Stop Harmony & Averageness Bullshit

[randomvanish]

Harmony.
It's a giant cope.
Incels use this when they struggle to explain why a person is attractive.
There's no harmony.
There are good features together with high nt personality.
Sometimes even having one of the top tier feature would make you attractive to others. (Like only having a really good lower third/hunter eye area etc.)

Also i've never seen a chad or gigachad who look only harmonious.

Chads always have bunch of gl features at the same time together so we can easily detect why exactly they are chads.
However if you look a chadlite like Timothee bugeyed Chalamet, even if he has a really ugly eyes, he still has decent jaw, top tier quality hair and nice skin with light brown eyes.
So his face is not harmonius, he just have lots of good features. Since he has cuckeyes, narrow frame so he's not and will never be a chad.

Let's think Chico for example.
He is 6'4 guy with high quality hair and he has boyish youthful look with nice nose and lips also decent eyes (minimal uee, prominent eyebrow) and finally top tier lower third. (Gonial angle, symmetry, wide as zygos.)
So he has bunch of goodlooking features together.
However, some low people say "no striking features but harmony".
No.
He has everything.

• Full lips,
• Top tier hair
• straight and boyish nose,
• incredible skin (in his prime)
• long ramus,
• big gonial angle ~115,
• facial convexity angle 174

The thing about averageness is a giant newspaper "hot" story type bullshit. Use face generators websites with averageness algorithm in it, you will see result faces have no "striking" features at all.
No big jaws, no nice nct etc.
So averageness makes you not ugly , that's all. If you add enough subhumans to that algorithm they will end up result of a normie. Not a chad, not a chadlite.
This is a poster boy of averageness.

Do you think he's attractive enough ?

 

[alligatordude]

low iq dn read

 

[Peachy]

harmony = coloring aka dark hair (eyebrows too) and good eyelashes + non subhuman facial ratios

 

[Deleted member 2621]

harmony = ratios

 

[Deleted member 399]

Harmony is about symmetry and good proportions. Its about facial balance, not letting one part of the face dominate over the other.

Do you think he's attractive enough ?

He's proportions are good. He just lacks the sharpness and anterior projection.

 

[randomvanish]

He just lacks the sharpness and anterior projection.

and those are actually what makes you look like a textbook chad.

 

[Deleted member 399]

and those are actually what makes you look like a textbook chad.

You need good propotions AND projection. Anterior projection is important, but without harmony, it produces ogres and neanderthals.

 

[PubertyMaxxer]

Ratios

 

[Xander578]

Indeed thank you for this thread, no one can explain what it is then go on about how it's proportions/ratios (yet still say some eye surgery ruined harmony when there is no change in proportions/ratios) or citing chico as an example jfl.

 

[betamanlet]

Indeed thank you for this thread, no one can explain what it is then go on about how it's proportions/ratios (yet still say some eye surgery ruined harmony when there is no change in proportions/ratios) or citing chico as an example jfl.

Harmony and proportions are different things. Harmony is about how the lines and shapes that the individual features imply come together. Proportions are just the mathematical dynamics between the features. To use your example, eye surgery could disrupt harmony by changing the implied geometry between the eyes and other features. Suddenly the eyelids and the overall shape of the eyes are no longer complementing the brow, the nose, the mouth, and so on. Harmony requires a delicate balance between the most important facial features.

 

[Xander578]

Harmony and proportions are different things. Harmony is about how the lines and shapes that the individual features imply come together. Proportions are just the mathematical dynamics between the features. To use your example, eye surgery could disrupt harmony by changing the implied geometry between the eyes and other features. Suddenly the eyelids and the overall shape of the eyes are no longer complementing the brow, the nose, the mouth, and so on. Harmony requires a delicate balance between the most important facial features.

Okay, so do u have a pattern for this balance?
would someone in theory look better with a recessed chin?

