets the government it deserves."

Carol Lee4 said:Lately, IQ hasn't been much of a deciding factor—you see people with massive intelligence who are total failures, or folks with various diagnoses and stuff, so IQ (in the broadest sense) doesn't prove anything at all. Second, you can't just use the same intelligence test for different cultures, races, or upbringing conditions—or what you call an "ecological niche"—it simply doesn't work, and that's been proven for ages.
It’s also been established that IQ can change (people used to think it stayed constant throughout life)—due to educational and environmental factors.
Heritage, environment, and activity would be the main drivers of development, rather than facial physiognomy or whatever.
Besides, there's social intelligence, emotional intelligence... it isn't just about IQ.
No two personalities are identical; even identical twins, despite having the same biological heritage, develop into two distinct personalities (they obviously have more similarities than most people, but they're still two different individuals).
Just like any other psychological tests—take PTSD testing as an example (same issue—different settings, environments, heritage, cultural differences...)—there are completely different versions, or they get adapted and changed... depending on certain set criteria.
So, talking about psycho-tests is pretty pointless since there are hundreds of versions and variations based on endless factors.

As for facial physiognomy, I really wouldn't even want to comment because it's🤮
That's the mildest way I could put it without using some harsher words.

What are your specific proofs and arguments, regarding facial physiognomy and psychological factors—what science has actually proven, and what is the name and surname of the scientist (assuming, of course, they're accepted in international professional circles)?

That whole long intro about IQs was unnecessary, since I already pointed out that I'm not primarily talking about IQ, but about how certain predispositions for specific social "ecological niches" manifest in facial physiognomy—including moral potential, or the inclination toward honesty versus dishonesty.
The fact that this theory makes you sick is completely irrelevant.
Besides, what you claim is proven regarding race is, of course, far from being settled; people are still fighting over that.

I can't give you references for a theory on the semantics of facial physiognomy, because they don't exist. It's my own theory that I'm developing, and I'm inclined to call it the biosemantics of facial physiognomy.
The foundation of this theory is that anatomical facial characteristics are constantly interpreted semantically during interpersonal communication—meaning certain traits (don't confuse them with facial expressions in nonverbal communication) have a clear biological semantic meaning regarding the type of social interaction and its moral level, which others spontaneously interpret that way.

I think it's highly unlikely in an evolutionary sense that such an anatomical biosemantics would be accidental—that the existence of such a biological anatomical language, obvious to everyone, would just be a fluke.
There's no scientific, methodologically grounded confirmation yet, and whether there ever will be is the question, because research like that would be extremely ideologically unpopular in today's political climate.
But, in an intersubjective sense, there are too many indications that the theory is correct to ignore it just because of ideological preferences.

ANYWAYTHERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THAT THEORY.

For now, anyone can look at their own lived experience and wonder if the whole thing actually holds water.
As far as I'm concerned, there isn't much to debate—and I'm pretty sure anyone who doesn't base their worldview on whatever trendy ideology is currently in vogue would agree.

mistyrider7 said:That whole lengthy intro about IQ was unnecessary, since I already made it clear that I'm not primarily talking about IQ, but rather how certain facial physiognomy traits manifest a predisposition for specific social "ecological niches," including moral potential—essentially, a leaning toward honesty or dishonesty.
Whether or not your stomach turns at that theory is completely irrelevant to me.
Furthermore, what you claim is proven regarding race is, of course, far from settled; people are still fighting heavy battles over that topic.

I can't provide you with academic references for a theory on the semantics of facial physiognomy, because they don't exist. This is my own theory that I am developing, and I'm inclined to call it the biosemantics of facial physiognomy.
The foundation of this theory is that anatomical facial characteristics are constantly interpreted semantically during interpersonal communication. In other words, certain features (not to be confused with facial expressions used in nonverbal communication) possess a clear biological semantic meaning regarding types of social interaction and their moral standing, which others spontaneously interpret.

