the averaged person is far more attractive than the average person

[jpkotta]

So, I was wasting time on 4chan, and I found this. Very interesting to me.

http://www.faceresearch.org/demos/average

You can take essentially any 3 or more faces, and what comes out is at worst moderately attractive.

[kavon89]

the averaged person is far more attractive than the average person

That doesn't make sense.


I was wasting time on 4chan

There's your problem. :D

[jpkotta]

That doesn't make sense.


Sure it does. What does the average person mean to you? The "average person" is Joe Sixpack or Jane Doe; just a random, representative person. An "averaged person" is a statistic produced by "integrating" over some set of people. At least that's what I take it to mean.

[MaxIBoy]

Damn!

[mamamia88]

i hope you don't mind me asking but did you have a few beers before naming this thread?

[Foster Grant]

All I know is that the average Ubuntu person is far more attractive than the average person. :D

[Polygon]

i hope you don't mind me asking but did you have a few beers before naming this thread?

the thread title makes sense

"the averaged" as in, taking the average of 2 or more people

"is more attractive then the average" (a random person you would find on the street.

now get back on topic =)

[etnlIcarus]

Coincidentially enough, I wrote something recently on this very subject: http://www.hyper.com.au/forums/showpost.php?p=1000580&postcount=235

I recall reading either one or two studies which dealt with this specific issue. Explaining the general statistical inclination towards not only ethnic mates but 'hybrid', mixed-race mates, the basic theoretical premise centered around two broad factors:
The first, particularly pronounced or dominant features.
The second, a general degree of 'differentness'.

Rather than beauty simply being some arbitrary scale, further convoluted by any number of developmental factors and functionally useless, it is instead a constructive neurological, perceptual filter to promote sound reproductive habits. Where a potential mate carries a particular exaggerated feature (big nose, big ears, etc) or even overtly lacking features (being short, for instance), this implies a limited, isolated genetic heritage; a greater amount of in-breeding, with less potential to have bred-out defective genes common to a family/tribal/village/geographical group. On the other hand, a potential mate who simply looks different suggests a heritage far removed from your own, improving the fitness and diversity of any offspring, with any genetic defects unique to either of your traditional breeding groups having greater potential to be bred-out or 'diluted', with consecutive generations.

[Starlight]

That's interesting :) It seems to me that on that site averaging two or more faces makes their skin a little blurred, which makes it seem that the skin is smoother than each individual face viewed separately. And I think that's the main reason why a combination of many faces may seem more attractive.

[ratmandall]

http://www.faceresearch.org/tomcat/psychomorph/uploads/img452633.jpg
hehe

[billgoldberg]

Damn!

I know that girl :p

[NintendoTogepi]

Ok, someone already did all the females, so here's all of the males:

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6181/img453917yf8.jpg

and here's everyone:

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/7803/itspatjw7.jpg

Both look good. :D

[Keyper7]

Why are people complaining about the thread title? It's very clever. :)

[BlueSkyNIS]

That's interesting :) It seems to me that on that site averaging two or more faces makes their skin a little blurred, which makes it seem that the skin is smoother than each individual face viewed separately. And I think that's the main reason why a combination of many faces may seem more attractive.

+1 I agree completely

[etnlIcarus]

That's interesting :) It seems to me that on that site averaging two or more faces makes their skin a little blurred, which makes it seem that the skin is smoother than each individual face viewed separately. And I think that's the main reason why a combination of many faces may seem more attractive.


+1 I agree completely

Take any single image and apply whatever filter you want to it. It doesn't work. You should actually read the theory links (http://www.faceresearch.org/students/averageness) provided on the page.

[jpkotta]

That's interesting :) It seems to me that on that site averaging two or more faces makes their skin a little blurred, which makes it seem that the skin is smoother than each individual face viewed separately. And I think that's the main reason why a combination of many faces may seem more attractive.

Yes, that's part of it, but look at the features. They get "smoothed out" too, and not just in the sense that they get blurry. They're blurred in "face space": noses are not too big and not to small, eyes are not too close together or too far appart, etc. Humans like balanced faces.

[wolfen69]

All I know is that the average Ubuntu person is far more attractive than the average person. :D

yeah, if you like pocket protectors and nerdy glasses.

[Foster Grant]

yeah, if you like pocket protectors and nerdy glasses.

Speak for yourself. I have surfboards and SCUBA gear. :D

No pocket protectors and I wear contact lenses, so my only glasses are Ray-Bans (http://www.foxvalleyviews.com/products/ray-ban-4021-predator-sport-square).

:p

[MikeTheC]

2^2079460347:1 against, I'd say...

