The facial proportions of beautiful people

We consider Saira Mohan again; this time with funky lines drawn on her face. The lines are part of a unisex beauty mask/archetype that allegedly depicts the facial proportions of the most beautiful face, irrespective of race.

Figure 1: Saira Mohan with a superimposed beauty mask that is the brainchild of Stephen Marquardt of Marquardt Beauty Analysis.

The beauty mask appears to fit Saira Mohan reasonably well. If the mask proportions apply to beautiful faces irrespective of sex or race, then the mask likely has some interesting biological significance. Let us examine this issue.

Firstly, I would like to thank Cevan for bringing Figure 1 to my attention. Next, we consider the basics of the beauty mask. Stephen Marquardt, a surgeon, has worked on human beauty for decades and claims to have described facial beauty in an elegant manner by assembling several decagonal matrixes formed of golden-ratio sections to form a beauty mask. The golden ratio is the ratio that divides a line segment into two parts having a ratio that is equal to the ratio of the larger part to the entire line segment, i.e., a 1:1.618 ratio.

Many proportions in nature are compliant with the golden ratio, which is also known as phi or the divine proportion (Figure 2).

The golden ratio in nature.
Figure 2: The golden ratio in nature; adapted from Gary Meisner/Yosh Jefferson. [1]

Marquardt claims that whereas nobody fits the mask perfectly, women fit it better than men and the most attractive people fit it the best; see a compilation by Yosh Jefferson in Figure 3.

Stephen Marquardt's beauty mask applied to attractive women; it fits well the Asian woman, the African woman and the white women.
Figure 3: Stephen Marquardt’s beauty mask applied to attractive women; it fits well the Asian woman, the African woman and the white women. [1]

Figure 3 shows something interesting. Among black-skinned Africans, many Somalis/Ethiopians are among the least Negroid-looking people, but the black woman shown in Figure 3 is even farther removed from the typical Negro, and I would bet that she has substantial European ancestry. Similarly, the Asian woman has many facial proportions more typical of whites and less typical of Asians. Are Marquardt and Jefferson arguing that the most attractive non-whites are those that are closest to the basic facial proportions of whites?

Jefferson has noted golden-ratio proportions in a classic drawing (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Golden-ratio proportions in a drawing by Leonardo DaVinci. [1]

On the other hand, the arm length of the Igbo woman, a typical example, shown in Figure 5, is surely not in compliance with the golden ratios in Figure 4; an Igbo man would be even less compliant since for the same height, men have longer arms than women.

Figure 5. Igbo woman.

Jefferson has also described the golden-ratio proportions of the ideal face (Figure 6).

Figure 6: The golden-ratio proportions of the ideal face. [1]

Next, we turn our attention to images of various individuals, each roughly typical of the population that they descend from (Figure 7). Note how compliant the facial features of these individuals are with Marquardt’s beauty mask (Figure 1, Figure 15) or Jefferson’s golden-ratio proportions (Figure 6).

Figure 7: Some examples of human facial biodiversity.

An examination of Figure 7 suggests that if Marquardt and Jefferson are correct, then some human populations have few individuals who could be considered very attractive and a few populations likely do not have a single such individual.

Next, we turn to some formal analyses, starting with laser-measured facial variation across four populations: white British, Inuit/Eskimo, Australian aboriginals, and West African Negroes; the landmarks compared are shown in Figure 8. [2]

Figure 8: Facial landmarks compared across populations. [2]

Discriminant analysis largely separated the four groups; the percentage misclassifications being: white British (23.5%), Negro (22.8%), Australian aboriginal (22.9%) and Inuit/Eskimo (6.9%); the discrimination would obviously have been better if more landmarks had been used. Figures 9-11 visually depict the discriminant functions; in each figure, the front view is shown at the top and the side view at the bottom. The dotted lines connect the average of the landmarks shown in Figure 8 for the entire sample, and the solid lines connect the shifted landmarks, which are shifted in the direction that distinguishes one specified group from other specified groups; Figures 9-11 depict shape variation, not size variation.