 

[Looksmax305]

Harmony is how everything comes together and explains how someone with a “negative” feature still looks good. There is a large number of factors that make harmony, I guess harmony in simple form is ur features and ratios and how they go together. For example a bad ratio of a low IPD can be compensated for narrow cheek bones and high PFL

 

[betamanlet]

Okay, so do u have a pattern for this balance?

There is no pattern, because there is no one single way to create harmony. Each feature can compensate for the shortcomings of any other feature. Harmony is dynamic, almost to the point of being alive.

would someone in theory look better with a recessed chin?

That is a relative question, not an objective one. What or who are we comparing?

 

[Xander578]

There is no pattern, because there is no one single way to create harmony. Each feature can compensate for the shortcomings of any other feature.

how do features compensate for the shortcomings of others, that alone would say there is a set parameter for how it would.
can you tell me what features fit together?

 

[Deleted]

how do features compensate for the shortcomings of others, that alone would say there is a set parameter for how it would.
can you tell me what features fit together?

Idk. Pitts jaw width compensates for everything like cheekbones etc. He looks 6psl with average jaw
Jaw width*

 

[Xander578]

That is a relative question, not an objective one. What or who are we comparing?

I mean what sum of features would work together to make someone look better with a recessed chin than a forward one or compensate for the shortcomings of it

 

[Perfect Hairline]

can you tell me what features fit together?

Short nose bridge and wide alar base.

 

[Xander578]

Idk. Pitts jaw width compensates for everything like cheekbones etc. He looks 6psl with average jaw
Jaw width*

No i don't mean it that way, he looks good in spite of having shit zygos, but if u give him good zygos he would look better

 

[Deleted]

No i don't mean it that way, he looks good in spite of having shit zygos, but if u give him good zygos he would look better

His jaw compensates for his zygos. *jaw width. He doesn’t need zygos cause hes 8psl anyway

 

[Xander578]

Short nose bridge and wide alar base.

those are all good traits, what harmonycopers suggest is that some traits can work together even if they're not "good traits"

 

[GetThatBread]

Only read the title

 

[Xander578]

His jaw compensates for his zygos. *jaw width. He doesn’t need zygos cause hes 8psl anyway

again not the point, he would look better with better zygos whether he needs it to look good or not is irrelevant

 

[betamanlet]

how do features compensate for the shortcomings of others, that alone would say there is a set parameter for how it would.
can you tell me what features fit together?

It's always situational. The harmonic potential of each feature depends on every other feature that is present. Each human has unique set of features.

 

[Xander578]

It's always situational. The harmonic potential of each feature depends on every other feature that is present.

so can u quantify it or not?
like can u at least give me an example of features that work together

 

[betamanlet]

so can u quantify it or not?

I can't. An AI probably could.

 

[Xander578]

The harmonic potential of each feature depends on every other feature that is present.

can you give a set of traits that have harmonic potential or work ideally with another where if i did improve one trait it would make the whole look worse without ruining ratios or proportions ofc.

 

[betamanlet]

can you give a set of traits that have harmonic potential or work ideally with another where if i did improve one trait it would make the whole look worse without ruining ratios or proportions ofc.

As I said, it's depends on each unique case. There are no overarching rules that can be applied to each face. It's more nuanced than having hunter eyes or horizontal gonial angle.

 

[Xander578]

As I said, it's depends on each unique case. There are no overarching rules that can be applied to each face.

so in other words we have barely an idea on what harmony is other than the vague definition of "how features work together"

 

[betamanlet]

so in other words we have barely an idea on what harmony is other than the vague definition of "how features work together"

Yes and no. The harmony of any single face can be analyzed and deconstructed to an advanced degree, but trying to define the fundamental nature of 'facial harmony' without basing the definition on a specific person would be difficult. You might as well ask: what is beauty? What is truth?

 

[Xander578]

Yes and no. The harmony of any single face can be analyzed and deconstructed to an advanced degree, but trying to define the fundamental nature of 'facial harmony' without basing the definition on a specific person would be difficult. You might as well ask: what is beauty? What is truth?

okay can you give me an example of someone u consider "harmonious" and deconstruct it for me?

