The compelling point for Height>Face

[WonkyChin186]

Face is more important than Height.

This is true.



But genetically, there is alot that goes into face, it varies and changes alot throughout a persons life

Think of someone with Top10% facial genetics versus Top10% height genetics, the guy with top10% facial genetics on average will be more like top25% facially at a given moment

so, Height GENETICS > Face genetics

thoughts?

 

[Niebvll]

Height is more important than Face

 

[WonkyChin186]

@ØUROBOROS

 

[atomstetic]

What do you mean by "the guy with top q0% facial genetics is top 25% at any givem moment"? I think you're misusing statistical concepts

 

[ØUROBOROS]

@ØUROBOROS

Good thread.

 

[WonkyChin186]

What do you mean by "the guy with top q0% facial genetics is top 25% at any givem moment"? I think you're misusing statistical concepts

~105iq needed to understand without explanation

think harder

 

[atomstetic]

You're retarded, especially for calling someone low IQ just for asking you to elaborate on your shitty thread and premise.
Sure, face phenotypes fluctuate. That doesn't change the fact that the guy with top 10% genetics still has a higher genetic baseline than the guy with average looks. The variance doesn't change the mean difference. The guy with a top 10% face fluctuates, but so does everyone else — so he doesn't automatically drop to "top 25% at any given moment."

Temporary variance does not influence the absolute genetic hierarchy.
Height is more stable, which just means there's less environmental noise. Not to mention that, as you described with a person's face, height also fluctuates throughout the day and often decreases over an individuals lifetime due to spinal compression, bone density loss, posture issues, and more.

Your point on variance is correct, but how you got from that to such an abysmally retarded conclusion still astonishes me.

 

[WonkyChin186]

You're retarded, especially for calling someone low IQ just for asking you to elaborate on your shitty thread and premise.
Sure, face phenotypes fluctuate. That doesn't change the fact that the guy with top 10% genetics still has a higher genetic baseline than the guy with average looks. The variance doesn't change the mean difference. The guy with a top 10% face fluctuates, but so does everyone else — so he doesn't automatically drop to "top 25% at any given moment."

Temporary variance does not influence the absolute genetic hierarchy.
Height is more stable, which just means there's less environmental noise. Not to mention that, as you described with a person's face, height also fluctuates throughout the day and often decreases over an individuals lifetime due to spinal compression, bone density loss, posture issues, and more.

Your point on variance is correct, but how you got from that to such an abysmally retarded conclusion still astonishes me.

u didn't get the point still

think harder

 

[atomstetic]

u didn't get the point still

think harder

I apologise for crashing out earlier. I usually am not like this; however, I haven't slept in over a day, and many sudden changes to my life occurred, which made me unusually irritable.

However, I can think of 6 different propositions based on what you wrote, and you never clearly stated which one you mean:

1. Greater phenotypic stability
2. Greater predictability from genotype
3. Greater average attractiveness benefit
4. Greater lifetime attractiveness benefit
5. Greater genetic determination/contribution to phenotype
6. Higher realised percentile conditional on top-10% genetics

You cannot disagree that the wording of the statement which I questioned has unclear grammatical/mathematical wording.

There could be multiple meanings which one could conclude from that statement.

1. On average, someone with ≥90th percentile facial genetics will be around the 75th percentile in observed facial attractiveness at any random point in time.

2. At any particular moment, a person with top-10% facial genetics could look as low as approximately top-25%.

3. The average observed phenotype of a top-10% facial-genetics person is closer to the 75th percentile than the 90th percentile.

And more.

I was claiming that variance doesn't erase the mean. If you were claiming that their genetic superiority is less reliably expressed in phenotype, then I was of course attacking the wrong point.

Either way, your thread still didn't properly demonstrate the latter implication that H > F based on your argument.

I am open to the interpretation that ◇(H > F), however, your thread is much too vague.

And, of course, the statement which I did question does not make sense (at least to me ) as written because it is too vague, hence to many possible interpretations exist.

If you mean that face is much more important to attractiveness than height, however, facial phenotype is much more temporally/environmentally variable than height, therefore the fact that a person has exceptionally superior facial genetics does not mean that said person will express those genetics at every given point in time.

Hence, someone with top-10% facial genetics, depending on age, environment, and many other circumstances, could have a top-25% face at any given point in time, meanwhile height genetics are expressed more consistently regardless of environment and various factors other than age (although thats nuanced).

So you're comparing the reliability and consistency of facial genetics in contrast to height genetics? Then I accept your point.

Or

Formally, if you're specifically claiming greater conditional variance, that would be:

GF(x) = Facial genetic potential of x
GH(x) = Height genetic potential of x
PF(x,t) = Observed facial phenotype of x at time t
PH(x,t) = Observed height phenotype of x at time t
T10(GF) = x has top-10% facial genetic potential
T10(GH) = x has top-10% height genetic potential

If I understand your argument correctly, you're essentially saying:

T10(GF) → PF(x,t) is less consistently T10
T10(GH) → PH(x,t) is more consistently T10

or, more simply:

P(T10(PF) | T10(GF)) < P(T10(PH) | T10(GH))

In other words, having top-10% facial genetics is less likely to result in a top-10% facial phenotype at a given point in time than having top-10% height genetics is to result in a top-10% height phenotype.

If that is what you mean, then I understand your point.

However, that establishes something like:

V(PF | T10(GF)) > V(PH | T10(GH))

where V = Variance

or greater instability/noise in the expression of facial genetics.

It does not by itself establish (because it is also undefined):

GH > GF

unless by "height genetics > face genetics" you specifically mean that height genetics are more reliably expressed in the phenotype.

Theres more but im too tired

Idk mane like i said sorry for being rude


Why'd you have to call out my intelligence though, I have am above average intellectually yet I've always felt insecure about it, I've always wanted to be a genius especially because the field I want to go into is so competitive, I'd get IQmogged by everyone in my field. Just ruined my day brah