RSS
Although the Bard warned against finding the mind’s construction in the face, we are apt to try. Can facial features show us the power of the brain behind the mask? Lee et al. (2017) think so.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3c4TxciNeJZTGpEdkJBbnVmNFE
Unlike minor Scottish nobility planning regicide, they have made their judgments using the medium of facial photographs of twins and their siblings, so there will be no gouts of blood to disturb our slumbers.
The authors used a proper sample, 1660 persons on whom they had good data: identical and non-identical twins and their siblings who had their faces photographed and had been tested for intelligence. These photographs were rated on a number of traits, such as facial attractiveness, facial masculinity, and trustworthiness. To get finer grain details the faces were measured using 31 anatomical landmarks to compute facial metrics. Of course, they were just photographs, not short videos which showed the faces in action as the person talked, but it at least picks up the permanent features of the face, if not their habitual micro-expressions.
The authors summarize their findings thus:
Perceptions of intelligence based on facial features can have a profound impact on many social situations, but findings have been mixed as to whether these judgements are accurate. Even if such perceptions were accurate, the underlying mechanism is unclear. Several possibilities have been proposed, including evolutionary explanations where certain morphological facial features are associated with fitness-related traits (including cognitive development), or that intelligence judgements are over-generalisation of cues of transitory states that can influence cognition (e.g., tiredness). Here, we attempt to identify the morphological signals that individuals use to make intelligence judgements from facial photographs. In a genetically informative sample of 1660 twins and their siblings, we measured IQ and also perceptions of intelligence based on facial photographs. We found that intelligence judgements were associated with both stable morphological facial traits (face height, inter-pupillary distance, and nose size) and more transitory facial cues (eyelid openness, and mouth curvature). There was a significant association between perceived intelligence and measured IQ, but of the specific facial attributes only inter-pupillary distance (i.e., wide-set eyes) significantly mediated this relationship. We also found evidence that perceived intelligence and measured IQ share a familial component, though we could not distinguish between genetic and shared environmental sources.
In their discussion they put the matter in a nutshell:
If observers are able to judge intelligence accurately, we should find an association between perceived intelligence and IQ.
As to assessing intelligence, the authors say:
For participants in BATS and their siblings, (n=1278) general intelligence (IQ) was measured using The Multidimensional Aptitude Battery (MAB; Jackson, 1984). The scale includes three verbal (information, arithmetic, and vocabulary) and two performance (object and spatial) sub-tests, which were combined to form a full-scale score for general intelligence. The test was administered to each participant separately using the standard MAB instructions. Participants were given 7 min for each sub-test, which consisted of multiple-choice questions patterned after the WAISR. For more details on how the MAB was administered, see Wright, Smith, Geffen, Geffen, and Martin (2000). IQ was measured on the same day as the facial photographs were taken. The mean IQ from this sample was 112.21 (SD = 12.80).
For participants in the LTS, (n=382) when participants were aged between the ages of 16 to 20 years, they completed the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 3rd edition (WAIS-III). IQ was operationalised as the sum of the scaled scores on all 11 sub-tests of the WAIS-III. The intelligence tests for the LTS twins were taken on average 3.19 years before the facial photographs were taken (SD =2.92). The mean IQ from this sample was 102.43 (SD =11.53).
To combine the separate measures of intelligence so that the BATS and the LTS participants could be analysed together, IQ scores were standardised within the separate samples before being combined. Previous work has found that the MAB and the WAIS have substantial overlap on total scores (r = 0.81; Carless, 2000; Jackson, 1984).
So, the very much larger BATS sample were bright kids, with a narrower than normal standard deviation. The smaller LTS sample were far closer to the norm, with an even narrower distribution. Overall, there will be problems of restriction of range, with under sampling of lower intelligence bands. This will make it more difficult to detect those intellectual differences which may make themselves evident in facial topology.
The photos were assessed for intelligence thus:
For perceived intelligence, photographs were presented in a random order to one of two groups of undergraduate research assistants (21 in total; 12 Females, 9 Males; 19–30 years, median =22 years). Mean perceived intelligence ratings between male and female raters were positively correlated (r =0.41, p < 0.001); therefore, ratings from male and female raters were combined for further analyses. Cronbach’s alpha between raters who rated the same faces was 0.60 for group 1 (7 raters) and 0.82 for group 2 (14 raters), while the intra-class correlation (i.e., the proportion of total variance in ratings that is between-faces compared to within) across all perceived intelligence ratings was 0.19.
