Gidai, having a wider nose - or whatever - would mean having the so-called "aura", no? Or even much more than that. Well, I have relatives in male line whose noses are slim (not sure this is the word), and I'm myself a G-P303 like you (more specifically, G-L497). It seems kind of an illusory correlation then.
But allow me a digression using, anedoctelly, two certain friends (real people, but it doesn't matter who they are) - and good ones, despite their differences. One of them, who had his brother tested, is kind of fragile, cubbish and relatively short. He's what some people would call a "nerd", even if he's not such thing. The other one, also tested, is quite the opposite. Now, if you call someone to guess which haplogroup belongs to each one, the answer would be wrong more likely, given the cognitive biases. The "fragile" one descends in paternal line from the "Conans" - not an irony; just an exageration that serves the point - who founded (or dominated, if you prefer) roughly half of Europe. It represents both how stereotypes work and how autosomal as a whole, with its millions of polimorphisms, seems far more important than some mutations that defines Y hgs in general. Yeah, I know it's evident, especially putting this way, but that was my intention: stating the obvious, as aleph did above. Anyway, I use those guys as example because they're the only ones I know outside internet whose Y-DNAs were (in)directly tested (sure, the result could be extended to their relatives in male line), together with another family's, according to a match in 23andMe. The men in this another family would belong to a widespread haplogroup that someone called "the beast". Naturally, these men fluctuate from the "macho Malboro cowboy" style to the somewhat effeminate type, not to mention all physical differences and other kind of gradients. Easy to know why. It just came to my mind that story about an ant (representing a haplogroup here?) on the back of an elephant (autosomal?) running. The ant then said: hey, see how we make the dust fly! Lol
You could torture images till they confess some pattern, but come on! The huge differences, on the other hand, really scream. This is the only clear thing here.
This should be enough, really, but as they say: "there are too many variables involved to make any meaningful conclusion". So let's keep the mind opened and try to understand it with the possible clues we have so far.
What is not so obvious is the absence of any minor influence at all, even virtually undetectable. Point is that this hypothetical minor influence of older "haplogroups" (not necessarily just macro-haplogroups) over phenotype, aside environmental factors, would likely belong to the ground of "big numbers"; it would be a big sampling issue. I.e., given a certain context, they could perhaps make a slight difference in averages, but they would be almost absolutely overshadowed by autosomal in the individual level, making virtually impossible to classify someone based on this supposed "aura". Again: this detectable aura wouldn't exist in practice, due to a huge overlapping imposed by Autosomal. So their influence would be comparatively (very) low, whereas autosomal's would be (very) high, hence the huge overlapping. If you allow me silly examples, never mind if a Y haplogroup would make, say, your nose 1 mm longer, or your aggressiveness 1 mm longer, he he he, or your sperm count jump from 100 to 110 million, if your autosomal can make much more than that. Unless you really believe that mutations related to this kind of haplogroups may equal autosomal or even surpass it in some really relevant ways, but the clues are against this hypothesis, apparently. We'd need more research, but additional mutations in subgroups could occasionaly make it more difficult to be done.
Obviously Y chromosome per se is pretty important, after all it makes us men, not to mention the role of certain mutations in health. Plus, that's what, say, the diffefence between liger and tigon suggests. However, lions and tigers are different species sepparated by millions of years, while some macro-haplogroups are sepparated by just ~30k years. Additionally, it's not only the Y chromosome that is different from each other (in liger and tigon), but also another whole recombined one: the X.
So, imo the role of haplogroups is possibly a bit overestimated by some people, either over phenotype or over their own expansion/reduction in frequency. This would be another related discussion. Perhaps they matter for frequency in the long term to a certain extent, but important populational changes in the past happened suddenly, as we know, and it looks like an exagerarion assign them to haplogroups. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Where would Occam razor point to? Lucky (in broad sense) and/or autosomal to some extent could explain "successes" more likely, it seems, even if not all the time (exceptions might confirm the rule)? Context matters*. Indeed, an haplogroup which are very common in certain places may be for some reason uncommon in other places, even in those where it has a relatively long presence. And frequent haplogroups may have sister clades that are not common at all. There was no "equality" between subclades, at least till not much time ago. Plus, most of haplogroups which are very common today suffered severe bottlenecks and flirted with extinction (sometimes with "competition" between their own carrying men, other times also with others - which would matter more in this discussion), like the one we were talking about: I1 (among many others, of course, and not that just competition explains it). Between more than 20k and 5k years ago, just one I1 man in each generation left patrilineal descendants living today. Take out one of them and bye bye the I1 as we know it now. How many lines were extinct since the time of the most recent common ancestor of all living men? Hard to guess. Perhaps "the best" (whatever it means) went extinct, he he he. Who knows!
Apparently, at least till few thousands of years ago, it was kind of a lottery. You know, in lotteries, the chances a certain specific person will take the prize are low, but the chances some lucky bastard will take it are high.
(Haplogroups would be kind of abstractions; in certain sense, they don't live and die: people carrying the related mutations do. But you got what I meant in all this talking, je je je.)
Finally, not to say I don't care about haplogroups. I do. I've my intellectual curiosities in this regard, and genetic genealogy provides me some fun.
*See how Italy became more vulnerable due to its internal divisions, which may have impacted its Y-DNA pool in certain areas, or how some Middle Eastern hgs will grow in frequency in Europe due to higher fertility of immigrants, or consider the mere "will to kill", when a nation or group of people do have the ways to decimate other group, and they do it or don't do it depending on diverse circumstances... And on and on. The examples multiply.
Conclusion is: assigning this to hgs seems a too simplistic solution for a too complex reality. Angela is right. This shouldn't be taken too seriously. I just decided to give the issue some thought, 'cause it shows up here from time to time. My two cents, and I'm done!