 

[betamanlet]

okay can you give me an example of someone u consider "harmonious" and deconstruct it for me?

Meet me halfway: give me an example of someone you consider harmonious and I'll try to pinpoint why you do.

 

[Xander578]

Meet me halfway: give me an example of someone you consider harmonious and I'll try to pinpoint why you do.

Jfl i'm debating against it rn so why would I do that? you said it can be deconstruct to an advanced degree so just give me your example of someone you consider harmonious and i'll try and photoshop a single trait of the example you use to see if he looks better after.

 

[betamanlet]

Jfl i'm debating against

You are debating against harmony?

why would I do that?

Because so far this has been a very one-sided conversation. I don't have a catalog of people with harmonious faces that I can refer to on demand. If you have a specific face in mind I'll gladly share my thoughts.

 

[Xander578]

You are debating against harmony?

Yes I am debating against it, so far I haven't seen anything other than a vague definition of how features fit together, then that means there are patterns where specific features have to fit together to make a good face which so far u've been unable to provide.

Because so far this has been a very one-sided conversation. I don't have a catalog of people with harmonious faces that I can refer to on demand. If you have a specific face in mind I'll gladly share my thoughts.

No i do not have a specific face in mind because most of the people i think are good looking have good features.
can't you actually think of a single person where his "features fit together" to use?
Also how can you know which features fit together, what are you basing that on?

 

[AutisticBeaner]

harmony = ratios

why not just call it ratios then?

 

[Xander578]

why not just call it ratios then?

No one has any idea what it is theory

 

[Moneymaxxed]

Harmony.
It's a giant cope.
Incels use this when they struggle to explain why a person is attractive.
There's no harmony.
There are good features together with high nt personality.
Sometimes even having one of the top tier feature would make you attractive to others. (Like only having a really good lower third/hunter eye area etc.)

Also i've never seen a chad or gigachad who look only harmonious.

Chads always have bunch of gl features at the same time together so we can easily detect why exactly they are chads.
However if you look a chadlite like Timothee bugeyed Chalamet, even if he has a really ugly eyes, he still has decent jaw, top tier quality hair and nice skin with light brown eyes.
So his face is not harmonius, he just have lots of good features. Since he has cuckeyes, narrow frame so he's not and will never be a chad.

Let's think Chico for example.
He is 6'4 guy with high quality hair and he has boyish youthful look with nice nose and lips also decent eyes (minimal uee, prominent eyebrow) and finally top tier lower third. (Gonial angle, symmetry, wide as zygos.)
So he has bunch of goodlooking features together.
However, some low people say "no striking features but harmony".
No.
He has everything.

• Full lips,
• Top tier hair
• straight and boyish nose,
• incredible skin (in his prime)
• long ramus,
• big gonial angle ~115,
• facial convexity angle 174

The thing about averageness is a giant newspaper "hot" story type bullshit. Use face generators websites with averageness algorithm in it, you will see result faces have no "striking" features at all.
No big jaws, no nice nct etc.
So averageness makes you not ugly , that's all. If you add enough subhumans to that algorithm they will end up result of a normie. Not a chad, not a chadlite.
This is a poster boy of averageness.
View attachment 379890
Do you think he's attractive enough ?

Never realized that side profile pic was chico

 

[betamanlet]

Yes I am debating against it, so far I haven't seen anything other than a vague definition of how features fit together, then that means there are patterns where specific features have to fit together to make a good face which so far u've been unable to provide.

What kind of definition are even you looking for? Can you precisely define beauty? Can you pinpoint exactly what makes face beautiful? If not, does this mean beauty does not exist?

 

[Deleted member 3962]

at this point its broken record vs broken record. ive seen like 12 of these threads in the last 3 days. please shut up, its going nowhere.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

at this point its broken record vs broken record. ive seen like 12 of these threads in the last 3 days. please shut up, its going nowhere.

vv

 

[Deleted member 2227]

no one explained yet

 

[Xander578]

What kind of definition are even you looking for? Can you precisely define beauty? Does this mean beauty does not exist?

