You cant be good looking without good midface ratio or very good fwhr to redeem it.

[LocalDanger]

There is no chad with long midface + subpar fwhr..

There is almost no gl people with long midface. And even in that super rare group of good looking midfacels they all have fwhr basically wide face to save them.

Long midface+ low fwhr = chadlite maybe lowtier chad with top tier bones + coloring but never true chad.

Good midface is most common trait among chads i have seen. Almost all chads have good midface. I masured it autistically whole morning on all gl people i know online and irl there is no mistake. It's most common trait besides water things like normal features, solid bone mass, no major failos ect.

 

[Deleted member 4438]

Midface is a meme

Midface is always the longest part of face though

 

[LocalDanger]

Midface is a meme

Midface is always the longest part of face though

How is it meme bro?

When 99% of gl people have it in common. Midface ratio of at least 97+ is a must

 

[Deleted member 13094]

water

 

[Deleted member 8461]

I've never seen midface ratio be presented in real studies. I've only ever seen fwhr. I've seen eye-mouth-eye angle which is almost identical to midface ratio, but those studies suggest that a long midface on a man is more attractive, masculine, and dimorphic:

Eye-mouth-eye angle as a good indicator of face masculinization, asymmetry, and attractiveness (Homo sapiens) - PubMed

Past research on male facial attractiveness has been limited by the reliance on facialmetric measures that are less than ideal. In particular, some of these measures are face size dependent and show only weak sexual dimorphism, which limits the ability to identify the relationship between...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If you're looking at male models, they are specifically chosen and for their wider faces as wider faces are more photogenic in still images. But in motion, it looks kinda bloated and uncanny.

 

[LocalDanger]

I've never seen midface ratio be presented in real studies. I've only ever seen fwhr. I've seen eye-mouth-eye angle which is almost identical to midface ratio, but those studies suggest that a long midface on a man is more attractive, masculine, and dimorphic:

Eye-mouth-eye angle as a good indicator of face masculinization, asymmetry, and attractiveness (Homo sapiens) - PubMed

Past research on male facial attractiveness has been limited by the reliance on facialmetric measures that are less than ideal. In particular, some of these measures are face size dependent and show only weak sexual dimorphism, which limits the ability to identify the relationship between...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If you're looking at male models, they are specifically chosen and for their wider faces as wider faces are more photogenic in still images. But in motion, it looks kinda bloated and uncanny.

But can we trust these studys. Imo they are often worthless.

What i mean is that we know studys say a lot of bullishit like how 5"11 is ideal height while everyone know 6'3-6'4 mogs even normies.Or how 1.6 is ideal shoulder to waist ratio while we know instinctively that 1.9-2.0 like Laid mogs 1.6 to hell.

Point being imo looking at chads is much more accurate. And best looking chads out there in 99% of cases have 0.98+ midface ratio.

 

[Deleted member 8461]

But can we trust these studys. Imo they are often worthless.

What i mean is that we know studys say a lot of bullishit like how 5"11 is ideal height while everyone know 6'3-6'4 mogs even normies.Or how 1.6 is ideal shoulder to waist ratio while we know instinctively that 1.9-2.0 like Laid mogs 1.6 to hell.

Point being imo looking at chads is much more accurate. And best looking chads out there in 99% of cases have 0.98+ midface ratio.

No, PSL autism is not better than peer reviewed studies done by professional psychologists with PHDs. Looking at pictures of male models and making random numbers isn't more accurate jfl. You're choosing feels over reals like a liberal cuck

 

[LocalDanger]

No, PSL autism is not better than peer reviewed studies done by professional psychologists with PHDs. Looking at pictures of male models and making random numbers isn't more accurate jfl. You're choosing feels over reals like a liberal cuck

Shut up man wtf is this cope.

So you are saying then that 5"11 is ideal because some stupid study says so. Or even funnier you say 1.6 is ideal shoulder to waist ratio because study says so. And then you put picture of some average framed gymaxed dude next to Laid with 2.0 ratio and tell me do you still believe in these studys. Instinct and eyes are much more accurate than these stupid studies.