In fact, women and men showed somewhat different assessments, though in general the raters were pretty consistent when shown the same faces as a reliability test, which is reassuring.
Here are the key results:
When the facial features were entered into a regression equation it significantly predicted IQ (R2 = 0.02, p < 0.001), indicating that face shape was related to IQ. In my view this is not a very strong relationship, and is little different (2%) from predicting the same intelligence for all photographs. However, this is a correlation between the actual face measures and tested intelligence so it is a real relationship, though slight.
There was a significant positive phenotypic correlation between perceived intelligence and IQ (r = 0.15, p < 0.001), which suggests that perceivers may, to some extent, be able to accurately evaluate intelligence based on facial features. We also found a significant correlation between perceived intelligence and facial attractiveness (r = 0.34, p < 0.001); however, as noted before (Mitchem et al.,2015), there is no association between measured intelligence and facial attractiveness in our data (r= 0.01, p= 0.517). Accordingly, the association between perceived intelligence and IQ remained when controlling for facial attractiveness, as well as with other facial attributes.
This is a sophisticated paper, and sometimes difficult to understand. Here are some explanations:
There was a significant positive phenotypic correlation between perceived intelligence and IQ (r = 0.15, p < 0.001), which suggests that perceivers may, to some extent, be able to accurately evaluate intelligence based on facial features. We also found a significant correlation between perceived intelligence and facial attractiveness (r = 0.34, p < 0.001); however, as noted before (Mitchem et al.,2015), there is no association between measured intelligence and facial attractiveness in our data (r= 0.01, p= 0.517). Accordingly, the association between perceived intelligence and IQ remained when controlling for facial attractiveness, as well as with other facial attributes.
In my view, r=0.15 is nothing to write home about. Yes, it is not zero, but even in this large sample we have some room for error. To the casual eye of the photograph assessors, beautiful people are probably brighter, but the facts say not. Otherwise, the magnitude of the observed findings is slight.
There are other things in this paper, namely a confirmation of the intelligence correlations found in twins
They also re-confirm that twins seem to pay an intellectual price for sharing the same womb.
measured IQ had a significantly lower mean and variance in twins compared to their siblings (χ2(1) = 25.70, p < 0.001 and χ2(1) = 8.42, p= 0.015 for means and variances respectively
I wish they had shown the actual means and standard deviations, which are always more informative for comparative purposes.
In defence of the authors, they don’t make much of the above average IQ and narrower standard deviation of their sample, which even despite its size may somewhat limit their ability to find stronger results. Also, they might look at their sample again, and take a brief video clip in high definition of these same subjects as adults. Even with the sound turned off, this might give better dynamic facial data, which might “leak” more signs of intelligence, which are probably there to be found.
What is the bottom line here? There is a trace of intelligence to be found in the face’s construction, but a mere moiety and no more. As the Bard would have said, if he was modern day researcher: “a correlation of r=0.015 is an insufficient basis for making judgements about mental ability, let alone trustworthiness, so you will have to use other methods to find out if a person has a good brain. However, if really pushed for time, avoid people with upturned noses and square jaws, but you had probably already worked that out already”. (Somehow, those phrases don’t light up the page).
Now to important matters. Given that is unlikely that your intellectual ability can be read in your face, how can you manage things so as to appear intelligent?
Speak only when spoken to, learn your lines, and don’t bump into the furniture.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
– https://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1802675
Off-topic. Mr. Thompson, were you in the end interviewed by Sky News, or not?
– https://twitter.com/JamesPsychol/status/880089629310963712
Saved by a brow: useful.
Yes, did Sky interview, since forgotten. Amusingly, nearly killed by a passing car on leaving the studio, thus almost achieving my most feared obituary: trauma expert killed by passing car just after explaining post-trauma responses.
Very glad you are still with us!
“Overall, there will be problems of restriction of range, with under sampling of lower intelligence bands.” Pretty common problems, I imagine, but surely unusually important in this case?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4293313/figure/F2/
By my way of thinking one extreme looks a lot more intelligent than the other.
