"Wide set eyes are dimorphic" meme debunked

[TheEndHasNoEnd]

To preface, a good ipd and es ratio is needed for facial harmony, this thread is not an attempt to debunk that.


Many people here cite that wide set eyes are dimorphic, citing that men have wider ipds than women on average, such as shown:

But the actual reason for this is that men simply have bigger skulls than women, which would correlate with a wider ipd. What people do seem to overlook though is the ipd RELATIVE to the bizygo (ie. the ES ratio). Ipd is as good of an example to dimorphism as height is, there can be a woman taller than a man but the man will still have more masculine looking face, bigger hands, feet, skull, deeper voice, wider shoulders, etc. Let's look at bizygomatic width values:

If we were to take the 50th percentile of both bizygo and ipd and calculate it to ES ratio for both genders, we get that males have an average ES ratio of .4475 and females .4626. Now let's say we match the female bizygo to the male 50th percentile bizygo, that would mean matching it to the 95th percentile female bizygo. To calculate the corresponding es ratio of the female bizygo, we must look at the 95th percentile female ipd. As it turns out, a 14.3cm bizygo on a female matches with a 67.5mm ipd, the same bizygo on a male matches with a lower ipd of 64mm.


TL;DR: The wider the spaced eyes relative to the skull, the less dimorphic it is

 

[Copemaxxing]

so you wrote this for me not to read a single word

 

[TheEndHasNoEnd]

so you wrote this for me not to read a single word

 

[retard]

lifefuel for my 59 ipd and .44 es ratio

 

[thecel]

Highest IQ thread I’ve seen in a while

 

[Deleted member 5061]

slightly longer ipd than average is ok, slightly shorter than average is death. Unless professional NBA athlete 200 cm tall and multimillionair.

 

[Deleted member 12344]

High iq

 

[Deleted member 275]

I have average ipd

 

[Deleted member 4430]

No one care about wide IPD and too narrow IPD to have any effect is virtually impossible to have. the only thing that matters is how vertically long your nose is

 

[casadebanho]

No one care about wide IPD and too narrow IPD to have any effect is virtually impossible to have. the only thing that matters is how vertically long your nose is

What would you say is the best nose length nose for my 69mm IPD? (I know it's bad, but im not getting orbital surgery)

 

[thecel]

No one care about wide IPD and too narrow IPD to have any effect is virtually impossible to have.

Dafaq?

 

[Deleted member 12344]

Dafaq?

He is not fully wrong tho also look at the dm fuck

 

[thecel]

What would you say is the best nose length nose for my 69mm IPD? (I know it's bad, but im not getting orbital surgery)

About 5 cm

 

[weallburninhell]

fuck dimorphic, harmony is everything​

 

[thecel]

He is not fully wrong tho also look at the dm fuck

Just let me be lazy will ya? Don’t talk about PMs (don’t even mention their existence) on the public forum

 

[weallburninhell]

Highest IQ thread I’ve seen in a while

whats ur ipd, are u close set eyes coper? Probably not, right?

 

[Deleted member 12344]

Just let me be lazy will ya? Don’t talk about PMs (don’t even mention their existence) on the public forum

Why you so mean to me

 

[thecel]

whats ur ipd, are u close set eyes coper? Probably not, right?

55.5 mm bro keep reverse coping. Thinking IPD is cope is cope.

 

[thecel]

Why you so mean to me

I’m super lazy and struggle to get motivated to respond to PMs in a timely manner

 

[weallburninhell]

55.5 mm bro keep reverse coping. Thinking IPD is cope is cope.

yeah same as fwhr, so thats means you have close set eyes, right? Ow low ipd

 

[TheEndHasNoEnd]

No one care about wide IPD and too narrow IPD to have any effect is virtually impossible to have. the only thing that matters is how vertically long your nose is

actually not true, i overheard foids in high school talking about some guy and they're like “ugh his eyes are so close together” or sum shit like that

 

[thecel]

yeah same as fwhr, so thats means you have close set eyes, right? Ow low ipd

Me ESR is 0.38

 

[thecel]

actually not true, i overheard foids in high school talking about some guy and they're like “ugh his eyes are so close together” or sum shit like that

I’m that guy

 

[MisterMercedes]

A bit misleading. Wider spaced eyes are a male dimorphic trait due to wider nasal bridge.

