Theory Facial Harmony > Individual Features (why “good parts” dont save a bad face)

[kdev]

people on here keep breaking faces into parts like its some lego set strong jaw = good hunter eyes = good high cheekbones = good so in theory stack enugh of these and ur top tier right? like thats not how attrctiveness works as it isnt additive its more like relational every feature only makes sense depending on whats around it like a strong jaw with a weak midface just ends up looking bottom heavy good cheekbones with too much buccal fat just looks puffy not “defined” deep set eyes without enough brow support looks tired not intense you dont actually rate features one by one your brain just reads the whole face at once thats why you see guys with insane features still look mid overall and others with nothing crazy still look high tier somehow because hrmony > individual parts also proportons matter way more than ppl admit like vertical tirds widthspacing etc if those are off no single feature is saving you if anything it makes it worse because contrast gets higher another thing ppl ignore is transitions like how smoothly one area flows into another if you have harsh transitions like under eye to cheek or weird jaw flow it just breaks the visual contiuity the face stops looking cohesive so i think thats also why some ppl look fine in pics but worse in motion or diff angles photos hide imbalnces real life(im not too sure about this i just find it to support the claim) so the takeaway isnt just chase fetures like ur maximizing a character in a game like sims its more about how everything works together and whether youre actually fixing a weak link or just making imbalance worse cuz a face isnt a checklist its a system and systems dont care about your favorite feature if the rest isnt working with it. either way this is just a theory i game up with and have no scientific backing to this or any claims supporting this you guys are free to prove me wrong and please do express ur opinion where my judgement has been wrong and stuff.

 

[jaycc]

Awful formatting i dont want to read this

 

[kdev]

I have also added 2 pictures of myself in good/elite lighting/angle while ive also added 2 pictures of myself in bad lighting/angle to solidify the claim

 

[hayden20]

high iq but atrocious read

 

[kdev]

Awful formatting i dont want to read this

im sorry ill be sure to improve it in my upcoming threads

 

[NoExit]

forgot bad coloring

 

[thegrey831]

DNR. brutal writingpill.

 

[kdev]

forgot bad coloring

yea that too coloring also plays a very important part

 

[kdev]

DNR. brutal writingpill.

smh ill do better from next time trust

 

[ICL]

people on here keep breaking faces into parts like its some lego set strong jaw = good hunter eyes = good high cheekbones = good so in theory stack enugh of these and ur top tier right? like thats not how attrctiveness works as it isnt additive its more like relational every feature only makes sense depending on whats around it like a strong jaw with a weak midface just ends up looking bottom heavy good cheekbones with too much buccal fat just looks puffy not “defined” deep set eyes without enough brow support looks tired not intense you dont actually rate features one by one your brain just reads the whole face at once thats why you see guys with insane features still look mid overall and others with nothing crazy still look high tier somehow because hrmony > individual parts also proportons matter way more than ppl admit like vertical tirds widthspacing etc if those are off no single feature is saving you if anything it makes it worse because contrast gets higher another thing ppl ignore is transitions like how smoothly one area flows into another if you have harsh transitions like under eye to cheek or weird jaw flow it just breaks the visual contiuity the face stops looking cohesive so i think thats also why some ppl look fine in pics but worse in motion or diff angles photos hide imbalnces real life(im not too sure about this i just find it to support the claim) so the takeaway isnt just chase fetures like ur maximizing a character in a game like sims its more about how everything works together and whether youre actually fixing a weak link or just making imbalance worse cuz a face isnt a checklist its a system and systems dont care about your favorite feature if the rest isnt working with it. either way this is just a theory i game up with and have no scientific backing to this or any claims supporting this you guys are free to prove me wrong and please do express ur opinion where my judgement has been wrong and stuff.

The person has shitty harmony

High set eyebrows this isnt high dimo or harmony
He's jst a dthnc
And the nose is shitty too

 

[kdev]

high iq but atrocious read

yes thats a feedback i received alot ill try to improve the formatting. Thanks for the feedback tho

 

[kdev]

The person has shitty harmony

High set eyebrows this isnt high dimo or harmony
He's jst a dthnc
And the nose is shitty too

could you elaborate further?

 

[thebiggestKHHV]

people on here keep breaking faces into parts like its some lego set strong jaw = good hunter eyes = good high cheekbones = good so in theory stack enugh of these and ur top tier right? like thats not how attrctiveness works as it isnt additive its more like relational every feature only makes sense depending on whats around it like a strong jaw with a weak midface just ends up looking bottom heavy good cheekbones with too much buccal fat just looks puffy not “defined” deep set eyes without enough brow support looks tired not intense you dont actually rate features one by one your brain just reads the whole face at once thats why you see guys with insane features still look mid overall and others with nothing crazy still look high tier somehow because hrmony > individual parts also proportons matter way more than ppl admit like vertical tirds widthspacing etc if those are off no single feature is saving you if anything it makes it worse because contrast gets higher another thing ppl ignore is transitions like how smoothly one area flows into another if you have harsh transitions like under eye to cheek or weird jaw flow it just breaks the visual contiuity the face stops looking cohesive so i think thats also why some ppl look fine in pics but worse in motion or diff angles photos hide imbalnces real life(im not too sure about this i just find it to support the claim) so the takeaway isnt just chase fetures like ur maximizing a character in a game like sims its more about how everything works together and whether youre actually fixing a weak link or just making imbalance worse cuz a face isnt a checklist its a system and systems dont care about your favorite feature if the rest isnt working with it. either way this is just a theory i game up with and have no scientific backing to this or any claims supporting this you guys are free to prove me wrong and please do express ur opinion where my judgement has been wrong and stuff.