Oh, wait. That's the odds of being picked up by a passing spacecraft prior to dying from suffocation in deep space after being kicked off another one. Duh. Sorry, my bad.

[MaxIBoy]

"My arms are floating off into space! Damn, how am I going to operate my digital watch now?"

[y6FgBn)~v]

My attempts to create a hideous mutant visage have failed miserably. :-(

[forrestcupp]

The dumb thing about this web site is that none of the people in the pictures are ugly in the first place. They're all at least decent looking on their own.

Throw in some people who are truly "beautiful on the inside" only, then let's see what the outcome is.

[etnlIcarus]

Wow, those are some pretty forgiving standards.

[cmat]

yeah, if you like pocket protectors and nerdy glasses.

Graphic t-shirts (unless you shop @ thinkgeek) and aviators aren't nerdy. ;)

[EdThaSlayer]

I don't quite believe this. It's only just a theory. :P

[NintendoTogepi]

The dumb thing about this web site is that none of the people in the pictures are ugly in the first place. They're all at least decent looking on their own.

Throw in some people who are truly "beautiful on the inside" only, then let's see what the outcome is.

Wait, what? :confused:

[amitabhishek]

He...he..Now I can guess how my kids will look like.

[forrestcupp]

I think the reason it works is because people with the most symmetrical faces are the ones that are considered beautiful. I remember an expert talking about that when Denzel Washington got sexiest man of the year a while back. They split a picture of his face in half and showed how symmetrical it is.

When you average faces, it is automatically going to make the result more symmetrical, thereby making a picture of a more beautiful appearing person.

[Keyper7]

Wow, those are some pretty forgiving standards.

+1

forrestcup is truly tolerant, an admirable individual. ;)

[calrogman]

All I know is that the average Ubuntu person is far more attractive than the average person. :D

Does not compute! :P

[rootie]

Averaged people are far more attractive and far more hermaphroditic... XD

[etnlIcarus]

I think the reason it works is because people with the most symmetrical faces are the ones that are considered beautiful. I remember an expert talking about that when Denzel Washington got sexiest man of the year a while back. They split a picture of his face in half and showed how symmetrical it is.

When you average faces, it is automatically going to make the result more symmetrical, thereby making a picture of a more beautiful appearing person.Firstly, I honestly do not get why everyone has felt the need to offer their own alternative theories as to why this works. Secondly, your hypothesis is merely an arbitrary dichotomy and refocus of the original theory; you've taken the general principle and applied it in a needlessly narrow context, which is damaging more than anything.


forrestcup is truly tolerant, an admirable individual. ;)Sounds more like an uggo to me. :P (safety smiley! I'm pretty average, myself).


Averaged people are far more attractive and far more hermaphroditic... XDAndrogyny is hot. Well, can be hot, 80's fashion and female body builders not withstanding.

[swoll1980]

Cool article. The thread title makes perfect sense by the way

[rootie]

Androgyny is hot. Well, can be hot, 80's fashion and female body builders not withstanding.

Hm, I'd first have to see blurry netherbits to see if I get turned on by them. :P

[etnlIcarus]

Hm, I'd first have to see blurry netherbits to see if I get turned on by them. :P

I've got a video I could upload if you're interested. >.>

(theaboveisajokeplzdontbanme)

[handy]

I'm sure that I am at least 7.453% more attractive than the statistical mean of the sample taken that OP has based the thread title on.

I am willing to go to court on this one. :-D

[etnlIcarus]

No court, just PICS or GTFO.

[handy]

No court, just PICS or GTFO.

Bring your legal representitive or FO. :-|

[howlingmadhowie]

Androgyny is hot. Well, can be hot, 80's fashion and female body builders not withstanding.

apropos androgyny, does anybody know what happened to the glbt group on http://ubuntuforums.org/group.php ? was it maybe too much off-topic?

[forrestcupp]

Firstly, I honestly do not get why everyone has felt the need to offer their own alternative theories as to why this works. Secondly, your hypothesis is merely an arbitrary dichotomy and refocus of the original theory; you've taken the general principle and applied it in a needlessly narrow context, which is damaging more than anything.
Why do you always attack everything I say?

[etnlIcarus]

Firstly, it was a criticism, not an, "attack".
Secondly, do I know you?

[lukjad]

...

Um. I don't know what the OP thinks about people, but I think that "beautiful" people aren't really beautiful, just skinny. Maybe that's just me.

[swoll1980]

...

Um. I don't know what the OP thinks about people, but I think that "beautiful" people aren't really beautiful, just skinny. Maybe that's just me.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/j3ss2ca21/ParisCrackhead.jpg

skinny doesn't = beautiful

[jpkotta]

...

