The moderators over at LessWrong hated my article because physiognomy in the West is currently taboo in general society. Maybe such talk would be more acceptable here?
I find that people either hate the concept for existing or appreciate the insight, with a ratio of around 25/75 so far.
I think the quality of a society increases as the competence of the people overall increase. I wonder if much of the decay in the USA is downstream of lead poisoning, poor nutrition/vegetable oils/Crisco, and so on.
For all the talk of genetic breeding, not enough attention is paid to nurture and nutrition. It's clear that the modern industrial food system plays a pivotal role in all of our futures.
Interesting theory (that "foldy" ears are produced by same development pathway and factors as "foldy" brain and are thus an indicator of intelligence). It's vaguely plausible, but I'd have to see a lot more evidence to be convinced. As for the FAS angle, I'll bet it's not energy but rather entropy that you're looking for. The body might attempt less ambitious detail if the chemical environment is off-spec. Or maybe the detail just isn't possible then and this is what failure looks like. But either way, chemical disruptions of development account for FAS symptoms. I'll bet genetic damage works similarly. You are right that bad food also is very bad for development. One can see sick specimens of homo americanus everywhere.
As for why this is badly received on LW, I suggest that your writing comes across as schizoid and unpolished, and your theory lacking in quality argumentation. They are probably unsympathetic to eugenics-adjacent thought (partially as a self-preserving reaction because they are perceived as being eugenicist), but you can't blame all rejection on irrational blind spots. And "I'm not being taken as seriously as I should be because they are irrational/compromised/etc" is generally a pretty strong signal of various personality defects, so people are very sensitive to it.
Regarding entropy: I could see the argument of disorder, but twins having lower brain gyrification suggests that it's energy.
And I'm coming around to the conclusion that it's not all just all PUFAs that are a problem.
A book discussed how brains were once considered a baby weaning food due to being high in alpha-linolenic acid, a really twisty and grub-like polyunsaturated fat that is found in high concentrations in the brain. And it's a limiting factor for development and rarely found in seed oils.
There is something in the 'green-ness' and 'aliveness' of plants in the spring and the good sensation you get when eating the top of an asparagus but hating the bottom, woody part. Same reason cows don't do well being fed dry hay.
Wild animals also have as much as 30% of body fat as PUFAs, something else that surprised me.
It's interesting how linoleic acid and trans fats are both straight, imitating saturated fats.
---
Sarcastic thanks for what is perceived as a backhanded comment on my writing style. You're probably commenting on the lack of flowery language I find evasive and not to the point. :-D
There was a Nigerian dude that posted on this forum a while back that got heavily downvoted. My theory is that different ethnicities have different ways of seeing the world, which create different representations in language that different peoples intuitively reject unless they try to occupy the other person's headspace.
---
Unfortunately, there is no large scientific study associating foldy ears with foldy brain. I may send out this theory to some scientists just to bring it to their awareness.
I probably can't convince other people to spend their time looking at ears, so this'll end up a weird but interesting article people pass by, but from personal experience it seems valid.
What I can't explain well are the counterexamples: people with foldy ears working low-paid jobs or those with smooth ears in high positions. This theory doesn't explain ambition, grit, creativity, kindness, and so many other factors that are an important part of someone's personality.
The best explanation I've seen for creativity is an increased tendency to "slip" between different concepts and see connections (one of Douglas Hofstadter's perspectives). Ambition as a lack of feeling "right" in a place, so it seems like they're being ambitious when really they are looking for something that suits them.
---
I find many modern writers don't get to the point. There is no argument to be made. They evaluate many options and conclude that it's complicated rather than finding an answer and going that direction.
It annoys me because I feel if someone read that many sources, they should have an opinion and the audience should have a takeaway. It's about as helpful as a doctor saying to reduce stress, exercise, and eat healthily.
>>1953 Interesting thoughts on PUFAs. I didn't know that about brains and wild animals.
Sure send it to scientists but it doesn't have to be scientific study. Even just an autist compiling a lot of proxy evidence could be convincing, the way that one guy recently has been going systematically after what makes women attractive. Post more ears. Let's see all the nuances of your theory play out. Don't feel that you can't persuade us to look at ears. This kind of autism is old school forum fun.
People of varying intelligence can end up anywhere. The correlations aren't perfect. And this is a proxy on intelligence that may or may not be that strong. I believe even cranial volume is only like 0.3 correlated with intelligence within the range of usual human variation. Ear folds are hard to quantify and are probably only somewhat correlated to brain folds which are only somewhat correlated to intelligence which is imperfectly correlated to social position.
Your writing comes across better in this comment, so I retract my implication that you're a schizo.
I spent too long this afternoon reading papers about pinna morphology and competing standards for anthropometry. I don't have anything to add to scientific speculation. The approach in the essay seems too reductive.
The article, whatever else it might eventually accomplish, is hypnotic. I could not stop thinking about ears and their ideal shape.
I thought of my wife's ears, which I know the best in the world. I'm not sure I could sketch them. They surprised me upon meeting her with their complexity. They are my ideal. And I thought of my father's ears, which have grown wider and flatter as he has aged, so that they stick out now from his head like satellite dishes. That is what I will inherit, I suppose.
I realized eventually, however, that I have only truly admired ears in art and literature.
It is impossible not to think about Murakami Harumi, who treasures and eroticizes ears... It is unfortunate that he can't describe them with the precision of plastic surgeons that write papers on anthropometry. I always thought he took these as a stand-in for the vulva, but I think now that I might be wrong.
For me, it is impossible not to think of the Gandharan bodhisattvas. I have seen them in collections in Japan, as well as in the grottoes of North China, where one is left to appreciate what the Imperial Japanese Army had to leave behind. They have long lobes, usually, following conventions that I don't understand (the Buddha's lobes were stretched by heavy baubles; the long lobes signify wisdom). They invariably have somewhat smooth ears.
I think of the ears in Renaissance portraits and Medieval devotional images.
Now, I can't stop looking for the details of ears.
Why does Hieronymus Bosch pierce in the Hell of The Garden of Earthly Delights perfectly smooth ears?
The Christ Child always has foldy ears, but the pinnae of Sakyamuni are smooth and long.
Your father's ears also likely change with sun exposure. I'm reminded of a picture of a truck driver who had much more sun damage to one side of his face compared to the other.
Considering the latitude of European countries, I find it surprising that their descendants live in places like Texas and Australia and go to the beach so much. (Or is the lack of sun why the beach is loved?)
It seems to come at great cost to personal appearance, but so do alcohol and drugs, so personal appearance is usually not the primary concern.
---
Regarding the historical artworks you mentioned: Google search shows that their art style is more sensational than realistic.