Let’s say a guy has an average skull and bizygomatic width. It is more dimorphic for him to have disproportionately wide set eyes than aesthetically ideal spaced eyes, as the absolute IPD is higher. Lowering his IPD to fit the average percentile for any given skull width is bringing him closer to the average, but that doesn’t mean it makes his eye spacing more dimorphic.

 

[thecel]

A bit misleading. Wider spaced eyes are a male dimorphic trait due to wider nasal bridge.

Let’s say a guy has an average skull and bizygomatic width. It is more dimorphic for him to have disproportionately wide set eyes than aesthetically ideal spaced eyes, as the absolute IPD is higher. Lowering his IPD to fit the average percentile for any given skull width is bringing him closer to the average, but that doesn’t mean it makes his eye spacing more dimorphic.

Keep coping. FaceApp’s male filter decreases eye spacing. FaceApp’s female filter increases eye spacing.

 

[weallburninhell]

A bit misleading. Wider spaced eyes are a male dimorphic trait due to wider nasal bridge.

Let’s say a guy has an average skull and bizygomatic width. It is more dimorphic for him to have disproportionately wide set eyes than aesthetically ideal spaced eyes, as the absolute IPD is higher. Lowering his IPD to fit the average percentile for any given skull width is bringing him closer to the average, but that doesn’t mean it makes his eye spacing more dimorphic.

they are coping for their 55mm ipd, let them be, do u have humanity in ur heart?

 

[MisterMercedes]

Keep coping. FaceApp’s male filter decreases IPD. FaceApp’s female filter increases IPD.

Well I can’t argue with the FaceApp filter.

 

[thecel]

Well I can’t argue with the FaceApp filter.

If ^this^ is sarcasm,

FaceApp filters are machine learning models trained on thousands if not millions of faces. The Masculine/Male filter shrinking eye spacing and the Feminine/Female filter expanding eye spacing are evidence of these trends in the population.

 

[MisterMercedes]

If ^this^ is sarcasm,

FaceApp filters are machine learning models trained on thousands if not millions of faces. The Masculine/Male filter narrowing IPD and the Feminine/Female filter widening IPD are evidence of these trends in the population.

Even if what you’re saying is true, a filter that claims to be based off actual faces still loses compared to actual studies on the dimorphism of IPD, some of which were cited in the post.

 

[thecel]

Even if what you’re saying is true, a filter that claims to be based off actual faces still loses compared to actual studies on the dimorphism of IPD, some of which were cited in the post.

While absolute IPD is more masculine, so is narrower ES ratio. The apparent close- or wide-settedness of eye areas has more to do with ES ratio than absolute IPD, and males on average have lower ES ratios than females.

 

[volcelfatcel]

Me ESR is 0.38

Mogs me chang

 

[MisterMercedes]

Wider absolute IPD is more masculine, but so is narrower ES ratio. How wide-set an eye area appears has more to do with ES ratio than absolute IPD, and males on average have lower ES ratios than females. Don’t stop coping

On average ≠ dimorphic. Average male doesn’t have a big onion that’s about equal to the width of the cheekbones, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t dimorphic to have a proportionally wide big onion.

To explain what you’re saying to you, you’re saying that if a male had a narrow skull (feminine(, it would be more dimorphic for him to also have narrow IPD to make his ESR lower, even though you admit lower IPD is feminine. In other words, you’re saying two feminine traits instead of one is more masculine.

The only explanation for someone as smart as you to make this bad of an argument is that you are trying to feel better about your very narrow IPD.

