Is IPD/bizygomatic (ESR) a bad ratio? A new ratio for eye spacing?

[Deleted member 96940]

But does it or does it not look more masculine?

Here's that morph, but ICD/IPD is preserved
View attachment 3759141

I'd say yes although his eye aspect is completely fucked now jfl
(I know you didn't care abt that)

 

[VampyrMaxx]

I zoomed in bc I can't morph it to that length, and that's obviously an exaggerating example but still

why would you need to morph. The measurements already ideal?

 

[Deleted member 96940]

why would you need to morph. The measurements already ideal?

To prove that the length of the LCL does have impact on esr appearance

 

[VampyrMaxx]

But does it or does it not look more masculine?

Here's that morph, but ICD/IPD is preserved
View attachment 3759141

The eyes are definitely not more masculine. The second pic is uncanny valley. In reality there is a limit to how far you can go in face size. I think the best measurements for getting a proportional, masculine skull are at the middle, the average.

A lot of people seem to go along with the idea of a skull mog (bigger is better) and I think it's bs. A bigger skull would be evolutionarily disadvantageous because there would be more surface area to get hit. It doesn't convey dominance, if anything it makes you look like a bobble head.

 

[Deleted member 96940]

on 1st glance the eyes on left look wider since there's less space between the lateral canthus and the temporal muscle,

2nd looks wider bc of the extra space between the lateral canthus and the temporal muscle

Ofc this won't have such a big difference irl unless your heavily deformed.

And also LCL to ICD have impact on how esr is perceived.

 

[VampyrMaxx]

To prove that the length of the LCL does have impact on esr appearance

But it doesn't though. The eyes close setedness look the same as before, just zoomed in. Trust me I attempted what you are saying for a whole week. It didn't work.

 

[VampyrMaxx]

View attachment 3759152 on 1st glance the eyes on left look wider since there's less space between the lateral canthus and the temporal muscle,

2nd looks wider bc of the extra space between the lateral canthus and the temporal muscle

Ofc this won't have such a big difference irl unless your heavily deformed.

And also LCL to ICD have impact on how esr is perceived.

Not to bash on you, but this has no affect on the face and you're introducing too many confounding variables.

 

[VampyrMaxx]

View attachment 3759152 on 1st glance the eyes on left look wider since there's less space between the lateral canthus and the temporal muscle,

2nd looks wider bc of the extra space between the lateral canthus and the temporal muscle

Ofc this won't have such a big difference irl unless your heavily deformed.

And also LCL to ICD have impact on how esr is perceived.

go to sleep man. good effort tho I appreciate it

 

[Lookologist003]

The second pic is uncanny valley. In reality there is a limit to how far you can go in face size

Fully agree. My point was that skull size is what makes a face look feminine or masculine. It's actually better for a man to have degree of feminity in his face, because then he benefits from human's affinity towards the feminine. To take a note from MGTOW, we are a gynocentric species.

I've always said that andro Chad is the Chad that benefits the most of society. It's actually better for a Chad to have his bizygomatic breadth be bellow 50th percentile. That gives him the pretty look. People would call him pretty boy, but women would lose their mind over an androygenous Chad, you know how like women like other women, because of their cute looks or something? Same principle. Women basically just want a man who is huge like 6'5 but head is kind of small, so they have big pretty eyes and shit like that.

A lot of people seem to go along with the idea of a skull mog (bigger is better) and I think it's bs. A bigger skull would be evolutionarily disadvantageous because there would be more surface area to get hit. It doesn't convey dominance, if anything it makes you look like a bobble head.

No. Because the skull mog is proportional to the body, so big skull is great on 6'5 and shit like that. I thought it was obvious that I meant it should be in proportion to the body. More surface area to be hit doesn't matter if that skull is thicker because its width is proportional as well. Size is incredibly important to our perception of things. In Pixar, they call it "character language." It's something we all instinctually understand. Feminine = small, ditsy. Masculine = big, robust, imposing.

 

[Deleted member 136092]

I feel like ICD is more important than ESR. The reason why I think this is that I see people with bad ESR due to a wide face but the eyes don't look close set.

I was talking to @iblamemygenes yesterday and he made the point that Jordan Barrett doesn't look like he has close set eyes even though his esr is .42/.43, because the actual distance between his eyes is ideal.

