The "Low PSL but High Harmony" Cope Needs to Die

[chasing aesthetics]

I want to put an end to one of the most ignorant thinking patterns I’ve seen over the years in the lookism and looksmax forums.

I constantly see people saying that someone has a low PSL rating but high harmony. This is stupid. Here’s why:

In theory, a universal rating scale for beauty should exist, but actually measuring it accurately is extremely difficult. There are countless subtle details that influence attractiveness—many of which we aren’t even consciously aware of. Even if you were max-autist enough to spot them, they would still be hard to quantify.

Saying someone has a low PSL but high harmony is really just a way of admitting:
"I have no idea why this person is attractive, but they just are."

Instead of recognizing this, people slap the "harmony" label on it to maintain their rigid framework of beauty while avoiding the discomfort of uncertainty. It’s just a heuristic thinking (mental shortcut) to ease your mind.

The truth? If someone is attractive despite having “low PSL,” then PSL is simply failing to account for something important. Instead of coping with vague labels, we should be questioning the system itself—and more importantly, improving it. If PSL can't explain why someone looks good, then it needs to be refined, not blindly defended with arbitrary terms.

This forum is supposed to be about analyzing looks with logic, not preserving flawed rating systems for the sake of tradition.

 

[xnj]

dnr water

 

[Zodiac]

Not a molecule

 

[chasing aesthetics]

Not a molecule

Parrot

 

[exeswa1]

I want to put an end to one of the most ignorant thinking patterns I’ve seen over the years in the lookism and looksmax forums.

I constantly see people saying that someone has a low PSL rating but high harmony. This is stupid. Here’s why:

In theory, a universal rating scale for beauty should exist, but actually measuring it accurately is extremely difficult. There are countless subtle details that influence attractiveness—many of which we aren’t even consciously aware of. Even if you were max-autist enough to spot them, they would still be hard to quantify.

Saying someone has a low PSL but high harmony is really just a way of admitting:
"I have no idea why this person is attractive, but they just are."

Instead of recognizing this, people slap the "harmony" label on it to maintain their rigid framework of beauty while avoiding the discomfort of uncertainty. It’s just a heuristic thinking (mental shortcut) to ease your mind.

The truth? If someone is attractive despite having “low PSL,” then PSL is simply failing to account for something important. Instead of coping with vague labels, we should be questioning the system itself—and more importantly, improving it. If PSL can't explain why someone looks good, then it needs to be refined, not blindly defended with arbitrary terms.

This forum is supposed to be about analyzing looks with logic, not preserving flawed rating systems for the sake of tradition.

ok mate

 

[chasing aesthetics]

ok mate

Who am i parroting?

edit: wrong reply

 

[watah]

[IMG alt="chasing aesthetics"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/m/11/11739.jpg?1609966099[/IMG]

chasing aesthetics​

 

[chasing aesthetics]

[IMG alt="chasing aesthetics"]https://looksmax.org/data/avatars/m/11/11739.jpg?1609966099[/IMG]

chasing aesthetics​

What about it, that little fag blood elf mogs u

 

[Cyframe]

I want to put an end to one of the most ignorant thinking patterns I’ve seen over the years in the lookism and looksmax forums.

I constantly see people saying that someone has a low PSL rating but high harmony. This is stupid. Here’s why:

In theory, a universal rating scale for beauty should exist, but actually measuring it accurately is extremely difficult. There are countless subtle details that influence attractiveness—many of which we aren’t even consciously aware of. Even if you were max-autist enough to spot them, they would still be hard to quantify.

Saying someone has a low PSL but high harmony is really just a way of admitting:
"I have no idea why this person is attractive, but they just are."

Instead of recognizing this, people slap the "harmony" label on it to maintain their rigid framework of beauty while avoiding the discomfort of uncertainty. It’s just a heuristic thinking (mental shortcut) to ease your mind.

The truth? If someone is attractive despite having “low PSL,” then PSL is simply failing to account for something important. Instead of coping with vague labels, we should be questioning the system itself—and more importantly, improving it. If PSL can't explain why someone looks good, then it needs to be refined, not blindly defended with arbitrary terms.

