What I learned from Parlor round 1 and 2

[Titbot]

Lookmax users can’t rate accurately anyone below a psl 6. Is the major consus on this site for a user is a rating of psl 6 then he’s GL. PSL0-PSL5 is very subjective. We analyze a face so much here and think we know all the flaws but we miss ones we would never think off when rating users. For example a user here who spams his face Here asking about his flaws and what’s his rating so we give tell him the same flaws over and over again everyone he asks. What we did not see for this user is no one mentioned his forehead being to big being a failo. Every single foid pointed that out

 

[brutal_blackpill]

This site overrates whites and downrates everyone else.

 

[Pietrosiek]

Whos foredead?

 

[Yummyinmytummy]

STOP WRITING FOID, YOU ARE A GROWN FUCKING MAN AND WE ARE NOT ON .CO.
IT SOUNDS PATHETIC ASWELL.

 

[Swolepenisman]

show me where i asked

 

[Golden Glass]

Lookmax users can’t rate accurately anyone below a psl 6. Is the major consus on this site for a user is a rating of psl 6 then he’s GL. PSL0-PSL5 is very subjective. We analyze a face so much here and think we know all the flaws but we miss ones we would never think off when rating users. For example a user here who spams his face Here asking about his flaws and what’s his rating so we give tell him the same flaws over and over again everyone he asks. What we did not see for this user is no one mentioned his forehead being to big being a failo. Every single foid pointed that out

Imo I always thought that PSL ratings were way skewed. For example, there’s this huge gap between PSL 7 and 8 and there’s no explanation for this. Most male model tier men with pronounced bones and harmony should be PSL7.5+ and of course, no one should ever be an 8 because that’s “perfect”. So you get a lot of weird understanding of what a PSL 6 should be attractiveness wise. Also in @LordNorwood ’s thread https://looksmax.org/threads/psl-vs-irl-vs-smv.73003/ that a lot of people reference, he considered this:

to be a lower PSL rating than this:

There’s way too much “empty space” in the PSL 6-7.99 range. Anybody on his PSL 6 range, should just be in PSL 7 range as well, if you don’t believe me, just click the thread to see that there’s very little difference in both groups, especially not enough to have whole point difference in PSL. The group originally called PSL7 should be PSL7.5-7.9 if they’re still considered better than the original PSL 6 group.

This would result in far more space between PSL 5 and PSL7 (PSL 7.5+ being where most male supermodels are at), which I think would help in making more accurate ratings. So a high PSL 6 range should be model material (someone like Timothee Chalamet would be a decent example). And to even get to low PSL 6 should mean you are already quite attractive.

I think “good looking” would start at PSL 5. And PSL 4-5 would be “above average” but not “good looking”.

 

[LordNorwood]

Imo I always thought that PSL ratings were way skewed. For example, there’s this huge gap between PSL 7 and 8 and there’s no explanation for this. Most male model tier men with pronounced bones and harmony should be PSL7.5+ and of course, no one should ever be an 8 because that’s “perfect”. So you get a lot of weird understanding of what a PSL 6 should be attractiveness wise. Also in @LordNorwood ’s thread https://looksmax.org/threads/psl-vs-irl-vs-smv.73003/ that a lot of people reference, he considered this:
View attachment 236945
to be a lower PSL rating than this:
View attachment 236944

There’s way too much “empty space” in the PSL 6-7.99 range. Anybody on his PSL 6 range, should just be in PSL 7 range as well, if you don’t believe me, just click the thread to see that there’s very little difference in both groups, especially not enough to have whole point difference in PSL. The group originally called PSL7 should be PSL7.5-7.9 if they’re still considered better than the original PSL 6 group.

This would result in far more space between PSL 5 and PSL7 (PSL 7+ being where most male supermodels are at), which I think would help in making more accurate ratings. So a high PSL 6 range should be borderline supermodel material (someone like Timothee Chalamet would be a decent example). And to even get to low PSL 6 should mean you are already quite attractive.

I think “good looking” would start at PSL 5. And PSL 4-5 would be “above average” but not “good looking”.

Good points
Imo many people just see PSL differently, read my analysis at the end of the linked thread it's the most important part of the thread

 

[Swolepenisman]

Good points
Imo many people just see PSL differently, read my analysis at the end of the linked thread it's the most important part of the thread

me trying to comprehend these high iq threads

 

[EthnicelAscension]

lol why can't we just go back to the /10 ratings system?

Also JBW was really brutal on Parlor, in fact I think this site goes too easy on Ethnics JFL, every ethnic guy on Parlor was straight up called ugly or below average, only whites, even @Pietrosiek were getting actual numbers that were 5+/10

 

[Tiddlywink]

Suifuel for foreheadcels

 

[EthnicelAscension]

lol why can't we just go back to the /10 ratings system?

Also JBW was really brutal on Parlor, in fact I think this site goes too easy on Ethnics JFL, every ethnic guy on Parlor was straight up called ugly or below average, only whites, even @Pietrosiek were getting actual numbers that were 5+/10

I think ethnic women also rate against ethnic men even harder than white women too JFL,

I gave @Titbot this picture of me for Parlor round 1,
3 foids rated me,
1 Below average black woman said I was ugly
1 Slightly below average white girl said I was an 8/10
and 1 White (edit: Spelling)becky*, slightly above average, said "THEY'RE ALL UGLY"

One thing I noticed was that I look pretty dark/ethnic in this pic, I truly believe my results would've been much better had I simply used a pic with better lighting where I looked whiter, once again JBW is brutal.

 

[Golden Glass]

Good points
Imo many people just see PSL differently, read my analysis at the end of the linked thread it's the most important part of the thread

Yeah I read it and I agree with not making it a population and distribution based model of rankings.

I think a very good model would be based on beauty while not really focusing too much on “how many halo’s/failo’s do you have?”

PSL 3: Around average in terms of population distribution, but unattractive in terms of measurement of beauty.

PSL 4: Average in terms of beauty (not population) best I could come up with is something like this:

PSL 4-5: Above average in terms of beauty but not yet “good looking”, think someone who has bad bone structure but a halo like @Short Ugly and Brown who has fantastic eyes. Or someone like this, above average in terms of beauty, but not good looking:

PSL 5-6: Good looking. The closer you get to 6, the more likely you are “chadlite”.

PSL 6-7: Very good looking, someone like @Alarico8 definitely fits here( closer to PSL6.5-7 in all honesty). You can get into modeling based on traditional beauty (so not modeling based on weird features like a lot of high fashion modeling is) once you’re around 6.5 range, maybe less.

PSL 7-7.5 : Can easily be a model based on your face. Someone like @Amnesia or @Saiyan fits here.

PSL 7.5-7.99 : Top model tier (but only models who Have their status based on conventional beauty and not alien tier “oddness”. Someone possibly on this list would be @Salludon. Note that the closer to 7.99, the more unreal you’d look. It would be the kind of looks that would get multiple broken necks from people staring at you walk past them if you go out in public.

I think ethnic women also rate against ethnic men even harder than white women too JFL,
View attachment 236958
I gave @Titbot this picture of me for Parlor round 1,
3 foids rated me,
1 Below average black woman said I was ugly
1 Slightly below average white girl said I was an 8/10
and 1 White (edit: Spelling)becky*, slightly above average, said "THEY'RE ALL UGLY"

One thing I noticed was that I look pretty dark/ethnic in this pic, I truly believe my results would've been much better had I simply used a pic with better lighting where I looked whiter, once again JBW is brutal.

Race shouldn’t go into PSL ratings, only IRL ratings if anything.

 

[LordNorwood]

Yeah I read it and I agree with not making it a population and distribution based model of rankings.

I think a very good model would be based on beauty while not really focusing too much on “how many halo’s/failo’s do you have?”

PSL 3: Around average in terms of population distribution, but unattractive in terms of measurement of beauty.

PSL 4: Average in terms of beauty (not population) best I could come up with is something like this:
View attachment 236986

PSL 4-5: Above average in terms of beauty but not yet “good looking”, think someone who has bad bone structure but a halo like @Short Ugly and Brown who has fantastic eyes. Or someone like this, above average in terms of beauty, but not good looking:
View attachment 236956

PSL 5-6: Good looking. The closer you get to 6, the more likely you are “chadlite”.
View attachment 236961View attachment 236960

PSL 6-7: Very good looking, someone like @Alarico8 definitely fits here( closer to PSL6.5-7 in all honesty). You can get into modeling based on traditional beauty (so not modeling based on weird features like a lot of high fashion modeling is) once you’re around 6.5 range, maybe less.
View attachment 236964View attachment 236966View attachment 236965

PSL 7-7.5 : Can easily be a model based on your face. Someone like @Amnesia or @Saiyan fits here.
View attachment 236967View attachment 236969

PSL 7.5-7.99 : Top model tier (but only models who Have their status based on conventional beauty and not alien tier “oddness”. Someone possibly on this list would be @Salludon. Note that the closer to 7.99, the more unreal you’d look. It would be the kind of looks that would get multiple broken necks from people staring at you walk past them if you go out in public.
View attachment 236971View attachment 236982

Race shouldn’t go into PSL ratings, only IRL ratings if anything.

