toolateforme
Again hoping that i don't wake up tomorrow..
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2019
- Posts
- 10,616
- Reputation
- 8,731
We found that male faces with relatively smaller EME angles (i.e., moremasculinized facial feature with respect to the studied trait) wereperceived by women as more attractive. These findings suggest that EME is valuable even in a highly homogenous population. Tothe extent that this trait is related with the level of masculinity, itmight reflect higher level of androgens during the time when thefacial features develop during male ontogeny (for more discussionon male facial development, see Enlow, 1990; Tanner, 1989).Because androgens may disturb immunocompetence (Barber,1995; Fink & Neave, 2005; Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002; Folstad &Karter, 1992; for comprehensive discussion, see also Moshkin,Gerlinskaya, & Evsikov, 2000), then the EME angle could be anew indicator of a man’s ability to display traits that are metabol-ically expensive and costly to develop, and thus a signal of hisunderlying biological fitness. Thus, the preferences for more mas-culinized faces (i.e., those with smaller EME angle) could be newevidence supporting the handicap principle by Zahavi (1975)
[...]
EME angle depends on two facialmetric traits: interpupilarydistance (IPD) and upper face height. More precisely, EME anglereflects the trigonometric proportion of these two facial measure-ments. Because these traits can be more easily measured than EMEangle, we examined the correlations between EME angle and eachof these two traits and found that these correlations are only slight.
[...]
However, in contrast to EME angle,neither of these two traits correlate significantly with facial attrac-tiveness.
[...]
This means that EME angle is a featurethat provides new information in addition to the traits on which itis constructed.In contrary to EME angle, the distances between the outer andinner eye corners and horizontal eye separation (IPD) are notcorrelated with male attractiveness (Cunningham, Barbee, & Pike,1990; Grammer & Thornhill, 1994). A further trait that mayinfluence EME angle value is the lower face length (from thepupils to the tip of the chin). This feature is considered to besexually dimorphic (Koehler et al., 2004; Penton-Voak et al.,2001; Scheib et al., 1999), but the relationship of this trait withattractiveness is inconclusive, with some studies finding a positivecorrelation (Scheib et al., 1999) and others finding no correlation(Danel & Pawlowski, 2006; Penton-Voak et al., 2001). An addi-tional argument for using EME angle instead of only IPD or faceheight is that EME angle is independent of the face size (an anglesize of a triangle does not depend on the triangle size). This meansthat EME angle can be used for easy comparisons between differ-ent faces independently of the facial size or facial-photo format.Altogether, our results indicate that EME angle is an uncompli-cated facial index that does not duplicate information provided byexisting facialmetric traits and allows for the examination of thelinks between facial masculinity and attractiveness.
mean eme angle was 47.8 for men and attractiveness was negatively correlated to eme angle.
and only 11percent of 45 guys were considered above average looking by women, so ideal eme angle would be definitely lower than 47.8, maybe significantly.
i couldnt believe my eyes when i saw the study tbh. its very incompatible with traditional puahate belief.
[...]
EME angle depends on two facialmetric traits: interpupilarydistance (IPD) and upper face height. More precisely, EME anglereflects the trigonometric proportion of these two facial measure-ments. Because these traits can be more easily measured than EMEangle, we examined the correlations between EME angle and eachof these two traits and found that these correlations are only slight.
[...]
However, in contrast to EME angle,neither of these two traits correlate significantly with facial attrac-tiveness.
[...]
This means that EME angle is a featurethat provides new information in addition to the traits on which itis constructed.In contrary to EME angle, the distances between the outer andinner eye corners and horizontal eye separation (IPD) are notcorrelated with male attractiveness (Cunningham, Barbee, & Pike,1990; Grammer & Thornhill, 1994). A further trait that mayinfluence EME angle value is the lower face length (from thepupils to the tip of the chin). This feature is considered to besexually dimorphic (Koehler et al., 2004; Penton-Voak et al.,2001; Scheib et al., 1999), but the relationship of this trait withattractiveness is inconclusive, with some studies finding a positivecorrelation (Scheib et al., 1999) and others finding no correlation(Danel & Pawlowski, 2006; Penton-Voak et al., 2001). An addi-tional argument for using EME angle instead of only IPD or faceheight is that EME angle is independent of the face size (an anglesize of a triangle does not depend on the triangle size). This meansthat EME angle can be used for easy comparisons between differ-ent faces independently of the facial size or facial-photo format.Altogether, our results indicate that EME angle is an uncompli-cated facial index that does not duplicate information provided byexisting facialmetric traits and allows for the examination of thelinks between facial masculinity and attractiveness.
Eye–Mouth–Eye Angle as a Good Indicator of Face Masculinization, Asymmetry, and Attractiveness (Homo sapiens)
Eye–Mouth–Eye Angle as a Good Indicator of Face Masculinization, Asymmetry, and Attractiveness (Homo sapiens)
www.academia.edu
mean eme angle was 47.8 for men and attractiveness was negatively correlated to eme angle.
and only 11percent of 45 guys were considered above average looking by women, so ideal eme angle would be definitely lower than 47.8, maybe significantly.
i couldnt believe my eyes when i saw the study tbh. its very incompatible with traditional puahate belief.