 

[50konsurgeryat35]

Ipd 73, nose length 52.



Is it over? Pretty sure this is dimorphic or at least that's the way my face is

 

[weallburninhell]

While absolute IPD is more masculine, so is narrower ES ratio. The apparent close- or wide-settedness of eye areas has more to do with ES ratio than absolute IPD, and males on average have lower ES ratios than females.

even if male had lower ipd than woman, its not 55mm tier, most dimorphic male had 65+ mm like brad pitt, ian somerhalder, etc. Do it looks dimorphic to u?

 

[StrangerDanger]

most dimorphic male had 65+ mm like brad pitt, ian somerhalder, etc. Do it looks dimorphic to

lol wrong pitt, has slightly narrower ipd (around 62mm) and somerhalder has like 59mm ipd

 

[weallburninhell]

lol wrong pitt, has slightly narrower ipd (around 62mm) and somerhalder has like 59mm ipd

i dont know, i just guess it by observation

 

[50konsurgeryat35]

even if male had lower ipd than woman, its not 55mm tier, most dimorphic male had 65+ mm like brad pitt, ian somerhalder, etc. Do it looks dimorphic to u?

View attachment 1155584

Definitely looks like wider would suit him better at minimum

 

[StrangerDanger]

Wider set eyes because of a high ES ratio is more feminine
Ratios > Absolute measurements unless they deviate a lot
Just because males have wider and larger proportions than females doesn't mean bigger is always more dimorphic if it impacts a ratio

 

[weallburninhell]

.

 

[weallburninhell]

Wider set eyes and higher ES ratios are more feminine
Ratios > Absolute measurements unless they deviate a lot
Just because males have wider and larger proportions than females doesn't mean bigger is always more dimorphic if it impacts a ratio

yeah thats true, you cant give a number unless its proportion to the rest

 

[pizza]

this is ideal

 

[Blackgymmax]

While absolute IPD is more masculine, so is narrower ES ratio. The apparent close- or wide-settedness of eye areas has more to do with ES ratio than absolute IPD, and males on average have lower ES ratios than females.

so good es ratio = masc and the actual wide ipd is masc as well?

 

[thecel]

The only explanation for someone as smart as you to make this bad of an argument is that you are trying to feel better about your very narrow IPD.

I said close-set eyes are masculine, not good-looking. I would never argue in favor of close-set eyes LOOKING BETTER than wide-set eyes to try to make me feel better because the close-settedness of my eyes UTTERLY DISGUSTS me. Me saying close-set is more aesthetically pleasing than wide-set would make me cringe hard.

On average ≠ dimorphic. Average male doesn’t have a big onion that’s about equal to the width of the cheekbones, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t dimorphic to have a proportionally wide big onion.

The average male’s onion is bigger than the average female’s onion. Therefore, dimorphic.

To explain what you’re saying to you, you’re saying that if a male had a narrow skull (feminine(, it would be more dimorphic for him to also have narrow IPD to make his ESR lower, even though you admit lower IPD is feminine. In other words, you’re saying two feminine traits instead of one is more masculine.

Overlapping variables problem. Men have longer legs and lower leg-to-torso ratios than women. Would a man who has a short stature and a high leg-to-torso ratio be more or less masculine if he had shorter legs?

Men have longer philtrums and higher chin-to-philtrum ratios than women. Would a man who has a short lower third and a low chin-to-philtrum ratio be more or less masculine if he had a shorter philtrum?

Although wider IPD is more male dimorphic, the actual reason for men having wider IPDs is that they have bigger skulls. IPD and skull size are positively correlated. Before you do “what’s more dimorphic” comparisons, you must make your variables as independent as possible. Instead of using IPD which is proportional to skull size as a dimorphic factor, you should use ES ratio which is independent of skull size.

Dimorphic eye spacing is characterized by ES ratio not IPD. IPD is dimorphic, but it should be ignored in a “what face is more dimorphic” context because IPD greatly correlates with skull size, and skull size is dimorphic by itself.

