Are people born good or evil?

mistyrider7 said:So, you don't actually have any evidence, let's be honest.

So you're lying...

And I honestly don't see why we're even going there; I wasn't even focusing on race, but rather on ecological niches within a society (regardless of its racial makeup). Bringing up race was just a side note because you kept claiming it's "proven" that there are no differences in Intelligence Quotient between races, which I already pointed out was pretty irrelevant to the topic (even if it isn't true).

My dear aspiring scientist,

I’ve lived long enough and have far too much professional experience to venture into research myself, so I wouldn't dare take that on.
- You're clearly very ambitious, but you're missing the fundamental groundwork—the basic knowledge base.

- Calling me a "liar"—well, you're entitled to your opinion; feel free to comfort yourself with that if it helps.

- If you had read my post carefully, all the evidence is right there in it.

- Since you're an amateur trying to dabble in science, I was simply trying to help by providing some guidance on how to start and where to look for existing research.

- It's obvious you didn't fully grasp or carefully read what I wrote.
- I even mentioned someone who, much like yourself, pursued these same types of "studies" as an amateur.

- Every single bit of evidence you're looking for can be found in professional literature and academic journals.
- You can even find published, peer-reviewed papers online if you're willing to put in a little effort.
- Instead of 🙂 🙂 🙂

- Real science and research require long-term, thorough, and dedicated work, yet you seem to want to skip the heavy lifting—the most important part: seeing what has already been proven. Just dive into the literature and scientific papers, and you'll find the evidence yourself.

- Pick up some good books—you could start with the social anthropologist Margaret Mead; her book Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies alone will provide a wealth of evidence.
- Then move on to Georges Devereux, Will, Reich, Fairbran, or Fromm... once you've read and studied all of that, I'll be happy to guide you toward further established theories.

Greeting

mistyrider7 said:For now, anyone can look at their own subjective life experience and wonder if the theory actually holds water or not.
As far as I'm concerned, there isn't even a question. And I'm certain there isn't one for anyone else who doesn't base their views on whatever trendy ideology is currently in style.

A few months back, I was watching a German documentary on this subject—specifically, things moving in this direction. They listed a whole string of names and studies, though I can't recall most of them. Basically, various neurological studies have shown a fascinating link between disorders in the prefrontal cortex—those brain centers located right behind the forehead—and psychopathic behavior. Or, perhaps more accurately, it showed that "psychopathic brains" function differently in that area compared to "normal" ones. A specific dysfunction in that part of the brain, whether caused by a fall, a blow to the head, or something congenital, leads to a significantly diminished capacity for empathy, which in turn facilitates criminal behavior. There was also talk about facial physiognomy, specifically looking at the area from the eyebrows to the top of the forehead; they compared this among various brutal serial killers with confirmed psychopathic profiles, and similar characteristics kept appearing. It was clearly demonstrated—and I’ll go out on a limb here—that there is something vital happening there, something truly worth further study.

In China, the "science of facial expression" goes back thousands of years. In the past, many methods and principles of Chinese medicine were viewed with heavy skepticism, yet today, their accuracy is being increasingly proven. People often sense something intuitively before they ever find or establish the actual phenomena and underlying connections. Human intuition can be unpredictable, sometimes running ahead of human "reason," but it serves as a catalyst for discovering new insights—insights that some find fascinating, while others see as nothing more than logical, natural truths.

At first, based on the knowledge available at the time, a person would logically assume the Earth was a flat plane; everything else seemed inconceivable. But as we gather more diverse information pointing toward new possibilities, doors open to new understandings that present us with an entirely new range of realities. It's an ongoing process...

Look, you guys need to get one thing straight:

When someone is hellbent on proving a point, they’ll dig up hundreds of "proofs" that barely have anything to do with the actual topic... like trying to link how someone looks to their psyche.🙄

If that's the case, someone better explain to me what kind of traits we're talking about for people with hairy chests, or crooked noses, or ears that stick out at an angle sharper than 23 degrees...

mistycrane9 said:A few months back, I was watching this German documentary on the subject—one of those shows that wanders in that direction. It listed a whole bunch of names and studies, though I can’t recall most of them, honestly. Basically, various neurological studies have shown an interesting link between disorders in the prefrontal cortex area—the parts of the brain located "behind the forehead"—and psychopathic behavior. Or maybe it’s more accurate to say that "psychopathic brains" just function differently in that region compared to "normal" ones. A specific dysfunction in that part of the brain—whether it's from a fall, a hit to the head, or just something you're born with—leads to a significantly diminished capacity for EMPATHY, which makes criminal behavior much easier. There was also some talk about facial physiognomy, specifically comparing the area from the eyebrows to the top of the forehead in various brutal serial killers with confirmed psychopathic profiles; most of them showed similar characteristics in that zone. It seems pretty clear and proven—if I dare say so—that there's something vital going on there, worth looking into further.

