This post, where I speculated, based on nothing more than my personal, clear-eyed observations, that conservatives and liberals have a “look” which I, and most people, can identify with a quick glance, spurred plenty of discussion, most of it taking me to the shed for lack of scientific rigor. Liberals seemed greatly displeased that I insinuated the male of their kind seems always on the verge of bursting into tears. (Note I also said that liberals look smarter than conservatives. But the implication of their weakness hit home a little harder than the flattery of their intelligence.)
As if on cue, here’s a study that basically proves my contention, jot and tittle.
Here we found that individuals’ political affiliations could be accurately discerned from their faces. In Study 1, perceivers were able to accurately distinguish whether U.S. Senate candidates were either Democrats or Republicans based on photos of their faces. Study 2 showed that these effects extended to Democrat and Republican college students, based on their senior yearbook photos. Study 3 then showed that these judgments were related to differences in perceived traits among the Democrat and Republican faces. Republicans were perceived as more powerful than Democrats. Moreover, as individual targets were perceived to be more powerful, they were more likely to be perceived as Republicans by others. Similarly, as individual targets were perceived to be warmer, they were more likely to be perceived as Democrats.
Game. Set. Snatch.
Some of you may ask, “What is it like, oh Lord and Savior of Powerful Malehood, to be burdened so heavily with objective rightness?”
I tell you now, it is a burden I would not place on my worst enemy, for the sweet thrust of psychologically impaling my haters is one I want to savor all to myself. Thou shalt not interrupt the Master when He is mid-Holy Skullfuck.
The coda to the study higlights an often overlooked (understandably, if you are a blank slater) aspect of human nature.
These data suggest that perceivers’ beliefs about who is a Democrat and Republican may be based on perceptions of traits stereotypically associated with the two political parties and that, indeed, the guidance of these stereotypes may lead to categorizations of others’ political affiliations at rates significantly more accurate than chance guessing.
In other words, pattern recognition is a valuable aid to anyone navigating the chaos of the real world, their denials they engage in such nefarious human-like activity to the contrary notwithstanding.

There is a flip to this for women. That conservative women are more feminine than liberal ones. Granted manjawitis still affects conservatives but at least they try to dress and look like a woman.
LikeLike
Manjawitis seems to be a problem among women of British Isles origin. Might be one reason they’re perceived as ugly.
Otherwise:
masculine men and feminine women tend to be conservative
feminine men and masculine women tend to be liberal leftoids
LikeLike
They tend to age very poorly too.
LikeLike
I wonder if this study was controlled for race and gender. I see a non-white or woman, odds are they will be dems.
LikeLike
Yes, it was controlled for both.
LikeLike
Non-whites who vote Dems are not liberals. They are nationalists (for their race) who are allied with white liberals.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Democratic men then to eat unhealthy, PC diets like vegetarian, and if they exercise, do cardio. Conservative men eat healthier and lift.
LikeLike
When I listen to C-Span radio, I immediately know the political affiliation of the male callers (especially), based on their voice alone.
LikeLike
Same with Limbaugh, as in, I know who’s calling in pretending to be a conservative concern troll based on their voice as much as I do for their idiotic concern which they troll.
LikeLike
*puts gold star on Heartiste’s chart*
LikeLike
Stalin was hardly a liberal.
LikeLike
JB: Stalin wasn’t a liberal in any sense — but he was a man of the Left, and his poisonous ideology still afflicts Lefties all over the world.
LikeLike
Translation: the Right is the side of Good; the Left is the side of Evil.
LikeLike
The Left is the side of Evil + Useful Idiots. Mostly the second.
LikeLike
“Liberals seemed greatly displeased that I insinuated the male of their kind seems always on the verge of bursting into tears.”
WRONG. The masculine, tragic look of the conservative icon is absolutely more tearful than the stupid fucking grin that leftists (honestly, most of humanity) tend to have. You laugh at the latter, but empathize with the former. (I am, of course, a conservative).
