Eye Spacing is Misunderstood

1711592575829
His chin is OK

on the esthetic plane, esp for a white it's not ideal
 
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: |Daddy_Zygos| and DelonLover1999
This is water though
The claim is water

Every single claim about aesthetics is water. The human brain is inherently capable of processing all of this subconsciously. I just articulated what exactly makes it work.


Every ratio isn't and shouldn't be weighed on the same scale

Your inter orbital distance is literally your facial layout.
I made this exact point on the thread, just didn't use the name 'inter orbital distance'. Again, looks like you didn't even read it properly tbh


Milimeters seperate chadlites, chads, gigachads, terachads, etc

Milimeters are kilometers on the face

View attachment 2823737View attachment 2823738

Not the best morph (done by @thecel but you can get any idea)
Morph looks pretty good all things considered, and if he had those ratios he would look better ofc. The rarity of his face wouldn't change that much tho, which was my point. Going from a 1 in half a million face to a 1 in a couple million might seem huge, but irl this jump is literally indistinguishable. He would've still been the best looking guy in his HS, in his college, etc.


Disagree again , this forum is lagging far too behind on aesthetics

Introductory thread by @Korea Sama on this:


If I speak.....
GIF by Christmas FM


IOD is more like a rule to the face not a multiplier, other literally halos (ie chace's eyebrows/coloring contrast) help with appeal
Lagging too far behind? jfl

I know about all the ideal ratio ranges. I know about what other factors can alter the perceived appearance of a ratio. I know about dimorphism scales. I know about health indicators, phenotypical characteristics and all that. This is all textbook and traditional stuff, nothing new or novel.

This old guard and robotic way of rating is obsolete tho. It clearly fails to capture the innate subjectivity that each human carries on their brain when they see a face and rate it in less than half a second.

If Korea's system was perfect, he wouldn't have had hundreds of people sometimes disagreeing with him, which is normal.
And don't even get me started on how these ideal ratios are discovered. They're all studies, which means they're imperfect by nature. One change of a sample group and you might end up with a slightly different result. I'm not denying they're quite useful, but still imperfect.

I don't get this trend of trying to hold on to pure objectivity when it clearly doesn't work that way. The holy grail of attractiveness will always be the intuitive human perception, which is itself dependent on each subject (i.e. everyone's brain has an ever so slightly diff 'calculator' for looks inside). You are born with the ability to rate attractiveness. Looks theory knowledge only serves to articulate it, and to plan for surgical adjustments.

Also ironic how that gif implied that you don't think Delon is a PSL God, further reinforcing the notion that, at the upper level, taste matters a lot.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: It'snotover, Lookologist003, |Daddy_Zygos| and 2 others
Exactly

Hernan drago is literally a strong gigachad (all the facial traits that come along with that) and actually you measured his ratos wrong

In this pic he has a 1 MFR
View attachment 2823717

and a 0.45 ESR, sometimes it's .44 depending on the photo
View attachment 2823719

Not ideal but it's acceptable, especially for a caucasoid male

Another pic 0.45 ESR
View attachment 2823725

He has similar facial layout/esr to taylor hill

It's acceptable in certain shots you can see it's on the narrowish side and he'd mog harder with a few more mms of ipd but yea he mogs

In this pic, I got MFR from 0.94-0.96
View attachment 2823728

In that longish to medium tier

He has a dolicho lepto skull and is a caucasoid , so the averageness still lines up. His ESR/MFR not picture perfect ideal (one of the reasons he's not a terachad) but holistically still incredibly harmonious


Don't know where you got 0.92 midface from (horse tier) also if you have a high lower full face ratio (big jaw) you could still pull it off
Nah i just relied on korea’s measurements for thèse. I remeasured Drago’s chin to Philtrum ratio and i only got Korea’s measurement in a few photos. I still think these measurements could be accurate but I need to remeasure.
 
ur worst ratio is bigonial bizygo ur cope is cagefuel that its .94, its legit even
that ratio is very bad on you too

you have that inverted triangle face shape
 
  • JFL
Reactions: st.hamudi but 6‘5
I think it's the pudgy buccal area but looks at his cheeks
View attachment 2823759 vs View attachment 2823760

Also has a shortish viscerocranium in general


Look at his side profile, best explains everything im saying
View attachment 2823762View attachment 2823765

View attachment 2823773

Lad descended when he got bloated and stop using fringes
I didn't say he was a zygomogger. He clearly isn't. I said he had great tapering. The lateral curvature of his zygos is quite visible and pronounced, which is desirable.