In China, "facial reading" goes back thousands of years. People used to look at many methods and principles of Chinese medicine with massive skepticism, yet today, their validity is being increasingly demonstrated. Humans often pick up on things intuitively before they actually find or establish the real phenomena and underlying connections. Human intuition—granted by some, denied by others—will always stay ahead of human "reason," acting as a catalyst for discovering new insights that seem fascinating to some, while to others, it feels so logical and sensible that they don't see anything special or irrational about it at all.

At first, a person would logically assume—based on the knowledge they had at the time—that the Earth was a flat plate, making anything else unthinkable. But as you gather more and more diverse information pointing toward a new possibility, doors open to new understandings that present a whole range of new realities. Etc., etc...

👍

What actually fascinates me about this whole thing is the sheer aggression some people use to try and prove something that should be pretty self-evident to everyone.

I mean, there's no way people would CONSTANTLY read character into other people's faces if it didn't serve an evolutionary, or biological, purpose.

If you think about it for a second, it becomes clear that this is essentially a biological language signaling ecological niches within society—basically survival models for interacting with others.

I'm sure Carol Lee4 is constantly reading faces like that too, even if she probably tries to suppress her intuitive conclusions—maybe even trying to convince herself that someone who looks dishonest and corrupt is actually a total saint... 😉

Today's fake, ideologically driven social sciences sometimes fight tooth and nail against truths that don't fit the narrative that everything is caused by external factors, or by society, and that we're all fundamentally the same.
But we aren't.

mistyrider7 said:👍

What really strikes me about this whole debate is how aggressively some people try to prove points that should be obvious to anyone.

There’s just no way humans would constantly scan faces to judge someone's character if there wasn't a biological, evolutionary reason for it.

If you think about it, it becomes clear that we're using a biological language to identify social niches—essentially survival models for interacting with others.

I'm certain Carol Lee4 does this all the time too, even if she tries to suppress those intuitive gut feelings. She might even try to convince herself that someone who looks dishonest is actually a saint... 😉

Modern social sciences, driven by ideology rather than fact, often seem to fight tooth and nail against truths that clash with the idea that everything is purely environmental or that we are all fundamentally identical.
But we aren't.

Based on the few posts from Carol Lee4 I've read, she seems like a solid expert in her field, and I'm glad we have people like that here on the forum.
BUT WE AREN'T ALL CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH; everyone has their own inclinations and ways of processing life. Skeptics don't discourage me, nor do I waste energy fighting them. Everyone has the right to seek their own truth. After all, "all roads lead to Rome."

I personally find a lot of joy in my "alternative" perspective. It offers more answers and meaning to life's mysteries than mainstream science ever could. Even as a child, I felt drawn to this path; I never once doubted it. Like I said, we aren't all built the same. I see no need to clash with those who prefer a different approach. I can understand them, but that singular viewpoint isn't enough for me. I feel, or perhaps sense, that there is much more behind the curtain than we can even begin to imagine at first glance.

Sorry if I'm completely off-topic, though maybe I'm not.

thumbelina said:Or do they just become that way over the course of their lives?
Well, if we look at the most obvious example; would a certain Hitler have been Hitler regardless of the life he lived? 🙂