To see if eyes are properly spaced I've created a new ratio. The ratio is the (ICD/IPD). (In the perfect face, the ICD should approximately be half the IPD; .5 ). I've also thought of another ratio; (eyeball diameter/IPD). I feel like measuring by the eyeball would be more precise since some people have different medial canthus positions, angles, lengths, bodies, etc. But it might be harder to pinpoint the start and end of the eyeball by looking at a picture. But what do yall think?

Pretty sure

 

[VampyrMaxx]

Fully agree. My point was that skull size is what makes a face look feminine or masculine. It's actually better for a man to have degree of feminity in his face, because then he benefits from human's affinity towards the feminine. To take a note from MGTOW, we are a gynocentric species.

I've always said that andro Chad is the Chad that benefits the most of society. It's actually better for a Chad to have his bizygomatic breadth be bellow 50th percentile. That gives him the pretty look. People would call him pretty boy, but women would lose their mind over an androygenous Chad, you know how like women like other women, because of their cute looks or something? Same principle. Women basically just want a man who is huge like 6'5 but head is kind of small, so they have big pretty eyes and shit like that.

No. Because the skull mog is proportional to the body, so big skull is great on 6'5 and shit like that. I thought it was obvious that I meant it should be in proportion to the body. More surface area to be hit doesn't matter if that skull is thicker because its width is proportional as well. Size is incredibly important to our perception of things. In Pixar, they call it "character language." It's something we all instinctually understand. Feminine = small, ditsy. Masculine = big, robust, imposing.
View attachment 3759173

You're overthinking. If youre average in all metrics you will be peak masculinity and appeal. A 65mm ipd average skull will mog 68mm ipd big skull because it becomes unideal, even you maintain proportion. In reality the eyes will look small and you'll look sped.

I disagree that pretty boys need a bizygomatic that is less than 50th percentile. Look at Chico

Also pretty boy is unideal. Chad archetype mogs anyway. The only thing keeping a pretty boy afloat is averageness and health markets

 

[Lookologist003]

Feminine = small, ditsy. Masculine = big, robust, imposing.

@thecel
Here's the full spectrum of bizygomatic breadths from "Aaaaaa! Kwaii sugi!" to "Ey, bitch, dtf?"

 

[VampyrMaxx]

@thecel
Here's the full spectrum of bizygomatic breadths from "Aaaaaa! Kwaii sugi!" to "Ey, bitch, dtf?"
View attachment 3759186

Oh my gosh, these morphs are so good!!

Normal skull mogs. 1st one makes Jordan look too much like a girl, like you predicted. 3rd one is too striking. Average will always mog.

Good job bro, high iq contribution

 

[VampyrMaxx]

@thecel
Here's the full spectrum of bizygomatic breadths from "Aaaaaa! Kwaii sugi!" to "Ey, bitch, dtf?"
View attachment 3759186

which one do you think has greatest female appeal?

 

[VampyrMaxx]

@thecel
Here's the full spectrum of bizygomatic breadths from "Aaaaaa! Kwaii sugi!" to "Ey, bitch, dtf?"
View attachment 3759186

Im jumping all over the place trying to figure out attractiveness so myb on that.

 

[VampyrMaxx]

@thecel
Here's the full spectrum of bizygomatic breadths from "Aaaaaa! Kwaii sugi!" to "Ey, bitch, dtf?"
View attachment 3759186

 

[VampyrMaxx]

Zayn Malik and Chico are both pretty boys, but one has a huge skull, and the other has a small one. Perhaps skull size only differs in the neurochranium and not the splachocranium because their faces seem pretty similar size wise and proportion wise. Thoughts? @Lookologist003 @thecel

 

[VampyrMaxx]

"Skull mogger" even though his splanchocranium is pretty much proportional to everyone else.

 

[flatcheck213]

But does it or does it not look more masculine?

Here's that morph, but ICD/IPD is preserved
View attachment 3759141

Right mogs lol

 

[Deleted member 96940]

go to sleep man. good effort tho I appreciate it

i went to sleep what do you use to measure/calculate, im using imagemeter rn but its kinda inacurate sometimes

 

[Sadist]

@coolio

 

[VampyrMaxx]

i went to sleep what do you use to measure/calculate, im using imagemeter rn but its kinda inacurate sometimes

photoshop

 

[iblamemygenes]

