I see in the photo above an apprehensive, timid man prone to frowning, wearing a white shirt that's too big for him because he had to borrow the shirt after being instructed to appear in a collared white shirt. I see also a fellow who dislikes having his photo taken, even for happy snaps.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
You may see bleary eyes, as one correspondent to this paper did recently, jowls and, of course, the frown lines. Hopefully you were struck by the cleft chin, an indication of masculinity, a full head of richly coloured hair, indicating vigour, and the paucity of grey hairs, a sure sign that age is being held at bay.
Strangely, I can't read my own face, and that's strange because I read everyone else's face. I don't know how I'd react if I met me but I know how I'm going to react to every other face. Only in recent years have I realised how much my response to people is determined by their face, and that's because I see the face as the window to the inner self.
I don't mean overt facial expression, as in anger, which tells me to avoid unless I'm up for the fight. Or sadness as in grief, or delight that accompanies a windfall. I mean the forfeit face, the resting or expressionless face.
This resting face has been developed over many years, it is natural rather than contrived, and I say the old warning that you can't judge a book by its cover doesn't apply because the face is not a cover but a window. By age 30, for example, a grumpy fellow has spent so long being grumpy that his face is set to grumpiness, and so when you see him you will know immediately that he does not find joy easily and that he won't find it with you. Of course it is possible that a man who is not grumpy could have a face with unfortunately positioned lumps and bumps that give him a grumpy face but I'm yet to come across such a case.
Recently I read there's a name, physiognomy, for using the face to assess personality and that some people see this as a science, but I want to make it clear that there is no science in my response to face. My response is based on my life's experience, my own personality and, I suspect, more than a dash of innate influence.
Recently I read there's a name, physiognomy, for using the face to assess personality and that some people see this as a science, but I want to make it clear that there is no science in my response to face. My response is based on my life's experience, my own personality and, I suspect, more than a dash of innate influence.
I'm not aware of a series of boxes that I tick in my mind to define the personality and character of the person behind the face. I'm sure such an app would be useful. Hold your phone up to the face of someone you've just met, read the assessment and decline or accept the opportunity to engage.
That is effectively what I do. I make the assessment subconsciously but I am certainly aware of the result and if it's a negative assessment I'll decide to not engage or to engage only as necessary. In a group, for example, I would try to sit not opposite and not next to a person I read as unpleasant; in a situation where I needed co-operation I'd try to find someone else to deal with.
Think of people who are cranky, sour, sneering, dominating, aggressive, scowling, grumpy or nasty. There's no mistaking them, is there! Or bitchy, and why is it that bitchiness is limited to women? It is a cattiness that does seem unique to women and its presence is unmistakeable.
On the other hand the face can tell us that the person is kindly, good humoured, jocular, open or accepting, and we are drawn to these people. Often we don't know why. Maybe, if you're a kindly soul, you'll tread gently with someone whose face speaks of timidity and submission.
I'm far from certain as to the particular facial structures that direct me to an assessment. There are thin lips, pursed lips, mouths that are turned down or up, eyebrows that as a pair are V-shaped, level or an inverted V, noses that are hooked or button like, eyes that are wide apart or close together, lidded eyes, wide-open eyes, wide faces and thin faces, receding and prominent chins, dimples.
None of these in my experience is a reliable indicator, but if I think of prominent politicians I can define my response to them with a single facial quality. Malcolm Fraser, eyes schemingly close together; Simon Crean, a mouth in the shape of a sneer; John Howard, eyebrows in a defensive inverted V; Scott Morrison, a half smile so fixed it is often inappropriate.
We see all children and young people as attractive because, I think, their face has not developed as a reflection of their ugliness or beauty. He may be a miserable little sod but that we need a few creases to tell us that at first glance. Late, when they are older, attractiveness is what we see through the facial window.
The people we see as attractive from middle age and beyond don't need to sport particular eye shapes or hair colour or succulent lips, or for that matter body shape. They are attractive when we are attracted to them, and we are attracted to them when we like what we see reflected in their face. That won't be aggression or nastiness or grumpiness.
I need to sit for another photograph.
- Jeff Corbett writes for the Newcastle Herald. Contact: jeffcorb@gmail.com