NuclearGeo20
I Hate Injustice
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2024
- Posts
- 1,559
- Reputation
- 1,269
In this thread I will prove that ratios do not matter for attractiveness, and that only features/measurements matter for attractiveness. Some people might say water is wet, but a decent proportion of Looksmax doesn't understand these concepts.
If anybody can logically disprove the logic within this thread, you will collapse my argument; but you will not be able to.
I will start by explaining the visible parts of a face.
Feature- A facial feature is any distinct part of the face — a physical element you can point to, measure, or describe (eyes, nose, mouth, cheekbones, chin, jawline, forehead, etc.).
Measurement Feature- A measurement feature is a specific, single value taken directly from the face — like how wide, tall, or long something is.
For example:
A ratio is when you compare two measurements by dividing one by the other.
In faces, a ratio shows how one feature relates in size to another.
For example:
The first pillar; averageness
Why averageness makes a face attractive:
The second pillar; dimorphism
Sexual dimorphism = the biological differences in appearance between males and females of the same species.
For faces:
When the left and right sides of a face look very similar, the brain finds it easier to process the image — it feels "right" and natural. Symmetry is also tied to development: when a face grows evenly, it usually means the person didn’t have big disturbances (like disease, malnutrition, or major developmental issues) while growing. So, symmetry acts as a quick signal of stability and health.
That’s why asymmetry — like one eye higher than the other, a crooked nose, or uneven jawlines — often makes a face look less attractive, even if people can’t consciously explain why.
The 4th pillar; health and age
This explains why facial morphs are more attractive. When we take a young, dimorphic, and healthy population and merge their features together into one picture, we get a face that is devoid of asymmetries and striking features which signals genetic and physical health.
The more and more you deviate from average facial measurements and features, the uglier you become. Every single handsome model you see aligns close to the population average and the picture above.
Small deviations can account for race; but overall the craniofacial structure and features should resemble the morph above. Notice how all the models shown look extremely similar. They are different versions of the same thing.
Here is the next assumption we can make. Anything that affects facial attractiveness, there exists a perfect amount of.
Think of it like a slider. If the slider goes too far in one direction (too big, too small, too wide, too narrow), the face starts looking less balanced. But when the slider sits right in the middle — at the “perfect amount” — that’s when the face looks the most harmonious.
For example:
In short: every feature that can be measured on a scale (small → big, narrow → wide) has a “sweet spot,” and when the feature lands there, the face looks the most attractive.
These pillars define beauty and what makes a face attractive. To put it into simple words, there exists an ideal human face (with small deviations to account for race), and the more you deviate from the "perfect" face, the uglier you become.
Now that you understand the basis of beauty, we can move onto the argument of why only measurements/features matter for facial attractiveness and not "ratios".
For this segment we can assume that there is a perfect face and that EVERY deviation from it will be considered unattractive and unideal.
Premise 1; eyeball size/dimensions stay consistent amongst populations
Eyeball size stays consistent across populations regardless of race and gender. This preserves eye sight because even small deviations in the size and dimensions can affect eye sight and health leading to a lot of problems (we are talking about deviations as small as .5mm!!). Based on this we can assume a perfect eye size that is healthy and allows for optimal human function and any deviation from this eyeball size whether big or small is unideal. In humans, the average diameter is around 24mm wide. So in EVERY ideal human, the eyeball size should remain 24mm wide.
Premise 2; (front profile) there exists an ideal eyeball width to (insert feature) ratio for everything you can see on the face
Consider this thought experiment. Let's take a miscellaneous feature on the face. I will use bizygomatic width to prove my point but you can use any feature you want. The ratio I will use is BZW/EW ((bizygomatic width)/(eye width)).
If we assume that the eyeball width stays consistent in every normal human being, and we also assume that there is a "perfect amount" of this ratio you can have, that means there is a perfect bizygomatic width you can have, since the eyeball size stays consistent. When I took the BZW/EW average of 27 male models it came out to around 5.96, which would mean that the ideal bizygomatic width compared to the eyeball width would be 14.3cm. This is funny because the average and dimorphic bizygomatic width is around 14.3cm-14.4cm, completely aligning with my theory.
Premise 3; cranium size and dimensions matter for attractiveness
Consider this thought experiment. Assume you keep the ratios proportional for the cranium and you keep the PFL and PFH constant so the eyeballs don't fall out.