 

[Deleted member 8461]

Shut up man wtf is this cope.

So you are saying then that 5"11 is ideal because some stupid study says so. Or even funnier you say 1.6 is ideal shoulder to waist ratio because study says so. And then you put picture of some average framed gymaxed dude next to Laid with 2.0 ratio and tell me do you still believe in these studys. Instinct and eyes are much more accurate than these stupid studies.

Idk why you keep pulling out random numbers like 5"11 and 1.6 out of your ass just to strawman my argument. I have no fucking idea what you're talking about. If professionals believed in "instinct and eyes" and feelings over the scientific method we wouldn't even be having this aspie debate because we'd be starving and dying of disease in a cave somewhere.

 

[LocalDanger]

Idk why you keep pulling out random numbers like 5"11 and 1.6 out of your ass just to strawman my argument. I have no fucking idea what you're talking about. If professionals believed in "instinct and eyes" and feelings over the scientific method we wouldn't even be having this aspie debate because we'd be starving and dying of disease in a cave somewhere.

You can just google study ideal male height and there are some that say 5"11.

Here is where i saw about 1.6 shoulder to waist being ideal.

Shoulder to Waist Ratio Calculator

This shoulder to waist ratio calculator evaluates overall body shape and level of muscularity, also known as Adonis Index.

www.mdapp.co

Yeah science works sometimes. But fails miserably more often then not.

Have you seen these perft morph of male and female according to science? Have you seen 1.6 shoulder to waist ratio on average gymceling guy and then Laid with 2.0. And you tell me studies mean anything?

Instinct is much better when it comes to judging attractiveness

 

[Deleted member 8461]

You can just google study ideal male height and there are some that say 5"11.

Here is where i saw about 1.6 shoulder to waist being ideal.

Shoulder to Waist Ratio Calculator

This shoulder to waist ratio calculator evaluates overall body shape and level of muscularity, also known as Adonis Index.

www.mdapp.co

Yeah science works sometimes. But fails miserably more often then not.

Have you seen these perft morph of male and female according to science? Have you seen 1.6 shoulder to waist ratio on average gymceling guy and then Laid with 2.0. And you tell me studies mean anything?

Instinct is much better when it comes to judging attractiveness

It helps if you actually read the studies instead of just googling "ideal shoulder" calculator. There were only 3 studies linked on that shitty site.

Only one study of the three that talked about male shoulder to waist ratio. They stated that when female participants were shown only TWO different DRAWINGS of men, the one with the highest shoulder waist ratio was voted as most attractive. There was no picture of a man with a shoulder ratio higher than 1.6. If there was, it PROBABLY would of been voted as higher.

The study is not bullshit and that shitty website calculator and your shitty brain misinterpreted the study.

Science is the closest we'll ever get to the truth.

 

[LocalDanger]

It helps if you actually read the studies instead of just googling "ideal shoulder" calculator. There were only 3 studies linked on that shitty site.

Only one study of the three that talked about male shoulder to waist ratio. They stated that when female participants were shown only TWO different DRAWINGS of men, the one with the highest shoulder waist ratio was voted as most attractive. There was no picture of a man with a shoulder ratio higher than 1.6. If there was, it PROBABLY would of been voted as higher.

The study is not bullshit and that shitty website calculator and your shitty brain misinterpreted the study.

Science is the closest we'll ever get to the truth.

First of all they mention bodybuilders with greater ratio were rated lower than "golden" 1.6

Just lol are you stupid what about 5"11 being ideal height is studies you can google it right now. Almost no study claims 6'4 and beyond is ideal majority claims below even more importantly they claim too lanky after 6'2 jfl

And then what about fwhr and midface you stupid? Just like with shoulder you think in studies with fwhr midface wasn't more compact the better fwhr was? Of course it was. Plus why do you think almost all best looking sex symbols people have compact midface with 0.98+ ratio at least.

