Masculine vs Feminine Face shape. Long vs Short

[Harkonnen]

Weird enough this seem to correlate with well known anthropology facts



Finns and Jamaican male 2d4d average hovers around 0.93. But Finns have higher variation. On the other end of spectrum we have Spanish, English and Poles hovering around 0.97-0.99. This means that if Finns get feminized enuff -- which seems likely -- we might enter the halls of Nordic race.

[HectorOfTroy]

my index is the around same on my left hand but my ratio is ~ 0.94 on my right hand, wrist is also half an inch thicker in circumference on right. 0.97 avg

[HectorOfTroy]

the short/long face fem or masc is complete horse crap. know plenty of big tall masculine dudes with a longish face, and have seen tons of pretty feminime women with short small faces. if anything short and small face is feminime. guys have wider set and proportionatley smaller eyes than women, which might give the impression that face is shorter and wider, a man's face is wider than a womans but definatley not shorter, not even in proportion. wide and short are not interchangeable.

usually what gives a masculine impression on a guys face to me is big chin, big nose, small eyes and somewhat of a large skull, doesn't matter if the guy is horse faced or short faced

[Komintasavalta]

During human ontogeny, testosterone has powerful organizational and activational effects on the male organism. This has led to the hypothesis that the prenatal environment (as studied through the second-to-fourth digit ratio, 2D : 4D) is not only associated with robust adult male faces that are perceived as dominant and masculine, but also that there is an activational step during puberty. To test the latter, we collected digit ratios and frontal photographs of right-handed Caucasian boys (aged 4–11 years) along with age, body height and body weight. Using geometric morphometrics, we show a significant relationship between facial shape and 2D : 4D before the onset of puberty (explaining 14.5% of shape variation; p = 0.014 after 10 000 permutations, n = 17). Regression analyses depict the same shape patterns as in adults, namely that the lower the 2D : 4D, the smaller and shorter the forehead, the thicker the eyebrows, the wider and shorter the nose, and the larger the lower face. Our findings add to previous evidence that certain adult male facial characteristics that elicit attributions of masculinity and dominance are determined very early in ontogeny.

Facial shapes associated with high digit ratios (figure 2, left panels) are characterized by a relatively large forehead, long and slim eyebrows, comparably large eyes with a round shape of the visible iris, and a relatively long distance of the eyes to the alae origins. The deformation grid in the nose area indicates a vertical stretching of the nose as well as a relatively short distance to the mouth. The cheeks are narrower, the jaw outline is less broad and the chin more pointed than predicted for faces corresponding with boys with lower digit ratios (figure 2 right panels). These faces, in contrast, have a relatively smaller and shorter forehead. The eyebrows are thicker and further apart from the smaller eyes. The distance between the eyes is comparably large. The flaring parts of the nostrils are relatively wide and short. The grids point to a prominent lower jaw that is laterally and ventrally extended compared with boys with higher digit ratios.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rspb.2011.2351

Maybe the boys with a low digit ratio were more proud so their head was tilted at a higher angle, because there's a huge difference in the angle of the head in those images. In photos taken at a lower angle, the forehead appears shorter and more tapered, the mandible appears wider and more round, the lower part of the face appears bigger relative to the upper part, canthal tilt appears lower, the nose appears shorter and more upturned, the distance between the eyebrows and the eyes appears higher, the eyebrows appear thicker, and the position of the ears relative to the eyes appears lower.

The methods section of the paper says that "the children's heads were adjusted according to the Frankfort Horizontal Plane", but they clearly failed to adequately normalize the position of the head:

Frontal photographs were taken with a digital reflex camera (Canon EOS 300D) and a 116 mm lens. To standardize the photographs, all children were advised to look straight into the camera with neutral facial expression, to remove their glasses or any facial adornment and to tie their hair back. The camera was positioned at eye height 3.5 m away from the face. Studio lights helped standardize the light conditions. The children's heads were adjusted according to the Frankfort Horizontal Plane [26].

The sample size of the study was 17, but a bigger sample size could've helped to neutralize differences in the angle of the head between the morphs.

You can use Google's Cloud Vision API to estimate the angle of the head in the photos: https://cloud.google.com/vision/docs/drag-and-drop. Click "Show JSON" and search for "tiltAngle". The "tiltAngle" parameter was returned as about -11.8 degrees for digit ratio 1.094 and as about 3.7 degrees for digit ratio 0.874.

The reason why the eyes of the left morph look messed up is that all images consist of the same morph, but they just applied different meshes to the morph. It would've been useful if they also included morphs of the individual subjects in each digit ratio class.

[Harkonnen]

Maybe the boys with a low digit ratio were more proud so their head was tilted at a higher angle, because there's a huge difference in the angle of the head in those images. In photos taken at a lower angle, the forehead appears shorter and more tapered, the mandible appears wider and more round, the lower part of the face appears bigger relative to the upper part, canthal tilt appears lower, the nose appears shorter and more upturned, the distance between the eyebrows and the eyes appears higher, the eyebrows appear thicker, and the position of the ears relative to the eyes appears lower.

The methods section of the paper says that "the children's heads were adjusted according to the Frankfort Horizontal Plane", but they clearly failed to adequately normalize the position of the head:

Frontal photographs were taken with a digital reflex camera (Canon EOS 300D) and a 116 mm lens. To standardize the photographs, all children were advised to look straight into the camera with neutral facial expression, to remove their glasses or any facial adornment and to tie their hair back. The camera was positioned at eye height 3.5 m away from the face. Studio lights helped standardize the light conditions. The children's heads were adjusted according to the Frankfort Horizontal Plane [26].

The sample size of the study was 17, but a bigger sample size could've helped to neutralize differences in the angle of the head between the morphs.

You can use Google's Cloud Vision API to estimate the angle of the head in the photos: https://cloud.google.com/vision/docs/drag-and-drop. Click "Show JSON" and search for "tiltAngle". The "tiltAngle" parameter was returned as about -11.8 degrees for digit ratio 1.094 and as about 3.7 degrees for digit ratio 0.874.

The reason why the eyes of the left morph look messed up is that all images consist of the same morph, but they just applied different meshes to the morph. It would've been useful if they also included morphs of the individual subjects in each digit ratio class.

Yeah I did notice the difference in head posture. I kinda wished they'd used caliper or something, but I guess caliper has the nazi taint, so no one will dare use it anymore.