Women
Posted on 02/06/2011 9:15:41 AM PST by Dallas59
This means: Average faces are attractive, but not all of them. It is crucial which faces are used to compute an average face. Composites made from unattractive faces remain rather unattractive and average faces from attractive faces remain attractive. This clearly contradicts the averageness hypothesis, which holds that merely the number of faces contained in a composite alone accounts for the attractiveness ratings.
Surprisingly, especially male faces benefit from being blended together with respect to their attractiveness. This does not support older findings that found positive effects only for women. Bad image quality of the faces, especially blurred contours, may be the cause for it.
Why are the resulting average faces generally beautiful? One reason might be the fact that by calculating average proportions unpleasant asymmetries and irregularities become levelled out. Moreover, by blending together several faces wrinkles and pimples gradually disappear. As a consequence, the skin looks younger and perfectly smooth.
By conducting another experiment we could show that it is these skin-smoothing side effects rather than the averaged proportions that account for the increased attractiveness ratings of the composites (see reformed facial proportions).
Composite Of Europeans
oh thats so weird.
"Whadya think, Eaker?" "I don't know, Squantos. I guess we must be ABOVE average!"
Whenever I see that photo, I’m always shocked and amazed when my first thought is, ‘The guy on the left is quite attractive when compared to his brother!”
LOL! *SHUDDER*
Yep yep yep.....:o)
Thank you.....it’s the watch .....;o)
"Mike, I can't believe they didn't include us!" "I know, Marty! What were they thinkin'?"
It’s not “averageness” per se, it’s the absence of asymmetrical flaws and the presence of ideal proportions. It’s what makes any physical thing beautiful, good proportion and absence of flaw. A tree, a building, a car, a flower, a woman or child. It’s related to the so-called “Golden Mean” or phi proportion.
A great book that goes in depth on this was authored by Jonathan Hale, entitled “The Old Way Of Seeing.” He spends a great deal of time on architecture, because that’s his primary thesis in the book, that we’ve lost the ability to recognize just what makes us respond to a beautiful building, and instead use symbols and surface decoration in a futile attempt at regaining the old power and beauty. He does spend several chapters on the Golden Mean or Golden Ratio, phi proportions.
It’s worth the time, he’s an entertaining old fellow, pleasantly plodding along inventorying this or that grand old structure or cathedral with illustrations or photos, and discussing it’s strengths and weaknesses, then wham! off he goes into a stunning tangent that’s almost like some sort of vision. He does this several times throughout the course of the book. It’s actually one of my favorite books. Pretty cheap used on Amazon, don’t know if it’s on archive.org or not.
Mom always said that with my classic good looks I would always do fine in the movies so she gave Squantos the watch!
I do admire a punctual man! :)
Take several hundred faces of sportscasters....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.