Um. I don't know what the OP thinks about people, but I think that "beautiful" people aren't really beautiful, just skinny. Maybe that's just me.

This has nothing to do with body build. This is about faces. It's also not really about beauty, unless you define beauty as a quality that causes an involuntary desire to mate with someone.

BTW, there is a giant Wikipedia article about the general principle of being attracted to averageness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koinophilia.

[etnlIcarus]

BTW, there is a giant Wikipedia article about the general principle of being attracted to averageness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koinophilia.

My god, that wiki entry looks like a first year highschool student's project. If I weren't so intensely lazy, I'd edit the crap out of that.

[handy]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/j3ss2ca21/ParisCrackhead.jpg

skinny doesn't = beautiful

She has nice eyes.

[lukjad]

skinny doesn't = beautiful

That's my point.

[mc4100]

My best one so far, although I've only done a few combinations. Can't remember how many originals I used (4, 5?).

Have to agree with everyone else, the selective blurring and merging of features only gives the illusion of being better looking. Every imperfection just gets thrown away.

[etnlIcarus]

Have to agree with everyone else, the selective blurring and merging of features only gives the illusion of being better looking. Every imperfection just gets thrown away.
Then why does the pic you posted still have visible blemishes all over his skin?

[pelle.k]

By god, those are like the most ugly people i have seen in my life. How can that be "average" people? LOL!
I'm rather surprised by the result you get after blending a few of them though. Then they actually look decent. I found i got the best results if i mixed wide faces with thin ones, to even out the frankenstein features some of them had.

Yeah, i'm shallow ;)
Hey, have a look at these guys btw. Funny stuff.
http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/ugly/index.htm

[mc4100]

Then why does the pic you posted still have visible blemishes all over his skin?

Meh, whatever. It's not as if I'm striving for a perfect look with a two minute web thingy. I picked the one with prominent imperfections so it looked a little more real, and in fact that's the reason I liked it better than the others.
Of course, it's far from truly realistic with clothing and hair all over the place.

Imperfection-free images look nicer but are much less realistic, another example is attached (sorry it's indexed, not RGB).

Edit: The indexed-ness is annoying, I'll try and put up an RGB...

[gloscherrybomb]

I agree that this is really interesting. Considering how hideously ugly most of those female photos are its amazing how much better they look even when only merging three faces.

Did anybody watch the BBC programme (human face) with either Robert Winston or John Cleese, a while ago where they applied a mathematical mask to attractive people... the more attractive they were the better they fitted the mask. The mask was based on the principle that there is a size relationship between various parts of the body. e.g. the mouth should be 1.5 times the size of the width of the nose, another part 1.5 times the size of another part, etc.

They also showed that whilst averaging faces creates an attractive person, adding in traits such as a strong jaw line and heavy brow (signs of a protective dominant male) or a curvy shape and feminine soft skin (female - child rearing) increases the attractiveness even further.

[jpkotta]

They also showed that whilst averaging faces creates an attractive person, adding in traits such as a strong jaw line and heavy brow (signs of a protective dominant male) or a curvy shape and feminine soft skin (female - child rearing) increases the attractiveness even further.

Which is exactly what the explanation on the website says.

I remember watching a show on the Discovery Channel years ago. I think it was with Desmond Morris, or this other anthropologist with a big mustache. Anyway, they had a simulation that tried to model the effect of testosterone and estrogen on faces. Most men preferred a hyper-estrogenized face, while most women preferred a more moderately testosteronized face, presumably because the hyper-masculine face was "intimidating". Take this with a shaker of salt, because it's only from memory.

[etnlIcarus]

or a curvy shape and feminine soft skin (female - child rearing) increases the attractiveness even further. I'm not quite sure what you mean by, "curvy". I'm assuming you're referring to hips and bust, both of which have very pragmatic explanations, with wider hips indicating a better ability to bear children and superfluously large breasts mirroring the buttocks*.

*the basic principle of breasts being meant to imitate the aesthetics of the buttocks is the result of an evolutionary quick-fix. The inversion of the pelvis in one of our ape ancestors resulted in a change in mating habits; with mates now facing one another during intercourse, rather than doing it, "doggy-style". Before this skeletal change took place however, ape behaviour evolved to further accommodate mating in the old manner, with the buttocks becoming an object of sexual desire. Once the skeletal change appeared, it was merely a race between either an instinctual cognitive adaptation in the male or excessive mammary growth in the female to give the male something else to focus his attention on. The latter possibility won, obviously.