Figure 9 depicts discriminant function one, which largely separated the Inuit from the others.

Figure 9: Depiction of discriminant function 1. Compared to others, the Inuit have flattened faces and more prominent cheekbones. [2]

Figure 10 depicts discriminant function two, which largely separated the white British from the Australian aboriginals and the Negroes.

Figure 10: Depiction of discriminant function 2. Compared to Australian aboriginals and Negroes, whites have narrower faces, longer noses, closer-set eyes, cheekbones that are smaller when seen from front and regressed backward when seen from side, and flatter teeth; other differences are shown in the figure. [2]

Figure 11 depicts discriminant function three, which largely separated the Australian aboriginals from the Negroes.

Figure 11: Depiction of discriminant function 3. Compared to Negroes, Australian aboriginals have smaller cheekbones (front view) and teeth that jut out more; other differences are shown in the figure. [2]

Given notable between-races central tendency differences with respect to shape as depicted in Figures 9-11, in addition to many additional differences concerning the lower jaw and the cranium (the part of the skull minus the face), it is clear that if Marquardt and Jefferson are correct, then the percentage of people that are highly attractive considerably varies by race, with the highest percentage found among whites. I don’t believe that this is what the authors are trying to convey, but this is what they come across as conveying.

Let us also address a study that evaluated racial cranial variation. [3] It should be obvious that physical variation involves both shape and size differences concerning the same structures, and then there are different kinds of shape differences, too. Therefore, with respect to the traits examined, it is desirable to separate shape from size and also separate the different aspects of shape. The statistical tool that does this is known as principal components analysis, which divides the variability of the traits measured into principal components that do not covary with each other. The first principal component (PC1) explains the largest amount of the variance, and subsequent PCs such as PC2, PC3, and so on, explain successively smaller proportions of the variance in the traits examined.

In this study, “the first six PCs individually account[ed] for 26.1%, 9.7%, 7.2%, 6.6%, 6.45%, and 5.3% of the variance, respectively,” and cumulatively accounted for 61.3% of the variance. [3] PC1 and PC2 are of special interest to us because both concern the shape of the region of the skull where the nose meets the forehead, which is notably different across the races.

“PC1 mainly reflects upper nasal projection but also breadth.” Compared to flat-faced Asians, whites have projecting and wide upper nasal bridges, with other races in between. “PC2 mainly reflects an inverse relationship between upper nasal breadth and projection.” The upper nasal bones are wide and flat in Negroes.

Figure 12 shows a plot of PC2 against PC1. The abbreviations mean: EU = European, AM = American Indian, AU = Australian aboriginal, PO = Polynesian, FE = East Asian and SS = sub-Saharan African. Each of these abbreviations lies at the center of the ellipse it represents.

Figure 12: PC2 vs. PC1. [3]

As seen in Fig 12, there is an overlap between within-population and between-populations variation. It is useful to know what proportion of trait variation in a species is due to its population structure, i.e., what proportion of the variance is between populations. This is measured by a statistic known as Fst; Fst values are listed in Table 1. The h-squared value = 0.55 in Table 1 means that the Fst values are calculated for a heritability of 55%, i.e., the proportion of the between-individuals variance accounted for by genetic factors is 55%, which is a reasonable value for cranial development. [4, 5]

Table 1: Fst values for the principal components.

Thus, Table 1 shows that 24% of the variance is between populations for PC1, 33% of the variance is between populations for PC2, and so on. Fst values are used in genetics for labeling extent of population differences; the magnitude of Fst being classified by Sewall Wright as follows: little genetic differentiation (0—0.05), moderate genetic differentiation (0—0.15), great genetic differentiation (0.15—0.25), and very great genetic differentiation (0.25 and above). [6] Overall Fst values in the 0.10—0.15 range are sufficient for racial classification, which the craniometric data in this study as well as genetic data elsewhere are compliant with. Although the Fst values in Table 1 are not based on genetics, they represent the same idea, and it is noteworthy that the Fst values for PC1 and PC2 are two- to three-fold higher than necessary for racial classification, i.e., the upper nasal region is considerably different across the races. Additionally, the analysis in Figure 12 was done after removing some cranial traits that were so different across the races that they dominated all analyses and the first few principal components. The authors of this study have cautioned against using the Fst data to support the existence of human races, but this caution is based on an article by Templeton, and this article has been debunked; see the “Fst follies” section here.

Anyway, why have I bothered to address the upper nasal region at length? Consider Marquardt’s beauty mask again (Figure 13). The shaded nasal region is unambiguously European, especially in the upper nasal region, and most non-whites and a number of whites don’t possess this type of nose.

Figure 13: Note nasal region (shaded).

Most non-whites--and some whites, too--have no hope of producing offspring with the fine nasal bones, especially upper nasal region, of the woman shown in Figure 14, even if they bred with her like.

Figure 14: A woman with fine nasal bones. Her facial proportions are more appealing for a European than some of the allegedly ideal proportions depicted by Yosh Jefferson in Figure 6; for instance, the eyes in Figure 6 are farther apart than the European norm and thereby more like that in non-Europeans.

Let us also address Marquardt’s beauty mask from the side (Figure 15). Marquardt’s beauty mask is clearly that of a European and also that of a masculinized woman; some of the clearly observable masculinized traits [7, 8] include a nasoglabellar region (where the nose meets the forehead) that is curved in a masculine manner, a nose that projects in a masculine manner, a masculine chin region and a sharp gonial angle.

Figure 15: The beauty mask of Stephen Marquardt from the side. Note arrows pointing to the masculinized regions.

Other than using the golden ratio, Marquardt has used a large database of attractive individuals of different races to come up with his beauty mask, yet claims that white women, on average, have a face that is somewhat broader than the beauty mask, which should not be the case given the finds seen in Figures 9 and 10. Now, a quick examination of Marquardt’s website reveals the pictures of mostly high-fashion models, which he apparently has used to come up with his mask, and which in turn explains the masculinization in his mask proportions since high-fashion models tend to have masculinized faces, reflecting the fact that most top fashion designers are gay men.

I have previously pointed out that beautiful people tend to possess multiple population-typical traits, and this has biological significance. Therefore, given the finds in Figures 8-12, which should be mostly known to keen observers anyway, it is unlikely that one could come up with a beauty mask/archetype that describes the facial proportions of the most beautiful people in all races. There are additional problems with Marquardt’s beauty mask since he claims that his mask applies to the most beautiful people. As I have alluded to previously, the most beautiful people tend to somewhat deviate from the average with respect to some traits, and there are at least two such types of deviation that are relevant to us: one related to sex hormone profiles and another related to gracility of facial features (details to be posted later). Obviously, different sex hormone profiles in men and women and racial variation in central tendency/gracilization make it impossible to come up with a unisex and cross-racial beauty mask that describes the facial proportions of the most beautiful. Marquardt’s beauty mask doesn’t do justice to white beauty and it is clearly unfair to non-whites, which I do not believe to be deliberate on his part but it is something that has apparently resulted from his over-eagerness to describe beauty in simple terms. Beauty has a complex nature. The association of beauty with having multiple population-typical traits, sex hormone profiles, and gracilization suggests that it is not completely subjective, i.e., something that can be dismissed as simply lying in the eye of the beholder, but aesthetic preferences nevertheless vary by race and species, reflecting the fact that population-typical traits vary by race and species; there is also individual variation, but most individuals within a race assess facial beauty in a similar manner.