That pic with Homelander proves nothing. His head is facing a bit away from the camera, making him lose perceived sagittal depth. In the other picture, with the girls, you can clearly see his depth is sufficient. If Delisolla took that picture with Michale Gioia the mog would've been even bigger, but it's still a non issue irl.
 
good thread OP
 
  • Love it
Reactions: DelonLover1999
a
 
Last edited:
  • JFL
Reactions: DelonLover1999
I'd say

Clearly waffling and don't know the methodology of any of the "studies"

They are quite garbage tho
Any study based on human input is fallible, much more so than a rigorous experimental physics article, for example (which is itself still fallible because that's the nature of science lmfao.)


lmao no males are extremely prone to bias when rating
Everyone's biased. And if you think women are unbiased towards men, think again jfl. Just look at how much we disagree on female faces here on .org fucking daily bro. Even the highly knowledgeable users all have different preferences and tendencies.
 
Any study based on human input is fallible, much more so than a rigorous experimental physics article, for example (which is itself still fallible because that's the nature of science lmfao.)
That's not how most of them are made esp how CA got them

It's just the average of attractive faces to find an acceptable range
Everyone's biased. And if you think women are unbiased towards men, think again jfl. Just look at how much we disagree on female faces here on .org fucking daily bro. Even the highly knowledgeable users all have different preferences and tendencies.
Yea they are but there's no innate ability to rate male attractiveness tho jfl

I thought teaching men's fashion mogged opry just 6 years ago
 
eye spacing should be some sort of combined ratio with esr + icd to pfl + icd / inner eyebrow corner + ocd / bizygo + ipsilateral alar angle + ocd / outer eyebrow corner
Forehead height anf width also play a part

All in one some sort of combined ratio with appropriate weighings (willl always make it a bit subjective), eye color shouldn't be considered, it's just a halo that makes you look good despite other flaws
 
  • +1
Reactions: silencio
Yea they are but there's no innate ability to rate male attractiveness jfl

I thought teaching men's fashion mogged opry just 6 years ago
There is, your opinion just changed

Women don't go to cephalometric school to do this shit bro jfl

And we as men can rate women intuitively to the same extent that they can rate guys. The fact that there is so much variation should tell you everything you need to know.


That's not how most of them are made esp how CA got them

It's just the average of attractive faces to find an acceptable range
Ik, and that's an even worse way, arguably. Even more prone to bias. A lot of his ratio ranges were taken from scientific papers tho.
 
Every single claim about aesthetics is water. The human is inherently capable of processing all of this subconsciously. I just articulated what exactly makes it work.
Disagree

Refer to the phenomenon that many PSLers standards are skewed and they become much more of "standardcels' when their aesthetic knowledge increases

Conscious competence is something different AND certain things regarding facial aesthetics require a discerned eye

Plenty of literature on this

I made this exact point on the thread, just didn't use the name 'inter orbital distance'. Again, looks like you didn't even read it properly tbh
Nigga just because you made a point , doesn't mean i can't make a similar one or reword it even better

:lul::lul::lul::lul:

I know about all the ideal ratio ranges.
I haven't been active here in awhile, you don't know who i am nor what i know, those in my circle know

"Ratio ranges" are just one piece of the puzzle and most ideal "ratios" aren't based off the elite of the elite facially and are caucasoid based

The ideal face has ideal traits from many different phenos but i digress

It clearly fails to capture the innate subjectivity that each human carries on their brain when they see a face and rate it in less than half a second.
This is a half truth which can lead to full lies

The environmental impact -> subconscious programming -> that leads to standards is anything but subjective and besides that in most faces it's pretty objective to see who mogs and why

Facial aesthetics isn't as linear as you're making it be, "ratios" are just one piece of the pie

If Korea's system was perfect, he wouldn't have had hundreds of people sometimes disagreeing with him, which is normal.
:lul::lul::lul::lul:

So if people disagree with you -> whatever you said is invalid? jfl

Also I never said his system was perfect (i wasn't even referring to that if u clicked the thread lmao)

I just made the point that beauty really isn't that subjective, "beauty in the eye of the beholder" is nonsense and after a certain looks levels this theme proves itself even more true

The holy grail of attractiveness will always be the intuitive human perception, which is itself dependent on each subject (i.e. everyone's brain has an ever so slightly diff 'calculator' for looks inside). You are born with the ability to rate attractiveness. Looks theory knowledge only serves to articulate it, and to plan for surgical adjustments.
"Intuitive perception" is much more definitive than you think

Chalking someones standards to just intuitive perception is what i call burying your head on the side, any seasoned blackpiller would see this

I don't get this trend of trying to hold on to pure objectivity when it clearly doesn't work that way.
You clearly didnt read everything i wrote + for the most part it's pretty objective to decipher the varying looks levels and why someones is better looking vs the other

This isnt rocket science
s. Looks theory knowledge only serves to articulate it, and to plan for surgical adjustments.
Everyone will speak for himself , i dont just refer to "looks theory" and pure surgical adjustments but each to their own

Also ironic how that gif implied that you don't think Delon is a PSL God, further reinforcing the notion that, at the upper level, taste matters a lot.
User check
 
  • +1
Reactions: |Daddy_Zygos|, Lookologist003 and DelonLover1999
Nah i just relied on korea’s measurements for thèse. I remeasured Drago’s chin to Philtrum ratio and i only got Korea’s measurement in a few photos. I still think these measurements could be accurate but I need to remeasure.
Korea rushed a lot of these measurements
 
  • JFL
  • Woah
Reactions: Lookologist003, |Daddy_Zygos| and aesthetic beauty
There is, your opinion just changed
How does that prove an innate ability
Women don't go to cephalometric school to do this shit bro jfl
? And? The idea is to measure someone's facial averageness which they judge subconsciously
And we as men can rate women intuitively to the same extent that they can rate guys. The fact that there is so much variation should tell you everything you need to know.
Yea that's preferences, but men are even worse at rating other men esp if unaware of looks theory

(Get 10 normie men to tell you what men they think are most attractive, it's gonna be terrible)
Ik, and that's an even worse way, arguably. Even more prone to bias. A lot of his ratio ranges were taken from scientific papers tho.
The "scientific" papers use the same methodology, atleast a lot of them
 
Last edited:
How does that prove an innate ability

? And? The idea is to measure someone's facial averageness which they judge subconsciously

Yea that's preferences, but men are even worse at rating other men esp if unaware of looks theory

The "scientific" papers use the same methodology, atleast a lot of them
A lot of papers use a large sample group and illustrations, in which the person chooses which one looks the best out of a few options. Then they avg it all out.

The ideal mentolabial angle was established this way, for example.

Men can also judge averageness (of both genders) subconsciously, we have the same machinery (brain).

The innate ability comes from the fact that children of either gender can judge men and women based on how they look from a giga young age.

Biologically, it would make no sense whatsoever for a male to be able to subconciously judge female bodies and faces, but be completely tone deaf to males. Both are evolutionarily advantageous.
 
He clearly isn't. I said he had great tapering.
"great tapering" is another stretch
1711595405633
1711595445424
1711595809678
1711595835920


That pic with Homelander proves nothing. His head is facing a bit away from the camera, making him lose perceived sagittal depth. In the other picture, with the girls, you can clearly see his depth is sufficient. If Delisolla took that picture with Michale Gioia the mog would've been even bigger, but it's still a non issue irl.
Disagree with it being a "non-issue irl", all these little ticks add up and as people become more aware of "looks theory", and only until then will you be able to admit its dire importance

I never said he was chronically recessed, i just said he has a peanut skull (which he does) and has some hypoplasia which he clearly does
1711595601224
1711595622391


Same theme about his profile presents itself in various shots, good camera angle or not

Compact face = / = good facial depth , not saying his is that bad but his splancho isnt that impressive (i also realize i can make a point that wasn't into direct contention to what you said and have it be valid, dont want to get into pedantics with you)

1711595768593
 
  • +1
Reactions: |Daddy_Zygos| and Lookologist003
.

