FIHWR

Dirlewanger333

Dirlewanger333

Banned
Joined
Jul 4, 2025
Posts
646
Reputation
1,002
I just came up with this new ratio when thinking about @Mainlander 's post. Facial Index to Height-Width Ratio

Facial Index (FI) = (distance from hairline to menton) / bizygomatic width * 100
Facial Width Height Ratio (FWHR) = bizygomatic width / ( distance from glabella to menton)

FHWHR = FI / FWHR

High FHWHR: tall, narrow, large head, appears high IQ
Low FHWHR: short, wide, small head, appears IQ

@thecel
 
Last edited:
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: Thief, LTNUser, mandiblade and 3 others
I just came up with this new ratio when thinking about @Mainlander 's post. Facial Height-Width to Head Size Ratio

Facial Index (FI) = (distance from hairline to menton) / bizygomatic width * 100
Facial Width Height Ratio (FWHR) = bizygomatic Width / ( distance from glabella to menton)

FHWHR = FI / FWHR

High FHWHR: tall, narrow, larger head
Low FHWHR: short, wide, small head

I theorize low FHWHR would always look low IQ

@thecel
ig
 
  • +1
Reactions: Mainlander
I just came up with this new ratio when thinking about @Mainlander 's post. Facial Index to Height-Width Ratio

Facial Index (FI) = (distance from hairline to menton) / bizygomatic width * 100
Facial Width Height Ratio (FWHR) = bizygomatic width / ( distance from glabella to menton)

FHWHR = FI / FWHR

High FHWHR: tall, narrow, large head, appears high IQ
Low FHWHR: short, wide, small head, appears IQ

@thecel
I know you're banned, but this ratio does not work. If your facial thirds are balanced, facial index ~= (1.85/fwhr). I estimated this number and confirmed it by looking for studies that stated both the FWHRs and facial indices of populations. I didn't do too much searching but I found this study:
which stated that
The average FWHR was 1.72±0.19mm and facial index was found to be 100.94±7.50mm[...]
So about 1.75/fwhr in this sample but I think 1.85/fwhr works as an average when your facial thirds are balanced(speculative btw, no evidence really). The best way to assess absolute midfacial height(while ignoring proportionality) is the mfr, which only paints an inaccurate picture when one's IPD is above/below average. Otherwise, it does its job.


Basically, what you're doing is dividing (1.85/x) by x. It's not telling us much.

@Mainlander @thecel @Lookologist003 @Xangsane is SHIT @greycel
 
  • +1
  • Love it
Reactions: greycel, Xangsane is SHIT, Lookologist003 and 3 others
I know you're banned, but this ratio does not work. If your facial thirds are balanced, facial index ~= (1.85/fwhr). I estimated this number and confirmed it by looking for studies that stated both the FWHRs and facial indices of populations. I didn't do too much searching but I found this study:
which stated that

So about 1.75/fwhr in this sample but I think 1.85/fwhr works as an average when your facial thirds are balanced(speculative btw, no evidence really). The best way to assess absolute midfacial height(while ignoring proportionality) is the mfr, which only paints an inaccurate picture when one's IPD is above/below average. Otherwise, it does its job.


Basically, what you're doing is dividing (1.85/x) by x. It's not telling us much.

@Mainlander @thecel @Lookologist003 @Xangsane is SHIT @greycel
How do you come up with such ideas?
 
  • Hmm...
Reactions: mandiblade
How do you come up with such ideas?
1754581191882


I am actually pretty autistic so that part wasn't a joke
Idrk what answer you want me to give you. I just read a lot of threads on this site and mentally masturbate about them for a while before making posts. I also try not to post unless I have something of value to say(though I fail at that at times).


Also @NuclearGeo20
 
  • +1
Reactions: Klasik616 and NuclearGeo20
Also @NuclearGeo20
Ratios are cope the only things that matter are measurements. FWHR is cope since many more things go into how your face is perceived.

But I know the forum won't agree with me :feelsbadman::feelsbadman::feelsbadman:

Thx for tagging me anyways.
 
  • Hmm...
Reactions: mandiblade
Ratios are cope the only things that matter are measurements. FWHR is cope since many more things go into how your face is perceived.

