We CAN judge a book by its cover. We can tell with a quick glance at a person’s face who is prone to criminality, who is stupid or smart, who is a cad or a slut, and who is rich or poor.

A new study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology posits there’s a good chance you can tell if someone is rich or poor just by looking at them.

“The relationship between well-being and social class has been demonstrated by previous research,” R. Thora Bjornsdottir, a graduate student at the University of Toronto and co-author of the study, tells CNBC Make It. In general, people with money tend to live happier, less anxious lives compared to those struggling to make ends meet. She and her team demonstrated “that these well-being differences are actually reflected in people’s faces.”

Bjornsdottir and her co-author, psychology professor Nicholas O. Rule, had undergraduate subjects of various ethnicities look at gray-scale photographs of 80 white males and 80 white females. None showed any tattoos or piercings. Half of the photos were of people who made over $150,000 a year, which they designated as upper class, and the other half were people who made under $35,000, or working class.

When the subjects were asked to guess the class of the people in the photos, they did so correctly 68 percent of the time, significantly higher than random chance.

Surprisingly, researchers co-discovered people can tell which Whites live around blacks; they never look relaxed.

The effect is “likely due to emotion patterns becoming etched into their faces over time,” says Bjornsdottir. The chronic contraction of certain muscles can actually lead to changes in the structure of your face that others can pick up on, even if they aren’t aware of it. […]

“Over time, your face comes to permanently reflect and reveal your experiences,” Rule told the University of Toronto. “Even when we think we’re not expressing something, relics of those emotions are still there.”

We age into the face we deserve — a fairly conventional bit of wisdom that has a big kernel of scientific validity. Related, it’s the reason why successful womanizers have that “unperturbed and in charge look” which seems to exert a preternatural pull on women, and why incels aging into bottled up, scrunched up, constipated faces push women away, regardless of baseline facial attractiveness. A satiated cad walks into a roomful of Betties pre-radiating a glow of unflappable confidence and libidinal fulfillment, and it’s all the women can do to control their curiosity. I.e., the hungry dog is the last to get fed.

CNBC, like most leftoid outfits, chooses to interpret the findings of this Narrative-exploding research with a rhetorical dissembling that would spare their blank slate-committed egos.

“That’s a reminder that snap judgments can have real consequences, and contribute to the cycle of poverty” — CNBC, dribbling typical shitlib boilerplate.

Realtruth: “That’s a reminder that snap judgments are based on concrete biological cues of human worth, and can contribute to efficiently filtering people for purposes of association.”

Physiognomy doesn’t create poor people, shitlibs. Physiognomy notices who is likely to have the inherent characteristics that predispose to poverty.

It’s that NOTICING which really bugs shitlibs. They hate that a reality exists that constantly makes mockery of their antiquated religious orthodoxy.