How To Spot A Bastard In 30 Seconds

bogart4017
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 01:19 pm: [report]

Yeah—lotsa luck with that!!
Whatcha gonna do with the guy thats all eyebrows, low harline, bangs and hairy knuckles!!!!

seygra20
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 03:56 pm: [report]

wtf is dis

effing hickster
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 04:10 pm: [report]

This sounds like an argument in favor of eugenics. How sad.

Titaniumhalos
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 04:21 pm: [report]

WTF this is a load of crap-o-la

loveitlala
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 04:25 pm: [report]

I thought this was going to be helpful, but it belongs in Cosmo.

Kate Torgovnick
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 04:31 pm: [report]

This is amazing. And amazingly comprehensive. Though since I tend to overanalyze everything anyway, I’ll now be like, “Is his chin too long? His forehead too short?”

majicksand
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 04:33 pm: [report]

Good thing my husband and I are happy.  If I started staring at his face, comparing every detail to pictures of celebrities, and taking notes, he’d think I’d lost my mind.

effing hickster
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 04:38 pm: [report]

I think perhaps my Buddha ears are broken…

jfst
wrote on September 3 2009 @ 12:30 am: [report]

this was completely retarded.

retro chic
wrote on September 3 2009 @ 02:26 am: [report]

Kiki, fascinating. I’ve heard of a few of these, like about the square jaw or thin lips, but had no idea it was so detailed with so may variations. Doing a mental run-down on the all the exes now… Does this apply to women too? [checking my ears, forehead…]

stiffinp
wrote on September 3 2009 @ 07:32 am: [report]

This sounds like the kind of science practiced a century ago where scientists measured the size and shapes of peoples heads and determined they committed crimes (before fingerprinting was discovered).
Or the work of Henry Goddard (same time period) on Ellis Island were the immigrants came mostly from Eastern Europe. He used similar techniques to classify people as a moron, an idiot, or an imbecile. And quite a few were denied entry into the US.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 3 2009 @ 08:39 am: [report]

@stiffinp: Hitler did it too. He was trying to determine where the Aryans came from. By the transitive property of Hitler, Kiki is Hitler.

Kiki T
wrote on September 3 2009 @ 12:33 pm: [report]

@CheeeeEEEEse if that were true, then I would know that Aubrey O’Day or whoever the f"ck her name is thinks I’m “brilliant!”

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 3 2009 @ 12:39 pm: [report]

@Kiki: I’ll just choose to think that you were just referencing a Guinness commercial there. Nothing to see here.

Whooptedoo
wrote on September 7 2009 @ 01:28 am: [report]

Funny article, hope no one takes it seriously. Make or break decisions about the shape of someone’s face? really now…

Tart and Soul
wrote on September 8 2009 @ 10:24 am: [report]

Step one is to recognize a bastard, step two is to make sure you never date a guy like him again. My friend and I made ourselves a List of Off-Limits Men, which we strictly abide by, or at least try to. It’s hard for me…it includes musicians.  :(

Check out my post, “The List of Off-Limits Men,” and let me know what you think: http://tartandsoul.com/2009/06/14/the-list-of-off-limits-men/

Shriekback68
wrote on September 8 2009 @ 11:47 am: [report]

Dumb article. Tantamount to astrology. Yawn.

Shriekback68
wrote on September 8 2009 @ 11:50 am: [report]

Hey, Tart: when I read an article beginning with the words “The List…” I usually expect an actual LIST at some point. )

Dean Sellers
wrote on September 8 2009 @ 12:23 pm: [report]

@stiffinp & @CheeeeEEEEse:  The “other” pseudo-science that you’re referring to is called “phrenology”.  It’s been so thoroughly debunked, that I’m quite surprised that anyone dares mention it (or anything that sounds like it) with a straight face. 

With all due respect to Kiki T, I think that this is additional proof that human beings are innately irrational. In general, people latch onto their opinions haphazardly, and believe that they’re true no matter how much evidence indicates otherwise.  They will seek out evidence that supports their opinion, and reject all evidence that refutes it.

If people were rational, they would consider all facts and then adjust their opinions to incorporate the new evidence as new facts were discovered.  Ask yourself - do you remember any instances where your kids, or parents, or spouse believed something that was just obviously wrong, and when confronted with a FACT still believed the same thing?  Can you remember yourself believing something in the face of contradicting facts?  (If you can’t, then ask a kid, spouse, or parent if they can - and they will.)

One might think that scientists are rational, however they only are if they try very hard.  Most scientists will tend to seek out evidence that supports their opinion (hypothesis) and will tend to argue against evidence that contradicts it.  This is because they have too much invested in their hypothesis to let it be destroyed by a “competitor’s” evidence.

In short, people tend to believe exactly what they wish to believe, even if the facts indicate otherwise. 

Irrational!

majicksand
wrote on September 8 2009 @ 12:32 pm: [report]

@Dean: You may be right but being logical and rational is boring.  It’s so much more fun to choose your life partner based on perfect teeth and a great ass.  Isn’t it?

