The final answer - what is harmony, do ratios actually matter, what features are ideal?

[Cody]

Was inspired by @LordNorwood to write something other than a shit post on here

Well it's time for looksmax to catch up on these things as many people have no idea what they're talking about. A lookism user Headsupdisplay deserves the credit for most of this.

What is harmony

This is something very mysterious where users can never quite put their finger on. There are definitions that it's how well features blend in together. It seems reasonable until you realize there is something fundamentally flawed with that statement.

What it implies is that features are judged not independently, meaning individual features don't matter. This is dubious when you consider that individual features make up the entire face.

What you'll notice is that top models have all their individual features above average or striking.

Likewise an incel might have features that are all lacking if you take them apart.

The ideal face

It's difficulty to determine what the ideal face would look like but what we do know is that it exists. When we scan faces we know that vertically narrow eyes are attractive and we compare any given eyes to those set of standards. So from that we know our subconscious is constantly comparing faces presented to the ideal.

What headsupdisplay has done is compiled a database of facial measurements of the most attractive men and you'll notice they don't all have the same measurements obviously but rather appear to be within range of each other. So we can't necessarily say, a chin height of 48mm is ideal but we can say the range 45-50mm is ideal since they all tend to fit that criteria.

Having that in mind, let's go back to our incel. He might have a short chin of 30mm. We will extend his chin by about 15mm so that he now fits that range of ideal. Is he still incel? Almost certainly. Does he look better? Of course.

We will now apply this same concept to the eyes. Let's swap Chico's eyes for the incel's eyes. And swap his jaw for Cavill's jaw. Also swap the incel's nose for the ideal nose. And then the mouth... Slowly the incel begins to resemble the ideal male face. Harmony or ratios weren't necessarily changed to fit the ideal. We just changed the measurements which is what really matters and the ratios just followed.

Are you going to tell me what harmony is cuntbag?

My definition of it would actually be averageness and symmetry. I've picked on that users tend to correlate harmony with pleasant faces with high degree of averageness.

Averageness is NOT having average features like cuck eyes. Averageness in well defined in Wikipedia

Averageness describes the physical beauty that results from averaging the facial features of people of the same gender and approximately the same age. The majority of averageness studies have focused on photographic overlay studies of human faces, in which images are morphed together. The term "average" is used strictly to denote the technical definition of the mathematical mean. An averaged face is not unremarkable, but is, in fact, quite good looking. Nor is it typical in the sense of common or frequently occurring in the population, though it appears familiar, and is typical in the sense that it is a good example of a face that is representative of the category of faces.

Composite photos of phenotypes are good example of what averageness looks like. You're essentially morphing all the individual features together where you form a face that doesn't have any extreme features like Dolph Lundgren's super masc jaw sharpness. How Dolph can still look top tier while deviating heavily from averageness? Is having extreme features desired? That's for another post on hormonal levels (including prenatal) affecting attractiveness.

Ratios

So it's much more elegant to take absolute measurements rather than ratios. Ratios are a number that it just so happen to make. For instance take body measurements for a female. Nobody asks what's her ratio when she looking for a dress to buy. Because a ratio of 0.8 doesn't tell anything about her actual size. She could be very petite and have the same ratios as some high prenatal T oversized girl. Rather we say 23 inch waist and 35 inch hip circumference. The ratio of 0.8 is a number that just so happens to make when we divide these measurements. Who cares about it.

So when we say fwhr ratio of 2 that really doesn't paint a picture as accurately as saying a midface length of 65mm and a bizygomatic distance of 130mm. The latter tells us more clearly what's going on. What if somebody had a midface length of 55mm and a bizygomatic distance of 110mm while still maintaining the ideal ratio of 2? Well now you've got someone with a ridiculously stunted appearance because of the midface length with a narrow face, far from ideal.

Just to give a more practical example of where even the number itself fails, take this model in yesterday's thread. Someone pointed out his chin was on the shorter side. Another user pointed out that his chin fits the ideal chin to philtrum ratio so it was actually perfect. Morphs showed that this wasn't the case and I could almost guarantee you his chin height would fit the measurement between 45-50mm.

Tldr What a load of bullshit nobody will read

This article was written by Cody

Cody is a PSL journalist for looksmax.me and has written countless of theses on attraction during his time at Yale University.

 

[Deleted member 3202]

42mm chin. . . . . So close. . . . . But excelent thread OP, if we have more people producing things like this, then this will counter the cancerous filth of this site.

 

[Deleted member 3990]

dn rd

 

[Deleted member 1862]

Cody is a PSL journalist for looksmax.me and has written countless of theses on attraction during his time at Yale University.

caged

 

[Deleted member 3202]

dn rd

Low IQ

 

[Joyride]

Love this.

 

[lookserumaxeru]

Good thread boyo

 

[Deleted member 3990]

Low IQ

11-KDHT, Pregnenolon, DHEA, 5a-DHP, MK677, Exemestane, Huperzine A, GABA, Melatonin, Vitamine D, K2 MK4 & MK7, MSM, DIM, LIPUS (and maybe Flurbiprofen)


This will be my experimental, low Inhib approach to

- (Androgen-driven) heightmax
-T max
- stop hairloss
- Energy max
- Pubertymax
-Voicemax

Combined with my upcoming surgery in few months, this will highly likely change my life to the better


You can keep discussing topics which got discussed 100x times already (especially on Lookism)

 

[Deleted member 3202]

11-KDHT, Pregnenolon, DHEA, 5a-DHP, MK677, Exemestane, Huperzine A, GABA, Melatonin, Vitamine D, K2 MK4 & MK7, MSM, DIM, LIPUS (and maybe Flurbiprofen)


This will be my experimental, low Inhib approach to

- (Androgen-driven) heightmax
-T max
- stop hairloss
- Energy max
- Pubertymax
-Voicemax

Combined with my upcoming surgery in few months, this will highly likely change my life to the better


You can keep discussing topics which got discussed 100x times already (especially on Lookism)

Lookism is dead, is it not? Along with all the vital information.

 

[Deleted member 3990]

Lookism is dead, is it not? Along with all the vital information.

Yes, true

but I would rather revive all the ASPIE science threads instead of the discussing looks

Still, the neccessary things are also on looksmax.me

 

[Deleted member 3202]

Yes, true

but I would rather revive all the ASPIE science threads instead of the discussing looks

Still, the neccessary things are also on looksmax.me

Then I stand corrected, I take back the Low IQ remark.

 

[Deleted member 3990]

Then I stand corrected, I take back the Low IQ remark.

No

I take it as motivation to even become more Aspie


Thanks to you, I will inhale Prednisone and DHT now to get deeper voice alongside topical 11-KDHT on throat


Thanks

 

[betamanlet]

What is harmony

This is something very mysterious where users can never quite put their finger on. There are definitions that it's how well features blend in together. It seems reasonable until you realize there is something fundamentally flawed with that statement.

What it implies is that features are judged not independently, meaning individual features don't matter. This is dubious when you consider that individual features make up the entire face.

Let's change the context for this deduction:

What is a hexagon?

This is something very mysterious where users can never quite put their finger on. There are definitions that hexagon has six sides that are all equal in measurement. It seems reasonable until you realize there is something fundamentally flawed with that statement.

What it implies is that a line can create no shape independently, meaning individual lines don't matter. This is dubious when you consider that individual features make up the whole hexagon.

The obvious oversight with your interpretation is that absence of independent significance of a feature does not negate the contextual significance of the feature. A single line is meaningless as far as a hexagon is concerned. Yet all hexagons are made of lines. This is not an implication that a line does not matter, but that they matter infinitely. Harmony is not an object unto itself, rather, it defines the dynamic between two or more objects.

In other words, defining harmony as how well features blend together leads to the exact same implication as your observation that individual features make up the entire face: individual features matter. And more than just that: all features matter EQUALLY.