Men can also judge averageness (of both genders) subconsciously, we have the same machinery (brain).

The innate ability comes from the fact that children of either gender can judge men and women based on how they look from a giga young age.

Biologically, it would make no sense whatsoever for a male to be able to subconciously judge female bodies and faces, but be completely tone deaf to males. Both are evolutionarily advantageous.
just lol at this, normies are terrible at rating other males. Ratings are literally all over the place. Jsut looking at what men normies consider ideal i can't see why we should just trust intuition

Never said they're completely tone deaf
It's a lot better to try make a mathematical model to measure averageness, the current one just sucks
eye spacing should be some sort of combined ratio with esr + icd to pfl + icd / inner eyebrow corner + ocd / bizygo + ipsilateral alar angle + ocd / outer eyebrow corner
Forehead height anf width also play a part

All in one some sort of combined ratio with appropriate weighings (willl always make it a bit subjective), eye color shouldn't be considered, it's just a halo that makes you look good despite other flaws
also this
 
Last edited:
Not recessed in any metric, quite literally
Good convexity, chin projection, pretty decent infras
1711596039340
1711596086956


"Pretty decent infras", folks get fooled by soft tissue so much lol

1711596134144
 
  • +1
Reactions: |Daddy_Zygos| and Lookologist003
I don't consider it as a narrow skull. Looks like a normal skull + good jawline.
Normal =/= Good

It being normal doesnt invalidate what i see

narrow might be a bit of a stretch tho
 
  • +1
Reactions: DelonLover1999
ngl i feel like you completely missed the point of this thread

I never claimed you could be a PSL God with sub ~43.7ish (this seems to be the low end, since delon is around that), my claim was that you can still have a pleasant and appealing eye area. I explained step by step what are the factors that compensate for a bad ESR, with some being known and some being novel (third point, which I've never seen brought up in this context here).

At the end of the day it's still a failo, much like any other one. But placing a single ratio on a pedestal is precisely what you said shouldn't be done, and I agree. Faces should be analyzed holistically.

And to conclude, all my examples of moggers featured men who are almost universally considered to be gl. And they all pull it off because of the reasons I stated ITT. Somerhalder, for instance, would look better with some wider features, as you said, but not much better. Guy is already insanely maxxed out in terms of dimorphism, bone mass, etc.

Don't kid yourself, you could pick apart anyone's face if you wanted to. And the upper echelon of looks, subjectivity plays a much bigger role than almost anything else (hence the endless discussions on this forum abt best looking men and women oat).
Fair enough
 
"great tapering" is another stretch
View attachment 2823836View attachment 2823837View attachment 2823842View attachment 2823843


Disagree with it being a "non-issue irl", all these little ticks add up and as people become more aware of "looks theory", and only until then will you be able to admit its dire importance

I never said he was chronically recessed, i just said he has a peanut skull (which he does) and has some hypoplasia which he clearly does
View attachment 2823838View attachment 2823840

Same theme about his profile presents itself in various shots, good camera angle or not

Compact face = / = good facial depth , not saying his is that bad but his splancho isnt that impressive (i also realize i can make a point that wasn't into direct contention to what you said and have it be valid, dont want to get into pedantics with you)

View attachment 2823841
The non issue bit was me theorizing, to know for sure we'd have to see if irl his skull truly looks small enough for it to become a problem. But judging from that pic with Starr i highly doubt that it would be.

Agree on the hypoplasia, but you have to concede it's a pretty big nitpick.

Perhaps you were under the impression I thought Crawford is flawless or something. I just picked him as a case study cause he was the best face available to illustrate my point. So us breaking it down, altho a fun pastime, is not what I'm really interested in discussing itt. So let's get back to the objectivity vs subjectivity debate.