Marquardt and Jefferson could make a powerful case for their work if they came up with beauty masks for various animal species and showed how masks for ancestral species could be transformed to that of their different-looking present descendents without seriously undermining the alleged biological significance of the mask among the intermediate types, but I don’t believe they would be able to do this.

Further, a great many proportions/patterns in nature undoubtedly have nothing to do with the golden ratio, i.e., in many cases, it is surely futile to attempt to reduce visual appeal to patterns derived from the golden ratio.

Returning back to Saira Mohan, even though she is able to fit Marquardt’s beauty mask reasonably well, she still doesn’t qualify as a great beauty by European standards. Finally, the racial differences talked about in this post strengthen my previous argument that the beauty of the most attractive whites cannot be enhanced--but will be undermined, instead--via the absorption of non-whites among whites.

[Note: My previous post attracted close to 250 comments, most of them off-topic. If you feel like commenting, please note that there will be plenty of future opportunities for you to discuss immigration, Jews, free speech and Roman history at MR, i.e., please avoid off-topic comments.]

Literature cited:

1. Jefferson Y: Facial beauty: establishing a universal standard. International Journal of Orthodontics 2004, 15:9-22.
2. Hennessy RJ, Stringer CB: Geometric morphometric study of the regional variation of modern human craniofacial form. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2002, 117:37-48.
3. Roseman CC, Weaver TD: Multivariate apportionment of global human craniometric diversity. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2004, 125:257-263.
4. Devor EJ: Transmission of human craniofacial dimensions. Journal of Craniofacial Genetics and Developmental Biology, 1987, 7:95-106.
5. Sparks CS, Jantz R: A reassessment of human cranial plasticity: Boas revisited. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences--USA, 2002, 99:14636-14639.
6. Hartl D, Clark AG: Principles of population genetics. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates; 1989: 118-119
7. Rosas A, Bastir M: Thin-plate spline analysis of allometry and sexual dimorphism in the human craniofacial complex. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2002, 117:236-245.
8. Walrath DE, Turner P, Bruzek J: Reliability test of the visual assessment of cranial traits for sex determination. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2004, 125:132-137.

Posted by J Richards on Friday, June 3, 2005 at 03:14 PM in Anthropology, Race realism
Comments (162) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2

Posted by Isaiah on June 26, 2008, 10:40 AM | #

Hand clap. You have become officially the most racist being on the planet. All of your theories can be easily disproved. This article is extremely biased on your judgments. It takes a white man to sit down and put together pictures and try to crack the code of how human see beauty. But he can not because he is blinded by his racism. Now the funny part about this is that everyone has their own opinion on beauty. Now you can sit down and say well the majority of the people think this face is idea and by doing so you are right because the majority is white. Now if you say this is everyone’s opinion on beauty then you are wrong! Why, well I don’t find women with that facial structure attractive, so I disprove your theory. Next beauty or facial attractiveness is based on gain. In this world to gain benefits you must be or have white facial features. Why? Example: If two African men, one half Caucasian, was to be hired by the majority man (Caucasian man); the white man would probably hire the half Caucasian black man. Now this is were it get interesting. Women pick men by which one can take care of them and their young, so they would pick the one with the job. Also beauty standards are set by the media. The majority of the media is controlled by white people, so in a way white people set the standards of beauty. Now say two white guys were in Japan and wanted a job, both have the same qualification but one had Japanese features which one would get the job? Easy, the Japanese looking white guy. Last whites are a majority in the United States. The United States is the most powerful country on the face of the planet which relates to the media and makes it the most powerful media on the face of the planet. I hope you understand because i’m getting sleepy, and i don’t feel like further explain or correcting my errors. I am not in anyway a racist. I don’t in any way believe in the idea of race. I believe the idea of race was a way for a certain type of people to privilege each other. My email is feel free to email me if you want to debate, or want me to theorize.

