Slashdot Mirror
Women's Attractiveness Judged by Software
Roland Piquepaille writes "According to Haaretz, an Israeli team of computer scientists has developed software that ranks facial attractiveness of women. Instead of identifying basic facial characteristics, this software has been designed to make aesthetic judgments — after training. The lead researcher said this program 'constitutes a substantial advance in the development of artificial intelligence.' It is interesting to note that the researchers focused on women only. Apparently, men' faces are more difficult to grade."
There are some obvious criticisms: In the first stage, 30 human participants were asked to rate from 1-7 the beauty of several dozen pictures. For a masters project (which this was), that's a decent sample size. For research and practice, I do not think that will suffice.
Second, this was done using eigenalysis and principle component analysis. While that's interesting, I have not always found that to be a great approach. Five or six years ago, they were all the rage although I cannot really find anything fruitful that has come from applying this to human faces. This also means that they cannot generate the 'most beautiful' face but if they did, it would simply be the composition of all their eigenvectors (in this case, ghostly looking images of faces) into one representing the highest scoring beauty. The lead researcher said this program 'constitutes a substantial advance in the development of artificial intelligence.' Having taken several AI, computer vision & machine learning courses, I don't find this to be at all substantial. An interesting masters project for sure, but several years ago I saw people doing the same things at local universities with the same results.
Why don't they tell us how this scored some celebrities from around the world like say Iman Abdulmajid, Zsa Zsa Gabor & Angelina Jolie? I have a feeling that their system is over-trained and would perform poorly in real life. Facial beauty requires imagination and this system was hand trained on a hundred points. I don't think that's enough but I wish they would have published more results to either prove or disprove my criticisms.
My work here is dung.
"Apparently, men' faces are more difficult to grade."
Or perhaps their bank accounts are easier to derive a "value" from!
I kid, I kid. I think.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Women less complicated than men, never!
...and generate a manhood-size-prediction algorithm.
I swore I'd never spout that misogynist meme, but for once it bears a glimmer of truth.
I saw an article in a science journal years ago that showed photos of women averaged together. The more photos in the average, the more attractive the final photo became. The conclusion was the more 'average' the woman looked, the more attractive she was. Makes sense to me.
Men will nail anything and the women really control sexual interactions. The cost of mating is far lower for men than for women therefore women are far more choosy.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I thought that's what beer was for.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
In other news: Researchers on the project were forced to cooperate with woman researchers in fear of being accused of homosexuality.
There, fixed that for you.
Women's Attractiveness Judged by Software Engineers
There, fixed that title for you...
You shall see a cow on the roof of a cotton house.
I thought the true measure of a womans attractiveness was the pointiness of her knees
Think about that.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
I think there should be a few years of hotornot data to seed the AI system. Of course that might not jibe with actual beauty and may reflect more on the relative states of undress of the aspirant "hotties."
Even beyond the very real problems listed above, I'm not aware of any actual empirical standard of beauty. All you can point to is a general average of perceptions of attractiveness, and even that is far from foolproof as evidenced by the thousands of women who actively try to personify that average, and end up looking subtly hideous (a la Anna Nicole Smith).
In the end, it all comes down to individual perception. Sit ten guys down with thirty pictures, and you're going to get 10 different #1's. Maybe you can teach a program to be able to say who it thinks is hot, whatever use that is. Or you could write a program that would allow a person to rate a hundred or so pictures, so that you could run a dating service that automatically pairs you up with people it thinks you'll find attractive...That's the only use I can come up with.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Here's a screenshot from the main UI.
On the bright side, this should encourage more women to enter the science and engineering fields, if for no other reason than to crack into this system and perform the digital equivalent of dumping your cocktail on your head. I think training it to rank goatse as aesthetically pleasing would do the trick.
It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
That's artificial, superficial intelligence
80% of the code is devoted to breast measurements ;-P
Table-ized A.I.
From my understanding, according to various comments from different women, male attractiveness stems from just a few factors: sharp facial features instead of rounded features tend to be more attractive, as well as tanned skin and light facial hair. Apparently, the butt chin is also seen as very masculine and attractive.
