I’ve seen articles about statistical averages of facial features before, but I stumbled across this online demo the other day.
What’s interesting about this (IMO) is not so much how an average of a large number of faces quickly becomes a pleasant-looking thing, but rather, how it is possible to select a small number of faces you find unappealing - even if all for the same general reason - average them and end up with a face that doesn’t seem to inherit that lack of aesthetic charm.
I think a lot of it has to do with symmetry. I remember a study a number of years back wherein it was revealed that a large part of one’s attractiveness has to do with how symmetrical your face is. The more symmetrical, the more attractive – in general – you appear. Averaging faces such as in the link in your OP both increases symmetry and hides flaws, which automatically tends to make the sum more attractive than its parts. If you were to average the three or four least attractive faces, then do the same to the three or four most attractive faces, you’d probably end up with comparable attractiveness in both aggregates.
I think you’re right - but what’s interesting to me here is that if you pick four faces that are all unattractive for the same reason - lets say they’re too big in the chin (for your personal taste) - averaging them seems to result in a face that looks good with a big chin - it has the other necessary features to balance it.
It also winds up a face which is only “average.” It’s nice but no such face anything particularly special or interesting about it, except faily clear skin from the averaging.
The symmetry thing…I saw a neat thing once. We all think our faces are pretty symmetrical, but if you take two full-on shapshots (one inverted) and cut them in half, placing the two “like” sides together as one face, you can see how drastically different most faces are. The results range from amusing to downright scary!!
It does if you average too many, but try picking just three of the faces you like best - the results can be quite nice - although, yes, in a flawless-symmetrical sort of way.
Interesting article on facial attractiveness
:mad: I *definitely *look more like the prototypic male face of low attractiveness.
Interesting - I had a look at those prototypic faces (here: http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/prototypen/prototypen.htm ) - in the male pair, I perceive them as above average and average, whereas in the female pair, I perceive them as average and below average. I’m male, if that makes a difference, which I suspect it might.
Mmm…I disagree. I averaged 4 of what I considered to be the most attractive guys, and the composit was a damn fine-looking man. Whew.
But you’re right about the skin.
I’m too close for comfort to the prototypic female low attractiveness face, except for the eye color and hair style. Oh yeah, and I have glasses and acne. I’ll be going to hide under a rock now. 
I’ve read articles about the importance of symmetry in attractiveness. That’s generic, however. Sometimes the people you remember as devastatingly attractive have some asymmentric quirk – a lopsided grin, maybe, or eyes pf different colors, or a crooked nose.
This is mostly just a type of Uncanny Valley, inasmuch as the closer a thing is to being flawless, the more the flaws that it does have stand out, and are thus more memorable. The difference as pertains to attractiveness however is that one can find those flaws endearing or even playing into one’s own proclivities. Many Japanese, for example, have a thing for the “double-tooth” look (their term for it), often referred to here as “snaggletooth” – see Kirsten Dunst for an example.
There’s an interesting art aspect to all of this. We’ve come to equate average to Hollywood-level beauty. Real people have features that are abberations to this model, and it’s what makes them look like them. In portraiture, these abberations not only have to be drawn or painted, but exaggerated slightly. The portrait therefore drifts a little further away from the ideal beauty. The subject, who may be paying a great deal for the work, can get mighty insulted by this.
How come they don’t throw in some people of African or Asian descent? That would be more interesting.
Yes! Now I am a scientifically quantifiably fugly sumbitch! :mad: 
(mixed emotions)
I found it interesting that there wasn’t much of a difference between the attractive faces and unattractive faces. I mean they could have been before and after pictures of the same people after losing weight. It seemed like the most difference was in the amount of fat and the high cheekbones. Besides that the shape and size of their eyes, noses, and mouths were very similiar.
When I’ve seen people I know who just do more exercise, I’m amazed at how much more attractive they become by getting in better shape. So I took the info on the link as something positive.
Buh? There’s quite a mix of ethnicities/races there.
Mmm… yesss… frankenwoman…
Uh… er, uh… Look over there!
:flees, trips over wayward cat:
There’s potential for a game here - I noticed that by mixing two females (the 24th and 28th images), plus one male (the 45th image), I can almost make Orlando Bloom.
Who can you make?