 

[justadude]

no shit nigga
but most people already have a decent midface tbh sort of rare to find horsecels

 

[LocalDanger]

no shit nigga
but most people already have a decent midface tbh sort of rare to find horsecels

As you can see people often argue opposite like guy beyond me here

 

[justadude]

As you can see people often argue opposite like guy beyond me here

well hes retarded let him cope

 

[Mastermind]

FWHR is more important, compact midface is also extremely common among males but rarely hits the bar alone

 

[Deleted member 8461]

First of all they mention bodybuilders with greater ratio were rated lower than "golden" 1.6

Just lol are you stupid what about 5"11 being ideal height is studies you can google it right now. Almost no study claims 6'4 and beyond is ideal majority claims below even more importantly they claim too lanky after 6'2 jfl

And then what about fwhr and midface you stupid? Just like with shoulder you think in studies with fwhr midface wasn't more compact the better fwhr was? Of course it was. Plus why do you think almost all best looking sex symbols people have compact midface with 0.98+ ratio at least.

well hes retarded let him cope

If you want to keep believing the opinions of socially retarded schizoids who rot 24/7 on forums instead of educating yourself, that's your choice.

In academia, we laugh at retards like you. All of your arguments look like their written by a 9th grader. False equivalencies, anecdotes, feels over reals, strawmen, confirmation bias. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about jfl and I bet you just read the clickbaity headlines from tabloid journalism sites like "MOVE OVER, TALL GUYS!! 5'11 IS THE IDEAL HEIGHT NOW" instead of reading the entire research paper and realizing that every scientific study is extremely fucking nuanced. One liberal jew article can never fucking encapsulate it objectively.

You immediately reject any evidence that contradicts your mental schema because it goes against your PSL-programmed worldview and your tiny little brains just can't handle having your views challenged. Congrats, you're basically the incel equivalent of a fucking SJW that's incapable of having a discussion.

I'm not gonna apologize or feel bad for being a high IQ grad student with the academic qualifications required for having an objective way of thinking.

And I'm not even arguing a long midface is more attractive. I personally think they're horrendous, I just cited one study and you started to sperg out because, again, you can't handle having your views challenged. Here's another study for you: having an inflexible worldview negatively correlates with IQ.

 

[LocalDanger]

If you want to keep believing the opinions of socially retarded schizoids who rot 24/7 on forums instead of educating yourself, that's your choice.

In academia, we laugh at retards like you. All of your arguments look like their written by a 9th grader. False equivalencies, anecdotes, feels over reals, strawmen, confirmation bias. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about jfl and I bet you just read the clickbaity headlines from tabloid journalism sites like "MOVE OVER, TALL GUYS!! 5'11 IS THE IDEAL HEIGHT NOW" instead of reading the entire research paper and realizing that every scientific study is extremely fucking nuanced. One liberal jew article can never fucking encapsulate it objectively.

You immediately reject any evidence that contradicts your mental schema because it goes against your PSL-programmed worldview and your tiny little brains just can't handle having your views challenged. Congrats, you're basically the incel equivalent of a fucking SJW that's incapable of having a discussion.

I'm not gonna apologize or feel bad for being a high IQ grad student with the academic qualifications required for having an objective way of thinking.

And I'm not even arguing a long midface is more attractive. I personally think they're horrendous, I just cited one study and you started to sperg out because, again, you can't handle having your views challenged. Here's another study for you: having an inflexible worldview negatively correlates with IQ.

So you admit long midface is bad ?

What the hell was the point then?

 

[Deleted member 8461]

So you admit long midface is bad ?

What the hell was the point then?

are fucking 12 yo, you silly fuck? "you admit long midface is bad". jfl I feel like I'm in recess rn. nothing is that simple.

I said in my opinion, I think long midfaces are less aesthetic than compact ones. MY opinion.

But the current scientific research suggests that in terms of objective beauty (that is, features considered attractive to MOST women) a low EME angle is rated as most attractive and a high FWHR is more attractive.

