Shhh! Men CAN Judge Female Faithfulness From Faces—Don’t Let Cultural Marxists Know!
December 22, 2018, 09:38 PM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF

MJK34388 Sienna Miller (The Lost City Of Z, Berlinale 2017).jpgIf you’re a scientist these days, you need to tread very carefully. If this wasn’t already obvious, it became crystal clear a few weeks ago when the full fury of the anti-scientific mob was unleashed on young Cambridge University sociologist Dr. Noah Carl with an Open Letter signed by hundreds of bullying “academics” demanding his dismissal. This means that at worst genuine scientists daren’t even look into areas which challenge Cultural Marxism—and, at best, they disseminate their findings in such a way that they stay safely under the PC radar. Which is just what the Springer-published journal Evolutionary Psychological Science appears recently to have done.

The journal published a paper which confirms something that definitely doesn’t fit with CultMarx dogmas: Men can correctly tell how faithful a woman is likely to be just from looking at a photo of her face. (Pictured right, actress Sienna Miller, wife of Jude Law, lover of Daniel Craig.) In other words, you really can judge people by what they look like.  

Of course, if you can judge character from a face, then character might be genetic and human beings not blank, socially-engineerable, slates. Also, if an ancient idea—that you can judge by appearances—is accurate, then other ancient ideas might accurate. Cultural Marxism cannot allow that!

Had it been a study replicating something that the Left want to hear, such as that religiousness is weakly negatively associated with intelligence, then you can guarantee that Springer would have put out a press release and that that press release would have been lazily regurgitated in Leftist newspapers worldwide, e.g. Atheists are more intelligent than religious people say researchers, By Charlotte England, Independent, May 18, 2018.

But despite the fact that there is a “replication crisis” in psychology, with only 36% of studies being confirmed, this clear confirmation of an important scientific fact—that men can correctly judge a woman’s character from her face—has received no Main Stream Media coverage at all.

Similar previous findings did receive some limited media interest, probably because a press release was put out and robotic MSM journalists pretty much cut and pasted it onto their websites. [Could YOU spot a cheater? Study finds men can tell which women are more likely to have affairs just by looking at their faces, By Sophie Freeman, Mail Online, September 22, 2015 ] But with the current anti-Truth atmosphere being even harsher than just a few years ago, it seems that Springer—and perhaps the authors themselves—have decided that going to the press is not a good idea. After all, press coverage might lead to reporting of the findings on “Alt-Right” websites—and one of the reasons why his detractors insist that Cambridge University shouldn’t have appointed Dr Noah Carl, according to their Open Letter  is that “Carl’s work has already been used by extremist and far-right media outlets . . .” .

Earlier this year I reviewed British researcher Edward Dutton’s book How to Judge People By What They Look Like. The new study, Men’s Mating Orientation Does Not Moderate the Accuracy with which they Assess Women’s Mating Orientation from Facial Photographs, [By Tara DeLecce et al., Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2018], adds further credence to Dutton’s central argument, so neatly summed up in his title: You can correctly judge a woman’s moral character by what she looks like.

From an evolutionary perspective, cuckoldry is one of the worst possible things to happen to a man. Not only is the cuckold failing to pass on his own genes, but he’s wasting energy—which could be invested in his genetic interests—on another man’s child and that child’s duplicitous mother. It follows that the ability to accurately assess how likely a woman is to cheat would provide a man with a massive advantage and it would, therefore, be selected for.

In addition, in the unstable and dangerous environment of our evolutionary past, the quicker you can work out whether or not a promising female is likely to sleep around the better. Any energy invested in a loose woman is wasted energy and, in an ecology where you can be wiped-out at any moment, life has to be lived at fast pace. So to be able to infer correctly a woman’s faithfulness just from looking at her face would have been fantastically useful and the capacity to do so would have spread throughout the male population.

The authors looked into this by recruiting 55 female psychology undergraduates (presumably at Oakland University in Michigan where the authors are based) who were 92.7% white and had an average age of 19. These girls’ faces were photographed and they took a test to assess their “mating orientation”—basically their sexual morality. Then 89 males—a combination of Oakland psychology majors and the students from the nearby community college (91% white) with an average age of 24—took the same sexual ethics test and were asked to rate the photos of the girls from 1 to 5 on attractiveness, youth, and faithfulness.

The researchers found, as predicted, there was a weak positive correlation between how likely a female was to be faithful and the males’ assessment of this: the boys could gauge how likely these girls were to cuckold them simply from pictures of their faces.

But there was more . . .

You might think that if you were the kind of man who would yourself two-time your partner then you would invest less in your spouse and your children. Accordingly, the faithfulness of your spouse would be less important to a rake like you, assessing a woman’s sexual scruples wouldn’t be as vital, and thus your adulterous characteristics would be associated with being less able to accurately make judgements on these matters from a female’s face.

The researchers found that there was indeed a weak association between a male’s score on the “Sociosexual Orientation Inventory”—the instrument used to measure sexual attitudes—and the ability to work out accurately a female’s probable score on this inventory from her face. The more adultery-inclined the man, the worse he was at discerning unfaithful tendencies from the faces of women.

However, likely due to a small sample, this correlation was not “statistically significant”—that is, 95% or more probable. It was merely 68% probable. Still, with a larger sample, it seems very likely that it would be 95% or more probable.  

And there are other issues that we can only hope that this team continue to have the courage to address. Are we less able to infer “Sociosexual Orientation” from a woman’s face if she’s from a different race or even different ethnicity? Are black people—whose Sociosexual Orientation score is, on average, going to be relatively high as discussed in J. Philippe Rushton’s Race, Evolution and Behavior—less able to infer adulterousness from female faces than white people? Are women less able to infer this than men? Are men better at doing this with females of certain ages?

Let’s hope that these “offensive” questions are answered before too long.

But one question, sadly, seems to have an increasingly obvious answer. Will these important findings be reported in mainstream newspapers?

No, they won’t. The publisher probably won’t even tell the newspapers about them—at least until the Left’s Reign Of Terror is broken.

 

Lance Welton [Email him] is the pen name of a freelance journalist living in New York.