What is Digg?115 Comments
- Renton, on 10/12/2007, -19/+204This chart is useless without the chest.
- JimmyDushku, on 10/12/2007, -25/+190I know her too. Wasn't worth my 50 bucks.
Sorry, couldn't resist. - ngonzales80, on 10/12/2007, -3/+130Everyone from 6.5 up looks hot to me.
- evanct, on 10/12/2007, -8/+106fat is unnattractive. who knew.
- dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -15/+98I'm looking at the 1.0-3.4 girl and thinking "I can't believe it". I took her to the prom. That's precisely what she looks like, down to the pixel. I didn't think she looked all that bad. I still envy the guy who married her. Personality makes a big difference I guess.
- badave, on 10/12/2007, -2/+80If you're a female, I'll do you.
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -2/+51Or caps lock.
- KVargs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+42holy crap, are you trying to spell wallaby or alibi.....
- slave25637, on 10/12/2007, -6/+39I'd hit version 8.0 and up.
jokes for nerds. - Shadowdev, on 10/12/2007, -5/+345.5 & up I think all look attractive.
- SirNoobius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31also depends on the color. some of them look way too pale and others have a pinkish shade.
- XISUPERMANIX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29A real challenge would to be a whole picture of them, not just the face. Some girls I know have a kind of a chubby face but a great body and some girls are just too skinny, you know the type that has legs the width of your wrist.
- tacojohn48, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29One of the important things to note is that the people who scored lower were not smiling in the pictures. I think a simple smile could have raised many of these peoples scores.
- gravytop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24Here's the hottie's phone number: (890107) 8098602-2934842728323
It's a composite. - gharding, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24They're called MINORITIES for a reason. An average wouldn't contain 15 white people and 15 black people, since hotornot is primarily US-based.
- anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27Or fat caps locks.
- keysersoze1234, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24This is true of course, but you also need to realize that the concept of physical attractiveness has a scientific/evolutionary component. Many species use various physical characteristics to choose a potential mate. Oftentimes animals will grow an otherwise useless "display" feature (e.g. peakcocks) to demonstrate superiority.
In the case of humans, there are numerous theories as to why certain things are considered attractive. Some things are social (insane skinniness). But things that seem to be universally accepted as attractive, such as large breasts, probably have an evolutionary component. One idea is that women with large breasts are displaying how much extra 'food' they have eaten and how healthy they are. Of course, that would mean that fat girls in general would be more attractive, wouldn't it? - inarguable, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24Maybe this is why Michael Jackson elected to go with a composite face!
- bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23These type of experiments are fundamentally flawed. You might average out facial features locations, but you also average out blemishes, so every composite ends up with an even complexion.
Even the most beautiful faces can be turned ugly with the addition of some dark circles under the eyes and poor skin. They need to redo this experiment by having sliding scales for proportions and also a sliding scale reapplying those proportions to ordinary flawed complexions - phmfthacim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16is it a mere coincidence that the 9.5-10 girl has paler skin and browner hair compared to the rest?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17The crop of the photos is the key....6.5 is an A-cup....every point above 6.5 means a bigger cup size :)
- EochaidRiata, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18"Of course, that would mean that fat girls in general would be more attractive, wouldn't it?"
Except that more weight = less fertility, for men as well as women.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2002126385_healthfertility22.html - justinjacobs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I think I could only handle version 1.0. My specs just aren't good enough. :-(
- tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14The problem is that a lot of things make a difference on that website....if you reposted some of those pictures on hotornot.com they'd get a much higher score than indicated simply because all the blemishes, etc are taken out, also you can't see that they're fat, or wearing ugly clothes, etc like you can see in most hotornot photos. Go ahead, test it out...repost 6.5 and watch it get 9's and 10's. repost even the lower ones and they'll still score higher than they show in that lineup...composites remove all the ugly blemishes and asymmetries as mentioned in the article.
It's also possible that the 9.5-10 composite won't get a 10 simply because the composite girl isn't wearing a bikini or showing cleavage. - scom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17I agree, not much change in the top two rows
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12One of the links the article links to ( http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/index.htm ) is considerably more interesting, and has considerably more information.
However, the conclusion, that humans find computer generated faces prettier than real faces _because we're surrounded by commercials_ is ridiculous. We prefer the computer generated faces because they have no blemishes; we use degree of symmetry and absence of blemishes to judge the genetic quality of potential mates. All animals do the same, and many animals in tests will also prefer "overly perfect" mates over real mates, e.g. male sticklebacks will prefer an unnatural-looking mock-up with a big red area on the bely to a real female who's got a smaller red area on her belly.
