TheNextArnold
Become Ian Somerhalder or die trying
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2021
- Posts
- 46
- Reputation
- 39
Symmetry is often seen as a major factor in healthy and superior genetics, some even go as far to say that there is a linear function to facial symmetry and perceived attractiveness
aka the symmetrypill.
In of itself a logical assumption, most attractive faces have a solid amount of symmetry in them and therefore one assumes a causal connection between symmetry and attractiveness. The issue with this is that we do not take into account for human variance between symmetry and its perceived attractiveness. We can best showcase this through the well known Sean O'Pry morph:
From a pure mathematics / PSL based approach, we are led to believe that the second picture is perceived as more attractive and genetically superior. This would fail to understand that there is only a certain threshhold where symmetry and striking features keep improving perceived attractiveness, going further would decrease perceived attractiveness.
This phenomenon is the infamous uncanny valley effect. Specifically, this issue befalls AI generated faces which often exceed the threshhold of perfection we humans have naturally inside our reference framework for attractiveness.
Therefore our conclusion should be that a certain amount of natural assymetry or imperfection is needed to be perceived as attractive.
Now where to set that threshhold is a different issue, overall the natural assymetry theory or NAT should not be underestimated when accounting for our PSL ratings in the future.
Tl;dr: One should not have an exceedingly symmetrical face and extreme features as they fall into the uncanny valley and invalidate one's own attractiveness. A natural amount of asymmetry and imperfection will be perceived as far more attractive as long as it contains a good base of solid symmetry with solid features.
aka the symmetrypill.
In of itself a logical assumption, most attractive faces have a solid amount of symmetry in them and therefore one assumes a causal connection between symmetry and attractiveness. The issue with this is that we do not take into account for human variance between symmetry and its perceived attractiveness. We can best showcase this through the well known Sean O'Pry morph:
From a pure mathematics / PSL based approach, we are led to believe that the second picture is perceived as more attractive and genetically superior. This would fail to understand that there is only a certain threshhold where symmetry and striking features keep improving perceived attractiveness, going further would decrease perceived attractiveness.
This phenomenon is the infamous uncanny valley effect. Specifically, this issue befalls AI generated faces which often exceed the threshhold of perfection we humans have naturally inside our reference framework for attractiveness.
Therefore our conclusion should be that a certain amount of natural assymetry or imperfection is needed to be perceived as attractive.
Now where to set that threshhold is a different issue, overall the natural assymetry theory or NAT should not be underestimated when accounting for our PSL ratings in the future.
Tl;dr: One should not have an exceedingly symmetrical face and extreme features as they fall into the uncanny valley and invalidate one's own attractiveness. A natural amount of asymmetry and imperfection will be perceived as far more attractive as long as it contains a good base of solid symmetry with solid features.
