- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
1) Did you take the topless JB off your site?
2) What's the gayest thing you ever did with a human?
3) Is 3dfa totally salty that his stupid forum lost it's userbase?
2) What's the gayest thing you ever did with a human?
3) Is 3dfa totally salty that his stupid forum lost it's userbase?
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2015
Physiognomy is a massively outdated, extremely racist school of thought largely considered to be nothing more than pseudoscience. No wonder you like it.
- Joined
- May 21, 2015
The fact you were bullied in school for being ugly isn't a valid excuse for you objectifying and treating women as mindless sextoys.
Also, considering you yourself rate people very frequently, and have in fact insulted us by calling us ugly earlier in this thread, so congratulations for doing the exact same sort of bullying that made you into the miserable excuse that you are.
lookismadmin
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2015
- Joined
- May 20, 2015
Opinions on this?
http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakult...beautycheck/english/prototypen/prototypen.htm
Original Study in German: http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2003/8/
Below translated version
The results of the study on the social perception of faces to show that there is a distinct attractiveness stereotype: It can be found for both sexes high correlations (between 0.8 and 0.9) between the appeal judgment and the properties attributed to "successful", "happy" , "sympathetic";"Intelligent", "sociable", "exciting", "creative" and "hardworking".It was thus demonstrated that attractiveness draws far-reaching social consequences.In a concluding observation, the associated consequences for the individual and the society are critically discussed.
http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakult...beautycheck/english/prototypen/prototypen.htm
Original Study in German: http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2003/8/
Below translated version
In the present study several explanations that relate to the attractiveness perception of faces were examined empirically.These are actually the average hypothesis (Langlois & Roggman, 1990), the influence of symmetry (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1993) and the theory of characteristic values (Cunningham, 1986; signs of maturity vs. Kindchenschema).In addition, it was investigated what agreement there (attractiveness stereotype) between attractiveness and particular trait inference.
For this purpose we photographed 78 women's faces and 33 men's faces in a standardized manner.In a preliminary study the faces of subjects were (= very unattractive) to 7 (very attractive) evaluated for attractiveness on a scale of 1.Based on these results 64 women's and 32 men's faces were selected for further work and brought in a rank order.From two rangbenachbarten faces was determined using a computer program calculates a new face (morphed).According to this principle more average faces with an increasing number were calculated in contained original faces until finally resulted in a single face for each sex for both women and men over several generations.In both of these faces all photographed persons of one sex are included in equal proportions.Similar to the assessment of the original faces the attractiveness of all morphed faces were also on the same scale (see above) assessed.
All original faces and morphed faces were also employees of a modeling agency assessed to see whether they would be suitable as a model for the "Beauty" category.
In a second experiment the influence of symmetry was examined for the attractiveness perception of faces.For the five most unattractive, five medium and attractive five most attractive faces of each gender symmetrically optimized versions of the original faces were produced by means of morphing software.In a paired comparison experiment was raised to what extent the symmetrically optimized faces are judged to be more attractive than the original faces.
For the third experiment three unattractive and three attractive faces were approached in their facial proportions to 50% to the average face for each sex.The face surface (ie, in particular, the skin) was kept constant and only the proportions were made average.All versions were compared in a paired comparison experiment with the original face.In turn two faces pairs were made for each sex, which were identical in their facial proportions.By keeping the facial proportions different facial surfaces in paired comparison experiments were compared.
Another question was examined to what extent an approximation of the facial proportions of adult women in the Kindchenschema acts attractiveness enhancing.For that we created for six different female faces face five variations whose facial proportions were in 10% increments (up 50%) approximated those of Kindchenschemas.From the five variations plus the original face, respondents chose the most attractive face for them.
To find out the connection between attractiveness and the attribution of certain characteristics is, 21 faces of the categories were assessed "unattractive", "medium attractive" and "attractive" on a 7-point scale in terms of ten different personality traits of subjects.
The result of the assessment of the original faces, and the resulting morphed faces fall as follows: morphed faces are more attractive in the Middle considered the original faces (4.26 and 3.45 on the 7-point scale).The more original faces are contained in a morphed face, the more attractive it is judged (r = 0.57 ** for female faces, r = 0.64 ** for male faces).Although this is based on the one hand tends to the average hypothesis of Langlois & Roggman (1990), but on the other hand is also true: The more attractive are the original faces contained in a morphed face, the more attractive and the morphed face is judged (r = 0.75 ** for female faces, r = 0.68 ** for male faces).It is therefore important not only to the number of vermorphten in a face original faces, but also to how attractive are the original faces used.This contradicts the average hypothesis.
