I have noted the Marquardt mask before and the frequent misconceptions about it. I glossed over one valid criticism because I couldn’t find the data on hand at the time and didn’t want to say ‘just trust me’. #dodgyAF
I’m not going to insult anyone because that’s for people who lack empirical proof. I never met someone who chose to be ugly and we cannot help what we are born.
I’m not going to make cross-comparisons because that would be mean and likely biased to certain ascribed values.
Instead, this is how they vary by pure mathematics from the universal template for the human species.
There are only female masks and examples here and I do admit there needs to be equal research on male beauty.
Please, believe I want this as much as the next woman.
Try to claim ‘cultural standards’ now, chewing on humble pie.
European example, frontal/anterior view.
Description given, italics mine because ‘slightly’ on this scale is huge: “EUROPEAN VARIATION FROM RF MASK Slightly vertically thin upper and lower lips Flat eyebrow (very little arch) Slightly wider nose Lateral border of the face slightly wider than the Mask Possible: Narrow eyes, longer vertical chin, longer nose.”
For example comparison, here’s the Asian prototype. A blind man could feel the difference. Yellow fever is creepier than White fever because Asian women resemble children, with faces most like babies (see, bust size, band size is fairly objective) whereas European women tend to resemble teenagers.
Description given, italics mine: “ASIAN VARIATION FROM RF MASK Medial epicanthic fold Lateral epicanthic fold Lateral border of the face significantly wider than the Mask Eye brows slightly superior to that of the Mask with shorter tails Slightly wider nose and nostrils (nasal ala and nares extend laterally) Superiorly positioned nasal columella creating a longer upper lip.”
Note: there are differences and the legal contrivance of a portmanteau ‘Caucasian’ is a myth based on geography (see the MRH), there is as much distinctiveness as between, say, European and African. As with all Asians, if you split by the demographic of sex as well, there would be greatly reduced sexual dimorphism (the men and women look more alike than Europeans by the same token comparison). This explains the great lengths the cultures go to, to distinguish themselves (makeup and what I and others consider fake femininity).
Further note: nobody meets the universal human standard. Nobody. This isn’t a point of so-called white supremacy, but white raced-women tend to conform to more of it on average, by chance.
Bear in mind, facial beauty is a reliable indicator of Darwinian fitness (see The Mating Mind) and positively, quite strongly correlates to IQ. That’s right – hot people are smarter too. The smart thing to do in an age that despises intelligence is to hide it.
Why don’t I make more scholarly posts?
1. The data isn’t collected to parse. 2. The data is suppressed (publication bias, left in the metaphorical drawer). 3. It’s behind a paywall or similarly hidden from sharing, meaning you’d have to trust my word and discussion, being less reliable and a general waste of everyone’s time. 4. These posts are literally my least popular but the most true. C’est la vie, mon amis.
What am I forced to do? Post gifs for every occasion and go under-appreciated.
This is from wikipedia but it so succinctly explains the problem you must forgive me.
During World War II, anthropologist Margaret Mead was working in Britain for the British Ministry of Information and later for the U.S.Office of War Information, delivering speeches and writing articles to help the American soldiers better understand the British civilians, and vice versa. She observed in the flirtations between the American soldiers and British women a pattern of misunderstandings regarding who is supposed to take which initiative. She wrote of the Americans, “The boy learns to make advances and rely upon the girl to repulse them whenever they are inappropriate to the state of feeling between the pair”, as contrasted to the British, where “the girl is reared to depend upon a slight barrier of chilliness… which the boys learn to respect, and for the rest to rely upon the men to approach or advance, as warranted by the situation.” This resulted, for example, in British women interpreting an American soldier’s gregariousness as something more intimate or serious than he had intended.
Intriguing read. Example;
1. Taking offense
Western nations have emerged in an environment of limited resources and relentless population pressure, and this has to a large degree determined the way in which they respond when they are offended. For quite a long time, while centralized authority was weak, conflicts were settled through bloody conflict, and even a minor affront could cause former friends to become instant adversaries and draw their swords. This is because it was an environment in which standing your ground was key to survival.
In contrast, Russia emerged as a nation in an environment of almost infinite, although mostly quite diffuse, resources. It also drew from the bounty of the trade route that led from the Vikings to the Greeks, which was so active that Arab geographers believed that there was a salt-water strait linking the Black Sea with the Baltic, whereas the route consisted of rivers with a considerable amount of portage. In this environment, it was important to avoid conflict, and people who would draw their swords at a single misspoken word were unlikely to do well in it……
I love comparisons of cross-cultural difference, it’s like a God’s eye view.
Bonus link, “The Sixteen Reasons Why Russia Should NEVER Trust the West”:
The difference between Theory v. Practice.
They say they want to converse with the Other, but they won’t work on themselves first.
It is a means of increasing conflict by turning otherwise kin groups against one another. For a ready example, “male feminist”.
Ah, Lewontin’s attempts to prize variance and anomaly (extremes) to prove sameness.
No mention of how the very idea of a Progressive creates a semiotic Regressive, a classist, racist, sexist et cetera idea. Meaning words are defined by duality at the essence. Light and dark. Man and woman. Air and vacuum. Feeling and paralysis.
A fun idea is to ask whence they think cultural differences arose to begin with?
If everyone is equal the idea of 2+ cultures is IMPOSSIBLE.
All evil is artificial to them because the truth is too painful to handle. Equal opportunity is a true social construct. It cripples the strong, an act of injustice for “justice” based on birth – two wrongs make a human right?
If relativism were true, computers wouldn’t be in binary.
With all due respect to the Founding Fathers, I do not find it “self-evident” that all men are created equal. If anything, it appears bleedingly obvious that they are highly—even comically—unequal.
About a dozen years ago I gave a lecture in a Seattle bookshop packed to the mossy rafters with young, fresh-faced, presumably inquisitive alterna-individuals. As I was pontificating and blabbing and waxing smart-assed, I noted that the common myth currently binding American society together is the idea of equality, but the problem is that there is no evidence for it.
It was as if every jaw in the crowd dropped at once. They all looked stunned. Here was this sacred idea they’d unquestioningly swallowed, yet it had zero evidence to buttress it.
No one raised a hand to offer evidence.
Equality is one of the most ludicrous notions ever hatched from a human brain. But despite its self-evident falsehood…
View original post 1,192 more words