True, im not reading shit nigga but yes, facial armony is needed to be chad

 

[ICL]

could you elaborate further?

He has bad harmony, like many ethnic people. Hence he will be hardcapped MTN till he dies.

 

[kdev]

He has bad harmony, like many ethnic people. Hence he will be hardcapped MTN till he dies.

 

[bipolaric]

formatting brah, dnr

 

[kdev]

formatting brah, dnr

ill work on it bro im sorry

 

[anthony267]

people on here keep breaking faces into parts like its some lego set strong jaw = good hunter eyes = good high cheekbones = good so in theory stack enugh of these and ur top tier right? like thats not how attrctiveness works as it isnt additive its more like relational every feature only makes sense depending on whats around it like a strong jaw with a weak midface just ends up looking bottom heavy good cheekbones with too much buccal fat just looks puffy not “defined” deep set eyes without enough brow support looks tired not intense you dont actually rate features one by one your brain just reads the whole face at once thats why you see guys with insane features still look mid overall and others with nothing crazy still look high tier somehow because hrmony > individual parts also proportons matter way more than ppl admit like vertical tirds widthspacing etc if those are off no single feature is saving you if anything it makes it worse because contrast gets higher another thing ppl ignore is transitions like how smoothly one area flows into another if you have harsh transitions like under eye to cheek or weird jaw flow it just breaks the visual contiuity the face stops looking cohesive so i think thats also why some ppl look fine in pics but worse in motion or diff angles photos hide imbalnces real life(im not too sure about this i just find it to support the claim) so the takeaway isnt just chase fetures like ur maximizing a character in a game like sims its more about how everything works together and whether youre actually fixing a weak link or just making imbalance worse cuz a face isnt a checklist its a system and systems dont care about your favorite feature if the rest isnt working with it. either way this is just a theory i game up with and have no scientific backing to this or any claims supporting this you guys are free to prove me wrong and please do express ur opinion where my judgement has been wrong and stuff.

Very true but not accepted

 

[ICL]

What? Can't you explain?

 

[kdev]

What? Can't you explain?

i prefer not to. I for a fact know it will be like trying to converse with a deaf person using speech.

 

[ICL]

i prefer not to. I for a fact know it will be like trying to converse with a deaf person using speech.

Huh? Is it not true?

These are the first results when searching "Aboriginal" "Black people" "Indian" "Asians"

What about "white person"?

Go check it for yourself. This isn't cherrypicking.

 

[ICL]

i prefer not to. I for a fact know it will be like trying to converse with a deaf person using speech.

If you want, I can tell you some additional details:

Aboriginals: Look like neandrathals... i dont need to explain.
Black people: 90% of them have prognathism [undeniable] giant jester mouths
Asians: They are all panfaced with a cliff drop like-maxilla, monolids
Indians: All born with bug eyes and crushed midfaces, shitskin colouring, and 0 SMV


Caucasians: Orthognathic jaws, full lips [proportioned], long PFLs, positive orbital vectors, high dimorphism

 

[kdev]

If you want, I can tell you some additional details:

Aboriginals: Look like neandrathals... i dont need to explain.
Black people: 90% of them have prognathism [undeniable] giant jester mouths
Asians: They are all panfaced with a cliff drop like-maxilla, monolids
Indians: All born with bug eyes and crushed midfaces, shitskin colouring, and 0 SMV


Caucasians: Orthognathic jaws, full lips [proportioned], long PFLs, positive orbital vectors, high dimorphism

this is generalisation tbf

 

[ICL]

i prefer not to. I for a fact know it will be like trying to converse with a deaf person using speech.

I explained you the details of my argument, I proved my point. If you're so reluctant on answering, then, you may be said deaf person.


This isn't tiktok where I wouldn't listen to you. I provided my proof, if you dont wanna answer, then I rightfully claim the winner.

 

[kdev]

I explained you the details of my argument, I proved my point. If you're so reluctant on answering, then, you may be said deaf person.


This isn't tiktok where I wouldn't listen to you. I provided my proof, if you dont wanna answer, then I rightfully claim the winner.

sure

 

[ICL]

this is generalisation tbf

1. I don't need to explain why aboriginals are neandrathal-like.
2.

I could not pinpoint the %, but i remember a source that said this. If i could, i will.
I can also find a source that states caucasians are way smarter than black people
3. Asians have a flat midface. This is a fact. Any asian that isnt is either mixed or editted, end of discussion
4. Indians have the lowest SMV, they are made fun of by every race.

 

[ICL]

sure

Why do you answer like this? Do you think i'm the one who is deaf?
You cant seem to cope with my answers.

this is generalisation tbf

This isn't a sufficient counter-argument. The fact that I have to explain my points YET again to disprove your suspicion which YOU were meant to prove, means, that I can totally assume that you can't form a coherent argument again.