 

[MisterMercedes]

I said close-set eyes are masculine, not good-looking. I would never argue in favor of close-set eyes LOOKING BETTER than wide-set eyes to try to make me feel better because the close-settedness of my eyes UTTERLY DISGUSTS me. Me saying close-set is more aesthetically pleasing than wide-set would make me cringe hard.





The average male’s onion is bigger than the average female’s onion. Therefore, dimorphic.





Overlapping variables problem. Men have longer legs and lower leg-to-torso ratios than women. Would a man who has a short stature and a high leg-to-torso ratio be more or less masculine if he had shorter legs?

Men have longer philtrums and higher chin-to-philtrum ratios than women. Would a man who has a short lower third and a low chin-to-philtrum ratio be more or less masculine if he had a shorter philtrum?

Although wider IPD is more male dimorphic, the actual reason for men having wider IPDs is that they have bigger skulls. IPD and skull size are positively correlated. Before you do “what’s more dimorphic” comparisons, you must make your variables as independent as possible. Instead of using IPD which is proportional to skull size as a dimorphic factor, you should use ES ratio which is independent of skull size.

Dimorphic eye spacing is characterized by ES ratio not IPD. IPD is dimorphic, but it should be ignored in a “what face is more dimorphic” context because IPD greatly correlates with skull size, and skull size is dimorphic by itself.

“I said close set eyes are masculine”

I know, and this is blatantly false.

“The average male’s bigonion is bigger than the female’s bigonion. Therefore, dimorphic.”

Correct. Replace bigonion with eye spacing and you would also be correct.

“Men have lower leg to torso ratios than women”

Source?

“Would a man who has a short lower third and a low chin to philtrum ratio be more or less masculine if he had a shorter philtrum?”

Both, as his chin would be longer (masculine) but philtrum shorter (feminine).

This isn’t equivalent to ESR, however, as wider spaced eyes don’t actually make the skull or bizygomatic width narrower. A shorter philtrum (alveolar process of maxilla) would actually make the chin longer and thus more masculine.

What you’re suggesting is a narrow skull + proportionally narrow IPD (both feminine) is more masculine than narrow skull and disproportionately wide IPD (only one trait is feminine, other is masculine) simply because the latter deviates from the average ratio (a deviation in favor of dimorphism).

“Although wider IPD is more male dimorphic, the actual reason for men having wider IPDs is that they have bigger skulls.”

No, the reason they have wider IPDs is because they have wider nasal bridges.

“IPD and skull size are positively correlated”

I would most likely agree, but that doesn’t change that a wider IPD is always more male dimorphic than narrow, even if that means a higher ESR.

O’ Pry, for example, has a short frontal bone, but decently long mandible. As a result, his mandible looks extremely protrusive, even though it’s not as long as guys like Dicaprio or Holloway.

One feminine trait (short frontal bone), one masculine (long mandible). Would shortening his mandible to make his chin protrusion closer to the average male proportion make him more masculine? If you answer yes, you are literally saying two feminine traits are more masculine than one.

Again, the only explanation for such an argument from you is you are finding some sort of comfort in “low ESR is masculine”.

 

[StrangerDanger]

What you’re suggesting is a narrow skull + proportionally narrow IPD (both feminine) is more masculine than narrow skull and disproportionately wide IPD (only one trait is feminine, other is masculine) simply because the latter deviates from the average ratio (a deviation in favor of dimorphism).

“Although wider IPD is more male dimorphic, the actual reason for men having wider IPDs is that they have bigger skulls.”

No, the reason they have wider IPDs is because they have wider nasal bridges.

“IPD and skull size are positively correlated”

I would most likely agree, but that doesn’t change that a wider IPD is always more male dimorphic than narrow, even if that means a higher ESR.