For the most extreme examples, compare Rudolf Hess or Jack Abramoff to John Kerry or Barack Obama. Leftists usually have a ridiculously massive chin with no jaw to support, and you can knock them out with a solid jab. Conservatives have big eyes, which sound feminine, but they are backed up with strong brow ridges.
It seriously looks like the left has strength “signalling”, that fools the untrained eye, but looks laughable when you see what a genuinely powerful person looks like. As far as the soul goes, the leftist always has the “deer in the headlights” look in his eyes, compared to the conservative’s haunted look. Intelligent eyes.
LikeLike
I think you’re half right. I just compared Mel Gibson to a few other Hollywood stars (John Travolta, Alec Baldwin) and his eyes are definitely more expressive. I don’t agree that they’re “watery” or about to burst into tears, which seems to be a trait found among certain liberal men.
LikeLike
“Leftists usually have a ridiculously massive chin with no jaw to support, and you can knock them out with a solid jab. ”
Like Ryan Gosling! I hate that guy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/10/26/ryan-gosling-thinks-like-a-girl-does-ballet_n_1032885.html
LikeLike
Anonymous2, your admitted bias keeps you from looking at the issue with clear eyes. In other words, you’ve laid the bullshit on THICK. Some rebuttals:
A strong jawline derives from heavy testosterone. But Obama and especially Kerry have heavy jawlines. So does heavy testosterone lead to liberalism? Most people here would disagree.
Show me a “stupid fucking grin” on a leftist. That has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Abramoff was an opportunist, not a conservative.
If anything, “big eyes” are more typically feminine than masculine, and thereby more liberal than conservative on a man.
“What a genuinely powerful person looks like”? That’s a puff of smoke in a cloud of fog. As though Rove, Oprah, Koch, Murdoch, and the zillion Chinese millionaires look anything alike.
The “deer in the headlights” look? WTF?
Lastly, “intelligent eyes” in a conservative? Leave the poetry to poets.
LikeLike
I see crappy glass jaws there, sorry, and those smiles are sheer idiocy (The alpha’s rare smile looks like a wolf). Their stupid superhero chins hide weakness. Compare them to a proven warrior, BJ Penn. Completely different looks and behavior.
Abramoff was seduced and corrupted, like any man, but he was a hard right winger for his whole life. He was also a physical freak athlete in high school. Read some of his WND columns recently, by the way; they’re good.
I am not talking about silly “game” charisma or wealth here, and you know it. If you ever get into a fight with someone with the particular genetic look I describe, you’ll find out the hard way what it really means. Gym rat tough guys and even pro athletes are utterly humbled if they ever face a natural, especially if he’s trained.
Curiously, the natural uber alphas have a difficult time maintaining eye contact, but in a weirdly different way than betas; it’s an on and off thing. The full blown eye contact thing is a trained beta phenomenon. Voice deepness too, sometimes.
LikeLike
Tri: that’s all true, but for the purposes of this post he wasn’t.
Today’s liberal men are what I call Whiny Nazis. It’s not a powerful, masculine totalitarianism. It’s a mangina, feminine totalitarianism – do what we say or we will whiiiiiiiiine until you give in.
LikeLike
Problem is, if you’ve noticed
is how well that’s succeeded
LikeLike
It should also be obvious how well the former would completely fuck up the latter.
LikeLike
Former/latter?
Be specific.
LikeLike
Masculine totalitarianism would crush the feminist manboob totalitarian alliance.
LikeLike
Good reply; I pick you for my Team.
Remember: The feminist manboob totalitarian alliance controls the State and its current army of drone-thugs.
LikeLike
The Nazis and Commies lost.
LikeLike
stfu, sfg
Think Franco
Castro
Mao
didn’t see HIM lose
read a fucking book
LikeLike
Spain? Cuba? lol
Mao I’ll give you…but was Chiang Kai-Shek a wimp?