I suppose personality formation really boils down to two main factors: phenotype and genotype.
In this context, phenotype represents the influence of one's environment, whereas genotype refers to what is essentially "innate."
If an individual grows up in a toxic environment—dealing with constant harassment from a young age, chronic stress, and things of that nature—there is a significant chance they will develop into a similarly troubled person. I suspect that almost any mental disorder can trace its roots back to childhood. This is why psychoanalysis is conducted in such a way, using regression to help the patient revisit those early experiences that shaped their subsequent development.
As for the genotype, psychology suggests the existence of a "collective unconscious" where atavistic experiences are stored (for instance, a certain reverence for God, even in people who haven't had much exposure to holy books or religious laws). One often notices a child exhibiting identical behavioral patterns to their parents, even if they don't live together—specifically in their gestures, facial expressions, or similar reactions to various stimuli.
Furthermore, one might find certain basic models in psychology (though they aren't strictly established scientific facts) based on physical facial features.
For example, a strong, prominent chin might suggest a strong character.
Thin lips might indicate someone who is somewhat cowardly... though, of course, none of this is necessarily a hundred percent accurate.
I would argue that facial expressions and movement say far more about a person's character than their static physical traits.

Thomas Fox8 said:A thick, prominent beard often signals a strong character. I’ve always noticed that about certain men.
Thin lips—it’s probably just a matter of genetics. Though, honestly, nothing is ever 100% certain.

Most of what you said still holds water. But I have to push back on one point here. Just like you wouldn't draw a final conclusion about someone's entire personality based on a single question from a personality test, you can't judge someone's true character just by looking at one facial feature.

It’s all much more complicated than it looks. It really comes down to context. Take a prominent chin, for instance—depending on how it sits with other facial features, it could signal a streak of cruelty or someone who will step over anyone to get what they want. But in a different light, paired with other traits, that same person might turn out to be a dedicated human rights advocate.

To actually draw conclusions about someone's character, emotional life, mental capacity, or even their moral fiber... you can't just look at facial features and call it a day. It takes real, deep knowledge and years of experience. This isn't some simple game for amateurs to play around with.

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.

mistyrider7 said:👍

What actually fascinates me about this whole situation is the sheer aggression some people use just to prove something that should be blindingly obvious to everyone.

Let's be real: there is absolutely no way humans would constantly be reading other people's faces to gauge their character if it didn't serve a fundamental evolutionary or biological purpose.

If you think about it for a second, it becomes clear that this is essentially a biological language—one that defines our social niches and our survival strategies when interacting with others.

I’m pretty sure Carol Lee4 is constantly reading faces like that too, even if she tries to suppress her intuitive hunches or even convinces herself that someone who looks dishonest and crooked is actually a total sweetheart... 😉

Modern social sciences, driven by hollow humanistic ideologies, sometimes seem to fight tooth and nail against truths that clash with the belief that everything is merely a product of external influence or societal conditioning, and that we are all fundamentally identical.
But we aren't.

Like I already said, it's pointless for me to argue against your subjective opinion when you provide zero arguments or evidence to back it up.
In fact, you've now crossed over into clairvoyance, claiming to know exactly how I read faces or how I use my intuition.

I have told you several times: once you have a single, solitary objective scientific proof to offer, then we can continue this discussion.
Maybe start by mastering basic scientific methods, then head out to Australia and try to scientifically demonstrate how the descendants of criminals aren't inherently criminal.
Or, at the very least, show how their crime rates don't deviate from the rest of the world.

I have no idea what kind of aggression you're talking about.
I'm seeing yours; as for this "should be obvious to everyone" part—based on whose criteria? Yours?

Terms like "everyone," "all," "never," or "always"... they mean nothing, or they imply an absolute 100% certainty that just doesn't exist.
Those are just sweeping generalizations with no actual substance.

mistycrane9 said:Based on a few posts by Carol Lee4 that I've had the chance to read, I can say she seems like a great expert in her field, and I'm just grateful we can find people like that here on the forum.
But we aren't all cut from the same cloth; everyone has their own inclinations, ways of thinking, and ways of handling life. Skeptics don't really discourage me on that front, nor do I waste much energy fighting them. We all have the right to seek our own truth. After all, "all roads lead to Rome."

I simply love this "alternative" perspective on things; I find so many more answers and sense in certain life phenomena through it than what pure science offers me. Honestly, I felt drawn to it since I was a child—it felt like my path, and I never once doubted it. Like I said, we aren't all built the same, and everyone has their own style. Because of that, I feel no need to clash with those who prefer a different approach or worldview; I can understand them, but that way of looking at things alone just isn't enough for me. I feel, sense, and believe that there is so much more behind everything—often much more than we can even begin to imagine at first glance.

