0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Thumbs Up |
Received: 130 Given: 513 |
I don't think Mongoloids are inherently gracile, it's just that their celebrities get zygomatic and mandibular bone shaving surgeries. As for the aging, I can't say, I've never seen it firsthand, but that could simply come down to genetics for skin and biochemistry stuff that goes over my head. Halstatt and Mediteranian phenotypes tend to be quite gracile, and they're not known for aging well.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 3,412 Given: 4,742 |
Robust if Borebie. Otherwise narrow face for me.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 369 Given: 350 |
Gracile or intermediate for women (I especially dislike strong CM)
Intermediate or robust for men
Thumbs Up |
Received: 3,990 Given: 1,370 |
Gracile but sharp on men![]()
Thumbs Up |
Received: 62 Given: 67 |
I can find a "robust" faced/headed woman attractive but I definitely like the more "gracile" look. I'd rather approach a Katarzyna (her avatar's staring me in the face and silently judging me right now) or the girls in the bottom photo than the ones in the top photo although I wouldn't be unattracted to them either. I think I'd care more about their personality or not being a moron more than anything, venturing off topic.
Looking at the morphs, the guy on the left looks ridiculous to me. Like some Gears Of War type of hyper-masculine cartoon look, I don't think many guys really come across like that IRL from my observations. 99% of people are in the middle, it's normal and average and perfectly fine. Looks like a normal width for most human faces.. Then the real "robust" faces are more normal looking like the top photos, but I don't think that they look like the morph. Not nearly as wide.
I still like the middle to right faces though. I think that a person in general will look more graceful like that. I guess hence the term "gracile"... lol..
That isn't to say that the women with wider features are all ugly, obviously. I just prefer the slender look. It's a case-by-case basis type of thing.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 130 Given: 513 |
Unfortunately I don't think many post-agriculture humans can have such great interorbital width that isn't simply hypertelorism. I'd agree, I've never seen anyone who looks like that. I based the skull morphs and facial average morphs on visualizations from this study.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26852811/
Basically the right skull (sans mandible) is representing a splanchocranium with a more compact cranial base, correlated with more robust features, like those found in early humans and later pre-human hominins.
I may have gotten some of the details here wrong, it's quite dense for me, I'm trying to learn.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 62 Given: 67 |
I think that it'd look a bit odd regardless, but maybe we're both a bit biased here. lol.
Yeah, seems a bit word salady for me, since I don't really have a background in craniology(?) or anything related to that and a lot of terms will simply mean nothing to me without further explanation/background knowledge. I can infer and guess based on what was explained in that brief abstract.
To be honest, it's always confused me to call certain features "robust" which in english literally just means "strong and healthy".. I would argue that just general symmetrical morphology is a more damning indicator than variation of shape/size of facial features or anything like that. I could see any number of the faces in your OP as being perfectly healthy or even strong. There are guys who look like the "robust" fellows in your OP who could barely bench press 170 lbs and gets colds, meanwhile a guy looking like Ryan Gosling could press 250 and is never sick. I can see features being described as "strong" I suppose. A thinner/smaller built structure can give an impression of "weakness" relative to another structure which can translate into our faces/heads, fair enough.
Like, the "robust" skull is more doliocephalic which I thought was associated more with "gracile" types, so the whole train of thought and use of the two words gets confusing for me.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 130 Given: 513 |
A more robust skull is indicative of better development and nutrition. The more robust of a skull, the easier chewing and breathing are, the better the natural posture, in addition to being more resistant to blunt-force trauma. If you look at the top MMA fighters, they're all large-skulled with a thick, low-set supraorbital ridge and high, forward cheekbones; in comparison to the general population.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 130 Given: 513 |
Yes, there is a lot of confusion surrounding that I've seen in many places online, because of the idea that brachycephalic skulls are "chad". There's also the misconception that only brachycephalic skulls can have a flat occipital, which just isn't true. Lastly, it's assumed a skull that is wide from the front is brachycephalic, which isn't always the case.
humanphenotypes.net puts it well:
"the cephalic index should never be looked at alone, for interpretation usually head size and the height-length index should be considered in addition."
Also here's a likely hyperdolichocephalic aboriginal australian.
![]()
Thumbs Up |
Received: 257 Given: 281 |
Some kind of average/intermediate
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks