Facial psychology is a methodology to know how to interpret the shape of the face in order to predict human behaviour, competencies, psychological disorders with an accuracy that’s light years away from what’s taught in universities.
It’s a support tool during the consultation, selection, mediation and personalisation of the intervention with unfailing accuracy, depending on your client or patient.
Conventional psychology is the kind of psychology that’s studied in universities. It’s not scientific, and therefore it’s subjective and abstract, which I’ll explain below:
- In psychology, all research is done based on questionnaires, tests and interviews wherein the subject consciously answers or reacts to what they’re being asked, and not subconsciously. Research is done on perception, on smell, on touch, on taste or on hearing – or in other words, analyses are carried out, which are partial, as humans interact with the world using their five senses. So, the person is being separated, and what’s more, as I said, what’s being studied is the person’s consciousness. But nowadays, we know that the unconscious determines 98% of our behaviour, decisions and innate competencies.
- This means that psychology and psychiatry have some unsurmountable biases for them to truly be scientific and therefore effective, as they don’t understand the person in their entirety, but instead as separate parts. We know that not even the theory behind catecholamines is scientific. Unfortunately, when it comes to mental health, there’s no such thing as scientific, analytical, functional or imaging tests that can substantiate a diagnosis. Even the DSMs are made by consensus.
- And don’t get me started when psychology is used for staff selection through tests, questionnaires and interviews or role-playing exercises, as the candidates’ level of interest in getting the job also plays a role. The candidates tailor their responses or actions to what the recruiters want to learn, see or hear, and therefore, this poses another unsurmountable bias for scientism. People can lie or pretend through their words or actions – it so happens that some are just naturally better at it than others. We know that psychology gets it right in only 47% of the successful candidates.
- Human beings are complex and conventional psychology is based on simple thinking, which neglects the complexity of reality (which the current analytical metrics method does), mutilating, reducing and blinding reality, as well as treating it in a one-dimensional manner. As Edgar Morin already said, “The scientific method tries to dominate and control reality through simple or simplified thinking”, and therefore, current psychology is abstract and irresolute.
- Carl Jung – the forefather of the criticism made by constructivism and the theory of the complex – said of the analytical and mathematical “scientism” that had taken over universities with regard to human knowledge (and which showed no signs of going anywhere), “Human beings are more than just numbers”, “I’m a doctor and I deal with ordinary people. This is how I know that universities have ceased to serve as beacons of light. People are fed up with scientific specialisation and rationalist intellectualism. They want to hear about truth that does not narrow, but instead widens; that does not darken but instead illuminates; that does not roll off like water, but instead penetrates deep into the bone marrow”, “the face is a great truth that’s just out there”, “the principle of synchronicity can be found in the face and psyche, as it seems to me that the principle of causality is not enough to explain certain remarkable phenomena in the psychology of the unconscious”.
- Facial psychology is integrative, and through it, you can see the unconscious of every person with unfailing accuracy. You can see what’s happening to someone, why it’s happening, what to do to resolve the conflict, and where it will be more effective. It’s important to bear in mind that structure determines function, and if there’s a way to modify the structure (which is quite possible in several psychopathological cases, as demonstrated in patients with bipolar disorder), function will improve and extinguishing a disorder will be possible. And if it weren’t possible, the person will then know the cause of their disorder, and as you well know, acceptance is the key to overcoming most disorders.
So, you might ask, if it’s so effective, then why hasn’t it been put into practice yet?
- First of all, I’d like to say that “facial psychology is a clinical science”. It’s not an exact science like mathematics. Neither is it an experimental science like physics, as you can’t experiment on humans. It lays down a radical step that’s completely different from what everyone has gotten used to with conventional psychology. It delves into the origin of human character, as body and soul (psyche) are simply two faces of the same reality, confirming the most recent discoveries in the biological and cognitive sciences. It enables the diagnosis of temperament, which guides people’s activities in the world, as well as the prognosis for the active, affective and cognitive adaptation processes. Nevertheless, if the therapist is able to skilfully master this methodology, their deductions will be almost 99% accurate.
- Just like medicine, with which it has ties, it’s a clinical human science. Based on direct observation, it develops hypotheses using initial observations. If they are confirmed by most of the subsequent observations, it creates a law that must be handled with caution, just like in medicine, where unpredictable variables play such a crucial role. Kant said that physiognomy is knowledge without concepts. Louis Croman and I – through the fields of morphopsychology and facial psychology that we’ve created – have developed concepts, but not how it used to be done, but instead by explaining and proving certain empirical observations by Aristotle through dynamic biological laws.
- This methodological approach revolutionises works involving physiognomy. Indeed, the laws of facial psychology make it possible to justify hypotheses and present conclusions. Psychological facts are both psychological and physical.
Now I can answer the question above.
On 9 July 2010, I was able to scientifically prove for the first time ever in the world that “the brain and the face are two faces of the same reality”.
Consequently, after seeing the results, the chair of the committee, a history of psychology professor, said, “You’ve developed a new paradigm in psychology”. The secretary of the committee, a professor and the director of the department of health sciences research methodology, said, “I’ve never seen a doctoral thesis/research with such accuracy. You would have been burned at the stake as a witch 350 years ago”.
I wanted to have a psychiatry professor and a psychology professor as co-supervisors of my doctoral thesis, as this knowledge is highly applicable to both psychiatry and psychology. The professor and chair of psychiatry said, “It’s light years away from what we’re doing, which is analytical and therefore partial, while yours is comprehensive”.
The professor and chair of psychology said, “This magical knowledge could obliterate most of the fields of study of human knowledge, and opposition to changing the status quo will be tremendous” as nobody is ready to accept it.
Neither are professional associations particularly interested in promoting facial psychology as through this methodological knowledge, in just one session, you can see the cause of someone’s disorder, what’s happening to them, why it’s happening, and what must be done to overcome their disorder or conflict. You’ll also be able to see their potential, their perfectible aspects and which profession will suit their talents best.
If facial psychology can be used to identify morphological structures that are most prone to committing suicide, the professional associations of psychology and psychiatry should take an interest in this methodology to stay one step ahead of this problem, but they’re not really doing anything. It’s all talk and no action, and the problem remains unresolved as the foundations of both psychology and psychiatry are highly theoretical and thus quite abstract.
Ethical professionals who are aware of the shortcomings of their profession will surely start training in this discipline. There are some that have already done so.
Perhaps I won’t be around to see it, but I’ve left my legacy to humanity in the form of my book Psicología Facial (“Facial Psychology”), which contains more than a hundred scientific articles supporting the methodology I explain in it. Sooner or later, society will have to do something about the obtuseness prevalent in the centres of power for psychology (psychology departments at universities, professional associations) and many health care professionals who refuse to make progress in the name of money or so as not to relinquish their comfy armchairs.
Doctor of Facial Psychology