This forum is supposed to be about analyzing looks with logic, not preserving flawed rating systems for the sake of tradition.

Nice

 

[MyDreamIsToBe183CM]

I want to put an end to one of the most ignorant thinking patterns I’ve seen over the years in the lookism and looksmax forums.

I constantly see people saying that someone has a low PSL rating but high harmony. This is stupid. Here’s why:

In theory, a universal rating scale for beauty should exist, but actually measuring it accurately is extremely difficult. There are countless subtle details that influence attractiveness—many of which we aren’t even consciously aware of. Even if you were max-autist enough to spot them, they would still be hard to quantify.

Saying someone has a low PSL but high harmony is really just a way of admitting:
"I have no idea why this person is attractive, but they just are."

Instead of recognizing this, people slap the "harmony" label on it to maintain their rigid framework of beauty while avoiding the discomfort of uncertainty. It’s just a heuristic thinking (mental shortcut) to ease your mind.

The truth? If someone is attractive despite having “low PSL,” then PSL is simply failing to account for something important. Instead of coping with vague labels, we should be questioning the system itself—and more importantly, improving it. If PSL can't explain why someone looks good, then it needs to be refined, not blindly defended with arbitrary terms.

This forum is supposed to be about analyzing looks with logic, not preserving flawed rating systems for the sake of tradition.

nigger

 

[shredded4summer]

I want to put an end to one of the most ignorant thinking patterns I’ve seen over the years in the lookism and looksmax forums.

I constantly see people saying that someone has a low PSL rating but high harmony. This is stupid. Here’s why:

In theory, a universal rating scale for beauty should exist, but actually measuring it accurately is extremely difficult. There are countless subtle details that influence attractiveness—many of which we aren’t even consciously aware of. Even if you were max-autist enough to spot them, they would still be hard to quantify.

Saying someone has a low PSL but high harmony is really just a way of admitting:
"I have no idea why this person is attractive, but they just are."

Instead of recognizing this, people slap the "harmony" label on it to maintain their rigid framework of beauty while avoiding the discomfort of uncertainty. It’s just a heuristic thinking (mental shortcut) to ease your mind.

The truth? If someone is attractive despite having “low PSL,” then PSL is simply failing to account for something important. Instead of coping with vague labels, we should be questioning the system itself—and more importantly, improving it. If PSL can't explain why someone looks good, then it needs to be refined, not blindly defended with arbitrary terms.

This forum is supposed to be about analyzing looks with logic, not preserving flawed rating systems for the sake of tradition.

high iq. thank you.

i dont think theres anything too subtle for a real rater to see. its pretty obvious in the ratios. the only dumbasses saying low psl high harmony and vise versa are tiktok normies

 

[chasing aesthetics]

nigger

me? nah bro im scandinavian

 

[MyDreamIsToBe183CM]

me? nah bro im scandinavian

nigger is my way of saying i agree mate

 

[chasing aesthetics]

high iq. thank you.

i dont think theres anything too subtle for a real rater to see. its pretty obvious in the ratios. the only dumbasses saying low psl high harmony and vise versa are tiktok normies

Well thats kind of the whole thing about subconcious stuff, you dont realize it's there. So you would think that autist raters see it all. I dont think i have ever seen someone include cranial top height in a rating before.

Maybe this is a bad example but, because it's not really something that is subconcious to the real insightful raters... but actually the fact that this is a known thing yet still never included in ratings should actually prove my point even more...

 

[stufftodo]

nobody is gonna pour their energy into this

 

[Whist]

Well thats kind of the whole thing about subconcious stuff, you dont realize it's there. So you would think that autist raters see it all. I dont think i have ever seen someone include cranial top height in a rating before.
View attachment 3513334View attachment 3513335

Maybe this is a bad example but, because it's not really something that is subconcious to the real insightful raters... but actually the fact that this is a known thing yet still never included in ratings should actually prove my point even more...