Posted by vairocana on July 04, 2008, 02:42 AM | #

If “people” were not supposed to inter/cross breed, then the egg would not become fertilized within the uterus...Hot is Hot. If I remember correctly, early european treasure hunters looking for egyptian treasures claimed that Nubian woman were the most beautiful..? And how is the article going to show a white black girl for “beautiful black woman”...This is obviously is some Eugenical Nazi propagnda “science”..

Anyway...I’m sure there will be a follow up article suggesting beauty is identified by political assertations, and that the submissive , co operative european species are more beautiful than the more aggressive african countertypes…

Truly. the end is near

Posted by Mai on July 09, 2008, 06:08 AM | #

This article is soo full of shit. Whites are just as ugly. Face it. Beauty is art and art has no limitations and NO RULES. Even the rules of beauty that you stated was created by whites. Another thing I wanted to say is that black comes in many forms so even if an African woman looks like the has some Arabic or white “taint” she is usually full blooded African. Black is beautiful. Why? Because there are way too many full blooded sistas out there who are just gorgeous. The person who wrote this article wrote it from a racist perspective. There is no “science” here, and science cannot solve everything. beauty just is. White women are considered more beautiful because of white propaganda, but when whites eventually die out or lose their power and influence they will not be so “pretty” anymore. Peace.

Posted by Shifter on August 13, 2008, 09:48 AM | #

It’s clear you put a lot of thought and effort into this. However, many angry comments have been posted accusing you of racism (at least, I think they are. It’s sometimes hard to tell!) I believe the people posting them have misunderstood your basic message, and I can see why.
You acknowledge that different races have different standards of beauty, but then go on to state, as if it were fact, that “the beauty of the most attractive whites cannot be enhanced--but will be undermined, instead--via the absorption of non-whites among whites.” By your own admission, not everyone finds the most stereotypically white face the most beautiful. An Asian person who is most attracted to other Asians might see the addition of Asian features to a white person’s face as an improvement, although a white person who prefers white women’s features would disagree.
In your previous paper, you compare Saira’s features with those of “beautiful white women.” As evidence that a mixture of what you charmingly refer to as “Hindoo” and white genetics results in a less beautiful individual, you point out the differences between an average white woman’s face and Saira’s. It’s true, they are different - but the whole argument is based on the fact that the white women are more beautiful, which is not factual, but a matter of opinion. Whether or not people of the same race tend to find the same feautures attractive- I don’t know, so I’ll take your word for it - “aesthetic preferences nevertheless vary by race and species” (I should hope they vary by species!)
Your argument seems to be that for people who prefer Nordic features, the introduction of non-Nordic features makes a person less attractive. This is irrefutable logic. What is confusing people is that you’ve taken such a long time to say it. Really, one sentence seems to sum it up pretty well. In addition, some parts are worded in a way that seem to imply that it is a FACT that white people are the most attractive race. My advice is not to try and prove your own opinion; it’s unnecessary, and might provoke bloodshed, or at the very least a demonstration of total illiteracy that makes me fear for the future of the country.

Of course, I may be totally misinterpreting your message. If so, please respond and set me straight.

Posted by stephanie on August 18, 2008, 08:25 AM | #

This is the most repulsive, racist, pseudo-intellectual rant I’ve ever had the displeasure of being exposed to. I’m white and insecurity lead me to this site, but now i am just ashamed. There are good looking people of every ethnicity and that’s blatantly obvious to those of use who are not blind. EAT SHIT

Posted by Guessedworker on August 18, 2008, 11:27 AM | #

Shifter,

The standard of beauty is founded on within-race averages for each facial component. Shifting away from those within-race averages is shifting away from the standard. Your point that, say, a North African would find a North African-Swedish face more appealing than a Swedish face is true for North Africans, but not for Swedes.

Now reflect that Swedish migration into North Africa is non-existent, and there is no long-term threat to the standard of North African beauty. You understand? We are being told that miscegentaion is good in its own right, that the products of miscegenation are superior ... more beautiful, healthier, etc. It is part of the war - distressingly often by Jews like Alon Ziv - on European Man. It is morally wrong and it is wrong on the basis of its own supporting facts.

