Attractiveness by Origin![]() These women do no exist.
This is the third of three images on attractiveness. Is there a universal standard of physical beauty? Is it only culture and fashion? Good skin and harmonious symmetrical features are indications of past and current health that should be attractive everywhere. On the other hand, when I look at portraits from previous centuries, the women in them do not look particularly “hot”. Miss Universe contestants owe their delegation to a mix of local and universal standards of beauty (or at least the pageant’s version of universal). I created multi-morph composites (see some details how here) for each continent from photos of the delegates. The Americas composite most closely resembles the one from all delegates while the Europe composite more closely resembles the one from the finalists. Bias in the judging or in the standard? Who knows? Commentsmanitou2121
|
[?]
This photo also belongs to:
TagsAdditional Information
|
mortimer?
says:
There is this theory that Beautiful People are Mean so, the finalists should ressemble most All :)
I am not sure that Europe and Finalist are closer than Europe to All (or to Americas). I think the main difference is in the hair which is not representative in a morph.
Americas is clearly the closer to All, but they are the majority, so this should explain that:
Africa is more distant to All because the ratio is 9/81 whereas Americas is 30/81 and Europe is 28/81.
I think this is why Americas and Europe are closer to All.
So the biases is on the number of participants per "continents" probably.
Posted 42 months ago. ( permalink )