So it's much more elegant to take absolute measurements rather than ratios. Ratios are a number that it just so happen to make. For instance take body measurements for a female. Nobody asks what's her ratio when she looking for a dress to buy. Because a ratio of 0.8 doesn't tell anything about her actual size. She could be very petite and have the same ratios as some high prenatal T oversized girl. Rather we say 23 inch waist and 35 inch hip circumference. The ratio of 0.8 is a number that just so happens to make when we divide these measurements. Who cares about it.

To the contrary: dealing in absolute numbers is vulgarly crude. Ratios apply to all sizes and proportions. Absolute measurements only apply to certain classes of size and proportion. The reason we use absolute numbers when shopping for clothes is because the absolute size of humans differs. Using absolute numbers comes down to necessity, not superiority. If all humans were the same size, we could buy our clothes according to pure ratios.

The absolute size of an object does not influence the proportions of the object. An O'Pry is going to look equally harmonious to a proportionally a scaled down 5'7 O'Pry. Their facial ratios would be identical, even though the absolute measurements of the mini-O'Pry would wrongly classify him as a sexless virgin despite his world-class proportions.

Just to give a more practical example of where even the number itself fails, take this model in yesterday's thread. Someone pointed out his chin was on the shorter side. Another user pointed out that his chin fits the ideal chin to philtrum ratio so it was actually perfect. Morphs showed that this wasn't the case and I could almost guarantee you his chin height would fit the measurement between 45-50mm.

Because a harmonious chin-philtrum ratio is more than just the chin and the philtrum. It's about forehead, it's about IPD, it's about zygomatic width, it's about EVERY SINGLE FEATURE in the skull in which the chin and the philtrum exist. As I said earlier, in harmony every feature matters equally.

We will now apply this same concept to the eyes. Let's swap Chico's eyes for the incel's eyes. And swap his jaw for Cavill's jaw. Also swap the incel's nose for the ideal nose. And then the mouth... Slowly the incel begins to resemble the ideal male face. Harmony or ratios weren't necessarily changed to fit the ideal. We just changed the measurements which is what really matters and the ratios just followed.

They very much are. You are replacing individual features with features that have larger harmonic potential, i.e. more universally applicable shapes, sizes and tones - a quality of features that most good looking humans share. Not to mention that as far as the outcome is concerned, "...and the ratios just followed" is the exact same thing as deliberately changing the ratios.

How Dolph can still look top tier while deviating heavily from averageness? Is having extreme features desired?

Because perfect is boring. "Perfect" is more aptly put "perfectly average", in which everything follows a predictable mathematical mean. Objective perfection follows mathematical rules, because we live in a mathematical reality. Dolph Lundgren looks attractive because his deviation from the averageness of perfection occurs in a way that most humans find subjectively pleasing.

 

[oldcell]

Any link to other similiar threads?
Good job

 

[Cody]

@betamanlet skimmed through it and you have good refutations, will respond to you later this evening, need to focus on school rn

 

[Cody]

ngl very refreshing to talk to someone high iq. who were you on .net?

Let's change the context for this deduction:

What is a hexagon?

This is something very mysterious where users can never quite put their finger on. There are definitions that hexagon has six sides that are all equal in measurement. It seems reasonable until you realize there is something fundamentally flawed with that statement.

What it implies is that a line can create no shape independently, meaning individual lines don't matter. This is dubious when you consider that individual features make up the whole hexagon.

The obvious oversight with your interpretation is that absence of independent significance of a feature does not negate the contextual significance of the feature. A single line is meaningless as far as a hexagon is concerned. Yet all hexagons are made of lines. This is not an implication that a line does not matter, but that they matter infinitely. Harmony is not an object unto itself, rather, it defines the dynamic between two or more objects.

In other words, defining harmony as how well features blend together leads to the exact same implication as your observation that individual features make up the entire face: individual features matter. And more than just that: all features matter EQUALLY.

so what you are saying is that an individual line IS the hexagon, so to speak?

To the contrary: dealing in absolute numbers is vulgarly crude. Ratios apply to all sizes and proportions. Absolute measurements only apply to certain classes of size and proportion. The reason we use absolute numbers when shopping for clothes is because the absolute size of humans differs. Using absolute numbers comes down to necessity, not superiority. If all humans were the same size, we could buy our clothes according to pure ratios.