Disagree

Refer to the phenomenon that many PSLers standards are skewed and they become much more of "standardcels' when their aesthetic knowledge increases

Conscious competence is something different AND certain things regarding facial aesthetics require a discerned eye

Plenty of literature on this

Nigga just because you made a point , doesn't mean i can't make a similar one or reword it even better

:lul::lul::lul::lul:


I haven't been active here in awhile, you don't know who i am nor what i know, those in my circle know

"Ratio ranges" are just one piece of the puzzle and most ideal "ratios" aren't based off the elite of the elite facially and are caucasoid based

The ideal face has ideal traits from many different phenos but i digress


This is a half truth which can lead to full lies

The environmental impact -> subconscious programming -> that leads to standards is anything but subjective and besides that in most faces it's pretty objective to see who mogs and why

Facial aesthetics isn't as linear as you're making it be, "ratios" are just one piece of the pie


:lul::lul::lul::lul:

So if people disagree with you -> whatever you said is invalid? jfl

Also I never said his system was perfect (i wasn't even referring to that if u clicked the thread lmao)

I just made the point that beauty really isn't that subjective, "beauty in the eye of the beholder" is nonsense and after a certain looks levels this theme proves itself even more true


"Intuitive perception" is much more definitive than you think

Chalking someones standards to just intuitive perception is what i call burying your head on the side, any seasoned blackpiller would see this


You clearly didnt read everything i wrote + for the most part it's pretty objective to decipher the varying looks levels and why someones is better looking vs the other

This isnt rocket science
Standardcel phenomenom: true. Could also just be explained by a bigger exposure to hyper attractive faces, thus altering the internal way in which you rate faces deeply. This happens to people on instagram, as well, who aren't trained in aesthetics. A bombarding of moggers/foggers on their fyp can make their standards go up.

The environmental effect -> subconscious programming argument is interesting.

I agree on the cause: Your deviations in personal preference are indeed mostly formed through experience and not genetics, which wouldnt make much sense)

The reason it is still subjective is because it's inherently partial to your own consciousness, thus impossible to fully parse or explain outside of it. Much like abstract ideas in your head, you can attempt to articulate and explain them, but some detail is always lost. This is a limit of the brain and language and other things, which goes much deeper than looks tbh

But you are right in saying that individual standards always have an objective undertone, because their base is always the same: Assessing genetic health and reproductive quality (along with predicting behavior, to a lesser extent).

I never said beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But it is, in a sense. The ultimate origin of beauty is in the eye of a human beholder, always. Every single principle of looks theory can be traced back to something that could've been perceived with an eye test, by someone. I'm not saying everyone's eye is the same, ofc. But ultimately, I think you can agree the goal in analyzing faces is to uncover that which others will also perceive intuitively with a high chance. If not, it would just be a pointless circle jerk comprised of a couple people scattered across the planet who everyone else disagrees with.

The last thought I'll leave you with is this: You said that sometimes a trained eye is necessary, both for rating and planning (which I agree). But this is like saying sometimes a director of photography is needed, to capture the images of a movie in a beautiful and ideal way. But the thing is tho, a movie that is beautifully shot can be appreciated by anybody, not just professionals.

The same happens with looks theory. A good rater only serves to outline and predict the intuition of the average person. So that when you do get surgery x, y or z, your ascension will (hopefully) be noticeable to almost anyone with a pair of eyes.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: trueceI
eye spacing should be some sort of combined ratio with esr + icd to pfl + icd / inner eyebrow corner + ocd / bizygo + ipsilateral alar angle + ocd / outer eyebrow corner
Forehead height anf width also play a part

All in one some sort of combined ratio with appropriate weighings (willl always make it a bit subjective), eye color shouldn't be considered, it's just a halo that makes you look good despite other flaws

I've actually thought abt trying to find a formula for that, possibly using AI and linear algebra. Manually it's gonna be hard tho, lots of calculations and adjustments of weights, followed by a lot of trial and error.

I think scientifically it could be a very interesting project, tho. And I also believe you listed all the important components, so that's a good start.
 
  • +1
Reactions: trueceI
Normal =/= Good

It being normal doesnt invalidate what i see

narrow might be a bit of a stretch tho
I prefer normal skulls (like Cruise or Gandy) over wide skulls like Barrett (too ogre for me, not really aesthetic)

Maybe it's only me, IDK
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: AscendingHero and DelonLover1999
just lol at this, normies are terrible at rating other males. Ratings are literally all over the place. Jsut looking at what men normies consider ideal i can't see why we should just trust intuition

Never said they're completely tone deaf
It's a lot better to try make a mathematical model to measure averageness, the current one just sucks

also this
A lot of people do suck at it, but that's mostly cause of cultural biases. In a more controlled scenario (like meeting someone irl for the first time), people of either gender are still pretty good at intuitive rating.
 