No I'm just looking for what you are basing which features fit together on, like which specific features fit together (give me at least 1 set of features u think look best together).

for the definition of beauty we can just use the dictionary "the quality of being pleasing, especially to look at, or someone or something that gives great pleasure when you look at it "

and we have at least measurable parameters for why we consider things beautiful like ratios and proportions, and traits as better than others due to evolutionary purposes and sexual dimorphism.

Yet in your case you haven't given a single set of features that fit together as per your definition, as you said if you can break down features of a face in an advanced manner you can provide a set of features that work well together.

No patterns, no measurements, no evolutionary purposes no basis for how features fit together.

 

[curryslayerordeath]

What kind of definition are even you looking for? Can you precisely define beauty? Can you pinpoint exactly what makes face beautiful? If not, does this mean beauty does not exist?

I am interested in your take on this, this is an example of a face that I consider very harmonious. I have my own personal reason why he looks good but I believe he can be significantly improved by bringing his features towards an "ideal" that I have in my mind since he has a very large amount of flaws.

 

[BonesAndHarmony]

Harmony is basically ratios, symmetry, no weird features. According to science simple faces (aka no weird features or ratios) are more attractive and Chico has a simple face, I mean he looks like a fucking drawing and that hugely contributes to his great harmony.
And averageness is not cope, the mathematical average of faces ALWAYS ends up being more attractive than the original faces. The logical conclusion isthat balaced features and ratios are of extreme importance in attactiveness.

 

[Xander578]

Harmony is basically ratios, symmetry, no weird features. According to science simple faces are more attractive and Chico has a simple face, I mean he looks like a fucking drawing and that hugely contributes to his great harmony.
And averageness is not cope, the mathematical average of faces ALWAYS ends up being more attractive than the original faces. The logical conclusion isthat balaced features and ratios are of extreme importance in attactiveness.

well I guess this explanation at least has some basis although i think it's better to just use the actual terms (you'll see very varied responses IIT on what it is)

 

[betamanlet]

No I'm just looking for what you are basing which features fit together on, like which specific features fit together (give me at least 1 set of features u think look best together).
for the definition of beauty we can just use the dictionary "the quality of being pleasing, especially to look at, or someone or something that gives great pleasure when you look at it "

Except this description reveals nothing about beauty as an objective phenomenon, rather it only defines the subjective experience of beauty. Harmony could be defined with equally worthless words -- in which case you would not be satisfied, so I must ask you: whence the double standard?

and we have at least measurable parameters for why we consider things beautiful like ratios and proportions, and traits as better than others due to evolutionary purposes and sexual dimorphism.

Yes. These are largely the principles from which harmony emerges too.

Yet in your case you haven't given a single set of features that fit together as per your definition, as you said if you can break down features of a face in an advanced manner you can provide a set of features that work well together.

I already explained why your request makes little sense. There are no sets of features that fit together independently of context. You are asking for something which can't, by default, exist. Analyzing the harmony of a face and inventing universal rules about facial harmony are two vastly different notions. Only the former is feasible.

I am interested in your take on this, this is an example of a face that I consider very harmonious. I have my own personal reason why he looks good but I believe he can be significantly improved by bringing his features towards an "ideal" that I have in my mind since he has a very large amount of flaws.

Apart from symmetry and proportional distribution of thirds, the inner arches of his eyebrows align with the direction of his upper eyelids (red), the direction of his philtrum curvature aligns with his ramii (yellow) and the outer arches of his eyebrows align with the highest point of his forehead (blue), his chin-mouth edge axis aligns with his ears (green), and finally, the highest point in his forehead is aligned with the inner edge of his eyebrows and the outer edges of the mouth (purple). Ideally the width of his chin would align with the purple line too.

