Why the traditional face rating system is flawed

[Tensor]

A fundamental flaw within face ratings

The face rating system that is commonly used assesses:

- Harmony
- Angularity
- Dimorphism
- Features

Out of 10 and constitutes the final rating out of 10 as such:

(Harmony score/10 )*0,4
+ (angularity score/10)*0,2
+ (Dimorphism score/10)*0,2
+ (Features score/10)*0,2

(this may be off by a little bit feom what is used right now but is close enough and won't be a problem for the argument)

Now as for the individual categories there seems to be plenty of nuance going into constituting the scores out of 10.

Spoiler: Examples

For example all the measurements going into the harmony score, which all are (or should at least be) backed by studies.

Or looking at thousands of people, assessing each persons angularity and assuming a normal distrubution and creating a scale with indicators with that.

Same with dimorphism and features (where one can even go as far as rank every feature by itself first)

Now why is it that those different categories are weighted as such?

Well the aswer is:

There does not seem to be a good reason at all!

It's just because people thought it would make sense!

While we require studies made of specific facial measurements to introduce them to our formula to costitute the harmony score (that only constitutes 40% of the harmony score)

There is not absolutely nothing indicating that it should be done this way!

(Or at least I have not seen or heard of any, although I have not really looked into it. Please correct me if I'm wrong and just
babbling nonsese)

So how can it be EVERYONE is accepting it, using it and not even questioning it

I mean sure it is somewhat sensible but just assuming that harmony has double the weight of the other categories and the categories that are not harmony all hold the same weight is
completely arbitrary
(Even if lets say its slightly different there is no actual justification)


This should not be condoned in a space where people claim to perform completely objective face ratings, which are comoletely based on studies and "math"

And this does not even include that the division into the 4 different specific categories needs to be justified

(Now again please correct me if there is justification. I might just be a dumbass rambling at 3am )

Anyways thanks for reading.
While this might have sounded a little harsh I would seriously like to know info about it and please give your opinion on it .

 

[Knight]

 

[onfoenem]

very high iq post

 

[SQL2VD]

 

[Tensor]

very high iq post

Thank you, it's 3am rn and this took way longer than I thought and I rlly need to sleeprn. Feel free to tag people who you think would like to read I dont even know who to tag anymlre

 

[onfoenem]

Thank you, it's 3am rn and this took way longer than I thought and I rlly need to sleeprn. Feel free to tag people who you think would like to read I dont even know who to tag anymlre

@i love my frenchie @chris34 @mohi_100
opinions?

 

[chris34]

@i love my frenchie @chris34 @mohi_100
opinions?

Idk I read half but I bookmarked cus imma read it later

 

[HighLtn]

10/10 thread

 

[mohi_100]

Very good observation. My theory is that since dimo, ang and misc can not be measured objectively, it's better to rate faces solely based on facial harmony. I also believe that a 10/10 face just hasn't been recorded so far

 

[yussimania]

dimo is literally just ang + misc it's such an unnecessary category and it's subjective since there are only a few male faces that can fit into that limiting range people use to judge the dimo on

 

[onfoenem]

Very good observation. My theory is that since dimo, ang and misc can not be measured objectively, it's better to rate faces based solely on facial harmony. I also believe that a 10/10 face just hasn't been recorded so far

i cant even think of a person that gets near 10/10, i dont even believe that would be possible

 

[mohi_100]

i cant even think of a person that gets near 10/10, i dont even believe that would be possible

They would mostly be faces on some renaissance era statues or paintings that could be considered that, at least for now

 

[onfoenem]

They would mostly be faces on some renaissance era statues or paintings that could be considered that

people back then were 100% far more attractive then nowadays.