Sorry if I'm being totally off-topic, though maybe I'm not.

Thanks for the compliments.
-I also spend years working privately, just for my own soul, in the alternative field—I've even become a master teacher in Reiki. I finished my training in Germany following all the proper criteria, mostly out of curiosity and professional interest (imagine, psychotherapy meets alternative healing?!)—but since the roots of my science lie in philosophy, it’s actually quite logical.
-Since I live in Germany, and I'm half German and half a woman from a big American city, and thanks to various circumstances, I've traveled over half the world, I tend to look at things a little differently than people who, unfortunately, haven't had those opportunities.
(I'm not targeting anyone specifically here)—I just mean that I've arrived in places many times full of prejudice, only to return home with literal "culture shock," which stays with me to this day regarding certain parts of the world.

In my opinion, the "alternative" scene is fading today.
But certain values and belief systems must exist.
If someone wants to pursue science, then they should, but that requires the utmost objectivity possible.

If someone wants the alternative route, there are rules for that too. For example, in Germany, the laws regarding "alternative practitioners" are very clear—if you are "healing" someone, you can register officially. I believe you have to pass certain measurements (regarding energy potential) and provide concrete witnesses or testimonials. You pay taxes to the state—the only rule is that you aren't allowed to touch the person you are healing with your hands; your hands must stay a small distance (I don't know the exact number of millimeters) above the person's body.

I've done regressions, autogenic training, I meditate, I've practiced yoga for... how many years...? I know plenty about the alternative world, and there are actually many things in the alternative field that have been proven by scientific methods.

Unfortunately, in our neck of the woods, the alternative scene is weak; I call it the "fortune teller" level. It’s exactly that lack of structure, the charlatanism, and the rush to make a quick buck that causes people in America to look at alternative practices with nothing but mockery.

Until the laws are properly regulated, and until the elite medical establishment steps down from its throne (mostly because they don't want to retire at 100), I think we will see minimal progress.

What does seem good to me—though I don't know exactly how it's organized—is that there is at least an association of alternative practitioners that tries to clean up the trash within its own ranks regarding legal and regulatory issues.
Greeting 🙂

Carol Lee4 mistycrane9 said:Unfortunately, around here, the alternatives just aren't up to par. It feels like people are just playing games—sort of like throwing beans at a wall to see what sticks. That lack of professionalism and all that quick-fix charlatanism is exactly why most Americans just laugh when they hear about alternative approaches.

Until we get some real legislative reform, and until those elite doctors step down from their positions—mostly because they aren't ready to retire on full pensions at fifty—I don't see much changing. It’s the same old story. I remember seeing this pattern in my own hometown back in the day. Very little movement expected.

It seems like a good thing to me. I’m not entirely sure how they're structured, but at least there's an alternative group out there actually trying to clean up their own mess when it comes to laws and regulations.
Greeting.🙂

I couldn't agree more. Completely on board with this.

I try to stay open to different perspectives and possibilities. I won't dismiss anything until I've seen the truth for myself. In that regard, I’m still more of a student than an expert.

Regarding my own "cultural awakening," it started when I began meeting people from all walks of life. I remember sitting at one table with folks representing nearly every corner of the globe—except, of course, Greenland and Antarctica. What struck me most was how incredibly similar we all are at our core. Since then, I’ve found myself focusing much more on what connects us rather than what pulls us apart. It makes me wonder how bridgeable those differences truly are, and whether they actually hinder communication or the progress of society as a whole.

I see scientific progress moving at different speeds toward a single point of convergence. Eventually, the wheat will be separated from the chaff. What we currently call "alternative" methods will lose that label entirely as mainstream science absorbs and refines them into its own toolkit.

Based on my own experience, I believe we all come into this world with certain predispositions. Which way they develop depends on a complex web of factors. It makes any kind of prediction difficult. It teaches us to be much more cautious when drawing conclusions—especially when we're making decisions that impact someone's life.
Predicting anything is possible, I suppose. But it really just depends on how well we actually understand all those moving parts and how they clash with one another.