The absolute size of an object does not influence the proportions of the object. An O'Pry is going to look equally harmonious to a proportionally a scaled down 5'7 O'Pry. Their facial ratios would be identical, even though the absolute measurements of the mini-O'Pry would wrongly classify him as a sexless virgin despite his world-class proportions.

I agree, I used an awful example thinking I could get away with it over here. However, do faces scale like this in the real world? For instance, I know that all humans have the same eyeball size (babies have a ever so slightly smaller size though). It could be that ratios including the eyes do change as we scale faces (in the real world). I guess that doesn't really matter though.

Practically, my problem with ratios is that it gives us limited information. When someone says "I have an x-y ratio of 1.4", I really cannot relate to it or imagine it; I wouldn't be able to depict if x feature was overly larger or y was overly smaller. So why use them?

Because a harmonious chin-philtrum ratio is more than just the chin and the philtrum. It's about forehead, it's about IPD, it's about zygomatic width, it's about EVERY SINGLE FEATURE in the skull in which the chin and the philtrum exist. As I said earlier, in harmony every feature matters equally.

Are you saying to change one feature to fit in accordance to "perfect harmony" (if we can call it that) we need to adjust every other feature accordingly? If so, don't you agree with my concept on the ideal face? That features can be swapped directly without consequence? The problem I find with harmony is that it suggests one feature would make another a net negative. If this were to be true, wouldn't that mean that beauty by default cannot be objective as we believe it to be? But we know this can't be the case. We know that cuck eyes are bad on ANYONE and similarly Chico's eyes would be a great positive on anyone

It's exactly why we can asses individual features ripped from the face and determine its attractiveness. That feature didn't communicate with the face in any way. With lines in the hexagon, we wouldn't be able to say, determine its position relative to the other individual lines. I may have missed the point here so do elaborate.

They very much are. You are replacing individual features with features that have larger harmonic potential, i.e. more universally applicable shapes, sizes and tones - a quality of features that most good looking humans share. Not to mention that as far as the outcome is concerned, "...and the ratios just followed" is the exact same thing as deliberately changing the ratios.

With my remark on "how the ratios just followed", I just wanted to emphasize the insignificance of them. Sure though, they're both directly correlated one to one.

Because perfect is boring. "Perfect" is more aptly put "perfectly average", in which everything follows a predictable mathematical mean. Objective perfection follows mathematical rules, because we live in a mathematical reality. Dolph Lundgren looks attractive because his deviation from the averageness of perfection occurs in a way that most humans find subjectively pleasing.

I agree here. Looking striking is exactly that, striking.

 

[EthnicelAscension]

TL;DR
You want to have size and ratios,
Even if you have 2.0 fwhr, with 4 inch bizygomatic width, it is still over!

 

[elfmaxx]

dr greycel

 

[betamanlet]

so what you are saying is that an individual line IS the hexagon, so to speak?

That would be equal to me asserting that a nose is the face. What I am saying is that all lines are equally important when it comes to forming a hexagon. If the length of one line differs, the hexagon would lose its regularity. The regularity of a hexagon in this metaphor is the concept of harmony, and the lines individual facial features.

Practically, my problem with ratios is that it gives us limited information. When someone says "I have an x-y ratio of 1.4", I really cannot relate to it or imagine it; I wouldn't be able to depict if x feature was overly larger or y was overly smaller. So why use them?

Your brain just has an easier time with linking a one-dimensional measurement to a specific impression within your mind. The fact that you can imagine what a 45mm chin looks like does not necessarily mean that you are forming an accurate impression of the person whose chin is being discussed. Even though it is harder to imagine, chin-philtrum ratio conveys more information than the absolute length of chin alone. In order to match this amount of information, you'd have to know the absolute measurements of chin and philtrum both -- in which case you would practically already be dealing in ratios, only in a less straightforward way.

Are you saying to change one feature to fit in accordance to "perfect harmony" (if we can call it that) we need to adjust every other feature accordingly?