I would assume that, evolutionarily speaking, one strong criterion for a perspective mate is finding a partner to provide offspring with different genetic material. Since I assume facial characteristics are a result of genes, I'd assume that different people would find people attractive differently based on their own set of genes. To use a never-before-used analogy, finding the "best" woman is like finding the "best" wine for a given meal -- it all depends on what you're eating.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
artificial stupidiy.
Sincerely,
Kilgore Trout, Just Another Lisp Hacker
I read an article a while back that made the point that one of the biggest factors in attractiveness was symmetry. The "perfect" face doesn't have any features out of alignment. There was another study that made the point that "averaging" faces produced more attractiveness, but this was actually the wrong conclusion. It was the averaging process that smoothed out features into perfect alignment.
Symmetry actually makes sense. The more messed up someone's face is from ideal, the worse their genetics could be. Of course, there are other factors such as shiny hair, clear skin, sharp cheekbones, fitness, which all factor back to health.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Is there anywhere where one could get ahold of the sourcecode to this software, or even a binary. How can this be news for nerds without a proper link to the source? ;)
Do some basic curve fitting of a woman's front and profile to a couple of splines and I'll write you software to measure the number of beers it will take either me or her...
all Miss World contestants as horrible abominations ?
So, was this a study to determine if the women were attractive to men? Or if they were attractive in general? And do men and queer women look for the same qualities in women? (hint: they don't) ... so ... I guess this computer is straight.
The big question, what if the computer doing the rating was a fruit?
The theory from some is that this averaging resulted in an illusory correlation between average and beautiful due to the fact that the averaging process improved the appearance/smoothness of skin. People apparently really really like good skin.
They couldn't get it to actually look up at women's faces whenever they wore an open top.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Men have been judging women by their software for ages.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
What we're looking for is a healthy specimen to breed with. We will judge the health of said specimen based on our own body type. For instance, if we have long fingers, we will find long fingers attractive and vice versa. There really isn't a godlike ideal that we strive for. We just want someone healthy who can give us healthy children. In that regard, the way the body curves is just as important as the face, if not more so. Somehow we think that judging beauty based on the face is pure while judging on the basis of other bodily characteristics is less pure. Not so. When us guys get all excited about a woman's secondary sexual characteristics, we're just thinking about the good of the children.
...is software that can drink beer, and listen to music for us. While we're at it let's code up something that can relieve us of our tedious skiing, flying, and reading habits.
____________________________________
-- I beleve you'll like this -->
That's because in most pictures of men's faces, you can't see their wallet.
This whole men's attractiveness would be sorted in a jiffy if they had some GAY SCIENTISTS on board! I can recommend a few able-bodies in Tel-Aviv.
Wrong anatomical part.
Have gnu, will travel.
Why are we wasting this money on researching this when we could be using this money on research to make women prettier.
;-)
Or better yet, use this money at the gentleman's club.
They made a movie about it.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
Something I have noticed is that the more intelligent a woman is, the more attractive she looks when showing certain emotions.
An intelligent woman looks highly attractive when confused...you can almost see the gears working in her head, trying to figure it out. An unintelligent woman just has a dumb confused look on her face.
From what I have seen, intelligent women tend to not necessarily have more attractive facial features, but a more attractive way of showing their emotion and reaction to things. Not something that is commonly thought about.
Living With a Nerd
From TFA:
The research revealed that faces considered beautiful are average - with no extreme facial characteristics.
The procedure would seem to eliminate edge cases offensive to some. Sort of begs the question of semantics of beauty don't it? What could possibly be beautiful in any true sense about an average.
Middlebrow is not the same as tasteful and inoffensive is not the same as impressive.
illegitimii non ingravare
Most computer programmers find it trivial to take the short-cut and run a credit score and bank account balance. This is a much more accurate portrayl of men's attractiveness anyway.
I want to use it to judge her electability. Hopefully the software wont try to "steal" memory from other "resources" and in the process "crash" the whole system.
With my trusty computer to help me, I'll never have to be burdened with looking at women again!!!
...
Wait
Oh Dear.
<cry>
Then there are such things as racial, regional and cultural variations in ideas of "beauty".
