This is statistics, so an n = 1 doesn't really help your argument.

I agree though, that physiognomic "accuracy" based on self-assessments is of little value, like most self-assessments, and not very different from tarot readings or online IQ or MBTI tests.

Now when there are external assessments, these types of correlations are to be handled carefully in social sciences, because they can be self-fulfilling prophecies (people don't trust you because you look untrustworthy, so you end up behaving the way that gets you treated that way anyway) or straight up spurious, so the independent variable(s), if any, can be extremely non-evident: nutrition, environmental, cultural... This is, again, not unlike intelligence tests.

The best hard data we have is on a less delicate subject: aggression in hockey, where certain facial features correlate with quantifiable aggressive behaviors [0].

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2570531/