Not necessarily. It's like having a piece of jigsaw puzzle that could fit many other pieces vs a piece that only fits few other pieces. In well shaped eyes, for example, there are more ways in which the eyes can aesthetically interlock with other features, than there are in poorly shaped eyes, which in turn provide fewer ways for such interlocking with other features. The worse a feature is the harder it is for that feature to fit in with other features. It's a lot about what kind of lines and shapes the features implicate. Not all about harmony is about what you can see. Much of it is about what is not directly seen, but being implied. Kind of like the quote "music the is silence between the notes."

 

[Cody]

That would be equal to me asserting that a nose is the face. What I am saying is that all lines are equally important when it comes to forming a hexagon. If the length of one line differs, the hexagon would lose its regularity. The regularity of a hexagon in this metaphor is the concept of harmony, and the lines individual facial features.

I was more referring to just the hexagon. I took it that only one line matters because the lines are just a replication. If we changed the length of one line, in order for the hexagon to maintain its shape the other lines must follow.

Your brain just has an easier time with linking a one-dimensional measurement to a specific impression within your mind. The fact that you can imagine what a 45mm chin looks like does not necessarily mean that you are forming an accurate impression of the person whose chin is being discussed. Even though it is harder to imagine, chin-philtrum ratio conveys more information than the absolute length of chin alone. In order to match this amount of information, you'd have to know the absolute measurements of chin and philtrum both -- in which case you would practically already be dealing in ratios, only in a less straightforward way.

okay that makes sense.

Not necessarily. It's like having a piece of jigsaw puzzle that could fit many other pieces vs a piece that only fits few other pieces. In well shaped eyes, for example, there are more ways in which the eyes can aesthetically interlock with other features, than there are in poorly shaped eyes, which in turn provide fewer ways for such interlocking with other features. The worse a feature is the harder it is for that feature to fit in with other features. It's a lot about what kind of lines and shapes the features implicate. Not all about harmony is about what you can see. Much of it is about what is not directly seen, but rather being implicated. Kind of like the quote "music the is silence between the notes."

we're just going to have agree to disagree, i've yet to see a feature that can vary in attractiveness between 2 people. maybe the best way to solve this is with an extensive amount of photoshopping with many different features on faces.

the way I see it simple. the wider the mouth the better. the closer to 120(ish) degree gonial angle the better. the closer 70mm midface length the better, etc... I really think you can just swap in any GOOD feature without consequence.

 

[Deleted member 3202]

I was more referring to just the hexagon. I took it that only one line matters because the lines are just a replication. If we changed the length of one line, in order for the hexagon to maintain its shape the other lines must follow.

okay that makes sense.

we're just going to have agree to disagree, i've yet to see a feature that can vary in attractiveness between 2 people. maybe the best way to solve this is with an extensive amount of photoshopping with many different features on faces.

the way I see it simple. the wider the mouth the better. the closer to 120(ish) degree gonial angle the better. the closer 70mm midface length the better, etc... I really think you can just swap in any GOOD feature without consequence.

Wait, it's good to have a 70mm midface?

 

[Cody]

Wait, it's good to have a 70mm midface?

average in that database is around 68mm, that model in thread probably has around 70mm

 

[Deleted member 3202]

average in that database is around 68mm, that model in thread probably has around 70mm

I have a 70mm midface with 16-17mm philtrum with a nose that looks like it adds 2mm extra of philtrum length. Should I get my philtrum shortened if I have a 70mm midface?

 

[betamanlet]

I was more referring to just the hexagon. I took it that only one line matters because the lines are just a replication. If we changed the length of one line, in order for the hexagon to maintain its shape the other lines must follow.

Well, that is not incorrect. I should have chosen a less repetitive shape in order to avoid confusion.

we're just going to have agree to disagree, i've yet to see a feature that can vary in attractiveness between 2 people.

Ah, I am not suggesting that the attractiveness of an isolated feature changes when you transplant it onto another face. The whole paragraph was about how harmony emerges from interaction between isolated features, not how these features affect each other. I must emphasize that my view is that harmony is an emergent phenomenon, i.e. something greater than the sum of its parts. Harmony is a whole independent layer to the overall facial appearance, cumulative of all other layers beneath it. It forms the most ultimate metacontext that the face can have.
This is partly why harmony is so hard to define, as there are no further contexts within which the definition can exist. It's no different from why it is impossible to define the nature of all existence, due to how this definition would have to exist within the thing it sets out to define.

the way I see it simple. the wider the mouth the better. the closer to 120(ish) degree gonial angle the better. the closer 70mm midface length the better, etc...