Yeah but the issue with this model is it is not quantifiable. That's why I attempted a halo/failo model although i admit it was deeply flawed.
That thread was more meant to be a conversation starter. Unfortunatley the entire thread was just people quibbling about the pictures lol

 

[Golden Glass]

Yeah but the issue with this model is it is not quantifiable. That's why I attempted a halo/failo model although i admit it was deeply flawed.
That thread was more meant to be a conversation starter. Unfortunatley the entire thread was just people quibbling about the pictures lol

Yeah the problem with making it a “tally” based system is you really start to have trouble in the PSL 6-8 range. I think going off how good looking people would perceive you in general is better. For example, someone like Chris Hemsworth technically has something considered to be a bit of a failo (narrow IPD and PSL), so based on that he could never be a PSL 7-7.5 under the tally based system you made, yet he’s universally considered one of the best looking men on the planet.

 

[LordNorwood]

Yeah the problem with making it a “tally” based system is you really start to have trouble in the PSL 6-8 range. I think going off how good looking people would perceive you in general is better. For example, someone like Chris Hemsworth technically has something considered to be a bit of a failo (narrow IPD and PSL), so based on that he could never be a PSL 7-7.5 under the tally based system you made, yet he’s universally considered one of the best looking men on the planet.

Yes part of this goes to my ideas on PSL itself.
PSL =/= IRL. The top PSL person would not be considered the best looking person.

 

[Golden Glass]

Yes part of this goes to my ideas on PSL itself.
PSL =/= IRL. The top PSL person would not be considered the best looking person.

Yeah my bad the last part likely confused you. I meant how beautiful people would consider your facial structure, not you overall. So most people would see Chris Hemsworth FACE as beautiful, yet he has “failos” in the tally based system that would disqualify him from being among the top crop, facially...yet facially, he is undoubtably striking.

 

[LordNorwood]

Yeah my bad the last part likely confused you. I meant how beautiful people would consider your facial structure, not you overall. So most people would see Chris Hemsworth FACE as beautiful, yet he has “failos” in the tally based system that would disqualify him from being among the top crop, facially...yet facially, he is undoubtably striking.

My response wouldn't change based on this clarification tbh

 

[Golden Glass]

My response wouldn't change based on this clarification tbh

Would you still say your system left too much “space” in the PSL 6-8 range?

 

[LordNorwood]

Would you still say your system left too much “space” in the PSL 6-8 range?

Yeah ofc I agree with all your critiques, my system is very flawed

 

[Golden Glass]

Yeah ofc I agree with all your critiques, my system is very flawed

Maybe your system is more like a “facial architecture” system, that’s based more on bone structure and ratios.

I think since PSL as a community is most focused on just facial “looks”, the system I propose would be more useful, since, facial architecture wise, someone like Hemsworth would be worse off than someone like Henry Cavill (cavill has better jaw, cheekbones, IPD, PFL, ratios), yet if people judged how attractive they are facially, they’d be about equal. A face like Hemsworth’s really makes all this clear.

 

[LordNorwood]

Maybe your system is more like a “facial architecture” system, that’s based more on bone structure and ratios.

I think since PSL as a community is most focused on just facial “looks”, the system I propose would be more useful, since, facial architecture wise, someone like Hemsworth would be worse off than someone like Henry Cavill (cavill has better jaw, cheekbones, IPD, PFL, ratios), yet if people judged how attractive they are facially, they’d be about equal. A face like Hemsworth’s really makes all this clear.

