[nettspend]

All of the important facial ratios/proportions

facial width to height ratio (FWHR): 1.8+
measured by dividing the bizygomatic width (distance from cheekbone to cheekbone) by the height of the middle part of the eyebrow to the upper lip.


lower/full face ratio: 0.62+
measured by dividing the height between the nasion to the bottom of the chin by the face height (distance from hairline to bottom of the chin)


midface ratio: 1.0-1.1
measured by dividing the interpupillary distance (distance between the centers of the pupils) by the height of the nasion to the upper lip. the closer to 1:1 this is, the better.


mouth to nose ratio: 1.5-1.62
measured by dividing the width of the mouth by the width of the nose.


lower to upper lip ratio: 1.62
measured by dividing the height of the lower lip to the upper lip.


chin to philtrum ratio: 2.0-2.25
measured by dividing the height of the middle part of the lips to the bottom of the chin by the height of the bottom of the nose to the middle part of the lips.


bizygomatic to bigonial width: 1.35
measured by dividing the bizygomatic width (distance from cheekbone to cheekbone) by the bigonial width (distance from gonion to gonion).


ESR (eye separation ratio): 0.45-0.47
measured by dividing the interpupillary distance (distance between the centers of the pupils) by the the bizygomatic width (distance from cheekbone to cheekbone). the "third eyeball method" - a theory in which the distance between your eyes should be another eye apart - is widely accepted in determining whether or not your eyes are an appropriate distance away from eachother, however this is flawed and incorrect. here is a thread explaining why, along with some more useful information about this measurement.


EME (eye mouth eye) angle: 47°-50°
measured by calculating the angle formed upon setting the vertex at the center of the lips with the arms crossing the eye pupils. the EME angle is a good indicator of masculinity and symmetry. here is a thread with more information about this measurement.


cervicomental angle: 105°-120°
measured by calculating the angle formed upon setting the vertex at the hyoid with the arms set along the bottom of the chin and the neck. anything above 120° is said to give the impression of a double chin.


gonial angle: 115°-130°
measured by calculating the angle formed upon setting the vertex at the gonion with the arms set along the mandible and the ramus.


canthal tilt: 4°-6°
measured by calculating the angle formed upon setting the vertex at the medial canthus with the arms set parallel to the floor and the lateral canthus.


palpebral fissure length to height ratio: 3.0-3.5
measured by dividing the palpebral fissure length (distance between the medial to the lateral canthus) by the height of the upper and lower eyelid.

forehead height: 3 fingers
measured by clenching your fingers together and seeing how many you can fit on your forehead horizontally before reaching your hairline.

facial thirds: 1/3 of face length
the upper third (height between the hairline to the middle part of the eyebrows), middle third (height between the middle part of the eyebrows to the bottom of the nose) and lower third (height between the bottom of the nose to bottom of the chin) of the face should be approximately 1/3rd of your entire face length (height between the hairline to bottom of the chin). these facial thirds should all be approximately equal to eachother and dividable smoothly into 3 parts as you transition down the face.


facial fifths: 1/5 of ear to ear width
the nose width, palpebral fissure length and length between the lateral canthus to the ear should be approximately 1/5th of the width between your ears. these facial fifths should all be approximately equal to eachother and dividable smoothly into 5 parts as you transition from left to right of the face.

 

[nettspend]

Holy you are so high iq, you deserve VIP.

 

[nettspend]

Holy you are so high iq, you deserve VIP.

Thanks @Kakashi69 wheres my VIP at

 

[Osama bin ballin]

All of the important facial ratios/proportions

facial width to height ratio (FWHR): 1.8+
measured by dividing the bizygomatic width (distance from cheekbone to cheekbone) by the height of the middle part of the eyebrow to the upper lip.


lower/full face ratio: 0.62+
measured by dividing the height between the nasion to the bottom of the chin by the face height (distance from hairline to bottom of the chin)


midface ratio: 1.0-1.1
measured by dividing the interpupillary distance (distance between the centers of the pupils) by the height of the nasion to the upper lip. the closer to 1:1 this is, the better.


mouth to nose ratio: 1.5-1.62
measured by dividing the width of the mouth by the width of the nose.


lower to upper lip ratio: 1.62
measured by dividing the height of the lower lip to the upper lip.


chin to philtrum ratio: 2.0-2.25
measured by dividing the height of the middle part of the lips to the bottom of the chin by the height of the bottom of the nose to the middle part of the lips.


bizygomatic to bigonial width: 1.35
measured by dividing the bizygomatic width (distance from cheekbone to cheekbone) by the bigonial width (distance from gonion to gonion).


ESR (eye separation ratio): 0.45-0.47
measured by dividing the interpupillary distance (distance between the centers of the pupils) by the the bizygomatic width (distance from cheekbone to cheekbone). the "third eyeball method" - a theory in which the distance between your eyes should be another eye apart - is widely accepted in determining whether or not your eyes are an appropriate distance away from eachother, however this is flawed and incorrect. here is a thread explaining why, along with some more useful information about this measurement.