How did Einstein fare out? I’ve seen a lot of people who looked like pretty smart fellers that turned out to be pretty fart smellers!
We see once again that the “scientific” journal Intelligence is rubbish. 1660 photos is a proper sample? When evaluated by 21 persons?
It is time to stop pretending that this has anything to do with science.
“Smart looking” seems similar with some autistic facial phenotypes.
Women, it is said, are attracted to intelligent men. Men are attracted to beautiful women. Therefore, beauty and brains tend to go together. Hence, what people consider intelligent in a person’s appearance is merely what conforms with the general idea of beauty. That the EU Horizon Research and Innovation Fund paid for research confirming this seemingly inevitable conclusion is one more reason for Brexit.
A good sized forehead can be an indication.
Einstein the plagiarist was a fraud; but had a good advertising agency.
Darwin is most often pictured with the immense sage’s beard he grew late in life that makes him look wise, but in an earlier cleanshaven photo he looks like a bit of a bruiser:
William D. Hamilton, who grew up only five miles from Darwin’s old house, looked even more rugged: his rugby teammates called him Caveman and Apeman.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/william-d-hamilton-unfrozen-caveman-darwinist/
I’ve always wanted to see a scientific study of the insights of professional casting agents and makeup artists for movies and television. They tend to be very good at not casting somebody who looks wrong for a role.
A very large fraction of the time when I say to myself: That’s bad casting, that person doesn’t look like the role he’s playing … it later turns out that he’s really a double agent or something similar and the filmmakers wanted me to notice he didn’t look quite right for his ostensible role.
Traits of Anglo Saxons and Nordics?
A female friend says that she tends to judge by how animated a face is. If her intuition is right, researchers will need to work with movies, not stills.
I can remember a school teacher who once, remarkably, said to the class that he preferred pupils with clever little piggy eyes, not great, stupid, placid eyes, like a cow’s.
From Orwell’s ‘The Road to Wigan Pier’:
I also raised an eyebrow at the low number of participants. I wonder if their age and gender might influence their scoring but there is no way of examining this without a much larger group.
Small typo in the conclusion – the third last paragraph refers to r = 0.015, which I would probably consider a decorrelation!
To hell with being intelligent. The game is to look intelligent …. so you’ll get the job and get promoted. My model for this is Chance (Peter Sellers) in the movie, “Being There” … a mentally retarded man perceived as brilliant 🙂
Learning from Chance, I’d add a few things to Jame’s list:
Spout positive cliques and aphorisms (so you can’t be wrong about anything).
Patronize the rich and the powerful by telling them what they want to hear.
Dress for the job you want, not for the one you have.
Then, you need not prove anything to anyone. They will reinvent you as their favorite person.
This really triggered my salesman’s genes, by which I mean the belief that, I think, most salesmen have in physiognomy, body language, all that.
Some thoughts plucked from memory. Enrico Fermi reportedly said he distrusted handsome men in science, and I think he was referring to Arthur Compton. Well-known rock bands are put together on looks as well as musical compatibility, such as Hendrix’s selection of Noel Redding because of the latter’s ‘fro. The absolute worst interpreters of body language are cops, some of whom nonetheless regard themselves as experts on “tells”.
When I started selling, I had to modify my behavior significantly to develop a commercial “public face”. Let me tell ya, that was difficult. I got to be pretty good, bringing in 40% of our ten-man sales force’s revenues, and eventually becoming a pretty good sales manager, despite my lack of manager’s genetics. My personal belief in physiognomy is very modest: looks may suggest an approach, but that’s about it.
Our political leaders are expert actors, something that’s commonly known, yet intelligent people routinely fall for well-manicured lines of rhetoric if they seem to comport with their own interests.
That suggests rhetoric as stroking or grooming behavior, which I think has some theoretical basis. But, whether actor or politician, putting on or modifying a “public face” takes energy and not a little intellectual work.
People at the sharp end of human interaction like teachers would probably disagree. They know from experience that often the worst offenders are those who look like butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths. One reason why teachers are regularly objected to by defence counsel as potential jurors in the UK.
And reverting to casting, the most sublime piece of casting against type must surely have been Sergio Leone using Henry Fonda as the killer Frank in “Once Upon A Time In The West”: genius.
