@Galen -- so types look plasticy? >.>
Printable View
@Galen -- so types look plasticy? >.>
Just saw the male faces. First reactions:
When I clicked on 7, I cringed and closed my eyes, then quickly scrolled away. Yuck.
8 is pleasant and a nice face to look at, I can stay there for awhile. Whereas 7 made me want to get away as quickly as possible, I have the opposite reaction with 8 - where I want to study his face more.
9 -- ew, more an unpleasant disgust. Not as bad as 7 - but not good.
10 no reaction. it's okay
11 - gahhhh, get me away!
12 just makes me laugh. He looks ridiculous, as in over-exaggeratedly friendly, but not a bad face.
4 then 1 for the women... 4 is highly attractive. For the men only 9 seemed to have any appeal at all... most seemed really off.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...lefyWOJVXx5lPj
So/So/So that one.
This is an interesting idea that I haven't seen performed before.
There is a danger here that you are using averages which tend to create 'beautiful people' because average qualities do that.
It would be worthwhile doing more than correlation, 'These are average face composites for 5', by expanding to include ideas such as Enneagram 5s/6s iconoclastism and how this impacts appearance versus the attraction flaunting 7s/3s.
I certainly don't find the so > sx composites to be particularly attractive. Even if this was the case, how is this a bad thing?
So just create random type combinations? I don't see much worth in doing that unless I were to go with the various triads, which may be worth checking out.