English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If scientists took the facial features of the worlds most heinous killers like Gacey, Gein, Manson, Dahmer, Berkowitz, Bundy, Rader and on and on..... and compared the ratio of certain aspects, would they see similarities? Premise to this idea is recently I read about how men are attracted to certain ratios in women. The ratio of hip to waist and eyes to cheekbones..... So do you think it's possible for people genetically prone to abnormal social behavior to have common genetic ratios? Size of cranium, weight of brain, distance between facial features?

2006-06-28 13:59:59 · 8 answers · asked by purrpletoad 5 in Social Science Other - Social Science

And no, I'm not on any drugs...I just like to use my brain and think outside the box!

2006-06-28 14:00:42 · update #1

Hey Professor, very interesting link, thank you!

2006-06-28 14:07:07 · update #2

8 answers

You're not the only one to think this:


http://www.crystalinks.com/faces.html

2006-06-28 14:05:48 · answer #1 · answered by Professor Campos 3 · 0 1

I worked in the San Diego downtown jail for three years and fed meals to 100's of murderers. The one thing that really shocked me was how normal they all looked and acted in custody - they could be your neighbor, relative or anyone walking down the street. Most of them committed a single murder during a crime and only a few were serial killers. The serial killers looked pretty normal also. I doubt facial features or appearance is an indicator. If there is a genetic disposition, I don't think it's related to any physical characteristic, but possibly chemical imbalances. I think that socialization is likely to be a more influencial factor.

2006-07-06 12:22:25 · answer #2 · answered by jjttkbford 4 · 2 0

Body ratios, like the ratio of the craniums in phrenology, is an absurd unscientific theory.

If you look up the stats on violent crimes, eg murders,armed robbery, sexual assaults,etc., and you examine them from the gender point of view, the propensity for violence is greatest among males between 15 and 40 years of age. The explanation for crimes of violence and the propensity for violence being greatest among males is attributable by many experts in criminology and psychology to the high levels of the sex hormone testosterone. Testosterone is present in both males and females but it is in much higher levels in males especially in young males during and right after puberty. People in the criminal system know this but they act as if this fact of nature is impossible to take into account in the development of better more rational ways to reduce and treat crime and violence by means other than counterviolent force, punishment, and expensive imprisonment. Way too many males in crime enforcement are just as violent as the male criminals they are tasked to control, and for the same reason--high levels of testosterone.

Testosterone clouds the ability to reason and leads to irrational violent behaviors if the men aren't informed and educated about what is happening to them during the phase of sexual development known as puberty.

filed:TWH 07022006

2006-07-02 03:48:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

An Italian doctor named Cesare Lombroso repeatedly made that assertion in 1860s. The assertion turned out to be unprovable.

2006-06-28 14:31:29 · answer #4 · answered by NC 7 · 0 0

I think it is possible that how we look can affect how people treat us, and how we are treated will then affect our mood and personality. It's a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy... If I look "mean", people assume I will be mean and treat me as such even before they know me. I get the vibe that they don't like me from how they treat me and understand that they expect me to be mean. I just live up to that expectation.
I don't think it can be proven and I don't think it is always true, but I think it could have an affect on people.

2006-06-28 15:42:34 · answer #5 · answered by az 5 · 1 0

Uh, I think phrenology has been pretty much ousted as a quack science by now.

2006-07-05 12:18:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Good question. My answer...there is a strong possibility that you are correct.

It would take years of research to find an answer.

2006-06-28 14:04:58 · answer #7 · answered by Blue 6 · 3 0

Don't know

2006-07-05 07:32:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers