How to Judge People by What They Look Like

Edward emails: “I’ve done a book called “How to Judge People By What They Look Like’ which brings together the mass of evidence for the accuracy of physiognomy which mostly passed under the radar for fear of offending PC. My book ‘At Our Wits’ End: Why We’re Becoming Less Intelligent and What It Means for the Future’ is the first to present to a popular audience proof that our intelligence is in decline due to dysgenics, feminism, immigration and welfare and our civilization will, therefore, collapse as every other has in its cycle. My book, due out later this year, ‘Race Differences in Ethnocentrism’ looks at why whites are so low in ethnocentrism – key factors are low poverty, low religiousness, dysgenics breeding, large gene pool, immigration, low cousin marriage, high iq, our evolved personality. My book, also due out this year, ‘Churchill’s Headmaster: The Sadist Who Nearly Saved the British Empire’ argues that World War II was totally unnecessary and was entirely Churchill’s fault. His much maligned headmaster was actually an excellent teacher and had the young psychopath Churchill not been withdrawn from his prep school then the Head would likely have broken him down fully into being a gentleman, making him less Narcissistic, meaning no World War II, as Churchill only had to press for the War for financial reasons, underpinned by his psychopathic markers, especially financial profligacy. In other words, a traditional headmaster – who I show has been wrongly maligned by Churchill and assorted Leftists – recruited an intellectually brilliant young white male to preserve the Empire but tragically failed in his mission because Churchill was withdrawn from his school too early and sent to a less traditional school.”

From Edward Dutton’s Patreon page:

I like researching controversial topics. If someone forcefully insists that a certain area is out of bounds and you’re ‘immoral’ for even contemplating it, then that is where new discoveries are going to lie. I originally read Theology at Durham University, graduating in in 2002, did a PhD in Religious Studies at Aberdeen University, finishing in 2005, and was made Adjunct Professor of the Anthropology of Religion and Finnish Culture at Oulu University in Finland – where I’m based – in 2011. However, I finally plucked up the courage to move into evolutionary psychology, human biological differences and intelligence in 2012 and have never looked back! I have made many discoveries, including:

– Proving that modern-day atheism is caused by mutant genes, the prevalence of which has been increasing in the population since the Industrial Revolution relaxed Natural Selection.

– Proving that sexual selection extends to nationality, with women being sexually attracted to males from higher status nations – hence you see Finnish women marrying British men but Finnish men wedding Estonian women.

– Proving that Western Europe became deeply religious by the Reformation because it had been executing all its criminals since the early Middle Ages.

– Proving that the nature of Islamic societies – and the religion itself – retards IQ in Muslim countries.

– Proving that we are becoming less intelligent due to dysgenic fertility. (All my research is at

Here are some excerpts from Edward Dutton’s book How to Judge People by What They Look Like:

* So the General Factor of Personality can be conceptualized as the degree to which a personality is pro-social– in other words, the degree to which someone has the kind of personality type and behaviours that underpin many socially desirable traits, the degree to which someone approximates to the type of person that makes for friendliness, helpfulness, being a ‘good neighbour’. The GFP describes a basic personality dimension, high levels of which may have evolved as an adaptation in complex and stable societies so that people would ‘get along well together’. So a person with high GFP would be sociable, extraverted, concerned with the feelings of others, and self-disciplined in pursuit of socially-approved goals. He’d also have stable emotions, and be open to new ideas (see Rushton & Irwing, 2008)…

* ‘Race’ is employed to refer to what in the animal world would be a subspecies: a breeding population separated from another of the same species long enough to be noticeably evolved to a different environment but not long enough to be unable to have fertile offspring with the other group. In other words, a race is a breeding population that differs genetically from other such populations as a result of geographical isolation, cultural separation, and endogamy, and which shows patterns of genotypic frequency for a number of inter-correlated characteristics compared with other breeding populations. The most obvious manifestations of this are observable differences in physical appearance… It has been clearly demonstrated that humans fall into clear genetic clusters which parallel the ‘races’ of traditional anthropology (see Jensen, 1998). So, it is quite clear that ‘race’ is a biological reality and not some kind of ‘social construct.’

* …there are more genetic differences within breeds of dog than between breeds of dog, but nobody would dismiss as insignificant the differences between a Great Dane and Chihuahua.

* …as intelligence is associated with emotional intelligence, cooperativeness, low self-esteem, a trusting nature, future-orientation, law-abidingness, intellectual curiosity, creativity, leadership ability, having a sense of humour, having a good memory, and even talking speed…

* …females are higher in Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness. They are higher in the aesthetic aspect of Openness-Intellect but they are lower in ‘Intellect’…

* * As adults (though not as children) females seem to score very slightly lower on IQ tests than men, they have worse spatial and mathematical intelligence but better verbal intelligence, and they have a narrower intelligence range (see Irwing, 2013). This means there are more very stupid males, but also more super-intelligent males, which is likely why most scientific geniuses have been male (see Dutton & Charlton, 2015).

Equally, age is a good marker of intelligence and personality. People reach their intelligence peak in early middle age (see Kirasic, 1989). Throughout life they also become more Conscientious, less Neurotic, and more Agreeable (apart from a dip during their teens) (Soto et al., 2011). Clearly, age can be reasonably well inferred from appearance…

* endomorphs were the most extraverted, ectomorphs were the most conscientious and neurotic, and mesomorphs were the least conscientious.

* if someone is obese it can be inferred that they have low intelligence, low Conscientiousness, and high Extraversion. If they are obviously intelligent – this can be reasonably inferred simply from vocabulary, for example – then their obesity is likely to be a function of personality. If they are not especially friendly or gregarious then poor impulse control is a pretty likely candidate. It follows that the person who is ‘slim’ or who has maintained a healthy weight is going to be relatively high in Conscientiousness, low in Extraversion and relatively high in intelligence.

From a personality web site: “Individuals high in extraversion on a career test have a tendency to seek out the company and stimulation of other people. They enjoy engaging with the external world. These individuals thrive on excitement, and are enthusiastic, action-oriented people. They like to be the center of attention in groups.

On the other side of the coin are introverts. These people have less exuberance and energy than extraverts. They are less involved in social activities, and tend to be quiet and keep to themselves. An introvert does not require the external stimulation that extraverts do.”

About Luke Ford

I've written five books (see My work has been followed by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and 60 Minutes. I teach Alexander Technique in Beverly Hills (
This entry was posted in IQ. Bookmark the permalink.