Talk:Averageness

message: The info that references the flickr user's research will need to be removed, because (since it has not been published) it is considered original research. Recury 20:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, I wasn't the one who contributed these images to Wikipedia, I just saw them on Rating sites and so wrote this article a few minutes ago.  Second, an example of "morphed image" showing that the average is more attractive does not constitute "novel" or "original" research; it was done originally by Galton in 1883, and repeated numerous times.  Talk:Bohr model is an example a debate on image uploading, where we had to explain the "methods" behind how we constructed the images, of Bohr's 1914 atom model.  Hence, elaborating on how a well-known image was created for use in Wikipedia does not constitute a violation of WP:OR.  Or, maybe you know of some free content morphed images in the commons that are better than these.   Moreover, maybe you would like to join in here for further discussion. --Sadi Carnot 20:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, as second alternative, we could take out the person's name and change the name of the header, but that would seem to detract from the article. --Sadi Carnot 20:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean the "recent studies" section of the text, not the image. Recury 20:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's published on the web, right? On Flicker. Oh, I see, you mean the text. If the text is original interpretation of the images, then I suppose I see your point. If the text is just summarizing what is in the photos, the accompanying text (on Flicker), and the material here, then it's not OR. I guess it's a matter of interpretation. (Sadi, you might want to reference that metafilter info, and also an interesting links from it.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, interesting metafilter discussion; some of the comments, though, were very un-scientific, but, nevertheless, kind of interesting.  I agree that we have to summarize what is in the photos; thus if we use the photographer's statement as an outline, then we will have to reference it or else it will be considered copyright infringement or plagiarism. --Sadi Carnot 03:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix talk

message: So is averageness relative to a population? If I kill all the people at my school with small ears will my freakishly big ears suddenly be more beautiful? Likewise if a group of people with still bigger ears join my school? Or what??
Please answer - my suicide depends on it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.189.228 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  If I kill all the people at my school 

message: I feel almost certain that some of the claims in the "Koinophilia" section are fallacious. To say that "[i]t makes biological sense that sexual creatures should be attracted to mates sporting a predominance of common or average features, as opposed to extraordinary features" seems to presuppose [a] that reproducing "average" features tends to increase the "fitness" of a species or population over time, [b] that people respond positively to the averageness of other people's appearance because to them, averageness indicates superior "fitness," and [c] that whether or not every individual feels this way, averageness nonetheless indicates superior "fitness."
That entire construction is circular: Take a supposition, say that it's a part of nature, say that "it makes sense" that nature would be that way, then make unsupported conjectures about the supposed survival advantages of having nature work that way.
Supposition [a] is also, I think, based on a flawed understanding of genetics. Mutations are mostly neutral with respect to survival; they are sometimes harmful or even fatal, but they can also have enormous value to a population. "Extraordinary features" are essential to any species' survival as well as to its future development (evolution). Populations with low genetic diversity become dependent on the precise ecological niche to which they have adapted over time. If their habitat changes, there aren't enough individuals with characteristics that are favorable in the changed circumstances; then there's nothing for evolution to "prefer," and the population declines or dies out.
Recessive genes are a similar, vital resource. The word "inbreeding" has unpleasant connotations, but when members of restricted populations mate only with one another over many generations, the results clearly don't enhance "fitness." If God was really smart, He would set Victorian thinking aside and endow us with a varying mixture of "koinophilia" and its exact opposite, so as to preserve already-successful genes and genetic diversity.
--I also feel a certain lack of cultural awareness in the viewpoint of the article as a whole. Even within one country there rarely is a spontaneous, even near-unanimous preference for the looks of any one individual. When there is such a "craze," generally its object wouldn't have been considered so attractive a generation or two earlier--making it hard to blame the whole thing on biology. Also, such people often have a strikingly atypical appearance, one which perhaps has some special meaning for the times.
What is actually being shown by those averaged photos of beauty contest results? Surely they say more about beauty contests--who enters them, who is selected to judge them, and what those judges base their decisions on--than they say about humanity (or all animal life!) in general. To say the least, a huge amount of conformity to stereotypes is built in. The contestants don't try to look as they naturally look; they put a huge amount of effort into crafting their image. To me that invalidates them as evidence for "koinophilia." No doubt the pictures are interesting, but it takes some critical thinking to realize what they are pictures of.
--best regards
DSatz (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this article rife with fallacy?

message: Is there software in the wild for createing composites for conducting this type of research?
OrenBochman (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software 

message: I have taken the liberty to remove the "Method" section as it does not describe any of the methods used by the scientists working on attractive and average faces. Instead it describes an entirely arbitrary "Hot or Not" construction on the internet that has no scientific merit (nor was it intended as a scientific experiment). The other external links take one to inappropriate (and aggressive) advertisements for goods that have nothing to do with attractiveness or averageness. 
All the methods used by Galton and Langlois et al. are described fully in the previous section. It could be added in there that a wide variety of other averaging methods have been used (e.g. using line drawings of faces, or faces in profile etc. etc.) always with the same results. Oggmus (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of the "Method" section

message: This topic is debated please see this source for peer level discussion Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny: Cross-cultural Evidence and Implications [and Comments and Reply] Doug Jones, C. Loring Brace, William Jankowiak, Kevin N. Laland, Lisa E. Musselman, Judith H. Langlois, Lori A. Roggman, Daniel Pérusse, Barbara Schweder and Donald Symons Current Anthropology Vol. 36, No. 5 (Dec., 1995), pp. 723-748 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research  There is a great deal of work that could be done here. J8079s (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  source 

message: The "Potential Evolutionary Explanations" section does not reflect the opinions expressed by the workers in this field, as to why the average face is as attractive as it is. I have tried to summarize their interpretations of the phenomenon as completely as possible within the confines of an encyclopedic entry. I hope it finds favor with the workers in this field as it does with the general readership of Wikipedia. Cruithne9 (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of the Explanations section 

message: Chiswick Chap and I discussed some time ago obtaining an image of an "average face" to complement the present article. At the time I could find no examples that could be used in Wikipedia, either on Wiki Media Commons, the internet, or from laboratories working on average faces.
But now I have found one that is copyrighted by the "Face Research Laboratory" (at the University of Glasgow, Scotland), but the caption states that it can be used by anyone for non-commercial purposes. I presume that it might therefore be available to be used in Wikipedia. 
Contacting one of the researchers I was informed that the image we want for the Averageness article is already freely available at [].
But I have no idea how to upload it on to the Wiki Media Commons if it is not "my own work". The jargon, acronyms and abbreviations are totally beyond me! Would anyone with the necessary know-how  mind uploading that image for Wikipedia, please? Then, either letting me know, or insert it into the article yourself, with the appropriate adjustment of the text.
It will make a huge improvement to the Averageness article.
Cheers Oggmus (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  An NC license isn't enough for Wikipedia, we need unrestricted access like CC-by-SA 3.0. Perhaps the researcher would give us that for a small version of the image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of an average face