[all / search] [a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic / oc] [r9k / s5s / vip / q] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [trash] [Search] [Home]
Board

I'm convinced that Phrenology was a legitimate field of study that wa…



[Return] [Catalog] [Bottom]4 / 1
Return Catalog Bottom

File: zi5jj2.png (image, 890x640)
I'm convinced that Phrenology was a legitimate field of study that was systematically discredited by a certain collectivity
>>
You mean physiognomy? But yes, agreed. They can't stop the stereotypes anyway.
>>
it got “discredited” because it was bs, not a conspiracy
>>
>>1750
>oy vey
>>
File: dVDhZLO.png (image, 890x937)
>>1748

image
I'm convinced that Phrenology was a legitimate field of study that was systematically discredited by a certain collectivity
You mean physiognomy? But yes, agreed. They can't stop the stereotypes anyway.
>>1752
it got “discredited” because it was bs, not a conspiracy
>>1751
>>1750
>oy vey
image
>>1748