File under “All knowledge is provisional”

We used to think that the shape of a man’s skull correlates with his character.

Then we discovered that that’s actually not true; phrenology is fake science.

Then we discovered that the shape of a man’s skull actually does correlate with his character:

The new Caltech study is the first to show that observers have a knack for picking out corrupt politicians based on just a portrait and that observers perceive politicians with wider faces as more corruptible.

All knowledge is provisional.  As Richard Rorty observed, truth is that which we regard as true.

Of course no good blog post is complete until it includes an appropriate picture:

Screen Shot 2018-10-10 at 1.07.29 PMPS.  How about me? I think I’m a bit more corrupt than Obama, but less corrupt than Trump, but it’s hard to judge one’s own face.  Any thoughts?

PPS:  Yikes!

PPPS:  Lighten up everyone, this entire post is meant to be a joke.  I know that the correlation is quite small and only shows up with large data sets.

HT:  Scott Alexander


Tags:

 
 
 

8 Responses to “File under “All knowledge is provisional””

  1. Gravatar of policy_wank policy_wank
    10. October 2018 at 10:31

    As I recall prisoners have significantly wider faces than those of the general population. And hockey players have significantly wider faces than prisoners!

  2. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    10. October 2018 at 10:46

    I’m surprised they still do these questionable, extremely relative, studies. These people act as if the replication crisis never happened. I strongly doubt that these studies withstand serious replication.

    I’ve done some research on the facial width-to-height ratio. It seems to be completely arbitrary. Some studies say it is completely independent of testosterone, others say it is completely dependent on it. Very funny.

    It must also be mentioned that this is a racist method of measurement, because Native Americans and Blacks, of course, often have a very high facial width-to-height ratio.

    And what about your extremely bad example with Obama? Is that on purpose? Obama has a very high facial width-to-height ratio of about 1,8. I also heard that he is black. I did not measure Trump, but if you are not blind, you see without measurement that he won’t be able to beat Obama.

  3. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    10. October 2018 at 10:56

    Christian, Obama’s face looks thinner to me, but that’s probably just confirmation bias.

    Oh, and you should read the entire post before commenting, you’d be less likely to make a fool of yourself.

  4. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    10. October 2018 at 11:39

    Oh, and you should read the entire post before commenting, you’d be less likely to make a fool of yourself.

    That’s so lame. Your PPPS wasn’t there when I did my comment. And it doesn’t even change anything. I just your usual style of “Oh I meant it as a joke”, as soon as something blows up in your face.

    Parts of me even understand this obvious act a bit. If I were a professor who wrote with his real name, I might as well do it. What other option does one have? Honesty, maybe? Saying “Sorry, I made a little mistake”. I’m not sure if I would do that, so I guess it’s unfair to ask it from others. I’m glad that you write this blog.

    Obama’s face looks thinner to me, but that’s probably just confirmation bias.

    It is. I do not have a ruler. But I just took a paper and a pen and made marks. But you can also see that the width of the two faces is the same, but the height is different. Obama’s face is not as high, not even close.

    I know that the correlation is quite small and only shows up with large data sets.

    That’s what I said in another phrasing.

  5. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    10. October 2018 at 12:12

    In my opinion a perfect example of fake science full of biases and systematic errors.

    It is really difficult to find consistent data on this topic. You aren’t even able to find the same fWHR values for the same person. Sometimes Obama got 1.8, and Trump 2.0 and then vice versa. Sometimes 1.8 is a lot, then again rather little.

    But poor Herbert Hoover was a real monster with 2.3, a record high for politicians. And Putin has the lowest score of all with 1.75. Stalin was rather low as well.

    Roger Federer and Leonardo Dicaprio on the other hand got 2.1 and 2.34. I always knew it, Roger!

    Let’s make the data pile even bigger to create even more junk.

  6. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    10. October 2018 at 15:48

    Christian, I wrote the PPPS before I even posted it. Get a grip.

  7. Gravatar of Mark Mark
    10. October 2018 at 16:18

    The disgraced Rod Blagojevich is the first person who comes to mind. Impeached for selling gubernatorial appointments and built with a head like a cinder block.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich

  8. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    10. October 2018 at 21:48

    Mark, I’m going to start voting for people with thin heads. Or is that pinheads?

Leave a Reply