Then there are the implied geometries which these lines create as they cross over one another. These are very important for overall harmony too.

 

[Xander578]

Except this description reveals nothing about beauty as an objective phenomenon, rather it only defines the subjective experience of beauty. Harmony could be defined with equally worthless words -- in which case you would not be satisfied, so I must ask you: whence the double standard?

I'm just using this as the agreed upon definition, nor is this relevant to the discussion in any way as I already accepted your definition of "how features work together"

Yes. These are largely the principles from which harmony emerges too.

No, we can actually quantify ratios and proportions that are considered ideal.

I already explained why your request makes little sense. There are no sets of features that fit together independently of context. You are asking for something which can't, by default, exist. Analyzing the harmony of a face and inventing universal rules about facial harmony are two vastly different notions. Only the former is feasible.

Again your view on it is very arbitrary with no real basis.

Apart from symmetry and proportional distribution of thirds, the inner arches of his eyebrows align with the direction of his upper eyelids (red), the direction of his philtrum curvature aligns with his ramii (yellow) and the outer arches of his eyebrows align with the highest point of his forehead (blue), his chin-mouth edge axis aligns with his ears (green), and finally, the highest point in his forehead is aligned with the inner edge of his eyebrows and the outer edges of the mouth (purple). Ideally the width of his chin would align with the purple line too.
View attachment 380226

Then there are the implied geometries which these lines create as they cross over one another. These are very important for overall harmony too.

what the fuck are you basing all these lines on, seems like a bunch of line you pulled out of ur ass.
I really hope you haven't used the golden ratio mask for those

 

[betamanlet]

Again your view on it is very arbitrary with no real basis.

I think Xander is rejecting betamanlet's view for the sake of rejecting it, rather than for any good reason.

what the fuck are you basing all these lines on, seems like a bunch of line you pulled out of ur ass.

These lines (and many more) already 'exist' in the face. I am merely highlighting them. That is what facial harmony essentially is: self-complementing geometry. Of course, your brain does not need these lines in order to determine harmony -- it is capable of doing so automatically by virtue of eons of evolution.

I have shared all there is to share on the subject. If you are remain unconvinced, no worries. May betamanlet and Xander meet again in a more pleasant setting.

 

[Xander578]

These lines (and many more) already 'exist' in the face. I am merely highlighting them. That is what facial harmony essentially is: self-complementing geometry. Of course, your brain does not need these lines in order to determine harmony -- it is capable of doing so automatically by virtue of eons of evolution.

I have shared all there is to share on the subject. If you are remain unconvinced, no worries.

first of all, what are you basing this on? for being attractive for ratios we have studies on ratios people prefer, proportions aswell and we know good features serve evolutionary purposes (maybe not anymore tho).

is there any scientific basis on the fact this is considered attractive?

and finally, are you by chance basing this on the golden ratio mask?

This seems way too arbitrary and sounds like your own invention to explain said concept.

unless you have any sources for these arbitrary lines i'll consider it your pseudoscientific invention

 

[betamanlet]

first of all, what are you basing this on?
This seems way too arbitrary and sounds like your own invention to explain said concept.

The laws of harmony do not need to be invented any more than the laws of mathematics do. They are simply discovered. The lines I drew are arbitrary in the sense that I have no specific reason for highlighting those particular lines when others exist too. As such, the lines I drew are to be taken as an example rather than a definite framework. After all, the possibilities are numerous when pinpointing the underlying harmonic principles by extrapolating from the facial features.

is there any scientific basis on the fact this is considered attractive?

You tell me friendo. You sound like the science guy. I find the nuances of scientific methodology a huge bore.

and finally, are you by chance basing this on the golden ratio mask?

The golden ratio mask has certain relevance to the subject but was not used in this case.

unless you have any sources for these arbitrary lines i'll consider it your pseudoscientific invention

Not sure exactly what you mean by sources, but please feel free to do whatever you want with the information I have shared. I have nothing at stake here.