Wdym exactly

 

[Golden Glass]

Wdym exactly

Elab on the question

 

[LordNorwood]

Elab on the question

What do u mean by Hemsworth's face proves it

 

[Golden Glass]

What do u mean by Hemsworth's face proves it

His face proves that having a system that bases a lot of itself on how many “failos” you have and ranks based on tallies, like “at this level you should have at most 2 failos” or “at this level you shouldn’t have failos at all”, leaves a lot to be desired. Because a narrow IPD and PFL are considered failos when it comes to facial architecture—which is what I feel your original system was measuring more... so in that respect, obviously someone like Henry Cavill would rank higher (better bones, as well as IPD and PFL, among other things). But if you asked people how attractive each of their faces is, you’d likely get a similar rating for each, maybe even more for Chris. So if the goal of a PSL rating system is to show how attractive a face is, then I think a more “benchmark” style of system, like the one I made where “at PSL 4-5 you can be above average but not yet good looking” or “At PSL 6.5-7.5 you would undoubtably be able to model”, is better. Because people intuitively know whether someone truly meets those benchmarks or not. You know for a fact Chris Hemsworth’s facial attractiveness is very very similar to Henry Cavill’s, yet using a system based on facial architecture, this wouldn’t be clear and would be up for debate.

 

[LordNorwood]

His face proves that having a system that bases a lot of itself on how many “failos” you have and ranks based on tallies, like “at this level you should have at most 2 failos” or “at this level you shouldn’t have failos at all”, leaves a lot to be desired. Because a narrow IPD and PFL are considered failos when it comes to facial architecture—which is what I feel your original system was measuring more... so in that respect, obviously someone like Henry Cavill would rank higher (better bones, as well as IPD and PFL, among other things). But if you asked people how attractive each of their faces is, you’d likely get a similar rating for each, maybe even more for Chris. So if the goal of a PSL rating system is to show how attractive a face is, then I think a more “benchmark” style of system, like the one I made where “at PSL 4-5 you can be above average but not yet good looking” or “At PSL 6.5-7.5 you would undoubtably be able to model”, is better. Because people intuitively know whether someone truly meets those benchmarks or not. You know for a fact Chris Hemsworth’s facial attractiveness is very very similar to Henry Cavill’s, yet using a system based on facial architecture, this wouldn’t be clear and would be up for debate.

I think this is flawed reasoning though because it leaves the attraction of faces to mass appeal
Imo Cavill does have a better face

 

[Golden Glass]

I think this is flawed reasoning though because it leaves the attraction of faces to mass appeal
Imo Cavill does have a better face

Is PSL not supposed to be based on that? Trying to get a more appealing face? If you had to choose between a face with better structure, or one that more people considered attractive, most people on this forum would choose the latter.

I still think a ratings system based on “facial architecture” is worthwhile, especially so you can know what flaws to fix. But I think if you want to make a system based on facial attractiveness, it should be based on that, not just facial architecture and mm measurements.

And I’d likely also agree with Cavill over Hemsworth, personally. But I have a heavy bias in favor of measurements lol. It’s like how @Titbot asked those girls what to rate @Alarico8, and used a pic where his jawline still wasn’t sharp....and he made sure to say “but he doesn’t even have a good jaw” yet they still said “I don’t care he’s super hot”. This surprised him, because he was working off a system more similar to yours.... While a benchmark system would make it clear Alarico is without a doubt fantastic looking, whether he has a crisp sharp square jaw or not.

 

[LordNorwood]

Is PSL not supposed to be based on that? Trying to get a more appealing face? If you had to choose between a face with better structure, or one that more people considered attractive, most people on this forum would choose the latter.

I still think a ratings system based on “facial architecture” is worthwhile, especially so you can know what flaws to fix. But I think if you want to make a system based on facial attractiveness, it should be based on that, not just facial architecture and mm measurements.

And I’d likely also agree with Cavill over Hemsworth, personally. But I have a heavy bias in favor of measurements lol. It’s like how @Titbot asked those girls what to rate @Alarico8, and used a pic where his jawline still wasn’t sharp....and he made sure to say “but he doesn’t even have a good jaw” yet they still said “I don’t care he’s super hot”. This surprised him, because he was working off a system more similar to yours.... While a benchmark system would make it clear Alarico is without a doubt fantastic looking, whether he has a crisp sharp square jaw or not.

Yes but PSL should be objective. A system based on what most people subjectively find attractive is not objective. People dont get this. That's why PSL is just one component of IRL and not IRL in a different skin (i.e. convertible).

 

[Golden Glass]

Yes but PSL should be objective. A system based on what most people subjectively find attractive is not objective. People dont get this. That's why PSL is just one component of IRL and not IRL in a different skin (i.e. convertible).