You immediately rejected this because you're fucking brainwashed. Instead of questioning your own beliefs, you did the typical retard move "naaaaaah science is bad. feelings is goooood". ffs

 

[LocalDanger]

are fucking 12 yo, you silly fuck? "you admit long midface is bad". jfl I feel like I'm in recess rn. nothing is that simple.

I said in my opinion, I think long midfaces are less aesthetic than compact ones. MY opinion.

But the current scientific research suggests that in terms of objective beauty (that is, features considered attractive to MOST women) a low EME angle is rated as most attractive and a high FWHR is more attractive.

You immediately rejected this because you're fucking brainwashed. Instead of questioning your own beliefs, you did the typical retard move "naaaaaah science is bad. feelings is goooood". ffs

Ok then what is ideal fwhr and eme angle according to science?

Plus what are good scientific papers on what females find attractive in face other than symmetry, averageness which is water.

And then we can talk because i need first to see what science claims in order to debunk it.

 

[Deleted member 8461]

Ok then what is ideal fwhr and eme angle according to science?

Plus what are good scientific papers on what females find attractive in face other than symmetry, averageness which is water.

And then we can talk because i need first to see what science claims in order to debunk it.

Bro, fair enough, I'm sorry for getting so hostile, you really didn't deserve my rudeness, you're just trying to learn and better yourself. I'm going through benzo withdrawal and this is I how rid myself of angst.

Psycinfo and pubmed are good databases for this subject. You can search using words like fwhr, shoulder waist or hip ratio, etc.

But you'll need to have credentials from a college or university to be able to login to read these.

All I'm trying to say is that the studies themselves aren't biblical certainties, but they are a good starting point in understanding the psychology of attraction. A lot of them will contradict traditional PSL beliefs, but instead of immediately dismissing them, being open minded and being able to analyze several ideas from multiple sources and then formulating your own theory is imo the best approach.

For example, a lot of these studies were done 20-30 years ago on female boomers. I think the standards have slightly changed recently especially with male models being at forefront of ideal beauty.

Also, keep in mind that most of the time, these studies will not give you an "ideal" number for a specific feature like "1.9 is the ideal FWHR". They will only give an approximation. Sometimes, they'll be more specific, sometimes not.

But I wholeheartedly believe, like any other academic, that a peer-reviewed research paper made by professionals who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of knowledge is a million times more valuable than just random forum posts from PSL sites.

 

[LocalDanger]

Bro, fair enough, I'm sorry for getting so hostile, you really didn't deserve my rudeness, you're just trying to learn and better yourself. I'm going through benzo withdrawal and this is I how rid myself of angst.

Psycinfo and pubmed are good databases for this subject. You can search using words like fwhr, shoulder waist or hip ratio, etc.

But you'll need to have credentials from a college or university to be able to login to read these.

All I'm trying to say is that the studies themselves aren't biblical certainties, but they are a good starting point in understanding the psychology of attraction. A lot of them will contradict traditional PSL beliefs, but instead of immediately dismissing them, being open minded and being able to analyze several ideas from multiple sources and then formulating your own theory is imo the best approach.

For example, a lot of these studies were done 20-30 years ago on female boomers. I think the standards have slightly changed recently especially with male models being at forefront of ideal beauty.

Also, keep in mind that most of the time, these studies will not give you an "ideal" number for a specific feature like "1.9 is the ideal FWHR". They will only give an approximation. Sometimes, they'll be more specific, sometimes not.

But I wholeheartedly believe, like any other academic, that a peer-reviewed research paper made by professionals who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of knowledge is a million times more valuable than just random forum posts from PSL sites.

Thanks bro np i thought you probably had some reason to be on the edge.

As for studies yeah it sucks I can't read them. Plus even if i could it's hard to understand them.

Anu interesting things you found also what are most contradicting things with psl.

