Malcolm Gladwell, the writer of "Tipping Point," a number of other books and a New Yorker column, wrote the book "Blink."

Blink is very much about the science related to this article. But "reading faces" has less to do with the physical structure of the face, as it does the innate ability of humans to read the emotions, thoughts and intentions of others based on very fine aspects of expression. Humans are hard wired to see these very minute changes in expression, and we are also fundamentally unable to fully hide them, so our faces are books open for the reading.

Gladwell talks about a scientist who, after many years of scientifically "reading faces" had mastered it to the point that he could spot certain traits of a person with uncanny accuracy. We are all doing this during every interaction with others; it's just that this guy made himself conscious of it and mastered it.

So I expect that predictions of criminality based on reading the face has less to do with "Guy with big forehead and close-set eyes is a criminal," but rather, "I am subconsciously detecting movement in his upper lip and lowering of eyelids which indicates deception." It is the "shifty eyed" concept taken to minute and very brief levels.

There are a number of problems with this explanation. The biggest is that the faces were static in nature, i.e. a photograph. So facial changes cannot be the reason for the accuracy. You could still argue that minor facial changes can still be detectable from static images, though it's not nearly as compelling of an argument. Furthermore, there was no diminuition in accuracy for faces from foreign cultures. Granted, emotional expressions are generally agreed to be universal in design (e.g. Ekman's research) but there are subtle cultural differences in expression.

Finally, while not published yet, I have data from computer faces showing that you can manipulate individual features of the face and the perception strength moves accordingly. In other words, we've identified some of the features that make a face look strong and they do include a large browridge, larger chin, etc.

As you can see from Mr. Sell's reply, he is making a subtle case that is quite different from yours. What you are describing is the ascertainment of intention in others by reading the clues in their presentation. No one can lie, except for the "pathological" liar maybe, without giving some kind of tic or expression that gives it away. When Mayor Marion Barry of Washington DC was first accused publicly of using cocaine, before the bust that put him in the slammer, his eyebrows furrowed together slightly but visibly. Every time that he made this denial, the eyebrows performed this same tic. My second wife got a certain look in her eyes when she was lying. At no other time did this same look appear in her eyes. Of course you would have to know her well enough to know this.

Mr. Sell appears to be driven by the assumption that strong, muscular men have been conditioned by evolution to be statistically more of a threat to others than normal men, whatever the heck might be meant by normal. And that people have been conditioned, again by evolution, to be able to recognize instantaneously in their faces this possibility of threat presented by strong, muscular men.

He does not appear to have considered the possibility, even if his case can be made, that the ways in which non-strong, non-muscular men respond to the threat may be just as injurious: mendacity, surreptitious behavior, sneaking around, attacking from behind, conspiring with others, etc. [ :-)]

All seriousness aside, it's fairly obvious to me that he's after more than science. He has dealt a normative factor into the deck. In other words, a moral imperative has been stirred into the stew. The only question is whether it is intentional or subconscious.

It seems to me that even a static photograph can freeze the emotional state and present it to the viewer, who could then make use of that innate ability I am referring to. Perhaps an evolutionary instinct has developed to help humans identify the anti-social types among them, based upon expression. And perhaps criminals, even those who are brash about their lives of crime, can not help but express the reality that they are anti-social on their faces.

I don't know if I am remembering now this particular Slate article or something else I've recently read, but there are studies wherein people have been able to identify homosexual men quite consistently by just seeing photographs. I have noticed too that I can "see" gayness on a man's face by just looking at their face, not their dress, mannerisms, speech, etc. and that has been borne out later than I am correct.

And I have also been able to identify people from foreign countries by just looking at the face and expressions. For instance, I can often identify a European by just his or her face, and differentiate him from a guy born and bred in Los Angeles.

All to say that I believe a lot of cultural baggage is lugged around by the face, from criminal culture, to gay culture, to national origina. And I suspect that people are reading that, rather than physical characteristics per se.

Ackerman, I'm begging you to read my original article. You've repeatedly mistaken my views for bizarre political statements that are nowhere either in my article or the Slate article about my work. To say that I have, "not appear[ed] to have considered the possibility that the ways in which non-strong, non-muscular men respond to the threat may be just as injurious" is not true as these also appear in my article. Nonetheless, the effect of physical strength in men when averaged over other variables either increases, decreases, or has no effect on that man's fighting ability and bargaining power. We argue, and claim it is obvious, that increased physical strength will, on average, increase fighting ability and bargaining power. If you disagree, you're welcome to make an argument.

I've argued, and presented evidence, that physically stronger men will set lower thresholds for anger. This will result in more aggressive episodes for that individual. Because physical strength and fighting ability are relevant variables for determining conflicts of interest, we hypothesized that evolution designed the mind to extract cues of fighting ability, some of which are in the body and others of which are in the face. Again, this is spelled out more clearly and in more detail in the actual scientific papers. None of this has any obvious political connotations. The statement that you seem most interested in attributing to me would be something like, "strong men are violent and dangerous and should be stopped." Unfortunately I haven't said this. Strong men are more likely to exhibit anger, as my research shows, but that does not mean that their anger is always "bad." Anger is like anything else, you can have too much or too little of it. Furthermore, as I've stated explicitly in my PNAS article, stronger men are likely to be favored in cooperative relationships, particularly in ancestral environments, because of their protective ability.