LikeLike
Now, you’re changing rules.
First, you judged those who “won” as being correct.
So, Chiang Kai-Shek is thus “wrong” by your standards.
I’ll not waste time on hide n’ seek.
Seriously: you have Squishy Fem States in England, Germany etc. They are SO effective at tyranny they have britties pissing their bloomers about actually criticizing (gah – online, even) Pakis and Muslim Gang Rapists.
Try not paying taxes. Uncle Sam NEEDS that cash to keep the black and mexican happy staying home, on their asses.
LikeLike
You’re right, it has up till now. But I take heart in that I’m usually a few weeks to a few years ahead of my time, which means the rest of America is bound to catch on soon enough. 🙂
LikeLike
I like to call these kind of situations “Right Before Proven Right”.
Its when you make an observation solely on your own experience/knowledge of the world, and a sort of ‘gut’ feeling, and then later on find proof or evidence that you were correct or someone/something proves you correct.
You know you’re right, you don’t need anyone/anything to tell you or show you to be so. But to have that reassurance helps you to put more faith into yourself and I believe that this creates a “Cycle of Correctness”, where you are continuously correct on ‘assumptions’ you make. I think this also build confidence in a person, but that’s another matter.
Now these aren’t baseless assumptions, you are making astute observations in a quick manner that other people would have no way of explaining except by accusing you of lying and/or having no way to prove yourself.
But when someone goes off to prove you wrong only to give you reason to gloat, its just a beautiful thing.
I know this is a pretty long post, but the reason for it is because since I’ve started reading this blog, I’ve found myself in similar situations. Being right before I found proof I was right. It’s been a real learning experience and it feels good.
To know that I’m on the right path, though I have a long way to go. I’d rather be at the start of the right road than to be in the middle of a road I’d rather not travel.
LikeLike
This is info I CAN USE.
Usually, I just have to talk to somebody to determine
their political bent.
such a waste
of time…
LikeLike
One of the biggest tell-tales of a liberal is that in their portraits they will have that “thoughtful” look, touching their chin with their thumb and forefinger.
LikeLike
“…I also said that liberals look smarter than conservatives.” -CH
“a liberal … will have that “thoughtful” look”
I think liberals are more concerned with APPEARING (or sounding) intelligent than they are with actually BEING intelligent. If they really were so intelligent they wouldn’t have to go out of their way to convince people. Using appearance to compensate for what’s really missing.
LikeLike
We’re always hearing about how smart liberals are… problem is, we never see it…
LikeLike
Simply Loved
– Your TV
Special
LikeLike
You two better clean up the barn after you’re finished spreading that bullshit around… the neighbors can smell it.
LikeLike
Then move
to Detroit
LikeLike
Already
moved away
years ago.
LikeLike
I can smell
your victory
LikeLike
Conservatives have an alpha look, and conservatism is an alpha outlook.
LikeLike
Are there any conservative or republican male vegans or vegitarians?
LikeLike
Think paleo diet- with much less hunting than gathering, and you’ve got me.
LikeLike
“masculine men and feminine women tend to be conservative
feminine men and masculine women tend to be liberal leftoids”
Well done, Corinvus. I’ve been going over my friends, acquaintances, business contacts, relatives, etc., and I’m struck by the accuracy of your remark.
LikeLike
This couples nicely with another recent piece of work I started reading from “Anonymous Conservative.”
“Welcome to the home page of Anonymous Conservative. Our purpose here is to discuss the mechanisms by which modern politics evolved within our species. This site is based upon detailed research into the evolutionary origins of political thought from the book The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans.”
LikeLike
“Conservatives have an alpha look, and conservatism is an alpha outlook.”
Incorrect on three counts.
1. The dichotomy on physiological display here is r vs K selection, not alpha vs. beta.
2. While alphas among men are generally K’s, alphas among women may be either.
3. American conservatism is an r joke that is K only by comparison to the American left.
Read more on r/K theory here.
