Aw man, this fool again! I can’t believe he’s allowed to write anywhere. I mean, psychologytoday.com is by no means a credible source, all things considered, but some people actually think it is and lap this stuff up.
Lombroso developed a theory about the links between atavism and criminality which focused, largely, on the discernible physical characterises of offenders. This theory has been discredited in practically all of the studies which have attempted to replicate his findings. Studies which have replicated Lombroso’s findings have been very flawed.
You cannot tell to look at someone if they are a “criminal” or not. Let’s not even get into a discussion about the social construction of crime. Does the idiot who writes these pieces ever read anything?!
As it turns out, humans possess the ability to tell who’s a criminal and who’s not simply by looking at them because criminals look different from noncriminals.
In this blog, I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that virtually all “stereotypes” are empirically true. If they weren’t true, they would not be stereotypes in the first place. To my knowledge, all of the very, very few stereotypes that are not empirically true, for some reason, have to do with people’s appearance. Hence, it is not true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it is not true that beauty is only skin-deep.