Too big of a cranium would lead to a giant appearance, and too small would lead to an infantile, baby like appearance. And since everything that affect attractiveness there exists a perfect amount of, we can assume there is a perfect cranium size. This cranium size would have to align with biological standards of beauty (koinophilia and dimorphism), so we can assume an average and dimorphic head size is ideal for aesthetics. This skull would have a proportional height, cranial depth, facial depth, circumference, etc.
This ends the "skull mog" cope because anything below or above the average and dimorphic measurement will be unideal. This aligns with real life because anybody who's actually seen a person with a giant/miniscule cranial circumference knows that it looks uncanny and goofy.
Premise 4; ratios don't make features look good; features make ratios look good
Remember the man from above? For experimental purposes I went ahead and made his eyes smaller. This is to retain facial "ratios" and show people what would happen if we scaled a mans cranium without changing the size of the eyeballs.
From the first glance you can tell he looks ugly. Not only that, he looks like a GIANT despite maintaining facial "ratios". When people rely on ratios like ESR or MFR they forget about the most important ratio(s) which is the eyeball to cranium ratio.
Look at his eye setness, his eyes looks far set despite having a .454 ESR. His eyes look like a dolphin.
This aligns with patterns in real life because some people look wide set despite having a good ESR. If ESR doesn't determine what makes eyes look close or far set, what does? It's the actual distance between the eyes (IPD). You can see for yourself and play around with the ESR. It will never look good if your IPD isn't 65mm.
To give you another example, his nose is too big now and is unideal despite being the same in "ratios" and the same in the context of the entire face.
This proves that ideal features are what make a ratio look good, not the ratio itself. This goes for any ratio on the face (TFWHR, FWHR, ESR, MFR, 1EA).
Premise 5; Your eyes determine falios by looking at each feature individually, not a ratio
This ties in with premise 4. Features wont be ideal just because the "ratio" is good. Disharmonizing one feature in order to "harmonize" with another is foolish thinking, it can only lead to disharmony.
For example I am going to make the eyes wider set of the first image but I will also lengthen the midface to accomodate. This will lead to a similar MFR, we will just distort the features.
The actual ratio doesn't matter, because we are looking at his actual features not how they "harmonize" jfl at this logic. We shouldn't be saying that "his midface is proportional". No, his midface is long and his eyes are far set. They don't harmonize in any way.
All models hover around averaged and dimorphic facial measurements, not averaged ratios. Have you ever seen a giga mogger with a 60mm/70mm IPD? Me neither. They're all around 65mm. And IPD is the most important feature.
Something to think about.
My final conclusion is that average and dimorphic measurements are the only way to tell if a face is good looking. Harmony doesn't exist. Harmony is the final score your brain comes up to after counting the falios (errors) and the halos (beautiful features) of the face. This exists so that our brains can decipher which people have good genetics, and which don't.
Thank you for reading
@mandiblade thank u for helping me clarify and clear my logic
@Djimo Sorry to keep you waiting this long for the thread
Tagging highiq members: @thecel @Lookologist003
If anybody can logically disprove the logic within this thread, you will collapse my argument; but you will not be able to.
I will start by explaining the visible parts of a face.
Feature- A facial feature is any distinct part of the face — a physical element you can point to, measure, or describe (eyes, nose, mouth, cheekbones, chin, jawline, forehead, etc.).
Measurement Feature- A measurement feature is a specific, single value taken directly from the face — like how wide, tall, or long something is.
For example:
- Interpupillary distance (the distance between your pupils)
- Nasal width (how wide your nose is at the nostrils)
- Chin height (distance from lower lip to bottom of chin)
- Bizygomatic width (the width of your face)
A ratio is when you compare two measurements by dividing one by the other.
In faces, a ratio shows how one feature relates in size to another.
For example:
- Nasal width ÷ mouth width → tells you if the nose is wide or narrow compared to the mouth.
- Eye width ÷ intercanthal distance → shows how big the eyes are compared to the spacing between them.
The first pillar; averageness
Why averageness makes a face attractive:
- When a face is “average,” it means its features are close to the population mean (the middle point of what most people look like).
- Our brains are wired to see these middle-ground features as safer and healthier because they suggest fewer genetic mutations or developmental problems.
