Why is Face Reading Still a Pseudoscience?

Do you know why face typing/face reading/Physiotype is still relegated to the dusty bin of disproven pseudo-science of centuries gone by?

I really think I know why.

It’s because people inherently have difficulty thinking probabilistically. They really do. All of us.

We like black to be black and always be that way. Not for black to turn white when we look at it again. That only happens in dreams right? You look at your watch, look away then look back at the fish on your wrist.

The problem is – and to some degree this is true of every aspect of the universe but especially in areas with high complexity due to a tremendous number of variables – nobody can know all the variables.

The universe can literally express itself in an infinite combination of ways.

The same thing is true of technical analysis of markets. Many academics still say its pseudo-science and doesn’t work.

Just because something doesn’t work 100%, 80% or even way less of the time doesn’t mean there isn’t something very interesting happening, and that thing can be exploited only if you are equipped to be wrong whatever percentage that it’s wrong.

But no, people want to think everything is like gravity. The same as it ever was. The laws of the universe, right?

There isn’t some gravity software just making planets run in circles. Entropy is real. Jupiter’s moons go lower in orbit every year. Left alone they will crash into the surface, etc, etc, etc. That’s chaos, that’s complex, that’s difficult to predict. That contains elements of random. Digital is easy, analog is hard. Analog has variables. In a sense, software has no variables. It’s all explicit. There is no random.

Have you ever read the hoops programmers had to go through to design a random function?

So if a price chart can produce an infinite number of combinations due to it being the direct consequence of a gazillion market participants, yet with enough study the nuances of that behavior can be categorized and exploited, how much more complex is a brain with more neurons than stars in the Milky Way and more neuronal connections than all stars? And how much more difficult is it to tackle?

Laws are digital, habits are analog – habits of the universe, habits of people.

Anything sufficiently mesa will never be accepted by the mainstream Science.

Mesa is complex; it’s the perpetual black box. As soon as you crack open the box and see what’s inside you have meta-ed it. Now you know how it works and exactly how to exploit it. Until one day it behaves unexpectedly – and the answer to why the opened box one day didn’t behave as expected is of course in one of the smaller black boxes inside.

It’s hard to have ego and actually believe in black boxes. That’s probably a huge reason. Ego doesn’t want to admit it doesn’t know.

If Physiotype was real somebody would of figured it out by now, right?

Face typing to figure out one's personality type - be it your MBTI, Socionics, OPS, Physiotype, or something else - can be as illusive as black box.

That’s like saying if jet packs were real somebody would of figure it out by now. No, it’s just really a really complex and hard problem.

The thing about beliefs though is once you have them it becomes a self-reinforcing thing. The belief acts as a filter only allowing evidence in harmony with the belief in. Evidence to the contrary is literally not perceived. I think this is a feature, not a flaw, in that it provides a mental stability. It cushions us from just how insanely complex everything is around us.

We can go on with our lives, not having to worry if  the sun will rise, if alien life exists, if we actually have  been wasting the short amount of time we’ve been given on a futile endeavor, or if our wife will be there when we wake up. I mean why wouldn’t she be? After all I’m a great husband!