 Which is the best characterization of the overgeneralization hypotheses?
Some blamed the BBC, some blamed those in Savile's immediate circle, but others blamed a simple error of human judgment. "He literally couldn't look more like a paedophile," read one post – one of many to state a supposedly incontrovertible truth: that Savile's criminal tendencies could have been detected from the shape of his features, his eyes, his hair. We know that paedophiles, murderers and other violent criminals come in many shapes and sizes. A recent paper, published by Xiaolin Wu and Xi Zhang of Shanghai's Jiao Tong University, claims to be the first to use machine learning and neural networks to attempt a fully automated inference of criminality from facial images, removing prejudice from the equation and testing the validity of our gut feelings. "What facial features influence the average Joe's impulsive and yet consensual judgments on social attributes?" they ask. Through a study of 1,856 images ("controlled for race, gender, age and facial expression") they claim to have established the validity of "automated, face-induced inference on criminality, despite the historical controversy surrounding this line of enquiry." In other words, they believe that they've found a relationship between looking like a criminal and actually being one. All of Greek society, it was claimed, could benefit from this skill: it could assist with choosing an employee, a slave or a spouse, while its inherent vagueness made it intriguing to philosophers and useful for scientists who bent the theories to support their own beliefs. Theories of physiognomy, however, would persist beyond the Renaissance. In 1586, Italian scholar Giambattista della Porta published a book, De humana physiognomonia libri IIII, which established him as the 'father of Physiognomy'. Della Porta's thinking was based on the 'doctrine of signatures'; the idea that the appearance of plants and animals offers clues to their nature. The theories in della Porta's book were supported by dozens of detailed illustrations which, by comparing human faces to those of animals, suggested that they must surely share similar character traits. Lavater's work was criticised for being ridden with bias (black faces rarely emerged well from his analyses) but he was right in one respect: "Whether they are or are not sensible of it," he wrote, "all men are daily influenced by physiognomy." Many studies have been done into our psychological response to faces, and it's clear that a so-called halo effect will inevitably work its magic.
 We are likely to attribute things to people based on people close to us who may look similar
 People are more likely to find others to be friendly based on their photos if they are surrounded by friendly people themselves  Computers are more likely to draw correct conclusions about people if they have larger pools of photos to draw from  We are likely to assume more photos are doctored than the number that actually are  We are likely to attribute things to people based on people close to us who may look similar