angularity shouldnt be a pillar

valentine said:
he's not uncanny in reality, only in some modeling shots. read the comments under that street interview with the tulips. all women calling him the most beautiful face ever
Click to expand...
he looks like ficking shit with that squised shit face
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: xye and valentine
valentine said:
he's not uncanny in reality, only in some modeling shots. read the comments under that street interview with the tulips. all women calling him the most beautiful face ever
Click to expand...
having one singular video where women find him attractive isnt enough. o'pry and chico dominated wattpad for years at their prime for their looks.
 
  • +1
Reactions: xye
Resonance said:
having one singular video where women find him attractive isnt enough. o'pry and chico dominated wattpad for years at their prime for their looks.
Click to expand...
I'm ngl barrett mogs them
SilvioMoltisantiDan said:
he looks like ficking shit with that squised shit face
Click to expand...
1000106220
 
  • +1
Reactions: xye
killcry said:
You said nothing and I addressed everything of substance. Up to you if you want to contend with it. Which you won't because you'll never actually think about any of this. It is gg indeed
Click to expand...
youre attacking the idea of me not having substance
xye said:
you also claim harmony appeals to arbitrary notions but aesthetically its well known that faces with average proportions are percieved as more attractive
so the average of faces that are noted to be objectively physically attractive is going to create ideals
obviously harmony isnt everything but its a major component
thats reasoning practically the entirety of discussion here relies on
Click to expand...
it's obviously more nuanced than averageness though. like thats a quick summary of harmony but certain features ARE percieved to be more attractive, like having a compact fwhr when the average is 1.7. so a dataset with people who have these traits and are percieved to be attractive (because there is research on this) is obviously going to work. there is justification for every proportion, youre questioning the entire basis of harmony and expecting it to be some gotcha that makes me give up on harmony as a whole. so i must ask what your basis of harmony is? your only justification for it is 'muh i know what im talking about' because you literally said 'eyeball is law'
 
  • +1
Reactions: 6'4cel and killcry
valentine said:
he's not uncanny in reality, only in some modeling shots. read the comments under that street interview with the tulips. all women calling him the most beautiful face ever
Click to expand...
doesn't matter, short skull=over
 
  • +1
Reactions: SilvioMoltisantiDan and xye
Resonance said:
worst cope ive ever heard. what is the point of arguing about looks if they don't receive any attention?
Click to expand...
ok wow i guess some random mtn actor with most fans is true Adam then
 
  • +1
Reactions: xye and 6'4cel
Resonance said:
caseoh doesnt get more female attention.
Click to expand...
yeah I didn't read that much into the thread. Then I can cherry pick someone else do does. Regardless of that the point still stands.
 
  • +1
Reactions: xye
Ang is less important than the other pillars but its still a pillar ykwim
 
  • +1
Reactions: xye and 6'4cel
6'4cel said:
yeah I didn't read that much into the thread. Then I can cherry pick someone else do does. Regardless of that the point still stands.
Click to expand...
can you show me another proper example
 
  • +1
Reactions: 6'4cel and xye
6'4cel said:
who mogs, casso or jacob? obviously CaseOh because has more status/attention.
Click to expand...
ishowspeed terras drago obviously because he has more status
1788485665459
1788485654535
 
  • +1
Reactions: Resonance
iblamemyhabits said:
Ang is less important than the other pillars but its still a pillar ykwim
Click to expand...
i mean i think its important i just think its counterproductive to use it as a pillar and not as an important component of misc and dimo formulas
 
  • +1
Reactions: 6'4cel
xye said:
youre attacking the idea of me not having substance

it's obviously more nuanced than averageness though. like thats a quick summary of harmony but certain features ARE percieved to be more attractive, like having a compact fwhr when the average is 1.7. so a dataset with people who have these traits and are percieved to be attractive (because there is research on this) is obviously going to work. there is justification for every proportion, youre questioning the entire basis of harmony and expecting it to be some gotcha that makes me give up on harmony as a whole. so i must ask what your basis of harmony is? your only justification for it is 'muh i know what im talking about' because you literally said 'eyeball is law'
Click to expand...
The problem is fwhr as a measurement consists of tacky landmarks for harmony