No offense your new ratio is shit. OCD is better than ESR yes but it will still be considered slightly cope unless terrible. ESR is cope if your icd and mfr is good and if it is also above .42. Most important ratios for eye spacing perception is 1. ICD (1 eye apart if you have normal pfl which is common and doesn’t vary as much as skull size does) 2. MFR (atleast .93 for eyes to look normal) 3. Nose width (1-1 with icd) 4. Esr/ocd again doesn’t matter if the rest are good and this is atleast .43

 

[VampyrMaxx]

No offense your new ratio is shit. OCD is better than ESR yes but it will still be considered slightly cope unless terrible. ESR is cope if your icd and mfr is good and if it is also above .42. Most important ratios for eye spacing perception is 1. ICD (1 eye apart if you have normal pfl which is common and doesn’t vary as much as skull size does) 2. MFR (atleast .93 for eyes to look normal) 3. Nose width (1-1 with icd) 4. Esr/ocd again doesn’t matter if the rest are good and this is atleast .43

MFR is cope.

 

[VampyrMaxx]

No offense your new ratio is shit. OCD is better than ESR yes but it will still be considered slightly cope unless terrible. ESR is cope if your icd and mfr is good and if it is also above .42. Most important ratios for eye spacing perception is 1. ICD (1 eye apart if you have normal pfl which is common and doesn’t vary as much as skull size does) 2. MFR (atleast .93 for eyes to look normal) 3. Nose width (1-1 with icd) 4. Esr/ocd again doesn’t matter if the rest are good and this is atleast .43

I agree somewhat, I need to think about this though

 

[iblamemygenes]

MFR is cope.

It is not cope, anyone with lower than .93 mfr starts to look like close set eyes regardless of icd or esr, my mfr is .92 but my icd is ideal yet my eyes look close set

 

[Deleted member 152695]

@coolio

these niggas are retards

 

[Deleted member 152695]

MFR is cope.

fucking retard my esr is .42-.43 but my mfr is around 1.1 just because i have a fucking gargantuan skull with a shitty upper maxilla, and it literally make my eye seperation appear NORMAL despite my bizygo

 

[Deleted member 152695]

No offense your new ratio is shit. OCD is better than ESR yes but it will still be considered slightly cope unless terrible. ESR is cope if your icd and mfr is good and if it is also above .42. Most important ratios for eye spacing perception is 1. ICD (1 eye apart if you have normal pfl which is common and doesn’t vary as much as skull size does) 2. MFR (atleast .93 for eyes to look normal) 3. Nose width (1-1 with icd) 4. Esr/ocd again doesn’t matter if the rest are good and this is atleast .43

i agree with this, additionally pflfw (pfl-bizygo) is extremely important for perceived eye spacing

alex schlab is a decent example of having good eye spacing by every metric BUT esr

 

[Sadist]

i agree with this, additionally pflfw (pfl-bizygo) is extremely important for perceived eye spacing

alex schlab is a decent example of having good eye spacing by every metric BUT esr

and me

 

[iblamemygenes]

i agree with this, additionally pflfw (pfl-bizygo) is extremely important for perceived eye spacing

alex schlab is a decent example of having good eye spacing by every metric BUT esr

Just means wide skull yea

 

[iblamemygenes]

fucking retard my esr is .42-.43 but my mfr is around 1.1 just because i have a fucking gargantuan skull with a shitty upper maxilla, and it literally make my eye seperation appear NORMAL despite my bizygo

Barrett ratios, ur fwhr is like above 2 right?

 

[VampyrMaxx]

fucking retard my esr is .42-.43 but my mfr is around 1.1 just because i have a fucking gargantuan skull with a shitty upper maxilla, and it literally make my eye seperation appear NORMAL despite my bizygo

Mesurements matter more. Have you gotten your ipd checked?

 

[VampyrMaxx]

these niggas are retards

I put DNR in the thread for a reason. A lot of the info in this thread is trash. Some of the information is valuable but doesn't tell the whole story. I think measurements that go towards the average are better. Such as 64-65mm IPD, 141-143mm bizygomatic width, average ICD, etc. The only thing that can be above average is PFL. Relying on ratios is stupid when you can get your face measured digitally by an eye doctor and that will tell the full story about your attractiveness rather than relying on a ratio that tells you a single number and doesn't point to the culprit of the disharmony. That's the point of this whole thread. The only ratio that is kind of valuable in this thread would be ( Pupil to Inner Canthus / IPD). And even then I'm still going to get my face measured because that ratio could be off due to someone having a shorter main body of the inner canthus or a longer one, so it may make it harder to measure everyone accurately. It would be best if we could use the eye as an independent variable in the ratio, but it's hard to pinpoint the ending place of the eyeball behind the inner canthus. So this thread goes back to the debate on ratios vs measurements.