But I know the forum won't agree with me :feelsbadman::feelsbadman::feelsbadman:

Thx for tagging me anyways.
The problem is ratios is the fact that you cannot determine whether a ratio is high because of a high first value or a low second value, or a combination of both. That, and because you need multiple ratios to reach a conclusion. Other than that, they are good for determining proportionality.
 
I just came up with this new ratio when thinking about @Mainlander 's post. Facial Index to Height-Width Ratio

Facial Index (FI) = (distance from hairline to menton) / bizygomatic width * 100
Facial Width Height Ratio (FWHR) = bizygomatic width / ( distance from glabella to menton)

FHWHR = FI / FWHR

High FHWHR: tall, narrow, large head, appears high IQ
Low FHWHR: short, wide, small head, appears IQ

@thecel

Cope
 
The problem is ratios is the fact that you cannot determine whether a ratio is high because of a high first value or a low second value, or a combination of both. That, and because you need multiple ratios to reach a conclusion. Other than that, they are good for determining proportionality.
not really because the eyeball would also have to scale in proportion, but it is a known fact that the eyeball is 24mm in diameter in every human thats not deformed.
 
  • Hmm...
Reactions: mandiblade
not really because the eyeball would also have to scale in proportion, but it is a known fact that the eyeball is 24mm in diameter in every human thats not deformed.
I saw your discussion with @imontheloose. That is only about the pupils and iris. The palpebral fissure attaches to the orbitals, so PFL and PFH scale with orbital size. The fact that the irises and pupils do not scale is not of much importance IMO.
@Lookologist003 you said something similar to this in our "is esr a bad ratio" thead.

If any one of you 3 disagree, please elaborate
 
  • +1
Reactions: Lookologist003
I saw your discussion with @imontheloose. That is only about the pupils and iris. The palpebral fissure attaches to the orbitals, so PFL and PFH scale with orbital size. The fact that the irises and pupils do not scale is not of much importance IMO.
@Lookologist003 you said something similar to this in our "is esr a bad ratio" thead.

If any one of you 3 disagree, please elaborate
koinophilia and dimorphism are ideal, end of story. Average, dimorphic measurements will always mog
 
  • Hmm...
Reactions: mandiblade
I saw your discussion with @imontheloose. That is only about the pupils and iris. The palpebral fissure attaches to the orbitals, so PFL and PFH scale with orbital size. The fact that the irises and pupils do not scale is not of much importance IMO.
@Lookologist003 you said something similar to this in our "is esr a bad ratio" thead.

If any one of you 3 disagree, please elaborate
Don’t remember. Your eyeball doesn’t have to scale with anything. The matter of absolute value vs. ratios is pedantic, both have their weight: a humungous skull can have ideal ratios yet you’ll look retarded. Averageness isn’t necessarily ideal either so you need to base this off some sort of absolute anyway.
 
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: NuclearGeo20 and mandiblade
Facial Index (FI) = (distance from hairline to menton) / bizygomatic width * 100
Facial Width Height Ratio (FWHR) = bizygomatic width / ( distance from glabella to menton)

FHWHR = FI / FWHR
So a lesson in maths is sometimes called dimensional analysis. It's very important to understand to be competent in fields of science.
When you divide quantities of one dimension against quantities of the same dimension, the result is a dimensionless number but it's also the coefficient that describes the proportions of the two quantities.

All quantities of physical distance is in the same dimension, so, for example, facial index is a dimensionless number. For example FWHR is a dimensionless number.
Therefore, diving one dimensionless number by another dimensionless number means as much as 1.3 or 25 or -0.3; that it's chaotic and useless calculation. In Looks Theory or any field of science, the aim is to find mathematical relationships between different or among identical dimensions, for example the energy of a moving object is expressed in units of energy (one dimension) and it is created by the object's mass (another dimension), the object's speed (yet another dimension), and a coefficient of 1/2.

Basically, any ratio multiplied or divided by any ratio means nothing, whereas alone it is the proportion between two things that occupy space on Earth.