When you pointed about shoulder to waist ratio and how miss interpreted it i understood that they are much more legit than i thought. I just cant read them probably and i get caught by clickbait titles

 

[justadude]

If you want to keep believing the opinions of socially retarded schizoids who rot 24/7 on forums instead of educating yourself, that's your choice.

In academia, we laugh at retards like you. All of your arguments look like their written by a 9th grader. False equivalencies, anecdotes, feels over reals, strawmen, confirmation bias. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about jfl and I bet you just read the clickbaity headlines from tabloid journalism sites like "MOVE OVER, TALL GUYS!! 5'11 IS THE IDEAL HEIGHT NOW" instead of reading the entire research paper and realizing that every scientific study is extremely fucking nuanced. One liberal jew article can never fucking encapsulate it objectively.

You immediately reject any evidence that contradicts your mental schema because it goes against your PSL-programmed worldview and your tiny little brains just can't handle having your views challenged. Congrats, you're basically the incel equivalent of a fucking SJW that's incapable of having a discussion.

I'm not gonna apologize or feel bad for being a high IQ grad student with the academic qualifications required for having an objective way of thinking.

And I'm not even arguing a long midface is more attractive. I personally think they're horrendous, I just cited one study and you started to sperg out because, again, you can't handle having your views challenged. Here's another study for you: having an inflexible worldview negatively correlates with IQ.

find someone with a long midface. morph him to have a 1.0 midface and guaranteed every person will say he looks better. You dont need a fucking study to know that it looks better

 

[Deleted member 8461]

find someone with a long midface. morph him to have a 1.0 midface and guaranteed every person will say he looks better. You dont need a fucking study to know that it looks better

naw i'll stick to the scientific method over feelings

 

[justadude]

naw i'll stick to the scientific method over feelings

found the greeicy alt

 

[Deleted member 8461]

found the greeicy alt

Spoiler

"Record holder for world's most compact midface"

 

[Deleted member 2617]

I've never seen midface ratio be presented in real studies. I've only ever seen fwhr. I've seen eye-mouth-eye angle which is almost identical to midface ratio, but those studies suggest that a long midface on a man is more attractive, masculine, and dimorphic:

Eye-mouth-eye angle as a good indicator of face masculinization, asymmetry, and attractiveness (Homo sapiens) - PubMed

Past research on male facial attractiveness has been limited by the reliance on facialmetric measures that are less than ideal. In particular, some of these measures are face size dependent and show only weak sexual dimorphism, which limits the ability to identify the relationship between...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If you're looking at male models, they are specifically chosen and for their wider faces as wider faces are more photogenic in still images. But in motion, it looks kinda bloated and uncanny.

since i saw this study few months ago ive always been thinking this study is very intriguing.
it really is opposed to conventional PSL belief..
it's obviously not going to follow the rule of lower the better infinitely, so i kinda wanna know from which angle to which angle is gonna be the sweetest spot.
most male models or whatsoever seems like they have 47~48 eme angle, but from what i remember that study said the mean eme angle was 47.8 or something. and study said low eme angle was more attractive so i feel like at least based on that study ideal spot has to be lower than 47..
what is your opinion about this?

 

[Deleted member 8461]

since i saw this study few months ago ive always been thinking this study is very intriguing.
it really is opposed to conventional PSL belief..
it's obviously not going to follow the rule of lower the better infinitely, so i kinda wanna know from which angle to which angle is gonna be the sweetest spot.
most male models or whatsoever seems like they have 47~48 eme angle, but from what i remember that study said the mean eme angle was 47.8 or something. and study said low eme angle was more attractive so i feel like at least based on that study ideal spot has to be lower than 47..
what is your opinion about this?

I wish I had something more concrete but really this is just speculation.

So an EME angle of 47 degrees is a midface ratio of exactly 0.86962 and 48 degrees is 0.89046. I think most models have a higher mfr around the 0.95-1.0 range. But male models are selected based on aesthetics and how photogenic they are, not necessarily physical attractiveness and masculinity/dimorphism.

