Now that News of the World has been shuttered in a scandal, what would we do without New Scientist for our dose? In “Are wide-faced men rascals?” (07 July 2011), Andy Coghlan manages a straight face, reporting,
Can it be true that men with extra-wide faces are more likely to be liars and cheats? That’s what a study published this week claims, but some researchers specialising in the evolution of trustworthiness have questioned the results.The study’s authors claim to have shown that men are most likely to cheat and lie if they have wider faces as measured by the facial width-to-height ratio, or WHR. Sceptics argue that the evidence supporting such a huge claim is weak, especially given that the conclusion could damage the reputations of the millions of men whose faces conform to the definition of “extra wide”.
At one time, there was science. Then there was Darwinism. Some day there’ll be science again.
I’m getting plastic surgery.
What has this story got to do with darwinism?
A recent study has concluded that children who wear bigger shoes statistically read better than children who wear smaller shoes.
Therefore, objective science dictates that the way to get children to read better is to buy them larger shoes.
How could this not be obvious?
goodusername: What has this story got to do with darwinism?
How could this not be obvious?
So, are men with beady eyes more honest?
And, if so, then why is “beady eyed” pejorative?
GilDodgen,
Was that sarcasm? 🙂
Physiognomy, the idea that certain facial features may indicate personality, goes back many centuries, and even ancient times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiognomy
Modern physiognomists argue that there can be certain links between features and personality because such things as testosterone can influence both during development. I don’t put much stock into the field myself, and even if there are small statistical relationships, such data is still not very useful (and may even be dangerous, or at least unfair to many as the story itself points out) although I wouldn’t say that the field is inherently unscientific.
But no, I don’t see what the story has to do with darwinism, and there’s nothing in the story suggesting that the researchers saw any link with evolution.
In contrast to the uselessness of Darwinism for science:
Stephen Meyer on the Heuristic Benefits of Intelligent Design
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoyefBvbcGo
Did a shoe salesman perform this study?
Was it sponsored by shoe sellers?