O’ Pry, for example, has a short frontal bone, but decently long mandible. As a result, his mandible looks extremely protrusive, even though it’s not as long as guys like Dicaprio or Holloway.


View attachment 1155689View attachment 1155692

One feminine trait (short frontal bone), one masculine (long mandible). Would shortening his mandible to make his chin protrusion closer to the average male proportion make him more masculine? If you answer yes, you are literally saying two feminine traits are more masculine than one.

Again, the only explanation for such an argument from you is you are finding some sort of comfort in “low ESR is masculine”.

For the first case both measurements are lower under average and will affect the dimorphism but the ES ratio remains intact.
In the second case only one of the measurements is affected but now instead of the ratio remaining intact it will lean more toward the female average ES ratio which is higher.
Higher absolute IPD may be more dimorphic but that doesn't refute the fact that a higher ES ratio is more feminine.
The higher the IPD, the wider the bizygomatic breadth should be, otherwise the ES ratio will near the feminine average.

For instance a man with a 145mm skull and 68mm IPD may have more dimorphic absolute IPD but a man with a 145mm skull and 65mm ipd will have a more dimorphic ES ratio and probably look more masculine within this area in the end

 

[MisterMercedes]

For the first case both measurements are lower under average and will affect the dimorphism but the ES ratio remains intact.
In the second case only one of the measurements is affected but now instead of the ratio remaining intact it will lean more toward the female average ES ratio which is higher.
Higher absolute IPD may be more dimorphic but that doesn't refute the fact that a higher ES ratio is more feminine.
The higher the IPD, the wider the bizygomatic breadth should be, otherwise the ES ratio will near the feminine average.

For instance a man with a 145mm skull and 68mm IPD may have more dimorphic absolute IPD but a man with a 145mm skull and 65mm ipd will have a more dimorphic ES ratio and probably look more masculine within this area in the end
View attachment 1155729View attachment 1155731

I understand that the ratio would be closer to the female average, but that wouldn’t make it more feminine than having close set eyes and a narrow skull, which are both feminine.

Feminine ratio caused by one masculine trait and one feminine is more masculine than a masculine ratio caused by two feminine traits.

See my example of O’ Pry.

 

[MisterMercedes]

For the first case both measurements are lower under average and will affect the dimorphism but the ES ratio remains intact.
In the second case only one of the measurements is affected but now instead of the ratio remaining intact it will lean more toward the female average ES ratio which is higher.
Higher absolute IPD may be more dimorphic but that doesn't refute the fact that a higher ES ratio is more feminine.
The higher the IPD, the wider the bizygomatic breadth should be, otherwise the ES ratio will near the feminine average.

For instance a man with a 145mm skull and 68mm IPD may have more dimorphic absolute IPD but a man with a 145mm skull and 65mm ipd will have a more dimorphic ES ratio and probably look more masculine within this area in the end
View attachment 1155729View attachment 1155731

I also think that example of Nessman and the blonde is bad as that guy eye spacing is disproportionately wide to the point it ruins his “harmony” or golden ratio. Nessman’s eye spacing is only slightly narrower than ideal in relation to the width of his face.

If you look at O’ Pry, who has average skull width and slightly wider set eyes than ideal, I would say his eye spacing looks more dimorphic than Nessman’s:

I don’t like this form of argument as there are countless other factors as to how dimorphic someone looks, but you used it so I felt it was needed to counter.

 

[thecel]

you are finding some sort of comfort in “low ESR is masculine”.

I already told you that I find low ESR disgusting. Low ESR looks like utter dog shit; I don't care that it's masculine. Nothing would make me comforted with my ES ratio except for actually widening it. I derive ZERO comfort from having UNAESTHETIC masculine traits. What does give me comfort is having AESTHETIC AND MASCULINE traits. My legs are very short for my torso, and this makes me the opposite of comforted. Low leg-to-torso ratio being masculine doesn't make me feel better at all because it looks awful and is physically disadvantageous (slower running). I'd rather be feminine and aesthetic than masculine and fugly.