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 8 2009 @ 12:41 pm: [report]

@majicksand: Or dimples and hair color!

Dean Sellers
wrote on September 8 2009 @ 01:02 pm: [report]

@majicksand & @CheeeeEEEEse:  Wouldn’t it would be irrational to select a mate that you didn’t find attractive?  (Unless you WANTED a mate that you weren’t attracted to.  Like maybe you WANTED to be celibate, and if you were attracted to the other person it might jeopardize that goal…)

Here is yet another irrational aspect of both men and women. They will both acknowledge their attraction to others based on physical appearance - and attach significant importance to physical appearance (in the other person).  However, after committing to a relationship they will often disregard their own physical appearance - and then wonder why the other person doesn’t seem to be as attracted to them.

That’s an example of people REALLY not wanting to accept facts.

majicksand
wrote on September 8 2009 @ 01:11 pm: [report]

@dean:  Well, he already married me, so it’s too late.  If he leaves me now it’ll cost him half his net worth.  I promise even though I’m no longer 19, and I’ve had 2 kids, I’m not that hard on the eyes!

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 8 2009 @ 01:16 pm: [report]

I think it’s irrational to write long diatribes on the internet. Rationally I can’t take any stock in what you are talking about. The only truth I can garner from your words why would anyone want to marry you when you speak like that.

Dean Sellers
wrote on September 8 2009 @ 01:17 pm: [report]

@majicksand “...I’m not that hard on the eyes!”

I would guess that you haven’t disregarded your appearance, and are therefore not part of this example!

However, I’ll bet that you can think of both men and women who are.

Dean Sellers
wrote on September 8 2009 @ 01:21 pm: [report]

@CheeeeEEEEse What in particular did you find annoying?

Also, you might want to consider the following definition of “irrational”, and think about how it relates to “long” postings:
“ir·ra·tion·al (-rsh-nl)
adj.
1.
a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.
2.
a. Being a syllable in Greek and Latin prosody whose length does not fit the metric pattern.
b. Being a metric foot containing such a syllable.
3. Mathematics Of or relating to an irrational number.
n. Mathematics
An irrational number.”

I suppose it might be irrational to think that everybody who reads these long postings would enjoy them.  However, I never thought that for a minute.

majicksand
wrote on September 8 2009 @ 03:34 pm: [report]

@dean: I think you missed my point.  As my son would say, “learn-to-sarcasm.”  Although there are people who “let themselves go”, there are just as many who base relationships on the unrealistic (and irrational) expectation that the “beauty” they met will remain so forever.  I was attempting to point out that “real” relationships develop into something that transcends mere looks.

In case you really want to know, I believe cheeeeEEEEse was pointing out that we all decided this article was fluff a while back.  Relax, Dude.  You’re taking the world waaaayyyy too seriously.

Did that about sum it up cheese?

Dean Sellers
wrote on September 8 2009 @ 03:59 pm: [report]

@majicksand:  It was a cute sarcasm, and I should have acknowledged that better.  However I did catch it to begin with (since I thought it was unlikely that you were truly suggesting that relationships should be based on merely physical attributes).

However (having been in a pretty good relationship for nearly an eternity), I think that sometimes we lose sight of what role physical appearance DOES play in a relationship.  We sometimes do such a good job of concentrating on the emotional part of the relationship that we downplay the physical part. 

From a man’s point of view:  Having a happy wife is of the utmost importance, however having an attractive wife still makes the top 5 on the wish list. 

You’re right about the serious part - people like a clown much more than a philosopher.  Except for scary clowns.  (Are there any other kinds?)

majicksand
wrote on September 8 2009 @ 04:30 pm: [report]

@Dean: I would say somewhere between hard-core philosophy and clown usually works best.  For instance, I like cheese much more when he’s showing off his brain as opposed to his a$$. (love you cheese )  In this particular case, there was simply nothing serious enough about the original article to merit any kind of serious response.

I never got the issue with clowns.  I never thought they were scary until I met someone who was terrified of them.  They still don’t bother me, but I get where they might scare others.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 8 2009 @ 04:34 pm: [report]

I’ll take the first definition, not endowed with reason….why the hell are you posting this? No reason.

retro chic
wrote on September 8 2009 @ 05:55 pm: [report]

[cue scary music] “OooOOOooo. I see Straw Men.” Haha… really now. So serious. Where in there did it say Science? It clearly states *Art* of Face Reading. Even the credible few FBI profilers make NO claims it is an actual Science in the conventional sense, and is considered an Art (ie, Cold Reading and Subjective Validation). But, by some of the tangents I read here that jumped “Science Debunked!” gun, pointing and laughing, am I to conclude they’re – what was the word… irrational? [gasp!]

Also, that reference to phrenology (shape of skull and bumps on it) is so old and weak – like countering with, “yeah, and the world is flat” argument. Yay! Let’s hear it for “rational.” [snickering]

alycat1092
wrote on September 8 2009 @ 08:47 pm: [report]

this would take so much longer than 30 seconds…