Physiognomy – A Mug’s Game?

This month we welcomed Kathryn Ford who had travelled all the way down from Liverpool to talk to us about Physiognomy.  Physiognomy is the practice of believing that you can judge someone's character traits from their appearance.  Kathryn explained that this idea goes right back to ancient Greece.  The term 'physiognomy' comes from the Greek 'physis' meaning 'nature' and 'gnomon' meaning 'judge' or 'interpreter'.  Over 2,500 years ago Greek thinkers such as Zopyrus and later Aristotle believed that appearance was a good judge of character.  Pythagoras actually rejected a prospective follower, Cylon, as he judged that his appearance pointed towards bad character traits.

By the Middle Ages, Physiognomy was well established, widely accepted and taught in universities until Henry VIII outlawed it in 1531. He also banned palm reading at the same time. Leonardo Da Vinci was sceptical of physiognomy writing that ''I do not concern myself with false physiognomy...there is no truth in them and this can be proven because these chimeras have no scientific foundation”. 

The practice seems to have gone into decline until the 1770s when Swiss pastor Johann Kaspar Lavater's essays were translated into English and French. The popularity of Physiognomy grew in the 18th and 19th centuries and English authors such as Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy and Charlotte Bronte used detailed physiognomic descriptions of their characters.  Kathryn focussed on Oscar Wilde's 'The Picture Of Dorian Gray' and how as the novel's anti-hero committed foul deeds his portrait was corrupted, it's hideous visage accurately reflecting Dorian's true character.

However, Physiognomy suffered by being linked with Phrenology - the idea that lumps and bumps on the head and skull could help to determine character and intelligence and both are now generally discredited and viewed, at best, a pseudo-science and, at worst, as outright quackery. However, some South Koreans certainly still believe in the validity of the physiognomy as you can see from the face map of North Korean Leader Kim Jong-Un that they’ve compiled.

Research in recent decades has focussed on our reactions to others features and what we feel those features might uncover about another person’s personality.  Kathryn talked us through numerous pieces of research that all pointed in various degrees to the conclusion that whether or not someone's facial features does or does not determine their character, we think it does and make snap decisions based on this.  Furthermore, these snap decisions can condition the response we get from the other person thus our idea of their character can become a self fulfilling prophecy.

These sorts of studies have been prompting a bout of fresh interest in the subject area with articles appearing in respected publications such as The Economist.  The Economist article describes a study that claims having sex with an attractive man provokes more orgasms and therefore a higher chance of getting pregnant. Therefore, it’s more likely that attractive DNA will be passed on to the next generation. 

Kathryn cited studies that showed that people deemed more ‘attractive’ receive less harsh sentences when convicted of certain crimes such as robbery.  However, ‘attractive’ people received tougher penalties for crimes where their good looks/charm were deemed to have been used as a weapon – such as for fraudsters and con-artists.

Indeed, the perceived good looks or fresh faced youth of the alleged Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev have prompted some people to question whether be could be responsible for such a crime.

It would seem that although Justice is claimed to be blind the blindfold needs to be made of thicker material.

Kathryn also showed us how ‘Composite Faces’ can be created to aid research (or just for fun – try some here – www.faceresearch.org). 

So whilst it would seem that we do judge a person’s character by their looks is there actually any truth to it?   An article in New Scientist suggests there is.  It references studies that point to an evolutionary basis to our ‘snap judgements’ and that these judgements may contain a kernel of truth. Uncomfortable listening for those of us who like to believe we’re rational human beings. But the instinctive wiring of the ‘primitive’ brain still remains, it would seem.  Perhaps the best approach is to be aware of the ‘unconscious bias’ we carry around with us and do our best to inform ourselves and try to ensure that it is taken into account when decisions are being made.

Kathryn’s talk was very thought provoking and warmly received by the audience, many of whom stayed to talk with her at the end of the evening.  Bedford Skeptics highly recommend her to other groups. She’s already given 5 Skeptics talks this month and another 3 are lined up for August so if you missed her last night you can follow her on Twitter @KatLikesJam to see where she’s appearing next.

Next Month:  Sometimes it can seem that Skeptics In The Pub subject matter (climate change, corruption, dodgy belief systems etc.) is overly pessimistic. Well, fear not, next month Mark Stevenson will be at The White Horse explaining that it’s not all doom and gloom! He’ll be treating us to 'An Optimist's Tour Of The Future' on Thursday 15th August at 7pm. 

Full details HERE.