Blackpill Facial Domination and its Effects on Your Career (Study) (Long Post)

[Deleted member 5861]

Facial dominance of West Point cadets, measured from their graduation portraits, is known to be related to cadets' ranks at the military academy, but it has been reported to be unrelated to their ranks in later career (Mazur, Mazur & Keating 1984). With improved methods of data collection and analysis, we show that cadets' facial dominance, while still unrelated to their ranks at midcareer, is related to promotions in late career, 20 or more years after the portraits were taken. These results suggest that the absence of physical features from current models of status attainment is a serious omission.

It is a common observation that certain individuals have "dominant looking" faces whereas the faces of others are perceived as submissive. American subjects reliably sort facial portraits along a dominance-submissive ness dimension, and these portraits are given similar ratings in a wide variety of cultures around the world (Keating, Mazur & Segall 1981a, 1981b). Anecdotes suggest that dominant appearance is correlated with actual status attainment, especially within the military, as when Atkinson (1981) refers to the "lantern jaw and chiseled features prized in military officers" or the "square-jawed looks ... considered vital" in a first captain at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point (1989:118). Also consider this description of a fictitious first captain, written by an academy graduate: "He had one of those young Gregory Peck faces, the dark handsome good looks of a born general. It had always seemed there was an unwritten requirement that first captains and other high-ranking cadets be attractive . . ., not just good-looking, but . . . idols. Statues to the American idea of cadet.... At 6'1," 185 pounds, a letter man in soccer and lacrosse, he was the ideal first captain. There was a certain awkwardness intimidation - in his presence" (Truscott 1978:414).

People have a natural predisposition to sort out what faces are dominant and which are not. And it is universal, not a viewpoint that is trained.

This leads us to favor the remaining hypothesis, that facial appearance is a leadership quality that is more important for some promotions than for others because it signals qualifications that are more important for winning in primary group contests. Consequently, it should be more important when those recommending promotion know the candidate personally. Such is the case both at West Point, where the decision is based on evaluations by cadets and tactical officers, and in promotion to the highest ranks, attained by a few men toward the end of their careers, when the small pool of candidates is again personally known to those in judgment. At midcareer, their physical appearance is not an important factor compared to their records, even though the portraits accompany promotion files.

Academic attainment, as measured by GOM, is the only one of our four independent variables that is conventionally regarded as an important determinant of promotion in merit-based bureaucracies, which the modem military certainly is. It is puzzling that at the highest ranks, this indicator of technocratic competence loses its prior relationship to promotion. Since the range of GOM is only slightly restricted by the sequence of filters in this channel, we may conclude that after graduation from war college, for high positions in the hierarchy, leadership qualifications not measured by GOM become more important. At the same time, factors that seemingly ought to be irrelevant in a meritocracy - facial dominance, athletics, and friendliness - increase their relationship to promotion.

The best-measured of our four independent variables, GOM, is based on four years of college achievement, yet it is unrelated to promotion to the highest ranks. In contrast, the other variables are operationalized in ways that seem barely adequate: face is measured from a yearbook portrait taken 20 or more years before the highest rank is attained;friends is coded from a 50-word profile of each cadet in the yearbook; and athletic measures some ambiguous combination of physique, athletic prowess, team spirit, and in the case of lacrosse or football, school glory. It is remarkable that they relate to anything, yet these are the variables most predictive of final promotions. It is a compelling hypothesis that improved measures of these variables would produce far stronger relationships than are reported here. If true, then the effect of these variables on promotion is substantial.

Brutal. All west point academy promotions and higher level military promotions are highly based on your face. The lower and middle positions in the military won't have your face affect you because it is based purely on merit system. But in high positions in the military, your actual intellect and abilities is not truly important, YOUR FACE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT. Besides face, you gain an edge based on how socially successful you are (based on looks, NT, and inhibition) then on how athletic you are/were. None of these things are based on merit, its exactly like a high school popularity contest. Note that these non-merit items aren't as strong for west point academy, merit is still very important at the college.

strong jaws may indicate a heavily built skeleton, and therefore superior physical strength. A broad prominent forehead with strong eyebrow arches may indicate enhanced ability to absorb hits. The conventional signals that can be found in dominant looking faces seem to include several gestures observed in many nonhuman primates and humans as well when preparing for a fight (Harper 1991): thin lips, withdrawn corners of the mouth, lowered eyebrows with partially closed eyes (in order to protect them against injuries), withdrawn ears, making them appear smaller. Conversely, people with facial features typical of infants: large eyes, high thin eyebrows, round face, small nose bridges -"babyfacedness") are perceived as warmer, weaker, submissive (Berry 1990). Babyfaced people describe themselves as less aggressive (Berry 1991).

These dominant features are actually real indicators of physical superiority, so discrimination for masculine features is accurate in selecting the best genes for physical combat. Unfortunately, humans are predisposed to select men with these traits for situations where physicality is not called for.

if facial dominance of cadets as measured here indicates an individual's conformity with the values of the hierarchy, then, in addition, we should expect a correlation with GOM in the predicted direction, which could not be observed. (Table 1)

aka the discrimination isnt even beneficial for the military, it is a faulty effect from evolution. Men with more masculine faces are getting the job when they are in fact less qualified than men with beta features.

babyfaced individuals, who generally are perceived as warm, dependent and submissive, receive harsher punishment for wrongdoing (Berry & Zebrowitz-McArthur 1988; Zebrowitz, Kendall-Tackett & Fafell 1991).

Men, with beta features, are discriminated against when it comes to punishment as well.