They’re “unsubstantiated” not because of the nature of the ratio itself that’s fine

But using this ratio in ties to something like harmony is flawed

The reason for its landmarks

Brow setness (frontal bone development)
Left to right zygion (zygomatic development/breadth of the skull)
Top of the upper lip (maxilla development)

ALL correlate with dimorphism and are measurable, merely visually and otherwise

But having it in a formula to measure how “ideal” or “proportionate” ones face is? Based on what?

You explained away with averageness, but you contradicted yourself earlier, and you’re contradicting yourself now

So it has nothing to do with the studies on average proportions you vaguely mentioned… but its based on the most ideal of the ideal proportions for attractiveness

Based on studies with measurements and assessments that were never used for that purpose

A 1.92 fwhr isn’t “proportional” or “harmonious”, it’s correlated with sexual dimorphism, which is correlated with attractiveness

Yet its weighed very highly on the harmony/ideal proportions calculator as a make or breaker

So, either make a dataset with a huge number of faces, unbiased and un cherrypicked to find the average proportions, since averageness is so ideal

And base harmony on that

Or rmake a dataset of 50 of your favorite muh chads and contrive random assessments that have nothing to do with ideal proportions and pour them into one formula

And weigh them all respectively based off of your own personal bias of what is more important for attractiveness

And call it a day

See what I mean by substance and arbitrary notions? Your criticisms are fair because I didn’t articulate but you’re still not getting the big picture
 
  • +1
Reactions: xye, Resonance and 6'4cel
killcry said:
The problem is fwhr as a measurement consists of tacky landmarks for harmony

They’re “unsubstantiated” not because of the nature of the ratio itself that’s fine

But using this ratio in ties to something like harmony is flawed

The reason for its landmarks

Brow setness (frontal bone development)
Left to right zygion (zygomatic development/breadth of the skull)
Top of the upper lip (maxilla development)

ALL correlate with dimorphism and are measurable, merely visually and otherwise

But having it in a formula to measure how “ideal” or “proportionate” ones face is? Based on what?

You explained away with averageness, but you contradicted yourself earlier, and you’re contradicting yourself now

So it has nothing to do with the studies on average proportions you vaguely mentioned… but its based on the most ideal of the ideal proportions for attractiveness

Based on studies with measurements and assessments that were never used for that purpose

A 1.92 fwhr isn’t “proportional” or “harmonious”, it’s correlated with sexual dimorphism, which is correlated with attractiveness

Yet its weighed very highly on the harmony/ideal proportions calculator as a make or breaker

So, either make a dataset with a huge number of faces, unbiased and un cherrypicked to find the average proportions, since averageness is so ideal

And base harmony on that

Or rmake a dataset of 50 of your favorite muh chads and contrive random assessments that have nothing to do with ideal proportions and pour them into one formula

And weigh them all respectively based off of your own personal bias of what is more important for attractiveness

And call it a day

See what I mean by substance and arbitrary notions? Your criticisms are fair because I didn’t articulate but you’re still not getting the big picture
Click to expand...
nah incorrect lil bro.
 
  • +1
Reactions: xye and killcry
killcry said:
The problem is fwhr as a measurement consists of tacky landmarks for harmony

They’re “unsubstantiated” not because of the nature of the ratio itself that’s fine

But using this ratio in ties to something like harmony is flawed

The reason for its landmarks

Brow setness (frontal bone development)
Left to right zygion (zygomatic development/breadth of the skull)
Top of the upper lip (maxilla development)

ALL correlate with dimorphism and are measurable, merely visually and otherwise

But having it in a formula to measure how “ideal” or “proportionate” ones face is? Based on what?