“The average male’s bigonion is bigger than the female’s bigonion. Therefore, dimorphic.”

Correct. Replace bigonion with eye spacing and you would also be correct.

“Eye spacing” means ES ratio not IPD

What you’re suggesting is a narrow skull + proportionally narrow IPD (both feminine) is more masculine than narrow skull and disproportionately wide IPD (only one trait is feminine, other is masculine) simply because the latter deviates from the average ratio (a deviation in favor of dimorphism).

Not because it deviates from the average ratio. The latter is more feminine because it's further in the direction of females' ES ratios (higher).

No, the reason they have wider IPDs is because they have wider nasal bridges.

AND wider skulls.

I know wider nasal bridge means wider IPD (Black vs. Caucasian). But the real question is, do men have higher ES ratios than women because men have wider nose bridges? The answer is no.

I would most likely agree, but that doesn’t change that a wider IPD is always more male dimorphic than narrow, even if that means a higher ESR.

“…even if that means a higher ESR.”

One feminine trait (short frontal bone), one masculine (long mandible). Would shortening his mandible to make his chin protrusion closer to the average male proportion make him more masculine? If you answer yes, you are literally saying two feminine traits are more masculine than one.

Yeah, it won't, but who said dimorphism is about being close to average?

If the males’ average is significantly different than the female’s average, the trait is a dimorphic trait. Here “trait” refers to a general trait like “nose size” and not a person’s specific nose size. i.e. a dimension or an axis of a graph. This only tells us that the trait is dimorphic and how dimorphic it is among humans.

When it comes to a person’s specific nose size, the more dimorphic it is, the more it deviates from the average of males and females. Male dimorphism isn’t how close a trait is to the male average; it's how far a trait is in the direction of the males relative to the male–female average.

I know you know this, but I think I gotta make it clear that I don't think male dimorphism is being an average male like you seemed to imply with this:

Would shortening his mandible to make his chin protrusion closer to the average male proportion make him more masculine?

 

[thecel]

I don’t like this form of argument as there are countless other factors as to how dimorphic someone looks, but you used it so I felt it was needed to counter.

These countless other factors influence whose eyes looks more dimorphic. You think Sean O’Pry’s eye spacing is more dimorphic, but I suspect you see it that way because his eye shape is more dimorphic. I think Nessman’s ES is more dimorphic. They’re really similar anyway. O’Pry’s is 0.47, Nessman’s is 0.46—gigaminor difference.

 

[StrangerDanger]

I also think that example of Nessman and the blonde is bad as that guy eye spacing is disproportionately wide to the point it ruins his “harmony” or golden ratio. Nessman’s eye spacing is only slightly narrower than ideal in relation to the width of his face.

If you look at O’ Pry, who has average skull width and slightly wider set eyes than ideal, I would say his eye spacing looks more dimorphic than Nessman’s:
View attachment 1155771

View attachment 1155769
I don’t like this form of argument as there are countless other factors as to how dimorphic someone looks, but you used it so I felt it was needed to counter.

O'Prys wide measurements overpower Nessman's and compensate for the small change in his ES ratio(0.46) so I do agree he looks more dimorphic. However I still believe there's a trade off between the measurements and the ratio. If O'Pry had higher bizygomatic breadth he could both have both dimorphic measurements and a more dimorphic ratio.

I understand that the ratio would be closer to the female average, but that wouldn’t make it more feminine than having close set eyes and a narrow skull, which are both feminine.

Feminine ratio caused by one masculine trait and one feminine is more masculine than a masculine ratio caused by two feminine traits.

See my example of O’ Pry.

If the measurements deviates a lot from the norm alot I can see it
But lets assume that 2 individuals both have measurements that are well within male range and the same bizygomatic breadth. However, one of these has a really wide IPD and thus a really high ES ratio (Ex 0.45 vs 0.50).
Which one do you think looks more dimorphic?