Is the military, with its warrior traditions, unique in its attention to dominant physical features? Perhaps, but there is reason to think that military promotion understates physical effects. Because of selective recruitment and socialization, West Point cadets look physically more impressive in face, physique, and posture than do students at other universities, and the same may be said of military officers compared to civilian professionals. Thus, there is less variation in appearance among military than among nonmilitary populations, and therefore less opportunity for physical selection into the highest status. Collins and Zebrowitz's (1995) finding - that babyfacedness, height and weight may have a greater impact on status attainment in civilian than in military settings - may be due to this sampling effect.

Furthermore, height, which is correlated with status in some civilian populations (Frieze, Olson & Good 1990; Gillis 1982; Hensley & Cooper 1987), was purposefully dissociated from rank at West Point...Considering all these factors, we believe that the effects of physical features on promotion are relatively understated in our military population. We predict that civilian institutions such as church hierarchies will show stronger physical effects on promotion.

so all of this will only apply even more in the civilian world, aka where the vast majority of men live. Weak looking men in suicide watch.

Again thanks to @chudur-budur for supplying source for these brutal blackpills.
Source: https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/74/3/823/2233473

 

[Swagwaffle]

facts

cope

good read

 

[RageAgainstTDL]

Good thread. Mildly painful since I have the definition of a beta face. But it is what it is.

It's interesting that modern science has already proven everything we say to be correct. Now we're just waiting for the rest of society to catch up and admit it too.

Not that it matters much in the end.

 

[Evildoer]

Brutal.
Your looks determine your career and life quality overall, not only your sexual appeal, and no amount of hardwork is gonna change your genetic failure. Society is pure joke at this point.

Lookism reigns.

 

[Unwanted]

There is no point in wagecucking if you are ugly/submissive.

 

[Zaetheus]

There is no point in wagecucking if you are ugly/submissive.

How else you going to feed/cloth/and shelter yourself? Money doesn’t grow out my ass.Then again I’m not submissive, but am ugly .

 

[armis]

JFL at all this gay rights and other meaningless bullshit people campaign for when lookism affects billions more people.

 

[Unwanted]

How else you going to feed/cloth/and shelter yourself? Money doesn’t grow out my ass.Then again I’m not submissive, but am ugly .

If in the West you can NEETbux, if in the third world country just scam people online you will never get caught.

 

[rabitter]

If in the West you can NEETbux, if in the third world country just scam people online you will never get caught.

Need to be low-inhib for that.

 

[mylifeistrash]

what about pretty boys?

 

[Deleted member 5861]

what about pretty boys?

They would get success with getting women, but its not as advantageous career-wise because it calls for a more commanding presence. Still definitely better than an ogre for career.

 

[engineerescortceler]

I enjoy studies but man that's so freaking long. It'd help a lot if u put a 100 word summary at the end

 

[Deleted member 1060]

 

[Deleted member 5861]

I enjoy studies but man that's so freaking long. It'd help a lot if u put a 100 word summary at the end

my words below the "quotes" already pretty much serve as a summary of each little part. And there was just so many blackpills, its better to put them all here then to just not display them right? And the guy keeps putting fluff in between so the quotes just had to be so long.

 

[TheRealChincel]

Yeah, I occasionally post this study, it's a crushing read.

 

[Nemo9065]

Its probably worse for careers that are not in the military. Femoids are often leaders and bosses nowdays and probably promote even to lower and medium level positions based upon attractiveness and dominance look

 

[Deleted member 5861]

Its probably worse for careers that are not in the military. Femoids are often leaders and bosses nowdays and probably promote even to lower and medium level positions based upon attractiveness and dominance look

and besides the lack of variance in faces in the military, the promotions you get from the lower levels primarily comes from the length of your service, so its basically automatic. The higher levels there is a much better reflection of all promotions in civilian careers.

 

[Gremlincel]

I don't know if I have the heart to read this right now.

 

[Deleted member 5861]

I don't know if I have the heart to read this right now.

if its length, lazycel. If its lacking the heart for depressing and ragefuel content, then youre better of not reading this

 

[AmeriCel64]

This should be added to the archive tbh

 

[Gremlincel]

if its length, lazycel. If its lacking the heart for depressing and ragefuel content, then youre better of not reading this

The second.
I imagine it's something I already know, but still, it hurts every time you are reminded of how awful the truth is.

 

[Asianmanletcel]

Ragefuel, WE NEED A 1 TERATON NUKE TO DESTROY US

 

[FiveFourManlet]

Facial dominance has no effect unless you have height to go with it.

I will always be a laughing stock due to my height despite having a lower 3rd that mogs meeks.

 

[mike mentzer]

pretty ironic then that most of the US military leadership is made up of incel looking guys and guys with receding jaws to compete with their receding hairlines

 

[Deleted member 5861]

pretty ironic then that most of the US military leadership is made up of incel looking guys and guys with receding jaws to compete with their receding hairlines

https://www.navysealfoundation.org/our-fallen-heroes/
sure you can pick out a bunch of ugly guys there, but in general thats a collection of ultra dominating faces with lower thirds that are meme-worthy.

 

[mike mentzer]

https://www.navysealfoundation.org/our-fallen-heroes/
sure you can pick out a bunch of ugly guys there, but in general thats a collection of ultra dominating faces with lower thirds that are meme-worthy.

dude lol come on, you picked the navy seal foundation's fallen heroes page. These are all naval special warfare operators and attached speciality guys that died in combat or from explosive disposal in conflict zones, this like picking a rugby team and going see? all chads - thats not surprising at all. These guys are all chads because the only people who make it into NSW are super-chads and occasionally the hyper motivated normie.

 

[Quenma888]

pretty ironic then that most of the US military leadership is made up of incel looking guys and guys with receding jaws to compete with their receding hairlines

Exactly
Faces dont win battles