And somehow I don't think male sticklebacks have been unduly influenced by the fashion industry.
Perhaps the most interesting, and morally explosive, in the study is the find that men _and females_ find female faces with the facial proportions of a 14-year-old the most attractive. It isn't popular, but biology actually predicts it: that is the age of onset of sexual maturity, while a female of that age is the least likely to already be pregnant with another males offspring. - Quake120, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24Wow we live in a very superficial society. Any one of those girls from 1.0 to 10 could be quite attractive to someone. Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder?
- aaronm67, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13For me I'd say it's about 5.5 and up. I wonder why a few of them look so washed out/white? (7.0-7.4, 9.5-10)
- saisumimen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Give the guy a break, his fingers are so fat he keeps pushing the shift key on every key stroke.
- Iknockstuffdown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I think it has a lot to do with the eyes. You can see a huge difference in the way the eyes look from 6.5 and beyond compared to the rest.
- saisumimen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"U G LY she ain't got no allaby. SHE UGLY"
Misspelling aside, that made me laugh. You're under arrest for "aggravated ugliness". - Duositex, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13They look like almost exactly the same person...
Couldn't help but notice they're all white. 15 white face + 15 black faces != 30 white faces - DruminPatrick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Well he got all the faces from Hot or Not... I just went and viewed 30 pictures and the it was 27 white - 1 black - 2 indeterminable.
- NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+105.5+ baby!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I think most celebrities have one of those "composite faces" that you speak of :)
- markchan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It has been suggested by studies that an "Averaged" composite face is rated as more attractive. i.e. If i were to present to you 4 faces, and then by means of averaging i.e. Mathematically, morphing these faces together, the composite of 4 faces is likely to be rated as more attractive than the 1 individual face. It goes as much as 32 face. A 32 face composite would be more "attractive" than a 4 faced composite.
The averaged face is the prototypical face. It is possible that within us lies an innate mechanism that is defines attractiveness based on the prototype - remember though, when we say average, we do not mean it as "Average Joe" or "Plain Jane" rather it's a mathematical average of the faces we see.
Check out the work of Dr. Judith Langlois, Dr. Gillian Rhodes, and Dr Leslie Zebrowitz - Wuffles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@ariastar
Digg is not "hotornot", if you truly want a rating go there.
You're embarrassing us. : - terrab0t, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Probably not just a coincidence. As someone already pointed out, there probably weren't any black women in the samples.
The top rated composite probably came from a lot of photos with bright, washed out skin tones either from flash photography or photo editing. These types of images tend to hide skin blemishes and bring out feature like the eyes with higher contrast. The top two composites look pretty much the same other than their brightness, but the 9.0-9.4 image probably came from originals that showed a bit more of the skin details that magazines airbrush out.
As the author said, none of these composites show skin blemishes because they get averaged out, so we're only seeing the major shape similarities in the different rating groups. Washed out photos could have been what put a lot of those girls into the 9.5-10 range. - robotexplorer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9of course its a waste of time, but what did you expect?
- raithetarkon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Same here.. Honestly, there doesn''t seem to be much of a difference between 6.5 and 8.
- idigital, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6There's hardly much range for comparison there, it's completely flawed for any kind of study of the "current standard of good looks on the Internet". It looks more like the image in the top left is showing what the one in the bottom right will look like in 20 years.
- sevenhelmets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Thats very interesting, because the chicks I normally tend to dig (aged between 18-30) aren't hot in that composite. The hottest in that is actually the 33-40 age group. Who would've known I'm a closet older chick fetishist......
- Dolphtesla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The one that got the highest rating also is lit better, has wider eyes and so on. Of course obesity is not attractive. Neither is anorexia.
- tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Besides, my old roommates used to simply get on hotornot and mark everyone randomly (or have everyone as a 7 or whatever) just so they could get through more pictures faster looking for hot chicks. Hotornot isn't a perfect way to gage attractiveness, but I suppose it's hard to get a better way.
- Dingoboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Thats not a California 10
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5With a mallet?
- CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7frozen is a chubby chaser
- saisumimen, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Tell your mom I left her money under the pillow.
- tw0k1ngs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I personally find the 7.5 better than the 8.5
- whovian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5And the Hot or Not face composites by age:
http://flickr.com/photos/pierre_tourigny/146532561/ -
Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is