Understandable, but also subjective and context-dependent to the point of not being rationally justifiable.

I really think you can just swap in any GOOD feature without consequence.

Yes, that is essentially my point. The better the feature is, the more universally it can be applied to any possible face.

 

[eduardkoopman]

What headsupdisplay has done is compiled a database of facial measurements of the most attractive men and you'll notice they don't all have the same measurements obviously but rather appear to be within range of each other.

Wow. I checked that database.
What an amount of work must that dude had put in that.
It's a funny and good database.

 

[Cody]

I have a 70mm midface with 16-17mm philtrum with a nose that looks like it adds 2mm extra of philtrum length. Should I get my philtrum shortened if I have a 70mm midface?

Yeah, I have similar measurements and I'm getting a lip lift in a few months
Btw I said the closer to 70mm just because of it is a rounded number. More like 67mm maybe

@betamanlet I understand what you mean now. I'm pretty slow ngl

 

[Deleted member 3202]

Yeah, I have similar measurements and I'm getting a lip lift in a few months
Btw I said the closer to 70mm just because of it is a rounded number. More like 67mm maybe

@betamanlet I understand what you mean now. I'm pretty slow ngl

How would you correct a nose that makes your philtrum look long though? This has got to be my biggest looksmaxxing dilemma. Another thing, how worried are you that you're surgery is going to go wrong?

 

[Mayorga]

Where does soft tissue and anterior projection come into play here? The problem with headsupdisplays database is that it contains only en face measurements, which is useful for creating a 2D ideal face, but not so practical for RL. SHould we start measuring ratios and angles from 3/4 and profile view?

Good thread though, thoroughly enjoyed reading your convo with @betamanlet

 

[Cody]

How would you correct a nose that makes your philtrum look long though? This has got to be my biggest looksmaxxing dilemma. Another thing, how worried are you that you're surgery is going to go wrong?

How exactly does it make it look long? My problem is that my nose droops too much

Lol I literally have the worst upper lip on this forum, I swear sometimes it's the only reason I'm here plus my nose. So any change is a benefit, I'm not worried at all

Where does soft tissue and anterior projection come into play here? The problem with headsupdisplays database is that it contains only en face measurements, which is useful for creating a 2D ideal face, but not so practical for RL. SHould we start measuring ratios and angles from 3/4 and profile view?

Good thread though, thoroughly enjoyed reading your convo with @betamanlet

Honestly a great idea. Im thinking of restarting this project because I feel like some of the measurements are off also.

 

[GigantorMaxxer]

Was inspired by @LordNorwood to write something other than a shit post on here

Well it's time for looksmax to catch up on these things as many people have no idea what they're talking about. A lookism user Headsupdisplay deserves the credit for most of this.

What is harmony

This is something very mysterious where users can never quite put their finger on. There are definitions that it's how well features blend in together. It seems reasonable until you realize there is something fundamentally flawed with that statement.

What it implies is that features are judged not independently, meaning individual features don't matter. This is dubious when you consider that individual features make up the entire face.

What you'll notice is that top models have all their individual features above average or striking.

Likewise an incel might have features that are all lacking if you take them apart.

The ideal face

It's difficulty to determine what the ideal face would look like but what we do know is that it exists. When we scan faces we know that vertically narrow eyes are attractive and we compare any given eyes to those set of standards. So from that we know our subconscious is constantly comparing faces presented to the ideal.

What headsupdisplay has done is compiled a database of facial measurements of the most attractive men and you'll notice they don't all have the same measurements obviously but rather appear to be within range of each other. So we can't necessarily say, a chin height of 48mm is ideal but we can say the range 45-50mm is ideal since they all tend to fit that criteria.