Then everything is “subjective” to a degree. It’s subjective whether an IPD below 62 is a failo or whether one below 58 is a failo.
This subjectiveness is evident in the fact that for your PSL 5+ group applications, there were cases where some members considered an applicant PSL 5 while some considered him less.


Having benchmarks in place (like the ones I made in my post), could help mitigate this. So an example would be, based on those benchmarks, someone who’s only above average, but not good looking to *most people* would be in the 4-5 range. I understand even the phrase good looking would itself be subjective, but here is where you’d cede to mass appeal, because that’s exactly the goal of PSL anyways. To become attractive to the mass population.

I think a facial architecture system is perfectly usable to assess things like symmetry, mm measurements, ratios, bone projection, those sort of quantifiable things. And this system would be relevant to those who want to fix “failos”. While the system I produced would be better at assessing their actual facial attractiveness.

And saying it’s IRL rating by another name isn’t accurate because IRL takes into account things like race or height doesn’t it?

 

[LordNorwood]

Then everything is “subjective” to a degree. It’s subjective whether an IPD below 62 is a failo or whether one below 58 is a failo.
This subjectiveness is evident in the fact that for your PSL 5+ group applications, there were cases where some members considered an applicant PSL 5 while some considered him less.


Having benchmarks in place (like the ones I made in my post), could help mitigate this. So an example would be, based on those benchmarks, someone who’s only above average, but not good looking to *most people* would be in the 4-5 range. I understand even the phrase good looking would itself be subjective, but here is where you’d cede to mass appeal, because that’s exactly the goal of PSL anyways. To become attractive to the mass population.

I think a facial architecture system is perfectly usable to assess things like symmetry, mm measurements, ratios, bone projection, those sort of quantifiable things. And this system would be relevant to those who want to fix “failos”. While the system I produced would be better at assessing their actual facial attractiveness.

And saying it’s IRL rating by another name isn’t accurate because IRL takes into account things like race or height doesn’t it?

No, a system is "objective" so long as it lays out firm axioms and logically adheres to them. But something based on simply an opinion or group of opinions cannot ever be called an objective system.
PSL should be objective, that is what makes it useful. Because then you can meaningfully improve and quantify. IRL should still be objective. SMV is IMO what should be subjective and therefore estimated and never truly quanitifed. This is why SMV is not even a scale really. I talk about this stuff in my thread.
And yes I agree on IRL but many here think you can just convert PSL to IRL which imo is retarded

 

[Golden Glass]

No, a system is "objective" so long as it lays out firm axioms and logically adheres to them. But something based on simply an opinion or group of opinions cannot ever be called an objective system.
PSL should be objective, that is what makes it useful. Because then you can meaningfully improve and quantify. IRL should still be objective. SMV is IMO what should be subjective and therefore estimated and never truly quanitifed. This is why SMV is not even a scale really. I talk about this stuff in my thread.
And yes I agree on IRL but many here think you can just convert PSL to IRL which imo is retarded

Yeah I understand how “objectivity” can be established using axioms. Moral philosophy bases itself on this idea. The problem is, the underpinnings of the axioms themselves of your system, aren’t ever even going to be agreed upon in the first place, which is what would be necessary. I keep bringing up IPD because it’s a great example. How much of a failo is a 64 mm IPD? Well how about 60mm? Or 55 mm? Some would argue you need at minimum 64mm, so it’s not a failo, some would argue you need 60mm at minimum. And so when assessing a face using your system, based on tallies of failos, sure the quantity of failos itself can be objective, but whether something under consideration, is a failo itself, is subjective.

I agree that a facial architecture/measurements and ratio based system is necessary, but in the end, I think a facial attractiveness one is as well. And IRL would just be the facial attractiveness one mixed in with height, body, race, etc. If you think your system deserves the PSL title more, I’m fine with that, I just think, based on the forum’s reaction to @Titbot ’s experiment, a system that’s based more on facial attractiveness instead of facial architecture, is just as necessary. At least so it can help to make sense of things like how @Alarico8 did way better in facial attraction ratings than @EthnicelAscension, even though it could be argued that the latter has equal if not better facial architecture than the former.

