Hacker News Reader

Comment by bh42222 | Hacker News Reader

Human opinion of what's "beautiful" in other human faces is not entirely subjective. It has been know for a while that if you start averaging faces you end up with a "pretty" face. This is because we genetically like symmetry, and averaging out faces makes them very symmetrical.

View on HN

There was a paper here on HN a few months back that compared averaged faces to faces with unchanged bone structure but smoothed skin; the differences in rated attractiveness were apparently negligible (and average faces with bad skin faired poorly). Averaging removes blemishes.

Cartoonists and animators have long contended that some small asymmetries enhance the emotional connection we have with a character --- think of a puppy with one ear that points up, or with a spot over one eye. Sympathy isn't beauty, I admit; I think it might contribute to attraction, though.

some small asymmetries enhance the emotional connection

Small asymmetries. Which, by design must be built on top of something that is otherwise relatively perfect. Otherwise the asymmetry does not stand out, and the whole thing is just a mess.

For example, a mangy old cur with one ear that points up, or a spot over one eye.

Perhaps, but the use of a term like "we genetically like symmetry" bugs me. Has it actually been scientifically proven that humans have a genetic predisposition toward preferring symmetry? My google-fu turned up nothing. Isn't opinion naturally subjective, albeit informed by societal influences one way or the other?

My google-fu also fails me. This is the best I found: http://www.metafilter.com/62173/The-hypnotic-beauty-of-the-a...

I based my initial opinion on a documentary about someone who had tried to find the "typical criminal" face by averaging the mugshots of criminals. But to his shock, the resulting face kept turning out beautiful. But again, my google-fu fails me.

This isn't symmetry per se, but the study referred to here does suggest that beauty is mostly innate:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6355-babies-prefer-to-...

(They didn't do any averaging.)

This article says that symmetry specifically has also be found to be attractive to babies:

http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume6/issue6/features/feng.html

Not sure if that was separate from the averaging mentioned.

>Has it actually been scientifically proven that humans have a genetic predisposition toward preferring symmetry?

http://www.grajfoner.com/Clanki/Perrett%201999%20Symetry%20A... seems to imply so. (I'm sure you can find something else stating the opposite though.) That paper was cited as a reference in the original beautification paper, which can be found here http://www.leyvand.com/research/beautification2008/attractiv....

The explanation I heard once was that childhood illnesses have a large impact on symmetry. In general, symmetry implies health/fertility, so it makes sense that we're attracted to it.

"beauty" relates to desire and reproduction. Simmetry means healthy genes. A gene that makes you see "beauty" on external signs of good genes is a gene that gets naturally selected. So I guess most of the actual population have it and see beauty on simmetry.

But the face on the left is more beautiful. She has large eyes and lips and a strong jaw -- outstanding features which arrest the gaze. The "beautified" version of her face was just kind of "meh".

I think most people would disagree with you on that.

I remember an art teacher who demonstrated me that we actually don't like symmetry in faces - he shown us a picture of a woman face composed of one half, and its mirror image. This face was completely symmetric (vertically), but didn't feel quite "right".

That seems a good deal less scientific than the numerous studies that have strongly suggested the opposite.

You are right, of course. I was just providing a data point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com