 

[peobox]

mirin, unique take

 

[Tensor]

Idk I read half but I bookmarked cus imma read it later

10/10 thread

Thank you bro

Very good observation. My theory is that since dimo, ang and misc can not be measured objectively, it's better to rate faces solely based on facial harmony

I mean other things matter aswell. My problem isn't even that the other ones are diffucult to asses objectively but that there is no justification for the weighting of them and the division into such categories. Imo dimorphism should not be a category by itself or at the very least be weighted much less

. I also believe that a 10/10 face just hasn't been recorded so far

yes, ofc

dimo is literally just ang + misc it's such an unnecessary category and it's subjective since there are only a few male faces that can fit into that limiting range people use to judge the dimo on

Yoo I literally just said that aswell. Every single part of dimorphism is already included in the other categories. I would understand to treat it seperately aswell, but just as a way of giving the indicators more weight, not as a category as important as the other categories

i cant even think of a person that gets near 10/10, i dont even believe that would be possible

I mean depends on how near we are talking, but just from a statistical scale. The way we set it up sets the rarity of a 10/10 face to 1 in infinite poeple, making it impossible

mirin, unique take

Thank you

 

[Tensor]

@hej1377
@notgraycel245969
@MouthBreathingElite
@Histy
@turkcelfatcel

 

[i love my frenchie]

@i love my frenchie @chris34 @mohi_100
opinions?

tbh bro dnr but i repped for effort

 

[mohi_100]

there is no justification for the weighting of them and the division into such categories

Absolutely, i obviously believe that harmony should be given more importance

dimorphism should not be a category by itself or at the very least be weighted much less

Completely agree. It might as well be categorized under sharp features

 

[Tensor]

tbh bro dnr but i repped for effort

I guess that works for me

Absolutely, i obviously believe that harmony should be given more importance

Maybe a little, but it would also automstically if we give dimo less important and adjust the rest.
I also think there is stuff missing in the system, like contours and shapes created

Completely agree. It might as well be categorized under sharp features

 

[MouthBreathingElite]

They would mostly be faces on some renaissance era statues or paintings that could be considered that, at least for now

I dont think an objective 10/10 face is imaginable by man because you cant make up a new face

 

[mohi_100]

I dont think an objective 10/10 face is imaginable by man because you cant make up a new face

True, but many artists back then put huge effort into crafting faces as harmonious as possible. Obviously they didn’t have knowledge of the actual ideal ratios

 

[Tensor]

@Aryan Incel
@Orka
@thecel
@Zagro
@Fridx

 

[Histy]

A fundamental flaw within face ratings

The face rating system that is commonly used assesses:

- Harmony
- Angularity
- Dimorphism
- Features

Out of 10 and constitutes the final rating out of 10 as such:

(Harmony score/10 )*0,4
+ (angularity score/10)*0,2
+ (Dimorphism score/10)*0,2
+ (Features score/10)*0,2

(this may be off by a little bit feom what is used right now but is close enough and won't be a problem for the argument)

Now as for the individual categories there seems to be plenty of nuance going into constituting the scores out of 10.

Spoiler: Examples

For example all the measurements going into the harmony score, which all are (or should at least be) backed by studies.

Or looking at thousands of people, assessing each persons angularity and assuming a normal distrubution and creating a scale with indicators with that.

Same with dimorphism and features (where one can even go as far as rank every feature by itself first)

Now why is it that those different categories are weighted as such?

Well the aswer is:

There does not seem to be a good reason at all!

It's just because people thought it would make sense!

While we require studies made of specific facial measurements to introduce them to our formula to costitute the harmony score (that only constitutes 40% of the harmony score)

There is not absolutely nothing indicating that it should be done this way!

(Or at least I have not seen or heard of any, although I have not really looked into it. Please correct me if I'm wrong and just
babbling nonsese)

So how can it be EVERYONE is accepting it, using it and not even questioning it

I mean sure it is somewhat sensible but just assuming that harmony has double the weight of the other categories and the categories that are not harmony all hold the same weight is
completely arbitrary
(Even if lets say its slightly different there is no actual justification)


This should not be condoned in a space where people claim to perform completely objective face ratings, which are comoletely based on studies and "math"

And this does not even include that the division into the 4 different specific categories needs to be justified

(Now again please correct me if there is justification. I might just be a dumbass rambling at 3am )

Anyways thanks for reading.
While this might have sounded a little harsh I would seriously like to know info about it and please give your opinion on it .

Good thread

 

[Tensor]

I dont think an objective 10/10 face is imaginable by man because you cant make up a new face

Good thread

Thank you

 

[ogrecel67]

True, but many artists back then put huge effort into crafting faces as harmonious as possible. Obviously they didn’t have knowledge of the actual ideal ratios

This is a good point

 

[hej1377]

Actually a great post

Ive also always wondered why dimo is a straight 2d line when it comes to rating when more dimo doesn't always equall better and we know optimal dimo for slaying is just moderately above average

 

[Tensor]

Actually a great post

Thank you!

Ive also always wondered why dimo is a straight 2d line when it comes to rating when more dimo doesn't always equall better and we know optimal dimo for slaying is just moderately above average

True, I agree.
Also dimorphism is already accounted for with the other categories to a large extend, so are you not "counting it twice" when having it seperately aswell?
Giving it 20%, the same as features, seems ridiculous, especially with that

 

[notagreycell]

A fundamental flaw within face ratings

The face rating system that is commonly used assesses:

- Harmony
- Angularity
- Dimorphism
- Features

Out of 10 and constitutes the final rating out of 10 as such:

(Harmony score/10 )*0,4
+ (angularity score/10)*0,2
+ (Dimorphism score/10)*0,2
+ (Features score/10)*0,2

(this may be off by a little bit feom what is used right now but is close enough and won't be a problem for the argument)

Now as for the individual categories there seems to be plenty of nuance going into constituting the scores out of 10.

Spoiler: Examples

For example all the measurements going into the harmony score, which all are (or should at least be) backed by studies.

Or looking at thousands of people, assessing each persons angularity and assuming a normal distrubution and creating a scale with indicators with that.

Same with dimorphism and features (where one can even go as far as rank every feature by itself first)

Now why is it that those different categories are weighted as such?

Well the aswer is:

There does not seem to be a good reason at all!

It's just because people thought it would make sense!

While we require studies made of specific facial measurements to introduce them to our formula to costitute the harmony score (that only constitutes 40% of the harmony score)

There is not absolutely nothing indicating that it should be done this way!

(Or at least I have not seen or heard of any, although I have not really looked into it. Please correct me if I'm wrong and just
babbling nonsese)

So how can it be EVERYONE is accepting it, using it and not even questioning it

I mean sure it is somewhat sensible but just assuming that harmony has double the weight of the other categories and the categories that are not harmony all hold the same weight is
completely arbitrary
(Even if lets say its slightly different there is no actual justification)


This should not be condoned in a space where people claim to perform completely objective face ratings, which are comoletely based on studies and "math"

And this does not even include that the division into the 4 different specific categories needs to be justified

(Now again please correct me if there is justification. I might just be a dumbass rambling at 3am )

Anyways thanks for reading.
While this might have sounded a little harsh I would seriously like to know info about it and please give your opinion on it .

Every molecule read mirin thread

 

[Tensor]

Every molecule read mirin thread

Thank you

 

[notagreycell]

Thank you

Even tho i read everything i still dont get it can we get a tl:dr?

 

[Tensor]

Even tho i read everything i still dont get can we get a tl:dr?

Niggas are focusing on the smallest bullshit while the framework is flawed

 

[notagreycell]

Niggas are focusing on the smallest bullshit while the framework is flawed

Truth nuke

 

[LTNUser]

@hej1377
@notgraycel245969
@MouthBreathingElite
@Histy
@turkcelfatcel

You should tag actual good raters as well
@Klasik616 @zemult @greycel @Tigermoggerlol @KT-34

 

[Tensor]

You should tag actual good raters as well
@Klasik616 @zemult @greycel @Tigermoggerlol @KT-34

I don't know who is tbh
Thank you!

 

[LTNUser]

@ybuyhgui @VampyrMaxx @jaaba @Bobbyrino @AscendingHero

 

[KT-34]

You should tag actual good raters as well
@Klasik616 @zemult @greycel @Tigermoggerlol @KT-34

I'm not that good of a rater I don't rank based on system I just rank based on what I think the person would be viewed

 

[Soter]

I've always thought that these formulaic face ratings are stupid. There are more issues with it as well. The whole purpose for which these rating systems were created was to find a way to objectively assess how good looking and attractive someone truly is. You would assess different things and score them and then take the total composite score and place the evaluated person into a category (ranging from subhuman to chad) based on their score.