Having that in mind, let's go back to our incel. He might have a short chin of 30mm. We will extend his chin by about 15mm so that he now fits that range of ideal. Is he still incel? Almost certainly. Does he look better? Of course.

We will now apply this same concept to the eyes. Let's swap Chico's eyes for the incel's eyes. And swap his jaw for Cavill's jaw. Also swap the incel's nose for the ideal nose. And then the mouth... Slowly the incel begins to resemble the ideal male face. Harmony or ratios weren't necessarily changed to fit the ideal. We just changed the measurements which is what really matters and the ratios just followed.

Are you going to tell me what harmony is cuntbag?

My definition of it would actually be averageness and symmetry. I've picked on that users tend to correlate harmony with pleasant faces with high degree of averageness.

Averageness is NOT having average features like cuck eyes. Averageness in well defined in Wikipedia

Composite photos of phenotypes are good example of what averageness looks like. You're essentially morphing all the individual features together where you form a face that doesn't have any extreme features like Dolph Lundgren's super masc jaw sharpness. How Dolph can still look top tier while deviating heavily from averageness? Is having extreme features desired? That's for another post on hormonal levels (including prenatal) affecting attractiveness.

Ratios

So it's much more elegant to take absolute measurements rather than ratios. Ratios are a number that it just so happen to make. For instance take body measurements for a female. Nobody asks what's her ratio when she looking for a dress to buy. Because a ratio of 0.8 doesn't tell anything about her actual size. She could be very petite and have the same ratios as some high prenatal T oversized girl. Rather we say 23 inch waist and 35 inch hip circumference. The ratio of 0.8 is a number that just so happens to make when we divide these measurements. Who cares about it.

So when we say fwhr ratio of 2 that really doesn't paint a picture as accurately as saying a midface length of 65mm and a bizygomatic distance of 130mm. The latter tells us more clearly what's going on. What if somebody had a midface length of 55mm and a bizygomatic distance of 110mm while still maintaining the ideal ratio of 2? Well now you've got someone with a ridiculously stunted appearance because of the midface length with a narrow face, far from ideal.

Just to give a more practical example of where even the number itself fails, take this model in yesterday's thread. Someone pointed out his chin was on the shorter side. Another user pointed out that his chin fits the ideal chin to philtrum ratio so it was actually perfect. Morphs showed that this wasn't the case and I could almost guarantee you his chin height would fit the measurement between 45-50mm.

Tldr What a load of bullshit nobody will read

This article was written by Cody

Cody is a PSL journalist for looksmax.me and has written countless of theses on attraction during his time at Yale University.

Just read it quick, the "Are u goin to tell me..." section. From what i concluded, this is including a theme i wanted to touch on, making a face more normal and day-to-day actually is an improvement. Makes sense

Another thing that could make harmony is how traits are grouped with each other. Negroid skulls tend to have both bigger noses and rounder eyes, so negroid people in general will have these features together. While a negroid having smallish angular eyes will make him more attractive, it have the caveat of looking non harmonious.

Tyson Beckford is sure gl, but is he harmonious? Not much

 

[Cody]

Just read it quick, the "Are u goin to tell me..." section. From what i concluded, this is including a theme i wanted to touch on, making a face more normal and day-to-day actually is an improvement. Makes sense

Another thing that could make harmony is how traits are grouped with each other. Negroid skulls tend to have both bigger noses and rounder eyes, so negroid people in general will have these features together. While a negroid having smallish angular eyes will make him more attractive, it have the caveat of looking non harmonious.

Tyson Beckford is sure gl, but is he harmonious? Not much

I think Tyson's main issue with him looking unharmonious is the eyes have too much pct

That and also his upper lip is too full

 

[Deleted member 3832]

Bruv harmony is just how well the features on your face go together.

 

[Cody]

Bruv harmony is just how well the features on your face go together.

Go fuck yourself

 

[Deleted member 3789]

Harmony is everything

 

[Deleted member 3832]

Go fuck yourself

Yes I will because my dick is at least big enough for me to do that, unlike yours.

 

[Cody]

Yes I will because my dick is at least big enough for me to do that, unlike yours.

Pideras