You explained away with averageness, but you contradicted yourself earlier, and you’re contradicting yourself now

So it has nothing to do with the studies on average proportions you vaguely mentioned… but its based on the most ideal of the ideal proportions for attractiveness

Based on studies with measurements and assessments that were never used for that purpose

A 1.92 fwhr isn’t “proportional” or “harmonious”, it’s correlated with sexual dimorphism, which is correlated with attractiveness

Yet its weighed very highly on the harmony/ideal proportions calculator as a make or breaker

So, either make a dataset with a huge number of faces, unbiased and un cherrypicked to find the average proportions, since averageness is so ideal

And base harmony on that

Or rmake a dataset of 50 of your favorite muh chads and contrive random assessments that have nothing to do with ideal proportions and pour them into one formula

And weigh them all respectively based off of your own personal bias of what is more important for attractiveness

And call it a day

See what I mean by substance and arbitrary notions? Your criticisms are fair because I didn’t articulate but you’re still not getting the big picture
Click to expand...
I've seen people here deduct harmony due to a person having stuff like a larger and taller chin as 'it is not the ideal' which makes no sense, as it is a dimorphic trait. I'd understand if they had a shorter chin but they weigh all flaws equally in the ratios which is just retarded.
 
  • +1
Reactions: xye, 6'4cel and killcry
Resonance said:
I've seen people here deduct harmony due to a person having stuff like a larger and taller chin as 'it is not the ideal' which makes no sense, as it is a dimorphic trait. I'd understand if they had a shorter chin but they weigh all flaws equally in the ratios which is just retarded.
Click to expand...
yeah formulas are a joke in itself. I doubt people even know the coping users who brought the idea in back in 2016
 
  • +1
Reactions: xye and killcry
6'4cel said:
yeah formulas are a joke in itself. I doubt people even know the coping users who brought the idea in back in 2016
Click to expand...
Goes back farther than that
 
  • +1
Reactions: xye and 6'4cel
valentine said:
too high harmony leads to same face syndrome where you start losing uniqueness and become a generic chad
View attachment 5603878
supposedly there's a huge difference in their harmony scores but i think they're on the same looks level

faces with not too high harmony are more memorable and interesting to look at
Click to expand...
They probably have similar harmony
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: xye, SilvioMoltisantiDan, 6'4cel and 1 other person
killcry said:
But having it in a formula to measure how “ideal” or “proportionate” ones face is? Based on what?
Click to expand...
Its correlated with attractiveness.
killcry said:
ALL correlate with dimorphism and are measurable, merely visually and otherwise

But having it in a formula to measure how “ideal” or “proportionate” ones face is? Based on what?
Click to expand...
They also correlate with attractiveness
killcry said:
So it has nothing to do with the studies on average proportions you vaguely mentioned… but its based on the most ideal of the ideal proportions for attractiveness
Click to expand...
I was referring to stuff like esr there. These things coexist
killcry said:
So, either make a dataset with a huge number of faces, unbiased and un cherrypicked to find the average proportions, since averageness is so ideal

And base harmony on that

Or rmake a dataset of 50 of your favorite muh chads and contrive random assessments that have nothing to do with ideal proportions and pour them into one formula

And weigh them all respectively based off of your own personal bias of what is more important for attractiveness
Click to expand...
I'd like to know how you take harmony. I didn't use a dataset btw i was just defending the mainstream approach
 
  • +1
Reactions: SilvioMoltisantiDan and 6'4cel
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Emz
females shouldnt lead
Replies
2
Views
27
Emz
Emz
freakb0b69
Rage subhumans shouldnt be allowed on social media
Replies
3
Views
48
AscendHQ
AscendHQ
sync!
Discussion people with cp shouldnt be considered ¨¨pdfs¨¨
Replies
5
Views
70
sync!
sync!
coastal
Mogs ugly people shouldnt be allowed to become content creators
Replies
9
Views
88
justwantlove
justwantlove
xanlack
Serious Taylor Hill has more angularity and dimorphism than me.
Replies
4
Views
68
xanlack
xanlack

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (Looksmaxers: 0, Bluepillers: 1)
Back
Top