If these rating systems fulfilled their purpose, the entire "psl vs appeal" debate would not exist. There would be no
"He's HTN but has chadlite appeal irl"
That is assuming appeal is not conflated with SMV.

Now, about the formula itself. Not only are the weights for harmony, dimo, ang and misc completely arbitrary as you've said but each of these are arbitrary as well, even harmony. Yes, you can calculate the ratios and angles but who decides what ratio is more important than another? Why are there still debates like "is jaw or eye area more important?"

And then there's the fact that dimo ang and misc can't be measured objectively.

The formula also aims to be universal and assess people of different races and phenos but that is impossible. Obviously some phenos are much much better than others but it's like comparing apples to oranges. Each pheno should have its own formula.

Honestly the entire thing is just mental masturbation

 

[Soter]

I've always thought that these formulaic face ratings are stupid. There are more issues with it as well. The whole purpose for which these rating systems were created was to find a way to objectively assess how good looking and attractive someone truly is. You would assess different things and score them and then take the total composite score and place the evaluated person into a category (ranging from subhuman to chad) based on their score.

If these rating systems fulfilled their purpose, the entire "psl vs appeal" debate would not exist. There would be no
"He's HTN but has chadlite appeal irl"
That is assuming appeal is not conflated with SMV.

Now, about the formula itself. Not only are the weights for harmony, dimo, ang and misc completely arbitrary as you've said but each of these are arbitrary as well, even harmony. Yes, you can calculate the ratios and angles but who decides what ratio is more important than another? Why are there still debates like "is jaw or eye area more important?"

And then there's the fact that dimo ang and misc can't be measured objectively.

The formula also aims to be universal and assess people of different races and phenos but that is impossible. Obviously some phenos are much much better than others but it's like comparing apples to oranges. Each pheno should have its own formula.

Honestly the entire thing is just mental masturbation

@KKKuroiso @shanevasily @lurking truecel @Aryan Incel

 

[Tensor]

I've always thought that these formulaic face ratings are stupid. There are more issues with it as well. The whole purpose for which these rating systems were created was to find a way to objectively assess how good looking and attractive someone truly is. You would assess different things and score them and then take the total composite score and place the evaluated person into a category (ranging from subhuman to chad) based on their score.

If these rating systems fulfilled their purpose, the entire "psl vs appeal" debate would not exist. There would be no
"He's HTN but has chadlite appeal irl"
That is assuming appeal is not conflated with SMV.

Now, about the formula itself. Not only are the weights for harmony, dimo, ang and misc completely arbitrary as you've said but each of these are arbitrary as well, even harmony. Yes, you can calculate the ratios and angles but who decides what ratio is more important than another? Why are there still debates like "is jaw or eye area more important?"

And then there's the fact that dimo ang and misc can't be measured objectively.

The formula also aims to be universal and assess people of different races and phenos but that is impossible. Obviously some phenos are much much better than others but it's like comparing apples to oranges. Each pheno should have its own formula.

Honestly the entire thing is just mental masturbation

Agree with every molecule. You can just talk for me ngl.
Imo the final rating of someone should not be a score out of ten, but a distribution. This would also help with the phenotype issue (although it might not really be feasible)

 

[Klasik616]

Thank you bro

I mean other things matter aswell. My problem isn't even that the other ones are diffucult to asses objectively but that there is no justification for the weighting of them and the division into such categories. Imo dimorphism should not be a category by itself or at the very least be weighted much less

yes, ofc

Yoo I literally just said that aswell. Every single part of dimorphism is already included in the other categories. I would understand to treat it seperately aswell, but just as a way of giving the indicators more weight, not as a category as important as the other categories

I mean depends on how near we are talking, but just from a statistical scale. The way we set it up sets the rarity of a 10/10 face to 1 in infinite poeple, making it impossible

Thank you

On a general rating, I don't think dimorphism affects the end result. When someone say he or she is a dimocel, what it means for men I noticed is: lack of bones and feminine features. But on women is: lack of harmony. I think dimorphism exists, but is not a category that is separated from the other ones. For example, we could say a male with a wider frame and height has more dimorphism than a short male with a narrow frame, that would be right biologically in humans since women tend to be the opposite of that, but is that man better looking? Is any male with higher dimorphism more attractive, I don't think so. Nowadays looking like Zac Efron is more ideal than looking like Roman Reigns, I'm pretty sure more women would preffer more misc over dimo. Appeal is another term used frequently and signals a person who is pretty but also has facial averageness, so when you look at them they don't feel uncanny in fact they feel the opposite, familiar with him/her. Appeal is also connected to facial harmony and facial features rather than angularity.