I think it is sometimes difficult for those with political agendas to appreciate that many people simply do not have them. Have you considered that I might just be a scientist who wants to understand how anger and fighting ability assessment works? What have I ever said or published that is inconsistent with that?

Earlybird,

Like you I considered the possibility that cultural cues were being used to estimate strength. I don't remember if it was mentioned in this article, but we did publish data showing that strength assessment from the face was equally accurate across different targets from three distinct cultures: US college students, Tsimane Indians from Bolivia, and a group of Argentine pastoralists. In each case, US students could extract cues of strength from the face with roughly equal accuracy. This same pattern was found from vocal assessment of strength, though that's a different paper. In short, it doesn't appear that individuals are picking up on cultural cues of strength at all, and it certainly cannot be the only explanation for their accuracy.

In other words, you agree substantially with my characterization of your hypothesis. Natural selection has favored stronger, more muscular men because of the threat implicit in their appearance, attesting to their presumptive ability to fight. This has led to rallying behind them, because of their ability to protect, and finding them fearful, because of their ability to defend themselves, thereby stemming competition against them.

The obvious physical superiority of the Neanderthal does not appear to have given them a selective advantage over the gracile Cro-Magnons.

Your political agendum, using politics in the broad sense of the word, is implicitly stated in your last paragraph. You want to understand how anger and fighting ability assessment works. You did not say you want to understand how cooperation and competition inter-relate, and how natural selection over time has affected the evolution of the human species in terms of its political and social realities. In other words, you are not starting from a neutral stand regarding your hypothesis. You have already pre-determined that it is the way to approach your subject matter. This is something like studying the fashion preferences of women at boxing matches.

This would be the approach of someone who has not studied cultural variability enough to recognize its effect on selection and value. It is basically an ethological approach to human culture, which assumes that all peoples are fundamentally the same in their social structures and value imperatives. Your encomium to Ms. Lieberman was a solid tip-off.

Showing pictures to people the world over does not establish this fundamental similarity as a fact. I am reminded of the anthropologist making the point that all men the world over prefer large breasts. He carries with him three drawings everywhere he goes. One is of a woman with small breasts, one medium, one large. He asks respondents which woman they prefer. They all pick the one with the large breasts. He doesn't appear to come armed with the knowledge that for most of Southeast Asia large breasts are considered embarassing and that for many cultures the breasts are not considered particularly sexually arousing. For the Indonesians and many of the island cultures nearby the insides of the thighs are the thing.

Nor does he carry a drawing of a woman with a big booty. I can take you to places right here in this country where that would win the vote of approval.

And again, I say to you, what are you worried about? This is not a peer review. Therefore in your interest in convincing people in a popular review I detect a political agendum. I may be wrong. I've been wrong before. I think it was in 1975. :-)

Are you claiming that there is any culture in the world where strong men are not celebrated for their advantages in fighting and defending? Are you saying that strong men are not aware of the physical advantage they have over weaker men and aren't, therefore, more inclined to press a dispute to the point of violence, whereas the weaker man might find a way to diffuse conflict or acquiese to the stronger man? Whereas the weaker man may have to rely on verbal persuasion and other problem solving techniques when confronted with the stronger man?

I work in medical science (oncology clinical trials) which is quite a bit different from anthropological or social science research, but the point of research is to build upon what we do know. I don't know why the professor is required to pretend that the question of whether or not societies value physical strength in men is an open one, or that his knowledge makes his work biased.

The question is the order of values and the definition of leadership. Sure, there are cultures in which intelligence, though not defined perhaps in the way we define it, is considered superior to muscles.

The degree to which different cultures value physical strength in men is an open question, and you're not going to get an answer to it by pretending that all cultures are the same, or were the same. A basic ignorance of ethnography leads to the assumption, held by all the ethologists, that all cultures are fundamentally the same. This is an assumption, I repeat, not a fact.

The other open question is the one of selection. If the selection for muscles is to be an issue of heritability, by which the muscular physique is passed on to successive generations, then the muscular men must show their fitness for survival in the Darwinian success. Fitness for survival is a matter of reproduction. No one has demonstrated that musculature is the primary source of reproductive success, even in the animal kingdom, and certainly not among the primates, who are our closest relatives. Animals who engage in rutting contests are frequently trumped by other males who are mounting their females while they are beating their brains out. And songbirds frequently mate with one and are mounted by others. Fairly recent studies in England have shown that women frequently marry for one reason and have sex for another. Muscular men may tend to have other attributes, such as roughness of manner, which women may find objectionable.

It is not all so straightforward as you think, and you are arguing from a position of ignorance about both culture and evolution.

Or the weaker man may simply stab him in the back while he's not looking.

Ever hear of Julius Caesar?

