Does your husband have a broad face? Then, turn immediately to pre-emptive divorce. Is his face slightly broad? Then, prepare yourself. Are there any races with broader facial characteristics?

Incredible. A new wave of women's self-help books will now be shunning men with broad faces. Imagine women's reactions if a report found that women with certain physical characteristics. At the very least, it would be : women that find themselves attracted to broad-faced men are more likely to be screwed over.

People with broad faces should immediately start a class action lawsuit against the author of this "study". And every time they lose a job, get turned down for an appliation, or get a low test score in college, they can yell "discrimination" or "feature profiling".

I'm with you guys. This is ridiculous.

Is this a story about Obama???

Obama's facial characteristics suggests he could sell a blind lady a color television set.

What crap! Notice that the article didn't mention who funded this "study."

yay! more ways i can stereotype people based on appearance.

This author must have spent a lot of the last year watching odumbo!! Of course he's just a liar, broad faced or not!

Sounds like a pile of bull@!$%# to me. How much money was wasted on this ridiculous study . Perhaps they should do a study on what an a-hole the author of the study is.

sounds like looks can be deceiving but do unto others is a pretty good bet
but that ain't happening in today's America.
looks over talent
looks over honesty
looks over integrity
its the "lowest common denominator" syndrome

from whitehouse.gov site, $3.75 million from stimulus funds allocated for the independent study of the relationship of broad faces to untrustworthiness. :-)

a study on how to put America back to work would be more worthwhile...

Starting with Barry on down...DON'T trust anybody in Washington...!

no matter how they look..

I don't trust anybody, broad faced or thin faced, until they give me reason to trust them. Half the people out there will screw you over if you let them.

This is the closest thing to a Nazi sort of propaganda that I've read in many, many years.

Shame on this reporter! This piece is nothing more than what we do already know: pretty people fare better in life.

Prince William, like his mother and paternal grandmother, the Queen of England, famously has a wide set face. Prince Charles, on the other hand, has a long and thin face. ...hmmm

For that matter, Brad Pitt's done rather well with his broad, wide cheek-boned face, too, hasn't he?

BUT worst of all, along with little people, blacks, Asians, and Jewish men tend to have wider faces.
Get it, Ms. Robin Nixon?
You are advocating a form of Eugenics.

The Nazis believed you could tell a person's value by the shade of their eye colour.

If we follow your logic, fat women are more likely to be less successful than prettier women. --seems harsh, but well that's the premise of the entire article. What she misses is science; for example: are fat women less likely to succeed because they are fat or are they less likely to succeed because they have been treated so badly because they are fat. Classic chicken and the egg...

Bad form, this article, for a "science writer."

Was Robin Nixon dumped by a wide-faced man?

She ought to take up writing for the Bob Jones University Bible news. Her philosophy is rather close to theirs.

Shame on MSNBC for allowing this to be published.

This is as stupid as it gets. Aren't they forgetting a little thing called A "personal choice". We all make choices every day, It all comes down to the choices that you make, not how fat your face is. Is this really all they have to wright about?

Explanation:

We tend to trust/like those who are like us.

The vast majority of white Americans are descended from what is now the UK and Germany/far northern Europe. We members of that group tend to have narrow faces.

From that premise---and I doubt anyone would challenge it---it follows that for most of us, we would tend to trust/like/prefer narrower, less wide, faces.

So this "study" is silly in that it is avoiding ethnic/racial considerations. Maybe the "experts" are trying to be politically correct by not acknowledging the background of so many of us. It's common these days to ignore the backgrounds of the majority and focus on the minorities who, by the way, will soon be the majority throughout the land.

Then what? Will there be a White History Month? Doubt it. Will whites be given minority status for hiring? Don't count on it!

When whites account for only, say, 30% of the population, it will be hilarious to hear about how things are unfair for non-whites. But perhaps I speak too quickly: there will probably be protests that the white minority is too educated or too proficient at what they do. Then the only way out for whites will be to get ignorant, get lazy...maybe then some people will be happy.

But who'll pay taxes?

And the reason this does not apply to woman. Should be self explanitory;-). Say, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have broad faces. hmmmmmm

They are ALL untrustworthy, broad face or not.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say. I think this study does not account for culture in the outcome. The study was done by St Andrews college, which is in Scotland (I think), and would probably have different results if it were done in another part of the world, say American Samoa or Hawaii.

Once again, this is another article to try to change the minds of a few weak-minded individuals who can be easily influenced, with the hopes that they can slowly turn society's image of what is appealing around ass-backwards. Notice they associated facial dimensions with testosterone production. They associated testosterone production with aggression and unreliability. Therefore, they want the general public to believe that a man with less testosterone would be more trustworthy and a more ideal person to do business with and a better choice for a woman to select as a mate. Every single one of these studies that has to do with men, body dimensions, loyalty, trust, and sexual selection always ends up speaking negatively of higher levels of testosterone. And it's good to see so many people on this particular thread who disagree with this moronic article. Articles like these are written to slowly and steadily change the perception of how men are seen, and the reason is quite obvious. If the smaller, weaker, more docile men are seen as having the desired sexual trait, society will be able to slowly weed out the higher testosterone gene and replace it with the passive gene. Over time, the majority of the general population would have the passive gene and therefore, would be much easier for the government to control. And this is what is called feminization of society. This is a perfect example of evolution in action. We, as a society, are becoming more and more like the Bonobos all the time. We're extremely passive, we let the females have more rights than the males, and homosexuality is rampant. And what happens when the chimps gain access to the Bonobo society? Think about that one for awhile.

I guess Hitler would be the exception that proves the rule.

WoW, so what does short/long earlobes, cleft chins, pinched nasal opening, or cheek dimples, mean??? Inquiring minds got to know.... how did this ridiculous study and hypothesis survived the initial W.T.F. laugh factor? One superficial facial characteristic does not offer the perception of a person's trustworthiness; there are a gazillion cues, on many levels of the psyche, that are considered and evaluated faster than a NORAD super computer. Bottom line - Trust is earned.

Oh, and there are some obvious cues too. I don't think there is anyone in Congress worthy of my trust. I couldn't tell you if they have wide faces or thin, but I'm sure, such a trivial detail doesn't matter.

this study reeks of eugenics.

I think the writer should have thought about Osama, the dude has a slender, narrow face. pretty scary. Is he trustworthy? How about Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

So many ignorant people on this board.