The reason I think average measurements are better is because as the skull grows bigger or smaller, the most important factor for attractiveness, which is the eye spacing, begins to change incrementally. If we imagine the neurocranium and splanchnocranium growing together proportionally, and if the eye sockets were to remain the same size, the eyes would start to appear big or small inside the head, and since the eyeballs remain the same size for every human regardless of race or gender in non deformed people (24mm), the actual space and bone between the eyeballs themselves will shrink or grow leading to uncanny appearances.

I well explain with the following image. The wide set eyes look uncanny and they are hard to grasp within the mind. The normal proportional eye spacing is easy for the mind to adjust to, and it looks easy to the eye. The close set eyes are somewhat beautiful the gaze is too intense on an actual face in my opinion. If you notice bizygomatic width had nothing to contribute in the actual perception of the eyes, only the spacing between the eyeballs themselves.

@Lookologist003 @thecel

 

[Deleted member 152695]

Barrett ratios, ur fwhr is like above 2 right?

significantly

 

[Deleted member 152695]

Mesurements matter more. Have you gotten your ipd checked?

my ipd is 67.5mm and im central + western european so its a bit out of the ordinary

 

[VampyrMaxx]

my ipd is 67.5mm and im central + western european

That's actually really good. The average is around 64-65 so 2.5 mm above will still be harmonious. Plus I've seen Russian and European phenotypes with slightly wide eyes and it doesn't look disharmonious. No OBO for you.

 

[Deleted member 152695]

That's actually really good. The average is around 64-65 so 2.5 mm above will still be harmonious. Plus I've seen Russian and European phenotypes with slightly wide eyes and it doesn't look disharmonious. No OBO for you.

i need zygo shaving my facial breadth is 160(something)mm

 

[VampyrMaxx]

i need zygo shaving my facial breadth is 160(something)mm

Fr? Your bizygomatic width is like 3sd above average (average is 141-143). I don't know if zygoma shaving can take off that much mass.

 

[Deleted member 152695]

Fr? Your bizygomatic width is like 3sd above average (average is 141-143). I don't know if zygoma shaving can take off that much mass.

my lateral proj is insane so i assume it can get me to around .43-.44 esr which is what i really care about, alongside improving all my other width related ratios

 

[VampyrMaxx]

my lateral proj is insane so i assume it can get me to around .43-.44 esr which is what i really care about, alongside improving all my other width related ratios

bro ESR is bs if your IPD is good, which it is (67.5). Your eyes don't look close set, your face just looks wide. A 160mm wide face is not desirable, but it's better than having close set eyes.

Also be careful of the surgery itself. Are you sure that it's going to give you the result that is desired (high chiseled look) and that it's not going to botch you.

 

[Deleted member 152695]

bro ESR is bs if your IPD is good, which it is (67.5). Your eyes don't look close set, your face just looks wide. A 160mm wide face is not desirable, but it's better than having close set eyes.

Also be careful of the surgery itself. Are you sure that it's going to give you the result that is desired (high chiseled look) and that it's not going to botch you.

for the most part im sure it will end with me having the result i want, but at the very least it wont impact my facial angularity TOO horribly, i have good gonions, a decent chin, good temples supras etc. my cheekbones are my best feature (angularity wise) in my opinion, but getting shaving wouldnt impact me negatively like it would many other people

 

[thecel]

I feel like ICD is more important than ESR.

There’s definitely truth to your claim. To support your argument, here are 2 women who have ESR higher than 0.5:

Their ESRs are 0.53 and 0.51.

Now take a look at this woman:

Guess her ESR. What do you estimate her ESR is without measuring? 0.57? 0.60?

Nope it’s 0.498. Lower than the ESRs of the 2 women above.

Her eyes look gigawideset because of her extremely wide ICD.

 

[thecel]

@NuclearGeo20 why hmm react?

 

[VampyrMaxx]

@NuclearGeo20 why hmm react?

My bad I meant to put thumbs up. I think you're completely right though.

 

[iblamemygenes]

significantly

makes sense, I also have decent ipd 65 mm but shit esr .425, my fwhr is 1.85-9 tho meaning my skull is also long

 

[Lookologist003]

Relying on ratios is stupid when you can get your face measured digitally by an eye doctor and that will tell the full story about your attractiveness rather than relying on a ratio that tells you a single number and doesn't point to the culprit of the disharmony.