LikeLike
Alternative explanation:
People subconsciously associate various ethnic features with conservative or liberal beliefs.
Since politics is driven in large part by ethnic conflict people are recognizing ethnicites.
I’d be curious if people can tell liberals from conservatives within ethnic groups (I suspect they can). Missing this isn’t fatal to the study but is a huge oversight.
LikeLike
Liberals such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Barack Obama all have weak chins and higher-pitched, multitoned speech. Conservatives such as Thomas Sowell, Thurgood Marshall, Clarence Thomas, and Herman Cain don’t have lantern jaws, but they have deeper voices and monotonous speech. Their eyes also appear more sober, somber even.
Michael Steele calls himself a conservative, but he has a more animated demeanor common with black liberal men.
LikeLike
President Obama has a “weak chin” and a “higher-pitched” voice? Adjust your television set. He’s got a classic rugged jaw and a classic baritone. As a young man he was even advised to get into radio, if I recall correctly.
Also, I fail to see any differences in the “eyes” of any of the people you mentioned. Let’s leave poetry to the poets and stay scientifical.
LikeLike
Obama has a heart-shape face.
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1024&bih=453&tbm=isch&tbnid=hUVhAfKw1s3BOM:&imgrefurl=http://usdailyreview.com/but-barack-obama-helped-the-economy&docid=BtjaOd4WILYjQM&imgurl=http://usdailyreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/barack-obama-color.jpg&w=605&h=412&ei=bQSyT7iYB6TFmQXhzZ2YCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=93&vpy=138&dur=923&hovh=185&hovw=272&tx=189&ty=123&sig=110691021037641770621&page=5&tbnh=132&tbnw=178&start=61&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:61,i:232
The definition of heart-shape face:
“broad forehead and strong cheekbones with a narrow chin”
from http://coolmenshair.com/2008/01/hairstyles-for-heart-shaped-face.html
LikeLike
Yes, lets stay scientifical and make up new words.
LikeLike
Ha, you caught that. I LOVE using that stupid word. Well done.
LikeLike
http://ozconservative.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/dr-jordan-peterson-2.html
LikeLike
Is there a physical type? Definitely.
I’ve noticed white men of the left-liberal persuasion tend to have a little pug-nose and sideburns.
Their physique generally is rounder and softer.
And a lot of them sport scraggly facial hair.
LikeLike
The idea that those of different political persuasions look different in both physical features and in matters of dress is not surprising or new. Political viewpoints are in part genetically influenced probably through the mechanism of genes –> personality –> politics.
Here is Herbert Spencer commenting on the styles of dress and fashion amongst the radicals and conservatives of his day.
“Whoever has studied the physiognomy of political meetings, cannot fail to have remarked a connection between democratic opinions and peculiarities of costume. At a Chartist demonstration, a lecture on Socialism, or a soirée of the Friends of Italy, there will be seen many among the audience, and a still larger ratio among the speakers, who get themselves up in a style more or less unusual, One gentleman on the platform divides his hair down the centre, instead of on one side; another brushes it back off the forehead in the fashion known as ‘bringing out the intellect;’…This nonconformity in hair is countenanced by various nonconformities in dress, shown by others of the assemblage. Bare necks, shirt-collars à la Byron, waistcoats cut Quaker fashion, wonderfully shaggy great coats, numerous oddities in form and colour destroy the monotony usual in crowds…The foreign correspondence of our daily press shows that this relationship between political discontent and the disregard Of customs exists on the Continent also. Red republicanism has always been distinguished by its hirsuteness. . . . If it be a fact that men of revolutionary aims in politics or religion, are commonly revolutionists in costume also, it is not less a fact that those whose office it is to uphold established arrangements in State and Church, are also those who most adhere to the social forms and practices bequeathed to us by past generations.”
Herbert Spencer “On Manners and Fashion” 1854
LikeLike
A study, albeit a weak one, that further supports Heartiste’s theory:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9197597/Strong-men-more-likely-to-vote-Conservative.html
LikeLike
I’ve noticed that conservatives also tend to be plumper,with a ruddy complexion in the cheeks,both the men and the women, but especially the women,whereas liberals have a more emaciated look normally.
The ones that railed against normal beauty standards used to be the hot thin liberal women,now however,it seems to be mostly fat chicks who can’t attain a healthy fat to muscle ratio.
LikeLike
Can anyone imagine modern “antifa” running into the S.S.?
A beautiful, completely natural, totally vulgar display of power and Alpha dominance over such omega filth would be such a breath of fresh air right about now.
LikeLike
They’d get their asses kicked, sure, but the SS still couldn’t defeat the Russian army. Numbers count.
And the Waffen-SS, as I recall, wasn’t as effective as the actual Wehrmacht. Many SS leaders were chosen for political reasons. The Wehrmacht was, honestly, probably the best fighting force in history–they took on Russia, England, America, and France and almost won.
LikeLike
No, the Waffen SS, especially the first ten or so numbered divisions were the fighting units we have come to admire them for being. In reality, the SS depended on the same pool of manpower and used the Wehrmacht’s logistical system. The major difference was small unit leadership and attitude. SS officers were doctrinally promoted from the ranks. Politics had little to do with officer selection after the first year of the war or so.
LikeLike
Can anyone imagine modern “antifa” running into the S.S.?
A beautiful, completely natural, totally vulgar display of power and Alpha dominance over such omega filth would be such a breath of fresh air right about now.
The closest thing to that in recent years would be the Breivik business.
LikeLike
@ Laguna Beach fogey
I lol’d at that comment. So true about the pug nose and sideburns! Carry on..
LikeLike
Maybe between liberals (change seekers) and conservatives (change avoiders), yes, this modern phrenology works.
But between Dems and Repugs? I’m not buying it. The alliances are too fluid; they change too quickly. Every few decades (1932, 1980, 2008, etc) there is a realignment of voting blocs.
LikeLike
Not to mention the actual differences between the two parties are mostly trivial to begin with. In fact this difference between the liberal and conservative “look” is mostly what separates them (with the look symbolising the trivial side issues that most people get worked up about, like gay marriage). They’re all members of the one Big Business Party.
LikeLike
Bring it on, cabrones!
Historical necessity demands it.
Leftists are good at hiding in tunnels, eating rats, emerging swiftly, killing steroid beasts, and disappearing shortly afterwards,
It isn’t the strongest evolution favors. It’s the most adaptable.
LikeLike
Commenters are approaching this the wrong way:
Liberalism attracts a type. Conservatism attracts a type.
Instead of crooning about how weak liberals look, or how strong conservatives are, think instead on what kind of person the ideologies attract. It’s not a matter of innate superiority or inferiority on one side or the other, but of self selection and self identification.
If the left returned to a fascistic, demanding father-state mentality, you’d see many more cut-as-fuck, unintellectual liberals. And think about the OG Objectivists, cowering from the might of the postwar state. They were all atypical, somewhat deformed people, including your beloved queen of Manjaws, Ayn Rand.
LikeLike
Good point. But also factor in and adjust for indoctrination.
George Clooney and scores of The Beautiful People are devout leftists.
LikeLike
The left appeals to people for different reasons. My father succeeded due to having access to cheap education. So he’s on the left in his successful old age, out of gratitude. I dunno Clooney’s deal. Maybe it’s the same with him. Maybe he views a nanny state as a giant philanthropic cause. Who knows.
LikeLike
Yeah…but..
that still does not account for Clooney and his ilk
LikeLike
All political organizations indoctrinate. No argument there. If times are good and success is easy (as it is for the beautiful), they’ve no reason to re-evaluate their beliefs.
Also, counter example, Charleton Heston.
LikeLike
So more and more people realize that white leftists look effeminate and weak? Make no mistake, the study above may not say it openly, but it was about white people only.