It often feels like certain "alternative" thinkers on this path toward understanding try far too hard to take shortcuts. At the same time, some scientists rely way too heavily on their flawed instruments, their methods, or just their own supposed "expertise." It’s why we end up repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

In Germany, there was a case where a convicted sex offender was released early because certain psychologists—acting as official auditors—insisted he was rehabilitated. They overrode the warnings from prison wardens who aren't trained in psychology. Not long after his release, that criminal went right back to his old ways. He held a 13-year-old girl captive for 36 days, raping and abusing her repeatedly while filming the whole thing on camera. It’s a nightmare scenario, and unfortunately, it happens more than people realize. When these "experts" get their assessments wrong, they just hide behind excuses, claiming they can't provide absolute certainty because human behavior is too unpredictable to measure perfectly. Their failure to predict such evil is just dismissed as a limitation of their tools.

I find myself wondering why "laypeople" often seem more qualified in these situations than the actual experts themselves. It’s a strange phenomenon. I remember watching a local mechanic fix my car when the dealership specialist just gave up. Sometimes, those without the formal titles see things more clearly.

To me, these are just the same old recurring patterns. It’s all evidence that our current methods for predicting human behavior are still pretty damn lacking.

What really gets under my skin is how the identities of certain sexual predators—those whom even laypeople recognize as habitual offenders—are often shielded and protected, while the potential victims are left vulnerable.

Different types of crimes, or rather the varying nature of those offenses, naturally demand distinct approaches to legal treatment and protective measures.

Carol Lee4 said:I generally prefer to steer clear of clinical diagnoses—those reductive labels like "the unfulfilled artist" or dissecting one's complicated relationship with their mother—but even then, one cannot ignore that Hitler, much like all those figures we might call "Napoleons" in psychological circles, acted in perfect alignment with his specific diagnosis. It is truly fascinating how certain individuals navigate the social landscape, moving through life like master chess players who have already mapped out every possible move before the first pawn is even touched. When you encounter someone who operates with that level of calculated precision—someone who treats every conversation as a tactical maneuver rather than a genuine connection—it really makes you step back and observe the mechanics of their influence. It reminds me of those complex psychological studies we see discussed in classic texts like *Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies*, where the underlying structures of human interaction are laid bare. These types of people don't just interact; they orchestrate, weaving subtle threads of persuasion to guide others toward a specific outcome, much like a conductor leading an orchestra toward a crescendo they’ve composed in private. While it can be quite unsettling to realize you might be part of someone else's carefully constructed symphony, there is a certain intellectual curiosity to be found in studying how they manage to maintain such a seamless facade while pulling the strings behind the scenes.He was short, dark-haired, and possessed deep, dark eyes, yet he had the audacity to preach about the supposed superiority of an Aryan ideal defined by blue eyes, blonde hair, and a tall, statuesque physique.
So, the question remains: where does the blame truly lie? We could easily spend days, even years, spinning our wheels in endless debate over who is at fault, but I suspect we’ve all reached that point where more talking won't change the reality of the situation.
I would say—as the old adage goes. There is an old adage that suggests every nation eventually receives the government it truly deserves, and while that sentiment can feel quite heavy, I find there is a certain poetic justice in the way social structures evolve over time. Much like how a gardener might eventually find themselves surrounded by the specific variety of flora they have meticulously chosen to plant, a society tends to reflect the collective values, habits, and character of its own people. It isn't necessarily a harsh judgment, but rather a natural observation of cause and effect; just as a captain’s leadership style will inevitably shape the culture of their crew on a long voyage across the Atlantic, the spirit of the citizenry acts as the fundamental blueprint for those who hold power.

Hitler invoked the concept of an Aryan race because he believed he was serving a purpose far greater than his own individual existence, viewing the Aryans as the ultimate pinnacle of natural racial evolution. It is quite a striking irony that he possessed Jewish ancestry himself while simultaneously orchestrating the destruction of the Jewish people. His supposed higher calling was centered on the evolution of the human race through a sense of Aryan unity—a vision involving controlled breeding intended to facilitate the arrival of divine beings, rather than his own attempt to be worshipped as a god. However, once those around him began to treat him with the kind of reverence typically reserved for a deity, the entire endeavor spiraled into complete catastrophe.
No nation truly earns the government it wields, simply because an individual can never truly deserve the whims of the majority. 🙂

rowdydrifter7 said:Hitler invoked the Aryan race because he believed in an existence with a "higher" purpose than his own—that Aryans represented the final stage of natural racial evolution. He actually had Jewish blood himself while systematically murdering Jews. His supposed higher goal was the evolution of the human race through Aryan unity via controlled breeding to bring forth god-like beings, rather than acting as a god himself, which is how people eventually began to worship him. Once they started treating him like a deity, everything spiraled out of control.
No nation truly deserves the power it holds, because an individual can never truly deserve what the majority demands! 🙂