I don't think you understood me when I wrote:

There will never be one equation to describe all of what makes a face attractive or that factors in all measurements, that's just impossible because of the nature of information. There's a minimum amount of data needed to construct a Chadly or incel skull, probably about maybe seven numbers of ESR, Facial depth, cephalic index, chin-to-philtrum, mid face ratio. etc.

Empirically that 3-D models in modern video games are millions of bytes should indicate that shape and fidelity of it can only be condensed so much. The exact same thing is true of models of attractiveness or Chadlyness. You will never be able to measure one thing about your face and know exactly what's wrong. But with enough information, deformity can be described and validated. Ratios are information. They are proportion.

the actual space and bone between the eyeballs themselves will shrink or grow leading to uncanny appearances.

Well, I suppose there's a very real limit to how large the largest bizygomatic breadth is. That uncanny appearance might be part and parcel with having rare bizygomatic breath. I assume the tarsal plates of the eyelids and PFL will be extended in faces with very large bizygomatic breaths and regular ESRs.

If you notice bizygomatic width had nothing to contribute in the actual perception of the eyes, only the spacing between the eyeballs themselves.

Yes. ICD/IPD is useful for such isolated description. It's like you proposed, 0.2-0.3 ICD/IPD is ideal. Though, ESR still is cemented as the most foundational ratio of face because

The part of ESR that is brutal actually has nothing to do with eye spacing itself, but its the fact that the skull conforms to low-ESR and results in a deformed shrunken face kind of look.

I want to rename ESR to orbital spacing ratio, orbits separation ratio (OSR), because it takes emphasis from the distance from the eyes and places emphasis in the cohesive structure of the skull. In my mind, that's what ESR means.

So final takeaways from this thread:
1) "Eye spacing" is a misleading phrase
2) if you are concerned specifically with that spacing, ICD/ESR can describe the relationship between the size of the eyes and the distance between them

 

[AscendingHero]

View attachment 3758014
Source: https://looksmax.org/threads/what-exactly-is-wrong-with-this-morph-of-sean-opry.276898/


Jokes aside, my ratio was a hypothesis. If it is possible to have a very high PFL to the point of weirdness while having a normal IPD, then the idea was that my ratio might have been able to replace the ESR. If it practically never happens, then it would just be redundant. I should have made morphs to falsify my theory. It was wrong. A high ICD:bizygo is what makes someone appear fish-eyed, not a high OCD:bizygo(if the ICD is normal). So yes, your critique was correct.

I did just make a morph, and a bad ICD:OCD ratio but a normal IPD makes you look like you're crossing your eyes together in a mentally disabled way. I'm not posting the morph because it looks stupid.

So yeah basically. My theory has been disproven

I know that they technically do not cause each other, but I was asking if they are always parallel outcomes(i.e. wide PFL always means wide IPD in practice) . It seems as though they partially are parallel outcomes.

Horizontally narrow orbitals are a large contributor to low IPD

Horizontally narrow orbitals are a large contributor to low IPD. Obviously, there are multiple factors influencing low IPD, there is a genetic component and there is a facial growth component. That said I believe everyone in the modern world has lower IPD and PFL than they should because I...

looksmax.org

The issue is multifaceted. Low IPD is caused by low medial PFL and low ICD. PFL is caused by orbital width, while ICD is caused by sphenoid/palatine/ethmoid/lacrimal bone width. As he said, because the pupil/iris are supposed to located in the center of the orbit regardless of ICD, wide orbits contribute to a wider PFL. I think ICD causes ~75% of IPD though, so it is not very relevant.

TLDR: I was right to think that IPD and PFL are positively correlated, making my ratio again useless.


I couldn't find any IRL pictures of low(not normal, low) lateral PFL while having normal IPD. Do you have any?

But then again, if they do correlate, then ESR would be useful again.

Tagging highiqcels
@thecel @Lookologist003

What do you classify as "bad OCD" vs "Good OCD" and what determines PFL width would you say?

 

[AscendingHero]

I did just make a morph, and a bad ICD:OCD ratio but a normal IPD makes you look like you're crossing your eyes together in a mentally disabled way. I'm not posting the morph because it looks stupid.

Any measurements to determine good vs bad ICD OCD ratio?