That’s all we are saying, essentially.

Posted by elizabeth Perkins on September 01, 2008, 11:47 PM | #

I don’t understand this.
The posting of ‘unattractive’ africans and showing how they don’t fit the golden proportion. And then posting the picture of one pretty woman who does, and then generalising to whole nations/peoples/races.

To any reasoned mind this is absurd.
Fact: High cheekbones are possessed by a minority of Europeans, unlike all other ethnic groups.
Fact: Full lips are possessed by a minority of Europeans, unlike all other ethnic groups.

It’s stupid. White people have a more diverse look purely because of one different hair and eye colours, which in today’s modern age 90% of the time for hair turn out to be enhanced or utterly fake.
Even eye colour in every single magazine is digitally enhanced, and a study showed that the highest prevelance of ‘colour enhancing contact wearers’ were people with blue or green eyes. It’s hilarious.

I’m a white woman, and have never understood the whole, europeans are more beautiful. We live ina more privelged society, which goes to extreme lenghts of plastic surgery and women spending an hour ‘doing themselves up’ befor ethey even leave the house. Not to mention long term selftreatments such as fake tans, hair dyes, limp plumping.
I find it remarkable that the peoples of countries such as India and Africa coudl be so beautiful considering the conditions they live in.
Wasn’t it India and America who win the most beauty contests in the world? How do you explain that. And to say that oh, of course they will in respect to the population of 1 billion is ridiculous as well considering 3/4 of them aren’t even eligble to enter such a contest due to issues with skin colour, background and social status.

My husband is Indian. Yes, ok he isn’t atypical, in that although being completely full blooded he is very light and has the brightest blue eyes. But still Indian. There are probably around 50 million people who have his colouring. What other nation can ‘boast’ such diversity.

Gernalisations generalisations. we’re all beautfiul. get over your ‘laws of beauty’ rubbish.

Posted by silver on September 02, 2008, 06:39 AM | #

Liz, “Indian” isn’t a racial term, so it’s meaningless to call him “full-blooded.” If he’s a lighter caste Indian, you can safely assume he has a greater amount of ancient “aryan” (ie, European) blood than the average Indian, and much more so than the typical southern Indian Dravidian, all of which goes towards confirming the connection between European and beauty.

India’s a country riven with racial divisions. Diversity of this sort of no strength at all. It’s a pity you’ve allowed yourself to be misled by the propaganda describing it as such and thus acted to increase the amount of divisive diversity in your own society (wherever that is). Take note, however, that you’ve also taken a step towards eliminating an important segment of the world’s diversity by terminating your own line; obviously if all whites (however that admittedly nebulous term is defined) followed suit, an entire branch of human biodiversity would be, for all intents and purposes, permanently extinguished.

Posted by ltti on September 08, 2008, 10:48 PM | #

In my opinion and most others...European women are by far the most attractive in the world. Obviously no others compare to the Germanic and Celtic women of the world. We should feel lucky to be blessed by their angelic presence. Hopefully the European people will not be subjected to further ethnic genocide. All nations deserve the right to preserve their genetic and cultural individuality. STOP MISCEGENATION TO PRESERVE GLOBAL DIVERSITY!!!

Posted by WGWAG on September 23, 2008, 09:36 AM | #

I think that Asian Male + White Female breeding will result in beautiful children.

You can see many couples and their interracial children and how simply beautiful they look on WGWAG.net, some of the children are the product of an Asian Male and Black Female...very beautiful.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 13, 2008, 02:52 AM | #

Interesting “facial beautification” software shows how you’d look if more beautiful or handsomer, while still you (pfd file, was very slow to load on my machine):

http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~tommer/beautification2008/attractiveness2008.pdf

Hat tip to Dienekes:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/10/data-driven-enhancement-of-facial.html

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 13, 2008, 02:53 AM | #

pdf

Posted by Jefferey Lin on October 24, 2008, 05:23 PM | #

Fucking session-timing shit.

