You're using the word "average" in the wrong context. Humans go for faces that don't have any massively identifiable features - eg specific nose, lips etc - but that isn't an average face. You're confusing the word average for "not incredible features", whereas in this context "average" means the larger percentage of the population.Aries_37 wrote:
I was making a very general statement and while research can be confounding at times what i said is probably accurate. I'm not saying symmetry = average. I'm saying that symmetry and averageness are two independent factors for attractiveness. Humans go for statistically average features irrespective of symmetry.Zimmer wrote:
A symmetrical face is not average. Never has been. That's why when we refer to "beauty" we're usually referring to how symmetrical their face is.Aries_37 wrote:
If you average enough faces the result is going to be attractive. Humans go for average, symmetrical faces.
Averaging out all faces though will give you a symmetrical face, which is why these averages are actually going to be above an actual average face.
It has nothing to do with humans going for average.
Your statement is right for features, but remember that we're not talking about average features here, we're talking about a mass number of women put into one "averaged" face.