The survey of experts in the modeling agency revealed that of the selected faces that would be suitable as a model for the "Beauty" category, 88% were morphed (14 of 16), so do not exist in reality.
Very asymmetric faces are rather unattractive, but very unattractive faces are therefore not automatically asymmetrical.Conversely as: Very symmetrical faces are not necessarily attractive and very attractive faces show quite deviations from symmetry.Total symmetry seems to be a rather weak criterion for attractiveness.
Are unattractive faces approximated in their proportions to the average scheme, increases their attractiveness?at attractive contrast it drops.When kept constant facial proportions the face surface of the average face is as attractive as the judges of unattractive faces for each sex, but as less attractive than the face surface of attractive faces.Through the two experiments could be clearly shown that not facial proportions, but the surfaces make average faces attractive.The most attractive faces have in their proportions systematic differences compared to the average face (see above!) And are currently being evaluated for these differences as attractive.
Variations of adult female faces, their proportions were the Kindchenschema (from 10% to 50%) can be approximated, judged by more than 90% of respondents as more attractive.This means that even the most attractive women become even more attractive in when her facial proportions be childish.This is consistent with the theory of characteristic value (Cunningham, 1986) and argues against Grammer believes that the Kindchenschema would have no positive influence.
By comparing prototypical unattractive and attractive faces characteristics could be identified, distinguished by which attractive faces.
The results of the study on the social perception of faces to show that there is a distinct attractiveness stereotype: It can be found for both sexes high correlations (between 0.8 and 0.9) between the appeal judgment and the properties attributed to "successful", "happy" , "sympathetic";"Intelligent", "sociable", "exciting", "creative" and "hardworking".It was thus demonstrated that attractiveness draws far-reaching social consequences.In a concluding observation, the associated consequences for the individual and the society are critically discussed.
For this purpose we photographed 78 women's faces and 33 men's faces in a standardized manner.In a preliminary study the faces of subjects were (= very unattractive) to 7 (very attractive) evaluated for attractiveness on a scale of 1.Based on these results 64 women's and 32 men's faces were selected for further work and brought in a rank order.From two rangbenachbarten faces was determined using a computer program calculates a new face (morphed).According to this principle more average faces with an increasing number were calculated in contained original faces until finally resulted in a single face for each sex for both women and men over several generations.In both of these faces all photographed persons of one sex are included in equal proportions.Similar to the assessment of the original faces the attractiveness of all morphed faces were also on the same scale (see above) assessed.
All original faces and morphed faces were also employees of a modeling agency assessed to see whether they would be suitable as a model for the "Beauty" category.
In a second experiment the influence of symmetry was examined for the attractiveness perception of faces.For the five most unattractive, five medium and attractive five most attractive faces of each gender symmetrically optimized versions of the original faces were produced by means of morphing software.In a paired comparison experiment was raised to what extent the symmetrically optimized faces are judged to be more attractive than the original faces.
For the third experiment three unattractive and three attractive faces were approached in their facial proportions to 50% to the average face for each sex.The face surface (ie, in particular, the skin) was kept constant and only the proportions were made average.All versions were compared in a paired comparison experiment with the original face.In turn two faces pairs were made for each sex, which were identical in their facial proportions.By keeping the facial proportions different facial surfaces in paired comparison experiments were compared.
Another question was examined to what extent an approximation of the facial proportions of adult women in the Kindchenschema acts attractiveness enhancing.For that we created for six different female faces face five variations whose facial proportions were in 10% increments (up 50%) approximated those of Kindchenschemas.From the five variations plus the original face, respondents chose the most attractive face for them.
To find out the connection between attractiveness and the attribution of certain characteristics is, 21 faces of the categories were assessed "unattractive", "medium attractive" and "attractive" on a 7-point scale in terms of ten different personality traits of subjects.