Nigger do u know what this is. This is just hairline lowering surgery . If you do lowering hairline ur cranial top height will look larger. U can see the facial thirds arent equal for the last two women. Althouh they r HTB still

 

[They_are_all_whores]

I want to put an end to one of the most ignorant thinking patterns I’ve seen over the years in the lookism and looksmax forums.

I constantly see people saying that someone has a low PSL rating but high harmony. This is stupid. Here’s why:

In theory, a universal rating scale for beauty should exist, but actually measuring it accurately is extremely difficult. There are countless subtle details that influence attractiveness—many of which we aren’t even consciously aware of. Even if you were max-autist enough to spot them, they would still be hard to quantify.

Saying someone has a low PSL but high harmony is really just a way of admitting:
"I have no idea why this person is attractive, but they just are."

Instead of recognizing this, people slap the "harmony" label on it to maintain their rigid framework of beauty while avoiding the discomfort of uncertainty. It’s just a heuristic thinking (mental shortcut) to ease your mind.

The truth? If someone is attractive despite having “low PSL,” then PSL is simply failing to account for something important. Instead of coping with vague labels, we should be questioning the system itself—and more importantly, improving it. If PSL can't explain why someone looks good, then it needs to be refined, not blindly defended with arbitrary terms.

This forum is supposed to be about analyzing looks with logic, not preserving flawed rating systems for the sake of tradition.

High iq bookmarked

Put it in both so greycels can finally ascend

 

[chasing aesthetics]

Nigger do u know what this is. This is just hairline lowering surgery . If you do lowering hairline ur cranial top height will look larger. U can see the facial thirds arent equal for the last two women. Althouh they r HTB still

Are you trying to say that the pictures i used was bad or are you trying to say that lower hairline = larger cranial top and that there is nothing more to it?

 

[brownmutt42]

Yes and this proves it

 

[chasing aesthetics]

Yes and this proves it
View attachment 3540701

not saying you are wrong, but how and what do you mean

 

[brownmutt42]

not saying you are wrong, but how and what do you mean

IDK tbh. Just felt like it fits here.

 

[britshcel]

Ratios are a scientifically proven way to measure the harmony of the face. Of course there are certain features that can change how the harmony is perceived (e.g eyebrows closer together compliments wider ESR), but for the most part, it's accurate. It's like saying IQ isn't a good way of measuring intelligence, well it's the best we've got, and its pretty good.

Harmony score is only one factor when determining attractiveness, of course dimorphism, being lean, miscellaneous features / colouring are all things we need to take into consideration.

Also, harmony score above a certain point should matter less and other factors should be held with more emphasis, say above 75% harmony for example. Hexum, who is arguably the best looking person of all time, actually has a lower harmony score but his colouring, dimorphism are exeptional which is more important for overall score. People who are overanalytical may underrate, as seen with hexum and barret.

Also, we should determine ideal ratios based on the average of the best of the best faces. The model people use include Ryan gosling, Andrew tate etc

 

[Whist]

Are you trying to say that the pictures i used was bad or are you trying to say that lower hairline = larger cranial top and that there is nothing more to it?

I think cranial top is cope, cause the examples of high cranial top u use r just non 6 head stacys. The bad examples were just 6 head. Hairline lowering def ascends beckies hard

 

[Whist]

Ratios are a scientifically proven way to measure the harmony of the face. Of course there are certain features that can change how the harmony is perceived (e.g eyebrows closer together compliments wider ESR), but for the most part, it's accurate. It's like saying IQ isn't a good way of measuring intelligence, well it's the best we've got, and its pretty good.

Harmony score is only one factor when determining attractiveness, of course dimorphism, being lean, miscellaneous features / colouring are all things we need to take into consideration.

Also, harmony score above a certain point should matter less and other factors should be held with more emphasis, say above 75% harmony for example. Hexum, who is arguably the best looking person of all time, actually has a lower harmony score but his colouring, dimorphism are exeptional which is more important for overall score. People who are overanalytical may underrate, as seen with hexum and barret.

Also, we should determine ideal ratios based on the average of the best of the best faces. The model people use include Ryan gosling, Andrew tate etc

Well thought out response, and I def agree. Also on the IQ note I am again not sure if its it the most sure fire way to measure intelligence because given a high IQ does not make you smart. As evident but this autistcel:

If u think critically about anything he says u will know its just word salad retardness

 

[britshcel]

Well thought out response, and I def agree. Also on the IQ note I am again not sure if its it the most sure fire way to measure intelligence because given a high IQ does not make you smart. As evident but this autistcel:

If u think critically about anything he says u will know its just word salad retardness

Well, an IQ above 160 it's very hard to accurately measure cognitive ability. IQ tests have a ceiling of 160.

I think estimating an IQ of like 180 or 190 would require historical analysis into the achievements of the person or genius, as they have done with many geniuses with an IQ of say 180 or 190. It's really just an estimation at that point, as tests like I said, its ceiling for capturing cognitive ability is around 160.

I personally don't think he is that high. An IQ that high usually requires an almost unheard of level of complex abstraction through a example of some extraordinart achievement that is estimated. It's really the way they estimate IQ that high, but I highly doubt he is on par with leonaddo da vinci or isaac Newton, intellectually speaking.

 

[Whist]

Well, an IQ above 160 it's very hard to accurately measure cognitive ability. IQ tests have a ceiling of 160.

I think estimating an IQ of like 180 or 190 would require historical analysis into the achievements of the person or genius, as they have done with many geniuses with an IQ of say 180 or 190. It's really just an estimation at that point, as tests like I said, its ceiling for capturing cognitive ability is around 160.

I personally don't think he is that high. An IQ that high usually requires an almost unheard of level of complex abstraction through a example of some extraordinart achievement that is estimated. It's really the way they estimate IQ that high, but I highly doubt he is on par with leonaddo da vinci or isaac Newton, intellectually speaking.

Yea he isnt he never went to uni or whatever. I genuinely think that the more passionate u r about a certain field or heavily invested in something the better you get in a sense. But someone people just are brilliant like da vinci and newton for sure. People have that the assumption that if your a top chess player with 180 IQ you could instantly go become the worlds best mathematician. Ur right its not he best metric but its the only metric in a sense.

 

[HandsomeOrDeath]

PSL= SYMMETRY/PROPORTION/HARMONY WITH SCULPTED AND CHISELED FEATURES.

Also known as the Super Model and Movie Star Ideal.

 

[chasing aesthetics]

I think cranial top is cope, cause the examples of high cranial top u use r just non 6 head stacys. The bad examples were just 6 head. Hairline lowering def ascends beckies hard

View attachment 3541724 View attachment 3541728 View attachment 3541730

I agree that you can somewhat mitigate the cranial top with hairline lowering, but one cannot ignore the shape of the skull completely. You can lower the hairline but still the top part of your head will be flat, sure your hairline starts at a lower point but that doesnt make the top not flat. Also what if a female has already too small forehead? Then you wont be eligable for the procedure to appear as high cranial top.

 

[chasing aesthetics]

Ratios are a scientifically proven way to measure the harmony of the face. Of course there are certain features that can change how the harmony is perceived (e.g eyebrows closer together compliments wider ESR), but for the most part, it's accurate. It's like saying IQ isn't a good way of measuring intelligence, well it's the best we've got, and its pretty good.

Harmony score is only one factor when determining attractiveness, of course dimorphism, being lean, miscellaneous features / colouring are all things we need to take into consideration.

Also, harmony score above a certain point should matter less and other factors should be held with more emphasis, say above 75% harmony for example. Hexum, who is arguably the best looking person of all time, actually has a lower harmony score but his colouring, dimorphism are exeptional which is more important for overall score. People who are overanalytical may underrate, as seen with hexum and barret.

Also, we should determine ideal ratios based on the average of the best of the best faces. The model people use include Ryan gosling, Andrew tate etc

What definition do you have of the word harmony in this context?

 

[chasing aesthetics]

Well thought out response, and I def agree. Also on the IQ note I am again not sure if its it the most sure fire way to measure intelligence because given a high IQ does not make you smart. As evident but this autistcel:

If u think critically about anything he says u will know its just word salad retardness

Im pretty sure that guy is a fraud bro