 

[Wexilarious]

You should have calculation eyes like me, so you rate face fully combined without +1 for that part or -2 for that

 

[Tensor]

On a general rating, I don't think dimorphism affects the end result. When someone say he or she is a dimocel, what it means for men I noticed is: lack of bones and feminine features. But on women is: lack of harmony. I think dimorphism exists, but is not a category that is separated from the other ones. For example, we could say a male with a wider frame and height has more dimorphism than a short male with a narrow frame, that would be right biologically in humans since women tend to be the opposite of that, but is that man better looking? Is any male with higher dimorphism more attractive, I don't think so. Appeal is another term used frequently and signals a person who is pretty but also has facial averageness, so when you look at them they don't feel uncanny in fact they feel the opposite, familiar with him/her. Appeal is also connected to facial harmony and facial features rater than angularity.

I completely agree with you!
Dimorphism of course is a thing but imo schould be treated differently to how it is currently, just like you said

 

[Klasik616]

I completely agree with you!
Dimorphism of course is a thing but imo schould be treated differently to how it is currently, just like you said

Sometimes I disagree with @Tigermoggerlol with the fact he puts the same weight in dimo and appeal (0.25) which is ridiculous since I've proved before how a person can be good looking and have mid dimo such as Francisco Lachowski or Lucky Blue Smith. Also about appeal, I gotta say in this racist world some phenotypes don't have appeal anywhere. Someone can score high in ratios but if he has a very ethnic pheno, he would not be considered attractive. Pheno gives you the facial features and skull shape.

 

[Tensor]

Sometimes I disagree with @Tigermoggerlol with the fact he puts the same weight in dimo and appeal (0.25) which is ridiculous since I've proved before how a person can be good looking and have mid dimo such as Francisco Lachowski or Lucky Blue Smith. Also about appeal, I gotta say in this racist world some phenotypes don't have appeal anywhere. Someone can score high in ratios but if he has a very ethnic pheno, he would not be considered attractive. Pheno gives you the facial features and skull shape.

true, individual scales for phenotypes do not mean equal attractiveness of the same rating of different phenotypes whatsoever. Thats why rating specific for phenotype is kind of retarded. We do not live in a world where we only come across peoeple with only one phenotype.
So you guys incorporated dimorphism and appeal into your rating system? Or do you mean features with appeal I'm not sure, maybe my reading comprehension is bad. If its features I for sure agree with you. Imo dimorphism should not even be in the same tier of weighting as features, but more an amplifier to certain measurements/markers.

 

[killuacel]

So do you think that harmony should have more weight or less? Or that the rating system should be completely changed. Good thread either way I agree that it is flawed and too subjective

 

[Tensor]

So do you think that harmony should have more weight or less? Or that the rating system should be completely changed. Good thread either way I agree that it is flawed and too subjective

Maybe some things a little weight here and there would be better but I think just the system with those categories and weighting is too out of the blue und made up, without proper justification.

 

[killuacel]

Maybe some things a little weight here and there would be better but I think just the system with those categories and weighting is too out of the blue und made up, without proper justification.

Do you think specific ratios/measurements should have more weight? Btw I have seen some research on a few ratios etc, though I havent properly looked in to them.

 

[Sadist]

this is simply what raters learned from experience and weighed respectively.

 

[Tensor]

Do you think specific ratios/measurements should have more weight? Btw I have seen some research on a few ratios etc, though I havent properly looked in to them.

Maybe but I'm not that into it aswell and don't care that much ngl

 

[Tensor]

this is simply what raters learned from experience and weighed respectively.

For me it still feels pretty arbitrary and not even very accurate. And the division into those categories also seems a little out of the blue und unfinished