From an evolutionary standpoint, I find it highly unlikely that the existence of such an anatomical biosemantics would be a mere coincidence, or that having such an obvious biological anatomical language would just be random chance.
There is currently no scientific, methodologically sound confirmation, and whether one will ever emerge is an open question, as such research would be extremely unpopular in today's ideologically driven political climate.
However, in an intersubjective sense, there are too many indications of this theory's validity to ignore it simply based on ideological preferences.

IN ANY CASE, THERE ARE NO PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT WOULD DISPROVE THIS THEORY.

For now, anyone can look at their own intersubjective life experience and ask themselves whether the theory is grounded and probable, or not.
As for me, there is no doubt. And I'm certain there's no doubt for anyone who doesn't base their views on whatever happens to be the popular ideological stance of the moment.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are essentially creating your own brand-new science through your research— the biosemantics of facial physiognomy.

I believe George Wallace was once quite heavily involved in this sort of thing in American circles, if I recall his name correctly.
You might want to try reaching out to him; he might have some interesting information from his own research that could help you move forward in building your new field of study.

Given that established science, existing research, and hard evidence don't seem to mean much to you—actually,
-since what "makes my stomach turn" is your attempt to use "subjective assessments without objective proof"—I 🤮 🙂 still feel nauseated by your biosemantics, because I suspect that, beyond perhaps using "interesting terminology" to mask something—whether it's frustration, a lack of education, or something else entirely (which isn't really important)
-you are also trying to justify it by blaming the "ideologically unacceptable political environment."👎

-as if things like GMOs, cloning, nuclear testing and research... and countless other scientific methods and studies were ever considered "ideologically acceptable" by the political powers of the day?

-Throughout history, there has never been a convenient era for new scientific discoveries; what is new is always viewed as "terrifying" or "unknown" (because no one knows what might come of it).
-just think about how things turned out for the gentleman who first announced that the Earth was round!!!!

- The whole debate about race and facial physiognomy only seems to trigger people like you,🙂 , when in reality, scientific methodology has settled this ages ago.

- And every single study
has shown that facial physiognomy has absolutely zero correlation with morality, honesty, IQ, or any other human trait.

- (And there is a massive amount of literature out there on this—ranging from the earliest studies and various theories to the final conclusions, which overlap about 90% of the time, even though researchers back in the day were constantly at odds with one another, proposing wildly conflicting theories from the perspectives of anthropologists, philosophers, sociologists, biologists, medical doctors, psychologists, and so on...
- There is hardly a field of science that hasn't tackled this subject at some point. - But it requires a strictly objective scientific approach rather than mere subjectivity.
(Of course, there have been individual attempts here and there, but regardless of the political climate, there was simply a lack of empirical scientific evidence.)

- One important thing to note—which is why I think you could benefit from more education
- Science and all legitimate research must be built upon the highest possible level of objectivity.
-(It can't be 100% objective, obviously, because humans are the ones conducting the research, so there will always be a minimal, inherent margin of subjectivity.)

- There is no such thing as a scientific study based on "intersubjectivity"—that isn't research, it's just a personal opinion or a viewpoint.

- So, which races or ethnic groups are you actually studying?

It’s funny how you keep insisting I have no right to this—as if it's a proven fact—yet you never actually bring any real evidence to the table...

thumbelina said:Or do they become that way during their lifetime?
Basically, the simplest question: would one Hitler have been Hitler regardless of the life he lived? 🙂

My take is that people are born essentially the same—without sin or any concept of malice. It's society and the environment they grow up in that shapes them into good or bad people. That part is obvious.🙂

mistyrider7 said:It’s interesting how you keep insisting I have no right to my claims, yet you never actually produce a single shred of evidence...

- The proof is simply that you admitted yourself that you approach scientific research subjectively rather than objectively.
- Let me repeat: that has nothing to do with scientific research itself; it’s just proof that you’re presenting a personal viewpoint or opinion, which you are certainly entitled to do.

- And no, I don't think I'm going to sit here and write out entire lists of academic papers and literature for you.

- It would honestly take me an entire week just to compile a small selection of scientifically proven and peer-reviewed works and theories from just one single field of study.

- Besides, I’ve already given you some direction—go find the literature, look up published international scientific journals and professional papers.

- After all, you call yourself mistyrider7; go to a library, ask a librarian, do some digging, sit down, and read.

- You have access to the National Archives, the Census Bureau... international archives...

- You're the one doing the investigating and trying to build a scientific case, not me, so put in a little effort.🤔

- At this rate, I might as well start mailing you packages filled with textbooks, recognized theories, professional papers, and research studies...🤣

- Look—the most critical part of science, research, and evidence is that for anything to be recognized, subjectivity must be stripped away in favor of maximum possible objectivity.

- Since you’re approaching this "backwards"—using a non-scientific method that fails to meet even a single scientific standard—it feels pointless for me to try and prove anything to you.

- Here is some concrete advice: pick up a textbook titled "Academic induction" (specifically for the social sciences); the author is Miroslav Vujević (published via Yelp).

- Just follow the instructions.

- The textbook might be "from a different era," but the fundamental scientific methods and research techniques remain exactly the same.
- Regardless of the social structure or the political climate.

-What actual, relevant scientific evidence have you produced using legitimate research methods? Beyond your own personal opinions and views, what have you actually proved, published, or presented, and where?😕

- We spend the whole time here essentially talking about your personal stance, your opinions, and your thoughts, and absolutely nothing else (certainly not about science or empirical evidence). 🙂 🙂🙂

- You still haven't answered my question regarding which races or nations you are actually researching.

Carol Lee4 said:- the proof is that you admitted yourself that you approach research subjectively rather than objectively
-let me repeat - that has nothing to do with actual scientific research; it's just proving a personal stance or opinion, which you're entitled to have

- I don't suppose you expect me to just hand over a list of scientific papers and literature, right?

- It would probably take me a week just to compile a small fraction of the peer-reviewed studies and established theories from a single field of science

- besides, I already gave you directions—go find the literature, look up published international journals and professional papers

- after all, you call yourself mistyrider7, so go to a library, ask a librarian, do some digging, and actually read something

- you've got the National Archives, the Census Bureau... international archives... the whole works

- you're the one supposed to be researching and producing science, not me—put in a little effort🤔

- at this rate, I might as well start mailing you packages of textbooks, recognized theories, and research papers via USPS... 🤣

- anyway— the most important thing about science and evidence—if you want it to be taken seriously—is that subjectivity is out and maximum objectivity is in

- since you're going "backwards" with an unscientific approach that doesn't meet a single academic standard, there was really no point in me trying to prove anything

- here's some practical advice- grab a textbook called "Academic induction" (for the social sciences); the author is Miroslav Vujević (published by Yelp)

- then just follow the instructions

- the book might be "from a different era," but scientific methods and research techniques haven't changed
- regardless of how society or politics shifts

-what actual scientific evidence have you produced using legitimate research methods, other than your own opinion? Where did you publish it? Nowhere.😕

- we're basically just talking about your personal views and thoughts here, and absolutely nothing else (certainly not science or empirical evidence) 🙂 🙂🙂

-you still haven't told me which races or nations you're actually studying

So, yeah. You can't provide a single shred of evidence.

mistyrider7 said:So, you can't actually provide a single shred of evidence.

- You're trying to have it both ways,👎
- Just look it up and you'll find it—everything you need is documented in the local public library.
- Did you even read what I wrote?
- You completely dodged the question.

Carol Lee4 said:You want to have your cake and eat it too—I guess you just can't decide between playing it safe or chasing the money.👎
Just go look—you'll find it—everything you need is written down in that local library down the street.
Did you actually read my post? — I mean, I guess it's possible you missed it.
You didn't actually answer the question—I guess.

So, you don't actually have any proof—admit it.

So you're lying then... I guess.

I don't even know why we're going there—I wasn't even bringing up race, just ecological niches within any given society, I guess. Mentioning race was just a side note because you kept insisting it's "proven" that there's no difference in Intelligence Quotients between races—which, for what it's worth, I still think is pretty irrelevant to the actual topic (even if I think you're wrong).