A lot of people do suck at it, but that's mostly cause of cultural biases. In a more controlled scenario (like meeting someone irl for the first time), people of either gender are still pretty good at intuitive rating.
From experience most normies suck at rating, but i do agree it makes sense from a biological standpoint.
 
  • +1
Reactions: DelonLover1999
From experience most normies suck at rating, but i do agree it makes sense from a biological standpoint.
Ik, it sounds paradoxical.

In my exp some groups of normies really do suck at rating. But I find that those people tend to be the ones who are engrossed in some sort of subculture that deviates from the norm.

Like how hip hop culture can make people 'attracted' to disproportionate and unnatural looking bodies, for example

I still think that the avg person can rate intuitively pretty well tho

If that somehow went to shit we would be big in deep fucking trouble, cause all the proper looksmaxxing efforts would go largely unnoticed, except for the 2 ppl in your town who browse .org or BP stuff on tiktok/yt
 
  • +1
Reactions: trueceI
If that somehow went to shit we would be big in deep fucking trouble, cause all the proper looksmaxxing efforts would go largely unnoticed, except for the 2 ppl in your town who browse .org or BP stuff on tiktok/yt
caged

As lojg as women see it subconsciously idc tbh


and men will always respect a more dimorphic face imo, they don't care about other parts of beauty as much from experience (if not extremely deviant)
 
  • +1
Reactions: DelonLover1999
caged

As lojg as women see it subconsciously idc tbh


and men will always respect a more dimorphic face imo, they don't care about other parts of beauty as much from experience (if not extremely deviant)
Some normie women are utter dogshit at rating too, tho, which is a huge pet peeve I have with guys like bgm who dm girls asking them to rate guys from 0-10

Trying to get an objective numerical rating from a woman is legit tom cruise mission impossible type shit

We can only hope that their intuition remain on point, which again, I think it does for most (except those deep into alternative cultures).
 
  • +1
Reactions: trueceI
since giant implants OBO innovation, many people have been coping with the idea that OBO will fix their poor midface ratios. I think your post hints that such attempts would fail.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Lookologist003 and DelonLover1999
I prefer normal skulls (like Cruise or Gandy) over wide skulls like Barrett (too ogre for me, not really aesthetic)

Maybe it's only me, IDK
Both of them dont have "normal" skulls, they're chads lol

Cruise is surgerymaxxed

Barrett has too wide of eurions and his eye spacing doesn't fit his FWHR.

Wide skull is such a vague term

Someone like Charlie Wilson or Elia Fongaro or Dominik bauer have ideal or close to ideal skulls of what i've seen so far, etc etc
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: thecel
MFs see a thread with large underscored segments + images for reference and scream BOTB. Good thread OP though.
?? Delonmogs is my nigga and I JUST KNOW everything he types is high IQ. Stop jumping to conclusions, son.
 
  • Love it
Reactions: DelonLover1999
  • JFL
Reactions: DelonLover1999
Great stuff brah
 
  • +1
Reactions: say∅, Lookologist003 and DelonLover1999
@DelonLover1999 :feelskek::feelskek::feelskek:
He's my nigga, one of the best ppl ik from BP related circles

And I wouldn't doubt his intuition if I were you 👀
Blud doesn't miss very often
 
  • Love it
Reactions: HarrierDuBois and poopoohead
and a 0.45 ESR, sometimes it's .44 depending on the photo
1711590207304


Not ideal but it's acceptable, especially for a caucasoid male

Another pic 0.45 ESR
1711590454534
where did you found that site to measure is ESR
 
  • Woah
Reactions: Lookologist003
I haven't been active here in awhile, you don't know who i am nor what i know, those in my circle know
care to explain "those in my circle" list there names boyo:feelshah::feelshah::feelshah:
 
