E-Mail Post To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Facial Symmetry = Beauty = Good Genes?' to a friend

* Required Field

Your Name: *

Your E-Mail: *

Your Remark:

Friend's Name: *

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

Friend's E-Mail: *

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

Image Verification: *

 Loading ...

1. jf
   May 10th, 2008 at 10:50 am

   this isn’t a new finding at all! scientists have known this for decades, im pretty sure…it’s interesting, for sure, but nowhere near groundbreaking

2. Carl
   May 10th, 2008 at 10:55 am

   Naw, there was a study a few years ago, I’m sure, about how ASYMMETRICAL faces were handsome. On men anyway - maybe it doesn’t work for women. The article featured, oh what’s his name. Man, it was some musician who looked kind of like Kramer with blonder hair. Anyway, super asymmetrical face.

   What it came down to was those people had character, were distinguished, unique.

   I think it’s just being one extreme or another. Either being perfectly symmetrical, or really uniquely asymmetrical. I mean look at Clint Eastwood’s sneer! Very asymmetrical, but girls love the guy.

   And the genes thing is already on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_symmetry
   “Animal studies show that diseased mothers give birth to offspring that show greater asymmetries.”

3. Vako
   May 10th, 2008 at 11:07 am

   Eugenics a-Go-Go !!!

   

4. Worlds Most Beautiful Woman
   May 10th, 2008 at 11:28 am

   http://www.intmath.com/Numbers/mathOfBeauty.php

   Heres another take on solving this eternal mystery.

   Also analyze the women on my site.

5. ted
   May 10th, 2008 at 11:32 am

   “No one disputes that symmetrical faces, such as that of Kate Moss, are more attractive.”

   That’s kind of a big leap to say that nobody disputes that. How I love pseudo-science.

6. Alex
   May 10th, 2008 at 11:34 am

   @jf, the first part of the equation yes (symmetry = beauty). But not the second part (beauty = good genes or fertility), that’s new.

7. Carl
   May 10th, 2008 at 11:47 am

   Lyle Lovett was the guy I was trying to remember in the first post. All I could think of for a while was Guy Ritchie.

8. AJ
   May 10th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

   Umm, not everyone equates masculinity or femininity with attractiveness. Those words would have me picking out people who fit societal stereotypes for those words, not people I consider attractive.

9. L
   May 10th, 2008 at 1:12 pm

   I don’t know if beauty = fertility. What about ugly women who go and have 15 kids?

10. Ali S.
    May 10th, 2008 at 2:23 pm

    @ L

    I was just about to mention that!

11. Diogenes doo doo
    May 10th, 2008 at 8:06 pm

    NOW I know what all the broken mirrors meant and to think Ive been vain for all these years. Well, now that I am past my prime and just know learning that my asymetric face is equal to mother nature taking a crap, the rest of life for me should be bliss.
    thanks a lot ” Anthony Little of the University of Stirling, Scotland, and colleagues”, if that’s your real name.

12. Jess
    May 11th, 2008 at 1:49 am

    Alex - scientists have also known for decades that beauty = good genes and fertility.

    L - a large part of what we consider “beauty” is youth. Even is a face is not all that attractive, if it’s young, the person will be more fertile.
    Other symbols of fertility/health in areas other than the face (in women) include a low waist/hip ratio, healthy weight, full breasts, and shiny hair.

    Carl - Attractiveness in males is not as important, as status and fidelity is considered just as (or even more) desirable than genes by women. Maybe that’s why asymmetrical male faces could be considered more attractive than asymmetrical female faces.

    This is the evolutionary psychology perspective. Keep in mind that it focuses on the species as a whole rather than specific individuals.

13. Jason E.
    May 12th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    Search:

    “The Golden Ratio”
    “Phi”
    and
    1: 1.618

14. Jason E.
    May 12th, 2008 at 12:40 pm

    The symmetry is due to the tendency of growing things to aspire to grow such that it’s proportions correlate to a ratio of 1:1.618. If this number looks familiar, it’s called the “golden ratio” Makes sense that growing in a way that yields the highest correlation to the way that things “want” to grow would be perceived, as the most healthy… and therefore the most desirable.

    Use your favorite search engine to do some research on the golden ratio and the beauty ratio.

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT