Updos for round face shape?

[Mairéad]

As a science student, I would like to point out that nothing related to likes/dislikes, or any subjective or aesthetic issues can be treated scientifically. One can't make a 'perfect face'-study and claim that's scientific and true for everybody and the universal 'perfect' face, because these kind of studies have no scientific basis at all. They're just based in what some people think is 'perfect', and that's hardly something you can measure or prove. The 'perfect woman' (or man) isn't something one can set as a generalized theorem necessarily true for everyone.
If it's something in our brains, then I think it has to do with what society has inserted there (its approved values about what is beautiful and what isn't, for example). I for example would add an angular jaw to my 'ideal face', and that is considered unattractive to many people, and it defies society's set rules about what is beautiful. So if society's perfect face doesn't work for me (I tend to like long faces too, so you can see they don't), then maybe some part of my brain has refused to accept those set rules.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to think that something so subjective as what's beautiful and what's not has any scientific basis. You can't measure 'beauty' with any instrument.

Sorry if I seem angry, I'm more impassioned and earnest than angry, really, and I'm not trying to flame anyone . I'm just sad that so many people feel bad against some part of themselves because it's not what it's considered 'perfect' (what's perfect, anyway?). I'm not saying we should 100% love all our features, because it's improbable, but we shouldn't feel bad about them just because they're not what society's "scientific" studies say it's more beautiful. What a horible lie to lower everybody's self-esteem with .

Thank you, I think was the kind of reply I was trying to think of. I'm also a science student and everything I do can solidly be measured and an absolute result can be derived from my experiments. You can't quantitatively measure how attractive someone is. It's all subjective, categorical data (at best). You could survey every person in the world and they're all going to have a different answer. Read studies and articles very carefully. After taking a statistics course my mind has been opened to how to interpret all the scientific articles I had to read in a better way.

[SwordWomanRiona]

Thank you, I think was the kind of reply I was trying to think of. I'm also a science student and everything I do can solidly be measured and an absolute result can be derived from my experiments. You can't quantitatively measure how attractive someone is. It's all subjective, categorical data (at best). You could survey every person in the world and they're all going to have a different answer. Read studies and articles very carefully. After taking a statistics course my mind has been opened to how to interpret all the scientific articles I had to read in a better way.

I agree. You can do a survey and ask a lot of people about their ideal face, but that's not a scientific study at all. Many people tend to think it is because someone has calculated some results and all that, but they are dealing with data that can't be measured in an objective, quantitative way. They are dealing with subjective, intangible data and the result of such a survey can't be set as a rule. Science does not deal with anything subjective.
*Scientists getting (rightfully) touchy, oh gods *

[Mairéad]

*Scientists getting (rightfully) touchy, oh gods *

The last thing you want is a room full of scientists with their panties in a twist.

[Rosetta]

As a science student, I would like to point out that nothing related to likes/dislikes, or any subjective or aesthetic issues can be treated scientifically. One can't make a 'perfect face'-study and claim that's scientific and true for everybody and the universal 'perfect' face, because these kind of studies have no scientific basis at all. They're just based in what some people think is 'perfect', and that's hardly something you can measure or prove. Science only works with things that can be measured in an objective way. The 'perfect woman' (or man) isn't something one can set as a generalized theorem necessarily true for everyone.
If it's something in our brains, then I think it has to do with what society has inserted there (its approved values about what is beautiful and what isn't, for example). I for example would add an angular jaw to my 'ideal face', and that is considered unattractive to many people, and it defies society's set rules about what is beautiful. So if society's perfect face doesn't work for me (I tend to like long faces too, so you can see they don't), then maybe some part of my brain has refused to accept those set rules.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to think that something so subjective as what's beautiful and what's not has any scientific basis. You can't measure 'beauty' with any instrument.

You can't quantitatively measure how attractive someone is. It's all subjective, categorical data (at best). You could survey every person in the world and they're all going to have a different answer. Read studies and articles very carefully.

Completely agree with these!

And also agree about how wrong it is to put forth some kind of "ideal" face shape, i.e. oval, that everyone else, faulty as they are (supposed to be), should try their best to emulate

(And in my opinion oval isn't even the most beautiful face shape, of those well-known ones, it would be heart-shaped...)

[FrozenBritannia]

Isn't the golden ratio a mathematical formula? I was under the impression that the ratios are also used for architecture. It's less of a beauty thing and more of a symmetry thing.

[torrilin]

Isn't the golden ratio a mathematical formula? I was under the impression that the ratios are also used for architecture. It's less of a beauty thing and more of a symmetry thing.

Symmetry is both a key element of various branches of mathematics *and* a key element of a wide variety of artistic studies. Very few ideas in life are exclusively scientific, exclusively technical or exclusively artistic.

And unfortunately, the golden ratio has not got much to do with symmetry. It is a mathematical ratio that tends to show up in a wide variety of natural forms, for no reason we can identify yet. It is most closely associated with spiral structures like sea shells or the spiral shape of a pine cone... and a spiral by definition isn't symmetrical.

Most folks would get their intense work on golden ratio in biology class or in art class. Mostly art.

Oh, and I will be forcing myself to wear my hair in a high bun tomorrow. I'll post about how it goes. I'm a bit worried about everyone seeing my ears- they aren't protruding, but they go out a little bit.

Trust me, your ears are supposed to stick out a bit. How else would your glasses stay on? And who wants to look like someone chopped their ear off? The Van Gogh look is no good for anyone.

As far as face shape... instead of focusing on how awful your round face is, and how dreadful it is that it is Not Oval... why not try looking for something you like? My face is very round, and I don't really have a chin, and I definitely have very broad and prominent cheekbones. Sounds horrid right? But... I like heart shaped faces. They sound pretty and romantic to me, and they *look* pretty and romantic to me. And... my dreadful chinlessness is pretty easy to nudge into a more heart shaped look with the right hairstyle and neckline. Whee! I too can look pretty and romantic!

[FrozenBritannia]

[quote=torrilin;1797957]Symmetry is both a key element of various branches of mathematics *and* a key element of a wide variety of artistic studies. Very few ideas in life are exclusively scientific, exclusively technical or exclusively artistic.

And unfortunately, the golden ratio has not got much to do with symmetry. It is a mathematical ratio that tends to show up in a wide variety of natural forms, for no reason we can identify yet. It is most closely associated with spiral structures like sea shells or the spiral shape of a pine cone... and a spiral by definition isn't symmetrical.

Most folks would get their intense work on golden ratio in biology class or in art class. Mostly art.

Ah, well there you go. I took art and chemistry but not biology. Although I could swear I saw a bit in a program about how the golden ratio applied to a cathedral in France..It's entirely possible that I have got that part mixed up with something else though.

[Dorothy]

I agree with all this about not being able to trust science to tell us what's beautiful. And I'm about to go a little sideways here so either bear with me or move on to the next post.

I've been reading the most fascinating book
The Technology of Orgasm
"Hysteria," the Vibrator, and Women's Sexual Satisfaction"
Which is basically a history of Androcentric views of sex that will twist the science in any necessary way to ensure that what's viewed as normal in heterosexual sex is male organ in female orifice until male orgasms, throughout CENTURIES of scientific observation, despite the fact that only somewhere between 25% and 33% of women regularly orgasm from intercourse. Masters and Johnson, famous and respected sex researchers, excluded all women who did not regularly orgasm from intercourse (i.e. 75% of women) from all their studies on the basis that such women were not "normal". If "normal" means in any way average, usual, typical, in the middle of the bell curve, then women who have orgasm from intercourse are outliers, not normal. She goes on to discuss a rich tradition of "hysterical" women deprived of orgasms by partners with androcentric views of sex visiting doctors and/or midwives who brought them to "hysterical paroxysm" (orgasm) either manually or with a time saving medical device, the vibrator, on a regular (often weekly) basis. This service comprised 75% of MD visits during the 1900's and was going on in the 2nd century AD.

OK, OK, so it's off topic, but I'm on fire for the lord about this now. And I do think it illustrates that the results of science are altered by our assumptions in ways we have enormous difficulty seeing. And it is no surprise that persons polled about what shapes are attractive have big biases toward oval faces when every face on the cover of a magazine is oval and the covers are filled with instructions about how to make your non oval face look oval.

And I recommend this book, it's available on Amazon and it's fascinating, hysterical (funny ha ha), and academic, all at the same time....

We will now return to normal programming....

[FrozenBritannia]

I agree with all this about not being able to trust science to tell us what's beautiful. And I'm about to go a little sideways here so either bear with me or move on to the next post.

I've been reading the most fascinating book
The Technology of Orgasm
"Hysteria," the Vibrator, and Women's Sexual Satisfaction"
Which is basically a history of Androcentric views of sex that will twist the science in any necessary way to ensure that what's viewed as normal in heterosexual sex is male organ in female orifice until male orgasms, throughout CENTURIES of scientific observation, despite the fact that only somewhere between 25% and 33% of women regularly orgasm from intercourse. Masters and Johnson, famous and respected sex researchers, excluded all women who did not regularly orgasm from intercourse (i.e. 75% of women) from all their studies on the basis that such women were not "normal". If "normal" means in any way average, usual, typical, in the middle of the bell curve, then women who have orgasm from intercourse are outliers, not normal. She goes on to discuss a rich tradition of "hysterical" women deprived of orgasms by partners with androcentric views of sex visiting doctors and/or midwives who brought them to "hysterical paroxysm" (orgasm) either manually or with a time saving medical device, the vibrator, on a regular (often weekly) basis. This service comprised 75% of MD visits during the 1900's and was going on in the 2nd century AD.

OK, OK, so it's off topic, but I'm on fire for the lord about this now. And I do think it illustrates that the results of science are altered by our assumptions in ways we have enormous difficulty seeing. And it is no surprise that persons polled about what shapes are attractive have big biases toward oval faces when every face on the cover of a magazine is oval and the covers are filled with instructions about how to make your non oval face look oval.

And I recommend this book, it's available on Amazon and it's fascinating, hysterical (funny ha ha), and academic, all at the same time....

We will now return to normal programming....

LMAO. That's not allowed nowdays! I can see why housecalls were so popular though.

[swearnsue]

As Elaine in Seinfeld says, "Fake, fake fake fake." LOL