I refuse to type everything again.

In succinct: Beauty is based on averageness. What we see as average is media-perpetuated. Because of the globalization of American media, Caucasians are seen as “more ideal.” In the sense that what each person sees is different, beauty is subjective. In the sense that it is what each person sees as average, it is objective.

Posted by Abby on November 04, 2008, 02:39 PM | #

I don’t believe there is a way to mathmatically determine whether someone is beautiful or not. I sure don’t fit the divine proportions, yet I’m still called beautiful. It’s all a complete farce that you have to use measurements to see whether someone is beautiful or not. Apparently Angelina Jolie is a divinely beautiful woman, yet I (and many others) dis-agree. Maths does not determine beauty, the eye does.

Posted by mary stewart on November 16, 2008, 07:53 AM | #

why do you think blonds are best? i’m of euro stock but have brown hair n eyes. does that make me bad?

btw, blonde hair n eyes are recessive genes. only dark hair n eyes are dominant! but i think white skin is the most beautiful as long as it’s not deathy white n veiny. but a nice tan is nice on some.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 16, 2008, 04:34 PM | #

“Apparently Angelina Jolie is a divinely beautiful woman, yet I (and many others) disagree.”

I’m with you there, Abby.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 16, 2008, 04:55 PM | #

Jefferey Lin (presumably Chinese or half-caste Chinese, going by the name) isn’t right: there’s something about the True West-African Negro face that displeases the esthetic sense, shocks even, something that can’t be made right with media hype no matter how much the media Jews try, such as the new and improved [NOT!] Walt Disney Company’s Michael Eisner (who has thoroughly Jew-ified Walt Disney and totally ruined it). What shocks in that face is its primitiveness, its greater nearness to a less-evolved state of human than the white or yellow face. It’s a coarse face, unrefined, with the face itself too big for the head, too broad and long, the jaw too big, the eyes too far apart, the features gross rather than esthetic. That’s the face; as for the head, the braincase housing the brain is too small. Those are defects of the purely unanimated face. Animated, the West-African Negro facial “body language” further mars the esthetics of the picture, along the same lines of a less evolved appearance — more ape-like, to be perfectly frank about it (that’s the sort of comment polite people ordinarily would never let pass their lips but which is appropriate in the present context in which the Jews keep telling white people they are better off race-mixing: if they won’t stop, we are released from expectations of decent discretion in commenting on other races’ looks and may, nay must reply with the simple truth, and any hurt feelings are strictly the Jews’ fault for deliberately refusing to observe a certain discretion in regard to particular Negro defects which they understand perfectly, as does everyone else in the world).

Posted by Salim on January 16, 2009, 11:08 PM | #

A brilliant article. I agree Nordic women (and people in general) are the most attractive people in the world. And a bigger percentage of them are attractive. I am South Asian BTW.
If races were ranked by beauty it would be like this
1] Northern Europeans
2] Southern Europeans
3] North East Asians
4] Light Brown Caucasians like some Arabs, Iranians, Afghans, North Africans.
5] Indians, Ethiopians/ Somalis, darker Arabs, South East Asians, Mongoloid Pacific Islanders, Native Americans.

Subsaharan Africans are very ugly but the ugliest race is that of Aboriginal Australians and Papuans. They have apelike facial features and even their body movements are apelike. So the hierarchy is angel-like Nordics on top and apelike-Aboriginal Australians/Papuans/ Melanesians at the bottom.
I find Siara Mohan attractive but only little. I would not mind her as my wife. But the Nordic woman is really beautiful. Very fine, highly evolved angelic features.

Posted by Observer on January 28, 2009, 02:14 AM | #

Nordic beauty is a miracle, I question how something so immaculate could end up coming into existence. I find all of Europe to have beauty, but the nordics are special. I’m quarter swedish myself.