I agree; this does nothing but fancy correlations of faces with judgments of beauty made by a small sample of "instructors". If you were to increase the number of instructors, especially if you made them more diverse (say by region and culture), you would end up with a meaningless hodge-podge... the more meaningless the larger the sample.
Beauty is only skin deep...But ugly goes straight to the bone!
What good are men now that computers can do the one thing they were good at, picking out attractivce women?
I understand that this is an interesting research topic but is there some type of use that can be derived from this in the real world. Why would an AI care how statistically attractive you are, and whu would we want an AI evaluating our appearance? After all, I thought the purpose of aesthetic beauty was to help you find a mate... so the robotic equation does not really... compute. (que fembot jokes) "Robot, Robot, in the server [wall]... who is the statistical outlier among them all?"
"Apparently, men' faces are more difficult to grade."
This is because you can't typically see a man's wallet in a photo of his face.
Seriously, stop humping your keyboard and get a date! (algorithm: Locate eyes, look ~17inches down, score proportional to size of round bulges)
I fell in love, unexpectedly, with a woman who was not a classic beauty.
Within a handful of months, I noticed I was finding women with facial and body characteristics similar to hers more attractive than the magazine beauties I normally ogled. Indeed, the model types started looking odd to me.
Now add in cultural and racial preferences and this "breakthrough" starts sounding like "bullshit".
It's called HotCaptcha
Only for men. You'll notice the gender of the bright wits doing the "research."
Its called "Am I hot or not?" I won't even google it to see if it still is there
In the name of God, WHY? The whole point of being a man (or a gay woman etc.) is so you can make your own estimation of women's beauty. One of the things I definitely DO NOT need a computer to do is to look at women for me. Many other things I may try and get computers to do for me - some sensible, some not. But I'll look at my own women, thank you very much,
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
I dunno if it really is purely wealth, power and social position. I know plenty of women who like guys who aren't attractive OR wealthy/powerful/popular.
Probably the biggest issue is that our society has a bunch of different "sexy" archetypes for men. Men can be Ashton-Kutcher-hot, young and muscular and so on, or George-Clooney-hot, older and more distinguished, or nerdy-but-hot or ravishing-seducer-hot or football-player-hot or whatever.
Women are basically judged on a single metric: how close they look to a skinny 16-year-old with big boobs. There are variations on the theme, and of course there are plenty of men and women who look for other things in women, but that's the basic societal ideal.
...Something about Natalie Portman... ...hot grits...
I have a piece of software that automatically turns into a piece of hardware whenever I encounter an attractive female.
It is an admirable notion to think beauty is purely subjective. I think, in some actuality, scientists have research that says otherwise.
Do a search on the Golden Ratio. There is tested algorithm for beauty. Whether the formula is 100% accurate, is a different story. Statistically though, my understanding is that the formula has been proven.
(eg. http://www.intmath.com/Numbers/mathOfBeauty.php).
Now they'll be able to Pwn all those sites protected by Hot CAPTCHAhttp://www.hotcaptcha.com/...
"Apparently, men' faces are more difficult to grade."
Because you don't keep your wallet on your face.
Finally, after countless hours of work by thousands of fantastically intelligent hardware and software designers, we have reached a seminal point in the development of this incredible machine that we call the computer. At long last, somebody has developed a program that, with training, might actually be as smart as my dick.
And women dare to complain that we men spend too much time "thinking with the wrong head"!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
How about a bell curve with an ideal of thrity six twenny fo thirty six, with the booty weighted most hehe.
Orbis terrarum est non altus satis
Or is this an April Fool's joke??
Oh wait, that would mean that they are slashdotters, too...
Tyranny isn't the worst enemy of a democracy. Cynicism is.
Last time I checked, there is no shortage of real, live humans willing to sit around and rate pictures of women all day long. Even on weekdays when they're supposed to be working :-P
Hotornot.com, anyone?
My bicyles
It's been shown that symmetry is an important factor in terms of our judgement of beauty (and I'm sure that there are others). Granted, there are always people who have their quirks, but in general we do tend to find certain qualities univerally attractive.
In my experience, event the most plain face can light up in motion. Is it a coincidence that it's called "emotion"? Although it's extremely cool that there's software to check this. I want the 2.0 version... An upscale "Am I hot or Not" website where you can upload your potential date's picture and get a score card.