With enough data, EVERY correlation becomes statistically significant. Stock values vs. women’s hemlines, rainfall in Brazil vs. the handedness of pitchers in major league baseball… The real issue then becomes whether a correlation is significant in practice.
Al Gore always seemed to me a prime example of someone who looked more intelligent than he was in reality.
According to Cesare Lombroso, at least in relation to the geniuses he studied, a strong correlation was found between facial defects and genius, for example, a greater facial / cranial asymmetry. At least in relation to the artistic and philosophical geniuses.
big ears,
Deficiency or failure of the beard
Irregular teeth
Excessive asymmetry of the face and head
With face and head or too large or too small
Sexual precocity
Short stature or disproportionate body
Left handedness
Stuttering
Pallor of the skin
Deformities in the skeleton
tuberculosis
Excessive fertility or sterility
Cranial capacity too large or too small
How to make a big splash at casting call.
What about Hair Color?
The blonder you get, the dumber your IQ people perceive of you.
Eg., Trump, Taylor Swift, Corinne in Bachelor in Paradise
I suppose that’s why real Scandinavians lead in IQ.
The featured pic looks like a somewhat more masculine/handsome variant on the actor who plays that “Sheldon” character on THE BIG BANG THEORY.*
*My girlfriend has forced to me to watch that show a few times.
“I’ve always wanted to see a scientific study of the insights of professional casting agents and makeup artists for movies and television. They tend to be very good at not casting somebody who looks wrong for a role.”
How do you determine this? Could the post hoc casting decision influence the viewer to believe that is what the character should look like? I’ve found very little “continuity control” in casting. Next time you watch a TV show or a movie with actors pretending to be relatives, ask yourself if they look anything alike. Most high budget movies cast highly paid name recognition actors. Plus, you have affirmative action casting where blacks or women are cast in roles that are for White men. Low budget pictures don’t usually care about what people look like.
Narrow and long faces = Caucasian-like feature and not only northern Europeans.
Little impression that “dumb face” correlates with baltid subrace phenotype.
This study was done with Caucasians or with a mixed bag race samples?
Ultimately, pretending loses its purchasing power and you pay the full price – plus interest. It’s a Faustian “bargain”.
Straight out of Central Casting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Casting
No doubt people judge others by looks. However, as we know:
Appearances can be misleading.
The absolute worst interpreters of body language are cops, some of whom nonetheless regard themselves as experts on “tells”.
How are they suppose to learn when they are almost always acquitted when they beat up or kill somebody? They do not have a need for this skill.
Isn’t “casting” driven by stereotypes? Don’t we go to the movies and read fiction to relax in ways that do not demand much of us? Doesn’t a script work when the storyline is easy to digest and does not threaten our prejudices?
For anyone interested, here’s a closely-related book by the famous late 19th century scientist Cesare Lombroso, who pioneered exactly this sort of analysis. I haven’t looked at it myself, so I can’t judge the quality:
https://www.unz.com/book/cesare_lombroso__the-man-of-genius/
Physiognomy is real.
Physiognomy Israel:
I would have thought that would be the most obvious sign. I recently read a satirical novel by a UK writer who half seriously noted that middle class people (meaning upper-middle class people to US readers) tend to have high foreheads and working class people tend to have low foreheads.
To find criminals in Israel??
Jeez
Of course even if facial features don’t turn out to have much of a link to intelligence, it doesn’t mean there is no correlation between physical features and intelligence. There is still a solid correlation between intelligence and height, and a significant correlation between ring/index finger ratios and some forms of mental intelligence. For example, women with a neutral ring/index finger ratio tend to have higher IQs than women with feminine digit ratios, while males with a masculine ring/index finger ratio tend to be a bit smarter in terms of visual/spatial intelligence.
>To find criminals in Israel?
That doesn’t require software. Any member of the Knesset qualifies.
It was indeed the only sign that made sense to me at the time, given the modest correlation between brain size and IQ. Other than racial/ethnic markers, e.g. for Jewishness.
Sure, but what are our stereotypes? That’s what this experiment is trying to figure out. Why not ask a professional expert on the public’s stereotypes about what kind of facial features go with various traits?
Most people have a hard time articulating what kind of facial features they stereotypically associate with different traits. So experimenters use undergrads to laboriously approximate the tacit knowledge that casting agents have at their fingertips. And then researchers clumsily try to put the intuitions of undergrads into words.