The result of the assessment of the original faces, and the resulting morphed faces fall as follows: morphed faces are more attractive in the Middle considered the original faces (4.26 and 3.45 on the 7-point scale).The more original faces are contained in a morphed face, the more attractive it is judged (r = 0.57 ** for female faces, r = 0.64 ** for male faces).Although this is based on the one hand tends to the average hypothesis of Langlois & Roggman (1990), but on the other hand is also true: The more attractive are the original faces contained in a morphed face, the more attractive and the morphed face is judged (r = 0.75 ** for female faces, r = 0.68 ** for male faces).It is therefore important not only to the number of vermorphten in a face original faces, but also to how attractive are the original faces used.This contradicts the average hypothesis.
The survey of experts in the modeling agency revealed that of the selected faces that would be suitable as a model for the "Beauty" category, 88% were morphed (14 of 16), so do not exist in reality.
Very asymmetric faces are rather unattractive, but very unattractive faces are therefore not automatically asymmetrical.Conversely as: Very symmetrical faces are not necessarily attractive and very attractive faces show quite deviations from symmetry.Total symmetry seems to be a rather weak criterion for attractiveness.
Are unattractive faces approximated in their proportions to the average scheme, increases their attractiveness?at attractive contrast it drops.When kept constant facial proportions the face surface of the average face is as attractive as the judges of unattractive faces for each sex, but as less attractive than the face surface of attractive faces.Through the two experiments could be clearly shown that not facial proportions, but the surfaces make average faces attractive.The most attractive faces have in their proportions systematic differences compared to the average face (see above!) And are currently being evaluated for these differences as attractive.
Variations of adult female faces, their proportions were the Kindchenschema (from 10% to 50%) can be approximated, judged by more than 90% of respondents as more attractive.This means that even the most attractive women become even more attractive in when her facial proportions be childish.This is consistent with the theory of characteristic value (Cunningham, 1986) and argues against Grammer believes that the Kindchenschema would have no positive influence.
By comparing prototypical unattractive and attractive faces characteristics could be identified, distinguished by which attractive faces.
The results of the study on the social perception of faces to show that there is a distinct attractiveness stereotype: It can be found for both sexes high correlations (between 0.8 and 0.9) between the appeal judgment and the properties attributed to "successful", "happy" , "sympathetic";"Intelligent", "sociable", "exciting", "creative" and "hardworking".It was thus demonstrated that attractiveness draws far-reaching social consequences.In a concluding observation, the associated consequences for the individual and the society are critically discussed.
The results of the study on the social perception of faces to show that there is a distinct attractiveness stereotype: It can be found for both sexes high correlations (between 0.8 and 0.9) between the appeal judgment and the properties attributed to "successful", "happy" , "sympathetic";"Intelligent", "sociable", "exciting", "creative" and "hardworking".It was thus demonstrated that attractiveness draws far-reaching social consequences.In a concluding observation, the associated consequences for the individual and the society are critically discussed.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
I'm scared to look and see if it's gone. I'll have your hosting provider look.
- Joined
- May 21, 2015
Can you get a translation that isn't Google Translate because that's nigh incomprehensible.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Joined
- May 18, 2014
I seriously don't know what these people expect to do about this though. What do they want? For the government to make it illegal for anyone to have personal preferences in their dating life? How would you fix something like this?
- Joined
- May 20, 2015
@Humanoid Email Address I can't find a translation,but to me it looks pretty comprehensible and im not even an english native speaker
http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakult...chologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/index.htm
That website is basically the summary of the study,they even some pics of the making-of and for me,non-native english speaker is rather easy to understand
Same sentence as before,written in "proper" english
Finally, the results of our studies on social perception suggest that there is a well-defined stereotype of attractiveness: People with more attractive faces were assessed to be more successful, contended, pleasant, intelligent, sociable, exciting, creative and diligent than people with less attractive faces. These results particularly show the far-reaching social consequences human facial attractiveness may have. In order to illustrate this, we constructed three-dimensional animated avatars (head models) using original faces that had been given extreme values like "very unintelligent" or "very successful" in previous ratings.
Nothing changed.
Why did my post get rated "dumb",did someone get triggered by the fact that looks aren't subjective and there's a stereotype of what is attractive? Poor boys,reality is hard
http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakult...chologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/index.htm
That website is basically the summary of the study,they even some pics of the making-of and for me,non-native english speaker is rather easy to understand
Same sentence as before,written in "proper" english
Finally, the results of our studies on social perception suggest that there is a well-defined stereotype of attractiveness: People with more attractive faces were assessed to be more successful, contended, pleasant, intelligent, sociable, exciting, creative and diligent than people with less attractive faces. These results particularly show the far-reaching social consequences human facial attractiveness may have. In order to illustrate this, we constructed three-dimensional animated avatars (head models) using original faces that had been given extreme values like "very unintelligent" or "very successful" in previous ratings.