 

[LordNorwood]

Yeah I understand how “objectivity” can be established using axioms. Moral philosophy bases itself on this idea. The problem is, the underpinnings of the axioms themselves of your system, aren’t ever even going to be agreed upon in the first place, which is what would be necessary. I keep bringing up IPD because it’s a great example. How much of a failo is a 64 mm IPD? Well how about 60mm? Or 55 mm? Some would argue you need at minimum 64mm, so it’s not a failo, some would argue you need 60mm at minimum. And so when assessing a face using your system, based on tallies of failos, sure the quantity of failos itself can be objective, but whether something under consideration, is a failo itself, is subjective.

I agree that a facial architecture/measurements and ratio based system is necessary, but in the end, I think a facial attractiveness one is as well. And IRL would just be the facial attractiveness one mixed in with height, body, race, etc. If you think your system deserves the PSL title more, I’m fine with that, I just think, based on the forum’s reaction to @Titbot ’s experiment, a system that’s based more on facial attractiveness instead of facial architecture, is just as necessary. At least so it can help to make sense of things like how @Alarico8 did way better in facial attraction ratings than @EthnicelAscension, even though it could be argued that the latter has equal if not better facial architecture than the former.

You seem to be thinking objectivity comes from agreement from some outside group? Any set of axioms are equally objective.
If you're asking what in reality is an objective looks ranking, it doesn't exist.
As for a facial attractiveness system there is no good way to establish one, I talk about this in my thread.

 

[Golden Glass]

You seem to be thinking objectivity comes from agreement from some outside group? Any set of axioms are equally objective.
If you're asking what in reality is an objective looks ranking, it doesn't exist.
As for a facial attractiveness system there is no good way to establish one, I talk about this in my thread.

No I understand any set of axioms is equally “objective”.

And yeah I read your argument against a facial attractiveness rating system, saying it would be based on feelings instead of super quantifiable metrics. I still think that’s not a huge issue, especially if you have explicit benchmarks in place, like the ones I wrote. The only points of contention that would ever arise in the system I wrote would be in the edge cases, so whether someone is like a 6.4 at most or gets into 6.5 and would definitely be able to model (the benchmark I wrote that would be needed to get into 6.5). Using this same benchmark, I think it would be clear as day someone like Alarico fits into 6.5 at the very least.

Even if a facial attractiveness system wasn’t perfect, I still think it’s necessary . Especially to point out how someone with a good facial architecture might not be seen as attractive facially as someone with a worse facial architecture. An example of this could be how someone like Cristiano Ronaldo has eye socket asymmetry, this would hinder his facial architecture rating (as it should), but likely not his facial attractiveness rating, or at least, not as much.
Anyways, this back and forth has been good and civil, but I’ll probably reply tomorrow, gonna crash now

 

[prgfromnl]

Many are scared to rate above 6psl

 

[Pietrosiek]

lol why can't we just go back to the /10 ratings system?

Also JBW was really brutal on Parlor, in fact I think this site goes too easy on Ethnics JFL, every ethnic guy on Parlor was straight up called ugly or below average, only whites, even @Pietrosiek were getting actual numbers that were 5+/10

5/10 is nothing. Fuck thisbexperiment

 

[Deleted member 656]

Many are scared to rate above 6psl

Best avi I've seen in a while

 

[Titbot]

One thing that proves time and time again is the eye area is the single thing what matters the most. I even asked some of the hotter foids what matters more eyes or good jaw. Guess what they said EYES without any hesitation. A great eye area paired with a good jawline acts like a halo multiplier for the lower third, especially in pictures. In motion, it reverses a bit where jawline matters more than the eye area. Using me an example my lower third is my best features it is great model teir but it does not halo me or failo me and it is just there because of shit eye area at least in pictures. In motion, I look a lot better because of my lower third where the focus goes right there instead of my shit eye area

 

[LordNorwood]

This site overrates whites and downrates everyone else.

So do foids

 

[Golden Glass]

One thing that proves time and time again is the eye area is the single thing what matters the most. I even asked some of the hotter foids what matters more eyes or good jaw. Guess what they said EYES without any hesitation. A great eye area paired with a good jawline acts like a halo multiplier for the lower third, especially in pictures. In motion, it reverses a bit where jawline matters more than the eye area. Using me an example my lower third is my best features it is great model teir but it does not halo me or failo me and it is just there because of shit eye area at least in pictures. In motion, I look a lot better because of my lower third where the focus goes right there instead of my shit eye area

I think it should be evident by now that the order of importance is:
1. Eye area
2. Mouth area/ maxilla development (you need a well developed maxilla to have good mouth area and protrusion)
3. Bone structure