I'm guessing it's only a matter of time before some creates a bot from this software and unleases it on HotOrNot.com... oh, or even more dastardly tracks the responses to the Hot or Not votes you make, builds a profile of the woman you are most attracted to... and use a virtual "your ideal woman" in all sorts of advertising... I can imagine the double click custom ads this would produce... "but she was sooo hot, i had to click"... hehe
Software? Only if she's ugly. Hardware if she's cute.
I judge the level of attractiveness by my HARDware! (Thanks I'll be here all week)
Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
... this software has been designed to make aesthetic judgments -- after training. So... these "computer scientists" call up loads of model agencies and strip bars and ask for loads of beautiful girls to stop by "the lab" - all in the name of science? I bet the next version of their sortware will rate naked bodies. And I bet that also this time male bodies will, for some obscure and yet very convenient reason, also be unquantifiable and thus forcing them to look only a naked girls. Even Ferris Bueller couldn't have come up with a ploy this shrewd.If a rule always held up perfectly(or even usually held up perfectly) or generated the same results each time it was applied, it would be a theoretical rule, not an empirical one. It's the difference between Netwon's law of Acceleration and Orkun's rule.
In a certain city, an attractive girl gets unwanted attention. Take the same girl to a different city, and nobody notices her.
Until she starts acting "cute".
Beauty and attractiveness are somewhat separate concepts, but, as my mother used to say, "Beauty is as beauty does."
Look at Anni-Frid Lyngstad and Agnetha Fältskog, or, for that matter, the Wilson sisters. I don't know about you, but I didn't think they were either attractive or beautiful until I'd been listening to their music for several years.
Or, for that matter, look at the Mona Lisa. I'm still not sure what the fuss is there.
Any way, happy Aril 1st.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
There are no empirical standards for beauty.
Yeah, i was gonna bring that up. When this software can solve that Captcha, i'll be blown away. I think that honestly, that's the kind of direction captcha's need to go (though something a bit more... professional). Sometimes i can't even read the letters on captcha's these days (and no, i'm not a computer), but i can always tell the difference between a good looking girl and some unattractive girls (or guys). -Taylor
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
Sexual attractiveness maintained in public after marriage is often an influence in undoing the marriage. It may be that asymmetry is more generally attractive. (The difference between distractive and attractive is very often more a matter of attitude than perception.)
One thing I'm sure of is that the best way to be attractive is to let people know you want attention without letting people know you want attention.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
They're destined to pick women who are younger versions of their mothers.
Living in Japan for a long time shows me two things:
There are women (and men) considered attractive in Japan who would be considered attractive in the US, but there are also a lot of women (and men) who are considered attractive in Japan who would be considered downright ugly in the US.
Consensus gives you lowest common denominator, as someone else commented already.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
And not interesting to the mail scientists ;)
Though unless i can train the software, I strongly doubt I shall agree with its findings.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
and this is a good example of the contradictions of beauty.
People who have been married for a long time start to look like each other.
I don't know what your study says, but watching my friends, they tend to oooh and aaahh over people who are somewhat, but not too much different in appearance from their own family. The people they tend to go out with and stay with tend to have more features in common.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
I know, but you can't edit the comments here...
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
The golden ration works for Greeks. Some Greeks.
It doesn't seem to work quite the same for Japanese.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Is least ugly basically the lowest common denominator?
(Somebody say something about liquid crystal display here, okay?)
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
We all know what the entertainment industry is pushing out these days.
Have you analyzed your empiricals to cancel out the Hollywood effect?
If you look at the works of art of historical cultures, can we be sure that the standards we claim now are very universal?
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
and varies from time to time.
The word "hit" in the definition also tends to bias the rank, I think.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
It's funny how the male face is above judgment, much less by automated critical judgment.
Isn't this kind of hand waving. Beauty is subjective and qualitative. People will rank others differently and for different reasons. So along comes a computer scientist and applies and algorithm and states that it rates people's beauty. Well sure it does, but whose idea of attractiveness is being emulated. The computer can never be "wrong". At best they might claim that within a particular culture or population, averaged results will match their algorithm. If something isn't testable and falsifiable it's not science.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
>>> "Joking aside, most people already are symmetrical, so it would definitely stand out for people who aren't."
