average good looking (more natural ) or perfection? (pure math)

[Romxnus753AC]

 

[flatcheck213]

View attachment 3632983View attachment 3632984View attachment 3632985View attachment 3632986View attachment 3632991

Uncanny

 

[stufftodo]

it's hard to say since you aren't seeing them in motion and the morphs aren't 100% realistic. i think the difference between perfection and being 98 99% perfect is unnoticeable though

 

[Romxnus753AC]

Uncanny

 

[flatcheck213]

it's hard to say since you aren't seeing them in motion and the morphs aren't 100% realistic. i think the difference between perfection and being 98 99% perfect is unnoticeable though

the difference is that morphs are maximising everything from attractiveness perspective, but there are attractive traits that can't physically be together if you got what i meant.

Like blue eyes are attractive not because of color itself, but because of pupil visibility and contrast (health markers)

 

[Snicket]

it's hard to say since you aren't seeing them in motion and the morphs aren't 100% realistic. i think the difference between perfection and being 98 99% perfect is unnoticeable though

No, moving up in even a fraction of a percentile at the end of the bell curve will make a difference.
It's like going from millionaire at 99th percentile to owning Microsoft at 99.9999+%

 

[Romxnus753AC]

it's hard to say since you aren't seeing them in motion and the morphs aren't 100% realistic. i think the difference between perfection and being 98 99% perfect is unnoticeable though

in motion the only thing that could ruin the 100%/100% morphs maybe its hair moving sweating or itching but they are still perfect

 

[flatcheck213]

View attachment 3633018

how are you making those

 

[Romxnus753AC]

how are you making those

morf app plus using ai to calculate distance and converting like this one

 

[LilJojo]

View attachment 3632983View attachment 3632984View attachment 3632985View attachment 3632986View attachment 3632991View attachment 3632987

You’d look like a gay man that had a shit ton of surgery done if you looked like the third pic, the “dominant”

 

[stufftodo]

No, moving up in even a fraction of a percentile at the end of the bell curve will make a difference.
It's like going from millionaire at 99th percentile to owning Microsoft at 99.9999+%

in the context of a bell curve, moving up even a small fraction of a percentile does represent a shift relative to the entire population. the difference between the 99th and 99.9999+% percentile signifies a massive difference in where one stands within that population distribution. i totally agree with that.

however, if we define 100% attractiveness as a state of perfect ratios and features, then deviations from this absolute standard, even slight ones, are imperceptible to the human eye. i think you're mixed up upon 100% representing a theoretical ideal of perfect features and ratios, an absolute standard (what i was commenting on) rather than a relative position within a population.

 

[NoaA99]

No, moving up in even a fraction of a percentile at the end of the bell curve will make a difference.
It's like going from millionaire at 99th percentile to owning Microsoft at 99.9999+%

It does. Though, the positive effects/ consequences will begin to diminish exponentially after a certain point.

 

[Snicket]

It does. Though, the positive effects/ consequences will begin to diminish exponentially after a certain point.

I agree that the diminishing returns are probably massive once you're 90th percentile + looks since you're just dominating the competition at that point.

 

[Snicket]

in the context of a bell curve, moving up even a small fraction of a percentile does represent a shift relative to the entire population. the difference between the 99th and 99.9999+% percentile signifies a massive difference in where one stands within that population distribution. i totally agree with that.

however, if we define 100% attractiveness as a state of perfect ratios and features, then deviations from this absolute standard, even slight ones, are imperceptible to the human eye. i think you're mixed up upon 100% representing a theoretical ideal of perfect features and ratios, an absolute standard (what i was commenting on) rather than a relative position within a population.

Interesting.
The way I see it, 99.9th percentile vs 99th is like very, very handsome vs ethereal.
I can see the merits of your argument though. There is only so much distinction we can make in human faces.
However I think we're still capable of differentiating between the guy who's better looking than 99 in 100 guys (99th percentile) vs 999 in 1000 (99.9th).

 

[NoaA99]

I agree that the diminishing returns are probably massive once you're 90th percentile + looks since you're just dominating the competition at that point.

Yeah exactly.
You’ve got to see it like this, for instance, someone who’s highly intelligent might score around 132 on an IQ test, landing them in the 98-99th percentile.
Now, take someone even more exceptional, let’s say, an IQ of 150, which is incredibly rare, like 1 in 4000, if I remember correctly.
Generally, the gap in rarity is massive.

But if you actually compare their performance or test results side by side, the difference doesn’t feel nearly as dramatic.
That’s because, while rarity skyrockets near the end of the bell curve, the real, measurable differences in ability become increasingly marginal/ irrelevant.
Nature has boundaries, and once you cross a certain threshold, the returns start to taper off hard.

In short, once you’re past a certain point, you’ve probably unlocked most of its practical advantages.

 

[stufftodo]

Interesting.
The way I see it, 99.9th percentile vs 99th is like very, very handsome vs ethereal.
I can see the merits of your argument though. There is only so much distinction we can make in human faces.
However I think we're still capable of differentiating between the guy who's better looking than 99 in 100 guys (99th percentile) vs 999 in 1000 (99.9th

yeah i think we just saw the scale in different ways. ofc the guy in the 1/1000 of looks is gonna get mogged by the 1/10000 genetic miracle. but if it's off a absolute scale 100/100 isn't that much more beautiful than 99/100

 

[Snicket]

Yeah exactly.
You’ve got to see it like this, for instance, someone who’s highly intelligent might score around 132 on an IQ test, landing them in the 98-99th percentile.
Now, take someone even more exceptional, let’s say, an IQ of 150, which is incredibly rare, like 1 in 4000, if I remember correctly.
Generally, the gap in rarity is massive.

But if you actually compare their performance or test results side by side, the difference doesn’t feel nearly as dramatic.
That’s because, while rarity skyrockets near the end of the bell curve, the real, measurable differences in ability become increasingly marginal/ irrelevant.
Nature has boundaries, and once you cross a certain threshold, the returns start to taper off hard.

In short, once you’re past a certain point, you’ve probably unlocked most of its practical advantages.

Yep, Diminishing returns 101.
Although I've read that generally an IQ of around 145 is required to be the absolute best, bar none in a given industry or job field (highly skilled obviously).

 

[Snicket]

. but if it's off a absolute scale 100/100 isn't that much more beautiful than 99/100

The thing is just becomes an academic debate.
Practically, both categories are considered very good looking to the overwhelming majority of women, 90%+ at that point anyway.
The diminishing returns as Noa said are pretty massive for looks post 90th percentile.