EME (eye mouth eye) angle: 47°-50°
measured by calculating the angle formed upon setting the vertex at the center of the lips with the arms crossing the eye pupils. the EME angle is a good indicator of masculinity and symmetry. here is a thread with more information about this measurement.


cervicomental angle: 105°-120°
measured by calculating the angle formed upon setting the vertex at the hyoid with the arms set along the bottom of the chin and the neck. anything above 120° is said to give the impression of a double chin.


gonial angle: 115°-130°
measured by calculating the angle formed upon setting the vertex at the gonion with the arms set along the mandible and the ramus.


canthal tilt: 4°-6°
measured by calculating the angle formed upon setting the vertex at the medial canthus with the arms set parallel to the floor and the lateral canthus.


palpebral fissure length to height ratio: 3.0-3.5
measured by dividing the palpebral fissure length (distance between the medial to the lateral canthus) by the height of the upper and lower eyelid.

forehead height: 3 fingers
measured by clenching your fingers together and seeing how many you can fit on your forehead horizontally before reaching your hairline.

facial thirds: 1/3 of face length
the upper third (height between the hairline to the middle part of the eyebrows), middle third (height between the middle part of the eyebrows to the bottom of the nose) and lower third (height between the bottom of the nose to bottom of the chin) of the face should be approximately 1/3rd of your entire face length (height between the hairline to bottom of the chin). these facial thirds should all be approximately equal to eachother and dividable smoothly into 3 parts as you transition down the face.


facial fifths: 1/5 of ear to ear width
the nose width, palpebral fissure length and length between the lateral canthus to the ear should be approximately 1/5th of the width between your ears. these facial fifths should all be approximately equal to eachother and dividable smoothly into 5 parts as you transition from left to right of the face.

Why’s this guy actually high iq

 

[Kakashi69]

Finna molest all of you

 

[satan]

high iq post, take this upvote kind stranger

 

[nettspend]

Why’s this guy actually high iq

I appreciate the sentiment, but I tend to eschew psychometric labels like 'high IQ' as they feel like a reductive quantifier. I would more accurately characterize my cognitive aptitude as being situated approximately one standard deviation superior to the normative baseline on the Gaussian curve, which is hardly a significant statistical anomaly.

 

[nettspend]

I appreciate the sentiment, but I tend to eschew psychometric labels like 'high IQ' as they feel like a reductive quantifier. I would more accurately characterize my cognitive aptitude as being situated approximately one standard deviation superior to the normative baseline on the Gaussian curve, which is hardly a significant statistical anomaly.

@Kakashi69 HOLY IQ. VIP NOW.

 

[Osama bin ballin]

I appreciate the sentiment, but I tend to eschew psychometric labels like 'high IQ' as they feel like a reductive quantifier. I would more accurately characterize my cognitive aptitude as being situated approximately one standard deviation superior to the normative baseline on the Gaussian curve, which is hardly a significant statistical anomaly.

What

 

[nettspend]

What

My antecedent thesis posited an abjuration of the nomological frameworks of psychometric nosology, contending that such constructs are Procrustean and ontologically impoverished. Their fundamental deficiency lies in a specious semiotic isomorphism, wherein the ineffable, multidimensional manifold of sapience is transmuted into a jejune singleton metric. This inexorable process of hypostatization engenders a meretricious and epistemically unsound certitude, compelling my preference for a more veridical descriptive paradigm over these facile quantifications.

Ipso facto, I tendered a more scrupulous hermeneutic apropos my particular noetic instantiation. My self-appraisal situates my cognitive capabilities at a positional coordinate approximately equivalent to a unimodal positive deviation from the arithmetic fulcrum of the demographic aggregate, as demarcated by the canonical Gaussian ordinate system. To translate, this locus constitutes naught but a quotidian peregrination from the statistical epicenter, a position bereft of any substantive exceptionalism when contextualized within the broader probabilistic continuum of the human intellectual spectrum.

The teleological thrust of my peroration, therefore, was to underscore the aleatory and non-substantive nature of this locus. A stochastic aberration of genuine statistical salience would, by definition, manifest in the distal, asymptotic extrema of said continuum—a phenomenon warranting substantive epistemological consideration. My own placement, failing to satisfy the antecedent conditions for such a laudatory appellation, is phenomenologically unremarkable. Thus, my demurral was not an exhibition of spurious self-abnegation, but rather an exegesis predicated on dialectical fastidiousness.

 

[Osama bin ballin]

My antecedent thesis posited an abjuration of the nomological frameworks of psychometric nosology, contending that such constructs are Procrustean and ontologically impoverished. Their fundamental deficiency lies in a specious semiotic isomorphism, wherein the ineffable, multidimensional manifold of sapience is transmuted into a jejune singleton metric. This inexorable process of hypostatization engenders a meretricious and epistemically unsound certitude, compelling my preference for a more veridical descriptive paradigm over these facile quantifications.

Ipso facto, I tendered a more scrupulous hermeneutic apropos my particular noetic instantiation. My self-appraisal situates my cognitive capabilities at a positional coordinate approximately equivalent to a unimodal positive deviation from the arithmetic fulcrum of the demographic aggregate, as demarcated by the canonical Gaussian ordinate system. To translate, this locus constitutes naught but a quotidian peregrination from the statistical epicenter, a position bereft of any substantive exceptionalism when contextualized within the broader probabilistic continuum of the human intellectual spectrum.

The teleological thrust of my peroration, therefore, was to underscore the aleatory and non-substantive nature of this locus. A stochastic aberration of genuine statistical salience would, by definition, manifest in the distal, asymptotic extrema of said continuum—a phenomenon warranting substantive epistemological consideration. My own placement, failing to satisfy the antecedent conditions for such a laudatory appellation, is phenomenologically unremarkable. Thus, my demurral was not an exhibition of spurious self-abnegation, but rather an exegesis predicated on dialectical fastidiousness.

 

[Kill]

IF u guys rep me ill rep u

 

[Osama bin ballin]

IF u guys rep me ill rep u

rep farm thread ngl

 

[Kill]

rep farm thread ngl

go to my thread i created and lets spam rep

 

[molion glazer]

IF u guys rep me ill rep u

how do you rep somebody