Casting agents, however, can list obscure actors who persuasively embody virtually any desired psychological trait in their particular physiques. And perhaps casting agents have a vocabulary of terms that would be highly useful to researchers into these questions.
Novelists, too, can “sell” a character by detailing physiognomy, body language, and so on, as can good biographers. Robert Oppenheimer reportedly smoked 80 Chesterfields a day, while Bismarck is said to have had a fairly high-pitched voice, not at all thunderous as the Iron Chancellor nickname would suggest.
Then there’s Lloyd Fredendall, who is said to have been promoted before WWII because of his military bearing, attitude, his “vocational face”, then flopped at Kasserine Pass.
I think most of us have stories of people whose outward appearance didn’t match their behavior, intelligence, vocation and what have you. As I mentioned, I got to be a pretty good salesman, and pretty much tried to hold my stereotype bias in check so I could close the sale.
But, yeah, casting agencies and agents as a source of data about stereotypes? It sounds worthwhile to me. Plus, I think there are some actors’ vitae that are online with short descriptions of their strengths, “campus jock”, “young entrepreneur”, and so on.
I’m also good at identifying Jews from their facial features. Where’s my contract?
I read in somewhere that typical Jewish features are found in half of “European” Jewish populations or at least “complete typical facial phenotypes”.
Indeed 😉
As a high IQ individual myself (130 tested), I’ve always figured everyone subconsciously KNEW the typical IQ tells, not all are completely correlated with IQ, but seem to indicate it, particularly if taken together:
1. GREEN EYES.
2. Not just white, but NORDIC
3. Ashkenazi heritage, even minor
4. Symmetrical face
5. Correct distance between eyes
6. A neutral mouth (not drooping downwards as if frowning: see Central American Indians/mestizos)
7. Blond or red(dish) hair
8. Blue eyes
9. Strong chin for either gender, good beard for men.
10. Minor facial hair for women along the sideburns.
These are the alphas ” to the civilization ”. Based on Brave New World, which must have based on the ideas of his time, genius is always, more or less, related to disorders.
Bernard Marx’s are outsiders, alphas are outliers, ” high-functioning normies ”. Geniuses would be ”high functioning outsiders”.
Here is an unfavorable contemporary review.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/ajp.48.4.529?journalCode=ajp
But this might say more about the narrative of the time than about the book.
A longer and more even handed review is at: https://books.google.com/books?id=ZrYVAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA551&lpg=PA551
One observation there (page 554) which struck me was “Although men of genius are usually short they are most frequent among tall populations”. Also on that page, Lombroso apparently did not accept the heredity of genius (in contrast to Galton).
I see multiple places on the unz.com book page (e.g. in search) referring to comments, but I did not see any way to actually leave comments. Not sure what your current plans are for book comments, but they seem useful for (in addition to general discussion) things like review links and suggestions for finding a print copy either in a library or bookstore.
Lombroso’s comments on the reasons for ability in European Jews are interesting: https://www.unz.com/book/cesare_lombroso__the-man-of-genius/#p_8_3:1-122
Lombroso’s reference 247 is available for reading online (with a free account) at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2841640?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Jacobs used Galton’s method of looking at eminent men. He also made a comparison of Scotchmen with Englishmen, all Jews, and Jews of Western Europe. On page 360 he makes an odd argument I interpret as greater variation (rather than elevated means) explaining high performance.
P.S. Ron, I like the search feature with excerpts and links. Is there any way to link paragraphs to the page where they appear in the print version? This would be handy for making a print citation.
Sure, the Books incorporate the entire underlying Commenting module used for the rest of the website, but I haven’t yet activated it. Obviously comments on 100,000 word books published 120 years ago are quite a bit different than comments on 200 word blog posts published last weekend, and I need to give a little more thought as to the best way to handle them.
The problem is that “print pages” don’t really exist in the system, so can’t be referenced. In any event, since the print editions are often inaccessible and also there may be several different ones, such references might not be too helpful. The “deep linking” to particular sections, paragraphs, or phrases is intended as a substitute.