- Extreme or unusual traits can sometimes signal risk (like disease, malnutrition, or mutation). Average traits signal stability.
- Averageness creates balance—nothing stands out too much, so the face looks smooth and harmonious.
The second pillar; dimorphism
Sexual dimorphism = the biological differences in appearance between males and females of the same species.
For faces:
- In men: higher dimorphism means traits like a strong jawline, thicker brows, prominent cheekbones, and a more angular face. These signal testosterone, strength, and dominance.
- In women: higher dimorphism means fuller lips, larger eyes, smoother skin, smaller chin, and softer contours. These signal estrogen, fertility, and youth.
- Humans evolved to pick up on dimorphic cues because they’re linked to reproductive fitness.
- Masculine traits in men signal good genes, ability to protect, and high testosterone.
- Feminine traits in women signal fertility, hormonal health, and reproductive potential.
- Dimorphism exaggerates the biological “male vs. female blueprint,” making it easier for our brains to categorize someone as a strong, fertile mate.
When the left and right sides of a face look very similar, the brain finds it easier to process the image — it feels "right" and natural. Symmetry is also tied to development: when a face grows evenly, it usually means the person didn’t have big disturbances (like disease, malnutrition, or major developmental issues) while growing. So, symmetry acts as a quick signal of stability and health.
That’s why asymmetry — like one eye higher than the other, a crooked nose, or uneven jawlines — often makes a face look less attractive, even if people can’t consciously explain why.
The 4th pillar; health and age
Why age and health matter in attractiveness:
- Health = survival and good genes
- A face that looks healthy (clear skin, bright eyes, good hair quality, even teeth, etc.) signals that the person’s body is functioning well.
- Throughout human history, choosing a partner with visible signs of health increased the chances of having children who also survived and thrived.
- Youth = fertility and growth potential
- For women, youth signals fertility — the ability to have children. This is why features like smooth skin, full lips, and thick hair are attractive, because they are strongest during peak reproductive years.
- For men, youth doesn’t matter as much for fertility, but it does matter for strength, energy, and long-term ability to provide.
- Brightness = vitality
- Bright eyes, shiny hair, and clear skin are all signals of blood flow, nutrition, and hormonal balance. These instantly tell others, “This person is alive, strong, and ready to reproduce.”
- Aging = reduced fertility and survival chances
- Wrinkles, dull skin, thinning hair, or clouded eyes are all cues that the body is wearing down. From an evolutionary perspective, this means lower fertility in women and less strength/stability in men. That’s why faces that look too old are seen as less attractive
This explains why facial morphs are more attractive. When we take a young, dimorphic, and healthy population and merge their features together into one picture, we get a face that is devoid of asymmetries and striking features which signals genetic and physical health.
The more and more you deviate from average facial measurements and features, the uglier you become. Every single handsome model you see aligns close to the population average and the picture above.
Small deviations can account for race; but overall the craniofacial structure and features should resemble the morph above. Notice how all the models shown look extremely similar. They are different versions of the same thing.
Here is the next assumption we can make. Anything that affects facial attractiveness, there exists a perfect amount of.
Think of it like a slider. If the slider goes too far in one direction (too big, too small, too wide, too narrow), the face starts looking less balanced. But when the slider sits right in the middle — at the “perfect amount” — that’s when the face looks the most harmonious.
For example:
- Eye spacing: too close = looks off, too far apart = looks off. But right in the middle = balanced and attractive.
- Jaw width: too wide = harsh, too narrow = weak. But the “perfect” width = strong and appealing.
In short: every feature that can be measured on a scale (small → big, narrow → wide) has a “sweet spot,” and when the feature lands there, the face looks the most attractive.
These pillars define beauty and what makes a face attractive. To put it into simple words, there exists an ideal human face (with small deviations to account for race), and the more you deviate from the "perfect" face, the uglier you become.
Now that you understand the basis of beauty, we can move onto the argument of why only measurements/features matter for facial attractiveness and not "ratios".
For this segment we can assume that there is a perfect face and that EVERY deviation from it will be considered unattractive and unideal.