"The question is the order of values and the definition of leadership. Sure, there are cultures in which intelligence, though not defined perhaps in the way we define it, is considered superior to muscles."

But this statement would indicate that strength and intelligence are mutually exclusive things, which they are not. A society's needs at any given point are what determines which attribute - strength or intelligence - is most valued. It may be the strong man's ability to rip out stumps and plant fields which is valued at first, and then it is the smart man's ability to design a reliable irrigation system which is later lauded. But I have to imagine that given the choice, any society would prefer strong and brilliant men over stupid, strong men, or stupid, weak men.

"The degree to which different cultures value physical strength in men is an open question,..."

No doubt. The degree to which different cultures value male strength would vary from culture to culture, given the needs of that culture. My point was simple, that in all human cultures physical male strength is valued - to some degree - for what it can do. It might be as vital to a society as being able to fight off bears and enemy tribes, or it may be as non-vital as giving women something good to look at poolside, but in any case strength in men is valued.

"...and you're not going to get an answer to it by pretending that all cultures are the same, or were the same. A basic ignorance of ethnography leads to the assumption, held by all the ethologists, that all cultures are fundamentally the same. This is an assumption, I repeat, not a fact."

Can you name one or two cultures wherein physical male strength is not valued at all? Me and "all" the ethnologists who have this wrong are dying to know.

"...No one has demonstrated that musculature is the primary source of reproductive success, even in the animal kingdom, and certainly not among the primates, who are our closest relatives. Animals who engage in rutting contests are frequently trumped by other males who are mounting their females while they are beating their brains out. And songbirds frequently mate with one and are mounted by others."

Again, I think you are attempting to draw a bright line which does not always exist, between that of the Dumb Lug and the Brilliant Wimp. There is such a thing as the lion who is both physically imposing and intelligent enough to outsmart his competitors for mates. If Darwin was right, it is a combination of physical strength and intelligence that survives and gets passed down and keeps the species vital.

"Muscular men may tend to have other attributes, such as roughness of manner, which women may find objectionable."

Hah! I find this statement pretty amazing coming from a guy who has just written numerous posts accusing the professor - and now me - of jumping to cultural assumptions and biases.

"It is not all so straightforward as you think, and you are arguing from a position of ignorance about both culture and evolution."

Well, sorry. Being 6'8" and 330 lbs of muscle, I tend to be ignorant like that. I'm so busy lifting heavy things and having sex I don't get to read up much on that ethnuh...eth...ethnugh...well, all that science stuff!

Look, you started with this very strong rehashed, warmed-over Nietzschean crap, and now you're just backing and filling, finding all kinds of nuances and hedges.

I'm not impressed.

I don't care how big a smartass you are. You're still just a smartass to me, which is something of a surprise given the intelligence of your top post.

Remember a little guy named David? He knocked out a big guy named Goliath.

Yikes! This is just the Fray, bub, not peer review committee.

I was trying to lighten the mood a bit. I am not upset with you, even though did state that I am "ignorant.".

Sorry if I bothered you.

Earlybird, Ackerman may not be impressed, but I am. I was thinking many of the same things as you, but you wrote it much more elegantly than I. I would only add that accusing a scientist of bias because they study anger and aggression instead of cooperation and competition is so ridiculous that I find it difficult to find an appropriate analogy. By that reasoning the graduate student that I worked with who studies gratitude would presumably have very different political attitudes than I do. Finally, for the record, I do study anger in the context of cooperative relationships and one of the common themes of my research (expressed in the PNAS article I've been begging Ackerman to actually read) is that anger works both in competitive and cooperative contexts. Empirically, anger is most likely to be evoked by someone you love (family member, romantic partner, etc.)

Regarding the universality of strength in men as a valued trait, I am not arguing from ignorance. There is a great deal of literature on this from numerous sources. Strength/warriorship and status have been positively linked among the Yanamamo (Chagnon), Dani (Wynn Sargant), Shuar (Patton), Montinegrins (Boehm), Jivaro (Karsten), Tsimane (Von Rueden), and Aka (Hagen and Hewlett). Those are just the ones off the top of my head, and I personally helped design the last two so please don't tell me I'm arguing from a state of cultural ignorance. I've gone far out of my way to replicate any effect I find across cultures.

Regarding the link between mating success and strength. David Frederick has shown with drawings that women prefer "average" strength males. Unfortunately the drawings themselves are not standardized, so the "strong" men look positively inhuman. When I've had the photographs in my research rated for attractiveness there has always been a clear positive relationship. If the heads in the photograph are excised the correlation between ratings of strength and ratings of attractiveness (for women rating men) are about .8. This has not yet been done across cultures, so some skepticism is required before generalizing the effect. Don Symons has shown similar things with analyses of romance novels which list strength as one of the universal features (unlike money, for example) that romantic heroes possess.

I'm afraid the usefulness of this argument has quickly dwindled, so if there are empirical questions or genuine counter explanations that anyone would like to offer I'll be happy to respond but if not the endless arguing politics seems futile. I'm not even sure what political attitude I'm being accused of touting.