One can get a lot of photos of criminals to train models on. US sex register have age, sex, race and even full names for people convicted of stuff decades ago. Insane system, but useful data.
http://www.criminalwatchdog.com/neighborhood-watch/
There’s a bunch of other sites like mugshots from executed criminals:
https://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/death_row/dr_executed_offenders.html
One can get comparison images from Facebook, Tinder, OKCupid etc. OKCupid also has criminal outcomes, so that’s perfect.
http://infoproc.blogspot.dk/2016/11/annals-of-machine-learning.html
A great read so far. I like especially the chapter on barometric pressure. I have done much research myself into how severe and abrupt barometric pressure/weather changes can result in panic attacks, anxiety, etc. in highly sensitive persons.
Alfieri wrote, “I compare myself to a barometer. I have always experienced more or less facility in writing, according to the weight of the air; absolute stupidity in the great solstitial and equinoxial winds, infinitely less perspicacity in the evening than in the morning, and a much greater aptness for creation in the middle of the winter or of summer than in the intermediate seasons. This has made me humble, as I am convinced that at these times I have had no power to do otherwise.” Monod says that the phases of Michelet’s intellectual life followed the course of the seasons.[189] Poushkin’s poetic inspiration was greatest during dark and stormy nights. – https://www.unz.com/book/cesare_lombroso__the-man-of-genius/#p_6_21
Thank you to Mr. Unz for making these great reads available, and for his great and simple software solutions to easily search and precisely cite passages from them. Just double-clicking on any text/passage within the books gives one several different options, e.g., jumping to the next or previous chapter/section of the book, going to the top/table of contents or bottom of the book, and action buttons with which to either link to or bookmark the specific passage.
Lombroso comes/came to a very similar conclusion as a recent VDare article:
– https://www.unz.com/book/cesare_lombroso__the-man-of-genius/#p_10_35
THE GENIUS FAMINE: The Death of Religion Will Lead to the Death of Genius and the Death of Civilization
http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-genius-famine-the-death-of-religion-will-lead-to-the-death-of-genius-and-the-death-of-civilization
I recently wrote a comment in a similar vein:
– https://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-in-enormous-success-scientists-tie-52-genes-to-human-intelligence/#comment-1881258
I remember we had guy who got nickname Wild / Dikii in Russian. We were sort of buddies. He was older than me and had speech imparement but because I was talking so much to him and spent much time around him I knew he was very well read and actually clever guy with speech and appearances of cave man. Never judge the book by it’s cover.
Religion has suppressed creativity since ever not so when it is used to worship its stupid and morbid/psychotic desires.
Charlton is extremely biased when he talk about religion, near to a father of Anglican church.
When genius breakthroughs happened in religious societies it’s not necessarily because religion but despite religion. Only thing religion can provide for real creativity and via accidental way is long term social stability.
Sistine chapel is beautiful but the reason to be build is at least obscure. Often (irresponsible or convenient) creativity shocks with wisdom.
Generally agree.
But I think it is important to distinguish between the different religions and different denominations within specific religions as to how organized, centralized and authoritarian they are, and how this could potentially suppress/hinder scientific progress/discovery, etc., i.e., Protestantism (mostly decentralized) versus Catholicism (highly centralized), etc.
See Merton thesis:
– https://www.unz.com/jthompson/scrabbling-for-excellence/#comment-1911398
Yes. Well interestingly Catholicism seems have correlated with artistic achievements. I knew this link you already posted. And as I said there are important exceptions.
Religion itself is a natural suppression against science AND philosophy, the sample fact it is used to remain people in superstitious ignorance, even select for that people. It’s a ignorance circle. But I’m not favorable for atheism because in the end be sure about its disbelief it’s also a kind of superstition. Be agnostic is the real skeptical and rational. Existential certainty, what religion give to people is extremely important even I believe all fake magical stories and the worst, subjective morality based on this fake magical stories, are unnecessary. People and maybe all of us need the idea of God as certainty or uncertainty to live, but not Jesus, Buddha or Mohammed and its endless contradictions and obvious magical thinking.
Or Lena Dunham
“A true skeptic is diffident of his own skepticism.” -David Hume
What about Steven Hawking – does he look intelligent? Was Mozart handsome? Beethoven scowled like a criminal. It’s all nonsense next we’ll be asked to believe in Phrenology
Steven Hawking maybe looked intelligent before disease. Phrenology actually made progress in science cause localisation of brain functions come from phrenology.