Obviously, a slightly longer midface is a masculine trait. The study even said the mean for men was 47.68 degrees (mfr = 0.88378) and for women 50.16 (mfr = 0.93602).

Interestingly, it also said IPD had no effect on male attractiveness, which is blasphemous to say on any psl site:

In contrary to EME angle, the distances between the outer and inner eye corners and horizontal eye separation (IPD) are not correlated with male attractiveness (p. 224)

This was backed by two other studies as well: (Cunningham, Barbee, & Pike, 1990; Grammer & Thornhill, 1994)

This is why it's important to distinguish between aesthetics and attractiveness (PSL vs sex appeal). I think a lot of people here admire male models the same way they would a work of art. While Jordan Barrett, for example, looks godly and majestic like a nice painting, he might not necessarily have a broad irl appeal.

Now, to answer your question, I'm gonna take a wild guess here and put on a tinfoil hat. So this study was in done in Poland in 2007 with all the female participants all being university students.

In 2006, the highest grossing movie in Poland was called "Just Love Me". It was some kind of shitty chick-flick starring this guy as the chad heartthrob of the story:

His midface ratio is 0.855. That's an EME angle of 46.31 degrees. lmao see where I'm going with this? Probably just a coincidence, but still the results seem to match.

Personally, I think the media plays a huge part in influencing beauty standards. This goes double for movies since they appeal to a person's emotions. And this is also especially true for college girls and shitty romantic comedies.

Nowadays, most instagram models and tiktokers are both attractive and nearly aesthetically perfect and often androgynous (large wide-set eyes, perfect collagen, pouty lips, etc.). So if this study was done today, I think the ideal EME angle or midface ratio would be rated as higher.

But the study did not mention what the ideal EME angle is, I read through that bitch twice and couldn't find anything. It only stated that EME angle negatively correlates with attractiveness. Imo there's no way it's lower 46, as at that point you'd be sub 0.85 mfr and your face starts to look too long. I think it's gotta be somewhere between 46-47.

But again this is just one study indicating a correlation. Not a causation. So there could several explanations. Maybe the wider faced men all coincidentally had other shitty features that ruined their harmony. Maybe the longer faced men had great cheekbones and jaws and were perfect everywhere else. This study needs to be done again with more photographs of men and more female participants for us to reach a suitable conclusion.

 

[Deleted member 2617]

I wish I had something more concrete but really this is just speculation.

So an EME angle of 47 degrees is a midface ratio of exactly 0.86962 and 48 degrees is 0.89046. I think most models have a higher mfr around the 0.95-1.0 range. But male models are selected based on aesthetics and how photogenic they are, not necessarily physical attractiveness and masculinity/dimorphism.

Obviously, a slightly longer midface is a masculine trait. The study even said the mean for men was 47.68 degrees (mfr = 0.88378) and for women 50.16 (mfr = 0.93602).

Interestingly, it also said IPD had no effect on male attractiveness, which is blasphemous to say on any psl site:

This was backed by two other studies as well: (Cunningham, Barbee, & Pike, 1990; Grammer & Thornhill, 1994)

This is why it's important to distinguish between aesthetics and attractiveness (PSL vs sex appeal). I think a lot of people here admire male models the same way they would a work of art. While Jordan Barrett, for example, looks godly and majestic like a nice painting, he might not necessarily have a broad irl appeal.

Now, to answer your question, I'm gonna take a wild guess here and put on a tinfoil hat. So this study was in done in Poland in 2007 with all the female participants all being university students.

In 2006, the highest grossing movie in Poland was called "Just Love Me". It was some kind of shitty chick-flick starring this guy as the chad heartthrob of the story:
View attachment 1172801
His midface ratio is 0.855. That's an EME angle of 46.31 degrees. lmao see where I'm going with this? Probably just a coincidence, but still the results seem to match.

Personally, I think the media plays a huge part in influencing beauty standards. This goes double for movies since they appeal to a person's emotions. And this is also especially true for college girls and shitty romantic comedies.