Premise 1; eyeball size/dimensions stay consistent amongst populations
Eyeball size stays consistent across populations regardless of race and gender. This preserves eye sight because even small deviations in the size and dimensions can affect eye sight and health leading to a lot of problems (we are talking about deviations as small as .5mm!!). Based on this we can assume a perfect eye size that is healthy and allows for optimal human function and any deviation from this eyeball size whether big or small is unideal. In humans, the average diameter is around 24mm wide. So in EVERY ideal human, the eyeball size should remain 24mm wide.
Premise 2; (front profile) there exists an ideal eyeball width to (insert feature) ratio for everything you can see on the face
Consider this thought experiment. Let's take a miscellaneous feature on the face. I will use bizygomatic width to prove my point but you can use any feature you want. The ratio I will use is BZW/EW ((bizygomatic width)/(eye width)).
If we assume that the eyeball width stays consistent in every normal human being, and we also assume that there is a "perfect amount" of this ratio you can have, that means there is a perfect bizygomatic width you can have, since the eyeball size stays consistent. When I took the BZW/EW average of 27 male models it came out to around 5.96, which would mean that the ideal bizygomatic width compared to the eyeball width would be 14.3cm. This is funny because the average and dimorphic bizygomatic width is around 14.3cm-14.4cm, completely aligning with my theory.
Premise 3; cranium size and dimensions matter for attractiveness
Consider this thought experiment. Assume you keep the ratios proportional for the cranium and you keep the PFL and PFH constant so the eyeballs don't fall out.
Too big of a cranium would lead to a giant appearance, and too small would lead to an infantile, baby like appearance. And since everything that affect attractiveness there exists a perfect amount of, we can assume there is a perfect cranium size. This cranium size would have to align with biological standards of beauty (koinophilia and dimorphism), so we can assume an average and dimorphic head size is ideal for aesthetics. This skull would have a proportional height, cranial depth, facial depth, circumference, etc.
This ends the "skull mog" cope because anything below or above the average and dimorphic measurement will be unideal. This aligns with real life because anybody who's actually seen a person with a giant/miniscule cranial circumference knows that it looks uncanny and goofy.
Premise 4; ratios don't make features look good; features make ratios look good
Remember the man from above? For experimental purposes I went ahead and made his eyes smaller. This is to retain facial "ratios" and show people what would happen if we scaled a mans cranium without changing the size of the eyeballs.
From the first glance you can tell he looks ugly. Not only that, he looks like a GIANT despite maintaining facial "ratios". When people rely on ratios like ESR or MFR they forget about the most important ratio(s) which is the eyeball to cranium ratio.
Look at his eye setness, his eyes looks far set despite having a .454 ESR. His eyes look like a dolphin.
This aligns with patterns in real life because some people look wide set despite having a good ESR. If ESR doesn't determine what makes eyes look close or far set, what does? It's the actual distance between the eyes (IPD). You can see for yourself and play around with the ESR. It will never look good if your IPD isn't 65mm.
To give you another example, his nose is too big now and is unideal despite being the same in "ratios" and the same in the context of the entire face.
This proves that ideal features are what make a ratio look good, not the ratio itself. This goes for any ratio on the face (TFWHR, FWHR, ESR, MFR, 1EA).
Premise 5; Your eyes determine falios by looking at each feature individually, not a ratio
This ties in with premise 4. Features wont be ideal just because the "ratio" is good. Disharmonizing one feature in order to "harmonize" with another is foolish thinking, it can only lead to disharmony.
For example I am going to make the eyes wider set of the first image but I will also lengthen the midface to accomodate. This will lead to a similar MFR, we will just distort the features.
The actual ratio doesn't matter, because we are looking at his actual features not how they "harmonize" jfl at this logic. We shouldn't be saying that "his midface is proportional". No, his midface is long and his eyes are far set. They don't harmonize in any way.
All models hover around averaged and dimorphic facial measurements, not averaged ratios. Have you ever seen a giga mogger with a 60mm/70mm IPD? Me neither. They're all around 65mm. And IPD is the most important feature.
Something to think about.
My final conclusion is that average and dimorphic measurements are the only way to tell if a face is good looking. Harmony doesn't exist. Harmony is the final score your brain comes up to after counting the falios (errors) and the halos (beautiful features) of the face. This exists so that our brains can decipher which people have good genetics, and which don't.
Thank you for reading
@mandiblade thank u for helping me clarify and clear my logic
@Djimo Sorry to keep you waiting this long for the thread
Tagging highiq members: @thecel @Lookologist003
Last edited:
