There’s no way it can be more than a good guess.
I rate this up there with “profiling”.
Not accurate, not fair and racist. IMHO
ETA it all ok til you’re the one being judged on the way you look.
An artist named Charles Le Brun tried to codify this back in the 17th C.
Pure nonsense, but an interesting exercise in the wide variety of facial expressions
Not really. If we could tell who was evil just by looking then serial killers wouldn’t get far. Plenty of murderers look totally normal, and many people who look a bit ‘off’ are perfectly law abiding. Plus it’s hardly inevitable whether a given person will commit a crime or not. It depends on the circumstances, whether they get an opportunity, chance of being caught and punished, etc. An employee might steal from their employer because they get the opportunity and give in to temptation, a person may try drugs and become addicted and steal to fund their habit, when they were law abiding before. A teen could make some bad friends and start joining in with delinquent behaviour, which they wouldn’t have done otherwise. Plus criminals can reform, but their appearance isn’t going to change overnight if so.
Also as far as I know this study hasn’t been replicated, so I wouldn’t put too much confidence in it. Social science is pretty unreliable in general; it would be a big mistake to base any kind of policy on a single study.
One photograph is not how we normally size people up. It is the whole gestalt of a person – their expression, what they say and how they say it, the way they move, what they are wearing, how their hair is cut, how they react to what you say … and all of this is assessed in a second or two, mostly unconsciously.
All of this is layered with one’s awareness of class, gender, and the degree of uncertainty due to inexperience with something about that person – a foreign accent, unfamiliar way of dressing, conflicting signals, etc. Our social world, and for women, our safety, depends on making these judgements about people we interact with.
My guess is that when we are surprised by the criminality of a person, it’s because there was a quite conscious effort by a sophisticated criminal to appear harmless. Most criminals are not sophisticated, though.
Criminals are often both more stupid and more aggressive than average, and it might be this that people are reading in their faces, not their inherent criminality.
No.
Some people naturally looked “baked,” like they’re on drugs (e.g. Jim Breuer, Steve Buscemi). But they’re not.
You’re way too eager to cherry-pick anything that supports your hypothesis. This is how pseudoscience is done, not science.
This is perhaps a more scientific statement in that you made a testable prediction. But people have researched this extensively. It has been the basis of phrenology and other hypotheses, all of which have failed to stand up to empirical testing. Also worth noting that this stuff has been part of the foundation of eugenics.
I had a boss comment on my RBF once he got to know me and realized that I do have a sense of humor and all that. I’m just not a smiley person, but I am nice, dammit! 
And even when I think pleasant thoughts, it doesn’t seem to reflect - like for my passport photo. No smiles allowed, and it looked more like a mug shot than anything. I dunno - maybe life has been hard on me.
Yes, and I bet they are a lot more likely to have certain mental illnesses too. Any of these things could allow an above-chance rate of identifying them from photos, but it’s not seeing ‘evil’ or ‘inherent criminality’. Most people who are less intelligent, or more aggressive than average are not criminals, and same for those with even the most serious mental illnesses.
The other thing to note @longtry is that studies showing people photos will be using 50% criminals, or at any rate include them at a rate way above their presence in the population, so the criminal-looking person is most likely actually a criminal. But in a real life situation, it will be more like 99 law abiding people to one criminal, and let’s say 3 of them look criminal to you - that’s 2 innocent people you’ve misidentified vs one correctly spotted. It’s not particularly useful and it’s very unfair to those non-criminals.
People have researched it, and contrary to the knee-jerk reactions here, there is some evidence that they can identify intelligence from photographs. Eg
(Pdf link unfortunately, hopefully it works.)
No, 404
A mini-hijack: I once was part of a creative writers’ group, and was in charge of screening new members. I found I could tell within a few sentences on the phone, whether they were real writers or not. Just voice, nothing else. It wasn’t about what they said, either. It was kind of eerie after awhile, how accurate I was.
There are a lot more people who think writing would be fun, than there are actual writers, come to find out.
I don’t think there’s anything particularly ‘knee-jerk’ about recognising centuries of pseudoscience that a) hasn’t ever really come up with anything substantial and yet b) is still being enthusiastically peddled.
If there was anything to it, it would not be like this, after literally centuries of inquiry.
I don’t understand how that could possibly be true.
Is this any better?
https://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/p/staff/LeeAJ_Intelligence21JUNEEPUB.pdf
Maybe ‘knee-jerk’ is the wrong way to put it, but I don’t get the impression anyone else has bothered to check the research before confidently replying to this question.
Maybe so. I don’t suppose people would look very hard for fresh research if the question was ‘Are people more artistic if they are Pisces?’
I don’t either. It was not a huge data sample, only a couple dozen phone interviews at at most. But I didn’t ever miss my guess (although people did come to a few meetings and drop out because they had not understood that their work would be seriously critiqued, something no writer finds easy to bear).
Here’s an interesting study by the NIH – people can accurately assess the intelligence of men by looking at photos of their faces. But … not women’s faces.
c.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3961208/
I can believe it. Writers deal with language as their primary tool. It is not implausible that their spoken language could contain subtle shibboleths.
Maybe you’re clairvoyant.
Yes, thank you.