Nowadays, most instagram models and tiktokers are both attractive and nearly aesthetically perfect and often androgynous (large wide-set eyes, perfect collagen, pouty lips, etc.). So if this study was done today, I think the ideal EME angle or midface ratio would be rated as higher.

But the study did not mention what the ideal EME angle is, I read through that bitch twice and couldn't find anything. It only stated that EME angle negatively correlates with attractiveness. Imo there's no way it's lower 46, as at that point you'd be sub 0.85 mfr and your face starts to look too long. I think it's gotta be somewhere between 46-47.

But again this is just one study indicating a correlation. Not a causation. So there could several explanations. Maybe the wider faced men all coincidentally had other shitty features that ruined their harmony. Maybe the longer faced men had great cheekbones and jaws and were perfect everywhere else. This study needs to be done again with more photographs of men and more female participants for us to reach a suitable conclusion.

i agree with you mostly but there's one thing that i think you might be misinformed about.
as you might already know eme angle is eye - stomion(horizontally middle point of where lips connect) - eye
but so called midface ratio that PSLers circlejerk with, is measured from the top of upper lip
thus you cannot convert eme angle into midface ratio since thickness of upper lip will have huge impact on difference of both ratios.
i think you said most male models have midface ratio around 0.95-1 since pslers always say they have around 1, its all measured from top of upper lip not from stomion.
if someone with normal lip size has 47~48 degrees of eme angle, his midface ratio should range around 1
even 46 can be around 1 i think.
and the guy you posted has actually 42.3 or somewhat of horrible eme angle.

you said it cannot be low 46 since it looks horribly long and equals shitty midface ratio, i think it is because you were misinformed about midface ratio and the guy you thought who had 46 degrees above obviously look horrific but he has 42.x instead of 46.
actually 46 has decent if not almost perfect midface ratio by PSL standard and looks very aesthetic

can you give me an opinion about this matter again after reading this? since you will think 46 is not that low
or tell me if im the one who misunderstood



and about the statement written in the study about IPD being insignificant

''In contrary to EME angle, the distances between the outer and inner eye corners and horizontal eye separation (IPD) are not correlated with male attractiveness (p. 224)''

i dont even know the point of this sentence actually, idk what doctor meant to say.
not only IPD, everything should have other value to compare with to mean anything in face.. since it's all about proportions.

if overall face is small then IPD can be small, if overall face is gigantic then IPD should be greater in order to look proportional.
i cannot assume what kind of experiment they did to boldly just write down one sentence saying IPD ain't correlated with attractiveness.
i would understand if the study said something like IPD being greater compared to facial width or facial length is not correlated with attractiveness.

 

[Deleted member 12344]

Midface is a meme

Midface is always the longest part of face though

My lower third is longer

 

[Deleted member 8461]

i agree with you mostly but there's one thing that i think you might be misinformed about.
as you might already know eme angle is eye - stomion(horizontally middle point of where lips connect) - eye
but so called midface ratio that PSLers circlejerk with, is measured from the top of upper lip
thus you cannot convert eme angle into midface ratio since thickness of upper lip will have huge impact on difference of both ratios.
i think you said most male models have midface ratio around 0.95-1 since pslers always say they have around 1, its all measured from top of upper lip not from stomion.
if someone with normal lip size has 47~48 degrees of eme angle, his midface ratio should range around 1
even 46 can be around 1 i think.
and the guy you posted has actually 42.3 or somewhat of horrible eme angle.

you said it cannot be low 46 since it looks horribly long and equals shitty midface ratio, i think it is because you were misinformed about midface ratio and the guy you thought who had 46 degrees above obviously look horrific but he has 42.x instead of 46.
actually 46 has decent if not almost perfect midface ratio by PSL standard and looks very aesthetic

can you give me an opinion about this matter again after reading this? since you will think 46 is not that low
or tell me if im the one who misunderstood



and about the statement written in the study about IPD being insignificant

''In contrary to EME angle, the distances between the outer and inner eye corners and horizontal eye separation (IPD) are not correlated with male attractiveness (p. 224)''

i dont even know the point of this sentence actually, idk what doctor meant to say.
not only IPD, everything should have other value to compare with to mean anything in face.. since it's all about proportions.

if overall face is small then IPD can be small, if overall face is gigantic then IPD should be greater in order to look proportional.
i cannot assume what kind of experiment they did to boldly just write down one sentence saying IPD ain't correlated with attractiveness.
i would understand if the study said something like IPD being greater compared to facial width or facial length is not correlated with attractiveness.

Oh yeah, good point, the top of the lip and middle of lip makes a huge difference. 46 would actually be really good then. True about IPD too, anything too disproportional looks strange, but only 45 pictures of men were rated, so I'm assuming in this case there weren't any cases where their IPD was freakish enough to influence attractiveness. They just stated that there was no statistically significant correlation between absolute IPD and participant ratings of attractiveness.

 

[Deleted member 2617]

Oh yeah, good point, the top of the lip and middle of lip makes a huge difference. 46 would actually be really good then. True about IPD too, anything too disproportional looks strange, but only 45 pictures of men were rated, so I'm assuming in this case there weren't any cases where their IPD was freakish enough to influence attractiveness. They just stated that there was no statistically significant correlation between absolute IPD and participant ratings of attractiveness.

i just dont understand absolute IPD measurement thing. i dont even know how they even did that study lol
did they increase IPD in same face? then EME angle will be changed then that statement is already contradicting former study result..

anyways im just obsessed with midface thing cuz i myself think i have longish midface. and i just figured out it was because of my deep bite lol.

 

[Deleted member 8461]

i just dont understand absolute IPD measurement thing. i dont even know how they even did that study lol
did they increase IPD in same face? then EME angle will be changed then that statement is already contradicting former study result..

anyways im just obsessed with midface thing cuz i myself think i have longish midface. and i just figured out it was because of my deep bite lol.

no, researchers have absolute values for a lot variables. It should be water that proportion is more important than absolutes since face size vary. But a lot of them measure as many independent variables as they can and check to see if there's any correlation with the dependent variable. I think they specified some kind of software used for measuring all the absolutes.

 

[Deleted member 2617]

no, researchers have absolute values for a lot variables. It should be water that proportion is more important than absolutes since face size vary. But a lot of them measure as many independent variables as they can and check to see if there's any correlation with the dependent variable. I think they specified some kind of software used for measuring all the absolutes.

fuark your english is too sophisticated for me to comprehend properly.

i will just think you mean they are very precise and careful than what i thought

and what does this 'it should be water' idiom? ive never heard of it

forgive me english is not my first language

 

[Deleted member 8461]

fuark your english is too sophisticated for me to comprehend properly.

i will just think you mean they are very precise and careful than what i thought

and what does this 'it should be water' idiom? ive never heard of it

forgive me english is not my first language

people here say "water is wet" lol when something is obvious. I meant it should be obvious that absolute measurements for IPD should be irrelevant as it should only relate to face size. But they measured it anyway like researchers always do to check to see if it correlates with attractiveness.

 

[Lolcel]

I have a long midface....
There was a thread on lookism about the good/high class and bad kind of long midface
It was very insightful mentioning how one differs from the other

 

[LocalDanger]

I have a long midface....
There was a thread on lookism about the good/high class and bad kind of long midface
It was very insightful mentioning how one differs from the other

Very interesting any tldr or a thread link

 

[Lolcel]

Very interesting any tldr or a thread link

Tbh i wish i had but it broke down completely how some cases of longface syndrome are harmonized by some rest features which i dont remember accuratelt

 

[LocalDanger]

Tbh i wish i had but it broke down completely how some cases of longface syndrome are harmonized by some rest features which i dont remember accuratelt

Damn if you find it or remember additional info post it sounds super interesting