Regarding the Hitler discussion—I don't want to dwell too much on it just to avoid shifting the focus of this thread onto him,
- instead, I believe we should learn from history, though that isn't really the point here,
- at least regarding him, who unfortunately I’ve been hearing about since childhood, and believe me, many people—specifically the older generation—still aren't quite grasping it. They ask, "What should we do with him?" without even touching on denialism and things of that nature.
- but, I wouldn't say he succeeded alone; I assume he did it with help from "scientists" working in my specific field,
- because what he achieved with his people is something you learn about in your first year of psychology school—nothing groundbreaking, just a very well-designed psychological program, solid assessments of temperament, and so on... I won't get too deep into the technicalities of my profession...
- and as for him as a person, there is plenty of scientific research and literature published out there; if anyone is interested, they can dive into those, including his personal letters...

- since I consider myself a true individualist, I personally don't care for that proverb, though unfortunately, it holds true.

- That is why groups of individuals formed civil society to act as an opposition to the opposition, not just to the government... I am referring to genuine non-governmental organizations, of which there are perhaps a hundred in the world that truly fulfill the role a non-profit or civil society should play.

- sadly, there doesn't seem to be any hope for achieving democracy in any other way besides elections, especially here in the States, where we still need observers because, as far as I know, even the dead can cast a vote around here.

- until legal regulations regarding voting are fixed—and in some places, direct elections for individuals (voting for a person directly)—we will continue to deal with the same issues we have in America.
- I believe that, even though we currently feel far too broke to be part of the global elite, there will eventually be pressure, at least regarding fundamental laws and human rights, to maintain a civilized standard.
- This doesn't mean things will be perfect, but maybe they'll be a degree or two better than they are now, which would make everything function much more smoothly.
- For instance, Germans brought a lot of things into order by passing targeted laws and imposing massive financial penalties.
- Again, I'll repeat: there is no such thing as a perfect country or a perfect democracy, but certain essential changes are necessary.
- Since I spend a lot of time in psychology circles, when I hear or read about the state of the healthcare system regarding my field, I find it hard to believe it can even happen. I honestly wonder how healthcare survives in this part of the country if it operates this way!!
Greeting

mistycrane9 said:I am totally with you on that!

I try my best to stay open to different possibilities and perspectives, refusing to dismiss anything until I’ve seen the proof for myself. In that regard, I still consider myself more of a student than an expert.

Reflecting on my own "cultural shock" when I first started meeting people from all walks of life—I remember sitting at a table once with folks representing almost every corner of the globe, excluding Greenland and Antarctica—what struck me most was just how much we all have in common. Because of that, I found myself focusing way more on what connects us rather than what sets us apart. I became fascinated by how easily those differences can be bridged, and whether they actually act as real barriers to communication and social progress.

Looking ahead, I see the development of science and alternative approaches moving toward a sort of convergence, albeit at different speeds. Eventually, the "wheat will be separated from the chaff"; alternative methods will lose their "alternative" label as they integrate, while mainstream science expands and refines its own toolkit.

To answer the prompt based on my own observations and experience, I believe we are all born with certain predispositions. However, the direction those traits take depends on a massive web of variables. This makes forecasting incredibly difficult and teaches us to be extremely cautious when drawing conclusions—especially when those decisions involve someone's actual life and destiny.
Predicting outcomes is possible, but only to the extent that we truly understand all those moving parts and how they interact.

It often seems to me that some "alternative" thinkers try too hard to take shortcuts to enlightenment, whereas some mainstream scientists rely far too heavily on imperfect tools, flawed methods, or simply their own perceived "expertise." We see the fallout of this all the time.