Take a photo of yourself, photoshop (but use Gimp, cause you're a geek right!) it to mirror half the face. You look freaky, that's not what you normally look like is it.
Some research was done on this at St.Andrews University, Fife, UK (I studied Phys / Maths there) at the time they published pics in all the daily papers of a theoretical beauty (composite).
FWIW.
That thing is awesome. And I am reassured of my heterosexuality by my complete inability to pick a winning combo on the male version.
The movie Looker (1981):
.mp3's to minimze Slashdotting.
.mp3s could be mirrored somewhere else to save the guy's bandwidth?
.mp3 track mentioned above is great!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/
Great 'cover version' of 'Looker Theme' from Looker:
http://medievalfantasy.com/downloads.html
If Looks Could Kill (Looker Mix)DeVorzon/Schulte
also another Looker 'track' there:
The Final Battle(Donovan Mix) DeVorzon/Schulte
No direct links to the
Perhaps the two
Enjoy!
P.S. Not a shill, I just thought mentioning a movie which depicts using computer software to grade feminine beauty was appropriate. And the 'Looker Mix'
I thought emacs already had a function for this?
*runs*
i wonder how this algorithm would match up to the results by the "nerual network" of Anonymous on imageboards like http://lolikun.org/
> Out of 7!!! Who the #$%! ever said "Oh that chick is a 7, I need to do her now!"
What about 7 of 9?
Is in the algorithm of the beholder.
Especially East Asian, Arab, and kiddie.
Women's Attractiveness Judged by Software
As someone who has worked on embedded systems, I'd say attractiveness is best judged by your firmware.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Yes, but there is empirical evidence of highly parallel preferences among males that indicate the presence of common perceptions regarding what constitutes beauty.
The fact that there are no empirical standards for beauty is not due to the absence of any common standards for beauty (albeit not universally applicable), rather our inability to represent the metrics of the mind using mathematical or linguistic representations.
I hate printers.
"Assessing facial beauty through proportion analysis by image processing and supervised learning" by Gunes and Piccardi. (Look it up on Google Scholar). This looks very similar. I did a project on this type of thing in a class last semester.
For realism there should be a vessel that accepts beer, weighs it or otherwise monitors its level, and a slow leak into another container (preferably a toilet bowl). The more full the first container, and the later in the night it is, the more aesthetically pleasing every woman becomes. Once the beer bottle is sufficiently full the algorithm should emulate sleep by pausing until morning, at which time scores return to normal. As a bonus a scream should be heard when the algorithm wakes, particularly if the woman's daytime score is low. Hell fit wheels to it and have it run away in the morning, and you've got the ultimate female rating robot. If the female is sufficiently plastered herself she may not be able to tell the difference!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
What exactly and how broad are your experiences that differ, that would make you a credible authority to refute this?"
I did some volunteer work at a teenage health clinic, but I don't have any experience with Rape. And disclaimer, I don't have any formal background in criminology(Just math, game theory, some theoretical bio). So no, I'm not a credible authority at all.
As far as rape and abuse go, they are overwhelmingly committed by people who are close to the victim, not strangers. I don't see how attractiveness would be very relevant when a father or close friend decide to rape somebody. On one hand, you could argue that attractive people tend to have more friends, and therefore more potential rapists. But on the other hand, you could argue that attractive people are alone less. There are a billion other potential explanations(The imagination goes crazy when considering the effects on support structure), and in the absence of actual studies that test attractiveness of rape victims(try to get a grant for that), I'd say there doesn't seem to be a clear explanation. But I could be wrong, let me know.
Stalking is a different animal. It's usually a mostly emotional process in the mind of a stalker. It's very common for stalkers to be intimidated by beautiful woman, instead going after somewhat uglier but more accessible girls instead. I don't have any statistics for that, but I think the effect is significant enough to throw off a simple linear relationship.
"Pretty sure I recall that from pre-internet publications, though it circulates to the top, from time to time. The only reference could find offhand is Is acne really a disease?: a theory of acne as an evolutionarily significant, high-order psychoneuroimmune interaction timed to cortical development with a crucial role in mate choice. Medical Hypotheses, Volume 62, Issue 3, Pages 462-469, which is only a summary and merely alludes to my conjecture. You can always drop by a medical library to check it out and post a summary, here. :) I'd like to find a solid reference for it, but alas, the internet has failed me on this one."