The palpebral fissure attaches to the orbitals, so PFL and PFH scale with orbital size.
Because the eyeball is a physical constant, I'm tempted to assume that PFH is a constant too, meaning that all attractive deviation of PFL/PFH is made because the PFL has a few additional millimeters. If my assumption is true, that would homogenize my explanation of what makes a guy look feminine or masculine.

but it is a known fact that the eyeball is 24mm in diameter in every human thats not deformed.
I caught wind of some obscure facts that it's the observable part of the eyeball that has a constant area. The eye grows until early adolescence, and babies are oftentimes far-sighted. But the important part about it is that the observable part is constant. If only my browser history wasn't so packed with porn, I'd fetch the link for you. Was proper fascinating because it challenged a belief that I held.
 
  • +1
  • Woah
Reactions: NuclearGeo20 and mandiblade
So a lesson in maths is sometimes called dimensional analysis. It's very important to understand to be competent in fields of science.
When you divide quantities of one dimension against quantities of the same dimension, the result is a dimensionless number but it's also the coefficient that describes the proportions of the two quantities.

All quantities of physical distance is in the same dimension, so, for example, facial index is a dimensionless number. For example FWHR is a dimensionless number.
Therefore, diving one dimensionless number by another dimensionless number means as much as 1.3 or 25 or -0.3; that it's chaotic and useless calculation. In Looks Theory or any field of science, the aim is to find mathematical relationships between different or among identical dimensions, for example the energy of a moving object is expressed in units of energy (one dimension) and it is created by the object's mass (another dimension), the object's speed (yet another dimension), and a coefficient of 1/2.

Basically, any ratio multiplied or divided by any ratio means nothing, whereas alone it is the proportion between two things that occupy space on Earth.
Thank you for the in-depth reply
Because the eyeball is a physical constant, I'm tempted to assume that PFH is a constant too, meaning that all attractive deviation of PFL/PFH is made because the PFL has a few additional millimeters. If my assumption is true, that would homogenize my explanation of what makes a guy look feminine or masculine.
I don't understand why PFH wouldn't scale with orbital cavity height.
 
So a lesson in maths is sometimes called dimensional analysis. It's very important to understand to be competent in fields of science.
When you divide quantities of one dimension against quantities of the same dimension, the result is a dimensionless number but it's also the coefficient that describes the proportions of the two quantities.

All quantities of physical distance is in the same dimension, so, for example, facial index is a dimensionless number. For example FWHR is a dimensionless number.
Therefore, diving one dimensionless number by another dimensionless number means as much as 1.3 or 25 or -0.3; that it's chaotic and useless calculation. In Looks Theory or any field of science, the aim is to find mathematical relationships between different or among identical dimensions, for example the energy of a moving object is expressed in units of energy (one dimension) and it is created by the object's mass (another dimension), the object's speed (yet another dimension), and a coefficient of 1/2.

Basically, any ratio multiplied or divided by any ratio means nothing, whereas alone it is the proportion between two things that occupy space on Earth.





Because the eyeball is a physical constant, I'm tempted to assume that PFH is a constant too, meaning that all attractive deviation of PFL/PFH is made because the PFL has a few additional millimeters. If my assumption is true, that would homogenize my explanation of what makes a guy look feminine or masculine.


I caught wind of some obscure facts that it's the observable part of the eyeball that has a constant area. The eye grows until early adolescence, and babies are oftentimes far-sighted. But the important part about it is that the observable part is constant. If only my browser history wasn't so packed with porn, I'd fetch the link for you. Was proper fascinating because it challenged a belief that I held.
ill make a thread on skull size and feature size later. I feel lazy right now but it will explain my logic.
 
Don’t remember. Your eyeball doesn’t have to scale with anything. The matter of absolute value vs. ratios is pedantic, both have their weight: a humungous skull can have ideal ratios yet you’ll look retarded. Averageness isn’t necessarily ideal either so you need to base this off some sort of absolute anyway.
no
 

Similar threads

ajshabs
Replies
5
Views
82
ajshabs
ajshabs
Error404
Replies
12
Views
2K
tjapabaas
T
logmog
Replies
37
Views
1K
EgoisticHtn
E
D
Discussion Theory
Replies
7
Views
358
John6Enjoyer
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top