Let the racial polarization begin. Let American Democracy turn into Iraqi Democracy, into Malayan Democracy: a racial headcount.
LikeLike
The Left is the side of Evil + Useful Idiots. Mostly the second
The left is the side of ugly people who may be smart, but usually are very far from it (the gimme that crowd is far from Nobel Prize material) .The Left is not only against female beauty, it is against any form of beauty: musical, archictectural, theatrical and so on
LikeLike
Your comment is so full of shit that my screen just turned brown.
Musicians and actors and writers and cinematographers and theatrical types — all of whom worship beauty — are almost completely LIBERAL. Part of it is that they are typically part of unions.
This is beyond question. Why do you think the Prez flies to LA regularly for fundraising the Hollywood crowd?
LikeLike
1. Whether artist are liberal or reactionary/revolutionary right depends on the time and the prevailing social/cultural/political conditions.
2. For all the corporate money driven arts output of the leftward modern american arts and culture what is exactly so memorable that people will talk about 500 years from now. Why is there the same ole trashy tv and movies and cosmo magazine etc etc, Why does the rest of the world get pissed off at american mass consumerist culture driven arts and culture that invades their cultural realm. Its because it’s all crap. all forgettable, subversive in their effect.
IMO Gig’s thought is based on the leftist premise of equality/egalitarianism. Since the left tries to tear down qualitative differences between people inherently that means it has to tear down beauty to make the ugly equal, And this finds expressions in the arts and overall social and cultural environment. For example just watch Glee which is on the cutting edge of of expressing this dogma. Overall all the arts of modern america screams stasis because they can’t question or go outside of the prevailing dogma, therefore it can only go one way and thus reinforce it.
LikeLike
True. Bingo. The leftoids in academia are why classical music nowadays, for example, is nothing but atonal crap and has been for the past 100 years or so. So why stop at ugly “music” and ugly “art”? Why not go the whole hog (huh-huh) and promote fatty tolerance, fag marriage, feminazism, and everything else that a normal society would consider unhealthy?
LikeLike
You know, if manly men and womanly women are conservative and the reverse for liberals, this proves that liberal and conservatives, in some shape or form (you had republicans and monarchists in the 19th century), will always be with us.
If at least some of the genes controlling masculinity and femininity get expressed in both genders, then a manly man will have manlier daughters, and a womanly woman will have sissier sons.
[heartiste: it’s digit ratios all the way down.]
LikeLike
Not that simple. There are dichotomies which keep reappearing. Self-Reliance vs. State Dependence. State Legitimization vs. Personal Legitimization. Power Earned vs. Power Dealt.
LikeLike
The Chinese were debating these same issues 2500 years ago, so your point is well taken.
LikeLike
these dichotomies are very prevalent in western thought relative to others and also very contentious and combative, might explain the spontaneity of western mindset.
LikeLike
I knew this, because when I am described as a conservative, or reveal myself to be, the reaction is often stunned incredulity. If the person is a smart-ass, he might think to say ‘you seem too intelligent/sane to be a rightwinger,” etc., but more often, spontaneous and unguarded people continue to splutter ‘but but but … you don’t look like one.” (Yes, I am a Jew, but I used to hear this just as much in New York City as in the south, midwest or New England).
But after reading all this, I get no pleasure from confirming your wisdom, since it seems that the real reason that I don’t look like a conservative isn’t my intellectual and thoughtful air shining through my Semitic features, but because I am a totally obvious beta. Thanks a lot.
LikeLike
Play off it. Contrast is king.
LikeLike
[…] I Was Right: Study Shows Conservatives And Liberals Have A Look (heartiste.wordpress.com) […]
LikeLike
To me Liberals are like a dumb man. For years they walked around telling everyone they were smarter than women because they were male. I just read that many dumb men STILL think they are smarter than ALL women just because they are male. No difference really in the source of their data, dumbness!
LikeLike