Take, for instance, a case in Germany where a convicted sex offender was released early because certain "expert" psychologists and auditors gave him the green light, despite the protests of non-psychologist prison administrators. Once he was out, the criminal went right back to his old ways, holding a 13-year-old girl captive for 36 days, repeatedly abusing her, and even filming the crimes. In cases like this—and there are countless others—the "laypeople" were actually much better judges of the situation than the "experts." And when these experts fail, they often hide behind the excuse that they can't provide absolute answers because of measurement limitations or the inherent "unpredictability of human behavior."

It makes me wonder: what is it about these situations that makes the "laypeople" seem more competent than the supposed professionals?

To me, these recurring failures are clear evidence that our current methods for assessing and predicting human behavior are still significantly lacking.

What irritates me even more is how the identity of these recidivists—those known to the public as habitual offenders—is often shielded and protected, rather than prioritizing the safety of potential victims.

Different types of crimes, or rather the different natures of those crimes, necessitate very different approaches to treatment and victim protection.

👍 👍 👍

I couldn't agree more. In my line of work, we've known this for ages, and even in medicine—though it's a shame it hasn't been fully embraced yet—the concept of psychosomatic illnesses is a proven reality.

While science and alternative approaches are starting to find common ground, I really believe we need to establish some clear legal frameworks to govern how they interact.

When you have a medical professional or a specialist, like a psychiatrist—who often provides clearances or expert testimony in criminal cases alongside other specialists, though forensic experts are the most prominent in the medical field—there’s an issue. Even when multiple experts collaborate, if the final word rests solely with one person, you end up with situations where repeat offenders are released back into society prematurely.
I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea and think I have a personal vendetta against forensic psychiatry or expert witnesses. It's just that, unfortunately, there are far too many oversights occurring because there isn't enough genuine listening to other equally qualified disciplines.

Greeting🙂

Themis said:Personality is shaped by two main factors: phenotype and genotype.
Phenotype represents environmental influence, while genotype is what you're essentially "born with."
If an individual grows up in a toxic environment—dealing with bullying from a young age, constant stress, and so on—there’s a high probability they'll develop into a similarly troubled person. You can find the roots of almost any mental health struggle in childhood. That's why psychoanalysis works the way it does, using regression to help a patient revisit those formative experiences that steered their development.
Regarding genotype, psychology recognizes the existence of a "collective unconscious" where atavistic experiences are stored (for instance, a fundamental love for God, even in people who have never encountered sacred texts or religious laws). You often see children mirroring their parents' behavioral patterns, even if they don't live together—especially in their movements, facial expressions, or specific reactions to certain stimuli.
Psychology also touches on certain basic models—though they aren't strictly established science—based on facial features.
For example, a strong, prominent chin might suggest a strong character.
Thin lips might suggest someone is a bit of a coward... though, of course, none of this is ever a hundred percent certain.
Ultimately, facial expressions and movement tell you much more about a personality than static physical traits.

- Without getting too deep into the weeds here, the most telling thing about a person is their "unconscious"—those involuntary movements, facial expressions (if we're being generous, physiognomy fits in here, though not in the sense of the tracker's "science"), and all those "non-verbal cues."

- There are actually people who (either privately or professionally) practice "unconscious non-verbal communication" just to stay in control of a situation.

- They usually work with teams of experts (typically politicians or public figures).

- However, you can't fully control the subconscious. All it takes is for a trained professional to ask a targeted question—whether uncomfortable or pleasant—and the person might just "slip up," if you'll excuse my choice of words.

- At the end of the day, that falls under the domain of professional expertise, experience, and practice.

- For the layperson—if you want to get a real sense of a public figure—just turn off the TV and simply observe. Watch their facial expressions, their gestures, how they sit, or the positioning of their hands and feet... and you'll walk away with about 50% of the "true picture" of who they really are.

Best,🙂

tracker said:Look, if you run into them again, tell them to reach out to me. I've got some fresh, interesting intel for them.

As for judging someone's character based on their facial features—you really have to know what you're looking for. There’s a certain way of reading faces that most people just don't pick up on.

For instance, when I first saw actress Angelina Jolie, I actually found her unattractive. Because I know how to look, I immediately spotted signs of metabolic imbalances and concluded there was an unbalanced personality at play, which is what I intuitively felt as "ugliness."
And as we can see, she does indeed possess a rather unstable, somewhat flighty personality.