Nothing changed.
Why did my post get rated "dumb",did someone get triggered by the fact that looks aren't subjective and there's a stereotype of what is attractive? Poor boys,reality is hard
- Joined
- May 21, 2015
Maybe Victory is truly taking a page from @Holden and trying to create his Government gets Girlfriends plan?
Edit:
@Humanoid Email Adress I can't find a translation,but to me it looks pretty comprehensible and im not even an english native speaker
http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakult...chologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/index.htm
That website is basically the summary of the study,they even some pics of the making-of and for me,non-native english speaker is rather easy to understand
Same sentence as before,written in "proper" english
Finally, the results of our studies on social perception suggest that there is a well-defined stereotype of attractiveness: People with more attractive faces were assessed to be more successful, contended, pleasant, intelligent, sociable, exciting, creative and diligent than people with less attractive faces. These results particularly show the far-reaching social consequences human facial attractiveness may have. In order to illustrate this, we constructed three-dimensional animated avatars (head models) using original faces that had been given extreme values like "very unintelligent" or "very successful" in previous ratings.
Nothing changed.
Why did my post get rated "dumb",did someone get triggered by the fact that looks aren't subjective and there's a stereotype of what is attractive? Poor boys,reality is hard
Here's all of the dumb stuff about it.
First, it said nowhere that it was taking a diverse and global sample of people for it. It almost certainly just used what would've been a group of German citizens for it. Not exactly all inclusive of every society's views on beauty.
Second, it just said what they thought was more attractive looking. People like @lookismadmin are trying to argue that all women are just dirty whores who will just take the most attractive mate possible, with no regards for other factors. They weren't asked, "Which one would you date, knowing each one's appearance, personality and tastes?" Simply, "which one do you think looks better?" The whole point people are trying to make here is that a person's appearance and physical attractiveness is merely one of many factors a woman takes into account when choosing a partner, just like any person would do. Any person, male or female, given two pictures of different people, would be able to decide which one was more attractive than the other. Does that mean men are dirty whores too who just mindlessly choose their partners depending on their attractiveness?
Third, it didn't say anything more than , "Asymmetry = bad-- Symmetry = good." And even then, it say, "It doesn't mean asymmetry is always bad and symmetry is always good, just most of the time." It didn't prove that thick necks; bushy eye brows or that something about the maxilla is relevant. Just that symmetry and asymmetry tend to be relevant. Which is a pretty basic concept, symmetry is chosen most of the time for its pleasing nature. That's some serious red pill knowledge.
TLDR you're an idiot.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 18, 2014
The basic premise seems to be that some people are more attractive than others and that's not fair, but all they do is keep repeating it over and over. What would they do about it?
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
Kill all the good looking normies
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEhttps://sneed-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/48/9a/f0/489af08922d87136d11c623f63bc6425.jpg
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2015
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2015
Yeah, but your autism fluency is so much higher than the rest of us that we just can't keep up.
Basically, nothing. None of them seem to have any actual objections to the fact that that's how things work, they just want people to acknowledge it. Some of them plan on getting plastic surgery or doing weird exercises to move their way up the ranks, in hopes that they'll crack the pussy code. Others think that it's better to retire early, live with their parents, and pay for sex with escorts. A few (mostly mrz) want to upload themselves into computer brains or some shit, but I think that's more bitter edgelord fantasies than anything else.
They have even less of a solution for society's problems than the SJWs. And that's saying a lot.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
Yet you made the website and you post here, sounds like you're pretty "disencouraged"...heh
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2014
so @Dove can i ask did you read that study you keep posting or did you just see the title and say "HA I WAS RIGHT MUST SPAM IT ON THE KIWI FORMS"
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2015
No p-values, out of date, and its a crap journal. Gtfo.
Hell, even without those problems they rate them on multiple scales and totally admit perception bias in subjects.
Frank Rizzo
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2014
O
ON 190
Guest
kiwifarms.net
@Frank Rizzo, think we have another Lolcast target?
Because @lookismadmin isn't doing much to convince me otherwise.
Because @lookismadmin isn't doing much to convince me otherwise.