Someone like Charlie Wilson or Elia Fongaro or Dominik bauer have ideal or close to ideal skulls of what i've seen so far, etc etc
why do you think there skulls are ideal

also @StrangerDanger @thecel
what you guys consider the perfect skull or examples of it and why you think so:unsure:
 
  • +1
Reactions: thecel
why do you think there skulls are ideal

also @StrangerDanger @thecel
what you guys consider the perfect skull or examples of it and why you think so:unsure:
nigga if you ask thecel he's gonna show you some ultra compact and squished skull from the slums of his morph folder. He's a great user, but very very biased in that regard.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: thecel, It'snotover, Lookologist003 and 2 others
I hadn't read this until now. This is definitely food for thought and a good thread.

Also, once I noticed Chace Crawfords strange and asymmetric lips, I couldn't un-notice it. It looks like it's displayed on a computer monitor with screen-tearing.

I liked @AscendingHero contributions to this thread. Very learned.

since giant implants OBO innovation, many people have been coping with the idea that OBO will fix their poor midface ratios. I think your post hints that such attempts would fail.
It's like people who went blind and cope with this idea that tech will be so advanced in the near future that they will have new lab-grown eyeballs and have their sight restored.

Coping is an instinct, you don't have to teach it. Perhaps coping prevents the brain from damaging itself under terrifying revelations or prevents dopamine depletion whereby you would have no motivation to eat, or fight for survival, as if coping is a instinct that enables other instincts and the proper functioning of the brain. I think it's called 'learned helplessness' when you can overcome this coping instinct, well, at least for matters which you know for certain are out of your control.
 
  • +1
Reactions: |Daddy_Zygos|, AscendingHero and mvp2v1
So at the end of the day it is not about actually having ideal ratios, its just about giving off that illusion. High iq repped
 
  • +1
Reactions: DelonLover1999
So at the end of the day it is not about actually having ideal ratios, its just about giving off that illusion. High iq repped
Kinda

But for the illusion to fully work, you still need other ratios to be ideal (like the ipsilateral alar angle)
 
Kinda

But for the illusion to fully work, you still need other ratios to be ideal (like the ipsilateral alar angle)
That is exactly what I meant by illusion. For example, if ur midface ratio is good but ur overall face is long it gives an illusion of a longer midface. The opposite is also true. See how alessandro dellisolas horseface is saved by his short upper third. Harmony is basically just ratios.
 
  • +1
Reactions: DelonLover1999
Another example of illusions is how very light eyes like light blue or grey can save u from looking tired because of scleral show.

Example:

1713447348089
1713447522750



HOLY FUCK HE GOES FROM STOIC HEARTTHROB TO MICKEY MOUSE

@DelonLover1999
 
  • +1
Reactions: thecel and DelonLover1999
Great thread, short and the opposite of boring and easy to understand. Deserve botb more than some trash around there ngl.
 
  • Love it
Reactions: DelonLover1999
Zac efron is another example, his es ratio is even worse at 0.41, tier 6 score which is supposed to be extremely bad yet it looks rather fine and not that close set on him.
 
  • +1
Reactions: thebuffdon690 and DelonLover1999
Zac efron is another example, his es ratio is even worse at 0.41, tier 6 score which is supposed to be extremely bad yet it looks rather fine and not that close set on him.
Does he actually have 0.41?

Show your measurement pls, I doubt it's that low
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2024-04-27 at 2.03.13 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2024-04-27 at 2.03.13 PM.png
    844.9 KB · Views: 0
  • Screen Shot 2024-04-27 at 2.03.39 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2024-04-27 at 2.03.39 PM.png
    841.1 KB · Views: 0
110.5/268
i think hes a bit fatter there, so bizygo might be a little higher than usual

on a leaner pic i got around 0.415 - 0.42, which is still very low so your point stands.
 
  • +1
Reactions: dervw4cenks

Similar threads

smallman
Replies
82
Views
1K
Clavicular
Clavicular
albe.ORG
Replies
3
Views
223
4lt.Real
4lt.Real
BadmanGangstar
Replies
24
Views
902
Detective
Detective
barettrealrx
Replies
7
Views
299
BlackpillRemedy
BlackpillRemedy
lestoa
Replies
46
Views
2K
william2605
william2605

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top