If you observe many actors and actresses that the general public considers beautiful, those who truly 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 superficial semantic level of the face—those meanings that primarily cater to common preoccupations, causing them to lose sight of everything else.
A face that signals authority or power—especially sexual power and the ability to command others' desires and frustrations—will be attractive to many, simply because they are desperate to prove something about themselves within that specific semantic configuration.

However, people who lack or have moved past the typical preoccupations and frustrations of the masses see things in a completely different light. They see things as they truly are, because their own desires and frustrations don't cloud their perception.

Well, not for quite as many people.

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

I was specifically addressing the issue of honesty and morality. I didn't say that dishonesty is a mandatory genetic condition, but rather that there are cases where it definitely is, and that it reflects itself in facial characteristics.

Any study concluding that facial features say nothing about a person's moral potential—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 know how to look the way I do)—would be incredibly simplistic. It ignores the fact that genes can be extremely formative for psychology, while in other cases, they create much more "neutral" personalities that are more easily shaped by their environment.
It also ignores the logic of the human species viewed as an evolutionary biological system, and the logic behind why humans constantly decode messages through physiognomy.

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

-What you're describing is called a "behavioral model" that is passed down from generation to generation.
- If a father was violent in a family, there is a high probability the son will be violent too.

- If a family's way of solving problems involves alcohol or suicide, there is a higher likelihood that this "problem-solving" model will continue in those families (which is why you have generational families that are "prone" to alcoholism or have a higher tolerance for it, leading to a higher generational rate of suicide within the family).

- It's the same deal with all other behavioral models—whether acceptable or unacceptable (like murder)—that weave through the generations of certain families (patterns characteristic of the family).

-Basic psychology.👍

tracker said:Look, if you run into them again, tell them to reach out to me; I've got some fresh, interesting intel for them.

As for judging someone's character based on their facial features—you really have to know what you're looking for. There’s a specific way to read faces, and frankly, most people don't possess the insight to recognize what I see.

Take, for example, when I first saw Angelina Jolie. To my eyes, she looked unattractive. Because I know how to observe, I immediately spotted signs of metabolic imbalances and concluded there was an unbalanced personality at play, which I intuitively experienced as a sense of ugliness.
And as we can see, she does indeed possess a rather unstable, somewhat flighty personality.

If you look at many 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 superficial semantic level of the face—those surface meanings that preoccupy the masses—and they completely lose sight of all the other layers of meaning.
For instance, a face that signals authority or power—especially sexual power and the ability to manipulate others' sexual needs and frustrations—will be highly attractive to many people, simply because they are desperate to prove something about themselves within that specific semantic configuration.

However, people who lack or have moved beyond the typical preoccupations and frustrations of the average person see things in a completely different way. They see things as they truly are, because their own desires and frustrations don't cloud their perception.

Well, not for such a large number of people.

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

I was specifically addressing the issue of honesty and morality. I wasn't saying that dishonesty is an absolute genetic requirement, but rather that there are cases where it certainly is, and that it reflects itself in facial characteristics.

Any study concluding that facial features say nothing about a person's moral potential—just because there are dishonest people who lack those specific 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. Such a view ignores the fact that genes can be extremely formative to psychology, while in other cases, they create much more "neutral" personalities that are more 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 are constantly decoding messages through facial physiognomy.

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

Physiognomy and "disturbed personalities" have absolutely nothing to do with each other (except perhaps in certain types of disorders or individuals with special needs, reduced intelligence... but I won't get too technical here).

- This whole business with celebrities is complete nonsense—what you see on TV or read in the news is just 🤣 (a manufactured image, the work of teams of people creating a facade for a famous person).

Sure, maybe they pick up some good or bad traits from their parents through genetics, but at the end of the day, people really learn who they are based on the society they're raised in...

thumbelina said:Or do people just become that way as they live their lives?
Well, let's look at the absolute basics; would one Hitler have been Hitler regardless of his upbringing? 🙂

I am certain we are born with a certain baseline of goodness. We come with specific inclinations and predispositions, certainly. But what those leanings eventually evolve into depends entirely on how we're raised and the environment we inhabit. If everyone were raised in a vacuum of pure, unconditional love and acceptance, there wouldn't be such a surplus of miserable, frustrated people out there...😘

I’m all for making the physical punishment of children a criminal offense...