I think I might do that tomorrow. Thanks for the tip, I had never really considered the evolutionary utility of acne.
Yes, I'm assuming the team was mostly male... hopefully I don't offend anyone with this obvious assumption.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Compute this: http://meetme.hotornot.com/r/?emid=G8RMOQK
What does the girl's 7 matter if your score is 0?
I read a web site somewhere about some German researchers trying to figure out what was "beautiful" by taking eight of the top Miss Germany contestants (including the winner) and algorithmically averaged their eight faces into a ninth composite face. To be fair, the beauty queen contestants had to wear no makeup and have a neutral expression on their face. They let people rank the nine faces in terms of beauty, and it turned out that the non-existent ninth "averaged" face was ranked the most beautiful.
They then expounded on how people found an average prototypical face the most beautiful.
When I checked back later with the web site, they had added an addendum to the web site, saying something to the effect of, "Oh, yeah, we also found that, by averaging the photos together, we smoothed out any skin blemishes on the face, and maybe it could be possible that there's a chance that somehow people were just finding that the ninth average face had the smoothest skin and was thus the most beautiful."
In other words, "We completely forgot to account for the superhumanly flawless skin in the algorithmically generated face, which invalidates all this work we've done, but we've put so much work into this project that we don't want to throw it all into the trash just yet." Kinda like how a PhD candidate researching a breakthrough in space-dwelling aliens might add, at the very end of his thesis, "Oh, or it might have been just ants crawling on the lens of the telescope. Woops."
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
This will help when I build my girlfriend. :)
The Economist ran a Christmas article about 'beauty and success' (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10311266), reporting the real, quantifiable inequalities in society that unfairly penalise the unfair.
As one of the plug-uglies that live in the UK, where we're promised equality of opportunity on a weekly basis, I've been consistently miffed by the the government's failure to address this kind of discrimination.
However, if this really is the dawn of a truly objective metric for ugliness, then I'm all in favour. No longer will there be a reason for the government to refuse to determine fairer tax rates, employment contracts, healthcare provision and pension terms for those who lack the facial symmetry of our richer peers, and it should be trivial to calculate them in the data-acquisition phase of our much-heralded Identity Register.
Hundreds of years go, fans of physiognomy and phrenology used facial and skull size characteristics to guess who was a criminal - before they committed the crime. Racists and bigots and racists looks at people's faces to form opinions of intelligence and personality. Nazis used physiognomy to promote their horrific eugenics scheme. Personal attractiveness is not based on judging the facial features of photographs of people we've never met. Yuck. What a disgusting, sexist experiment. The fact that this took place in Israel is even more disturbing to me.
You sir, win 1000 internets.
If it's still soft... wouldn't that mean the woman's not that attractive? I think that the most attractive women have the ability to turn software to hardware
I remember watching a television program on this very subject, where a plastic surgeon had developed a "golden ratio" framework to overlay on top of faces to figure out where a face needed "work." The interesting thing is that when it was overlaid atop the image of Tom Cruise, everything lined up -- eyes, jawbone, nose, basically all of the key features. Now some readers here may complain that he's not good looking, but he's enormously popular, and I doubt that the number one reason for his popularity is his virtuoso acting ability.
To me, the golden ratio really does seem to be an adequate rule of thumb. If nothing else, it sure makes for an interesting framework to work within when judging why somebody falls short of perfection!
The moon may be smaller than the earth, but it's much farther away!
I'm not aware of any actual empirical standard of beauty.
According to research that I ran across in a university library years ago, beauty highly correlates with the symmetry of facial features. Such symmetry is believed to be an indicator of genetic health.
According to a show on the discovery channel certain proportions and ratios are considered universally attractive, culturally independent. This included both facial and body ratios. It didn't really matter whether the culture preferred skinny or normal body types, the favored ratios of the features were consistent. IIRC the favored body ratios correlated with child bearing success.
We are hard wired for "beauty" and it is mathematically based.