Posted by tehya on February 18, 2009, 03:47 AM | #

First of all everyone came from africa so lurker whatever they spreaded across asia and europe asians went to north america (native americans) then to south and other islands
so do this mean hispanics and etc are native american
native americans are asians
asians are black
and plus euros did it to themselves came into africa and north american raped the omen enslaved them and aspect it to go away i am of mxed raced very mixed and i am in love with a white male very in love
race is subconcious and the more you dwell on it the less you live of stress and did you know before obama there were black descendants of presidents and their native american descend just about everyone is mixed on the planet deal with it and if you think the white race is threaten your in fact are wrong it lives in most of us even in asia and africa from the past why do think the somalians, ethipians, egyptians, middle easterns, eritians, african americans, native americans, and many other euros rapd look like the way they do
it is true beauty is in the eye of the beholder someone could be beautiful in one eye and ugly in the next or modern day beautiful could be ugly and modern day ugly are are kind any race man or women are beautiful and no one should be bias i am sick and tired of race wars and think it should stop love has no color now if someone is love with an alien i am out of this and i bet you dont care what i am writing anyways but people are people i guess

Posted by Lurker on February 18, 2009, 04:43 AM | #

Re Tehya’s comment.

Is there some sort of software that generates this sort of content? Often seems that way?

Posted by GoyAmongYou on February 18, 2009, 06:43 AM | #

(j/k)

Posted by billy on February 26, 2009, 11:38 AM | #

The math is cool and stuff and it seems really deep and scientific and therefore could be used to bamboozle people into agreeing just because it sounds so cool and logical, but the premise is ultimately flawed. Why? One word. Subjectivity, my friends. The beauty mask says more about Stephen Marquardt and his personal opinions of what is beautiful than it does about us or about beauty. He has an ultra specific definition of beauty that he does an excellent job of defining and guess what? It’s culturally biased! Different cultures have developed different standards and concepts of beauty quite independently of each other at different times and we don’t need a universal standard. One would have to be supremely pompous and arrogant to try to set out to prove that their standard of beauty should be universal; it kind of reminds me of Hitler’s ideas about blood lines and master races. My counterproposal would be that true beauty lies in diversity, not conformity to a particular standard. The survival of our race depends on the fact that there is a diverse array of different kinds of people to fill the plethora of needs and niches in our society. The idea that there is an objective or universal standard of beauty is really a rather desperate attempt on the part of the person defining that standard to trick people into agreeing that their point of view is somehow dominant over all others. It is tantamount to claiming objective taste in food, music, religion, or politics. Taste is always subjective and arbitrary. I am here to tell you that you are free to make up your own mind and come up with your own ideas for what constitutes beauty; and that a mirror is a better source to inspire those ideas than say, a television. The reverand Billy has spoken.

Posted by SM on February 26, 2009, 09:36 PM | #

Frenology --in whatever manifestation it’s taking--degenerates to BS real fast. Keep away from it and focus on migration and balkanization etc (and ultimately the underpinning flaws of European philosophy—eg equality and feminism).

Golden ratio is BS.

Pattern where there is none. (Question: How many times does the word ‘seven’ appear in the bible? Answer: who cares!)

Beauty is…

.take all people

.take facial images

.Have all people circle the image they like best.

.use mode average circled as template for reconstructive surgery and genetic techno.

.Do the same again for genitals/body shape.

.Next, kill off all people who didn’t circle the mode average (so we’ll all be attracted to what we created).

There: done. Simple, see? (=-p)

Posted by Ada Maria on February 27, 2009, 03:48 AM | #

I’ m spanish mixed with a blonde nordic type mother, my facial features are delicate or ‘’fine’’ as you mention in this page..but as a young girl boys were more atracted to the girls that they did not have my ‘’fine’’ delicate features but to those whose bodys were more voluptuos and sexy than me with all my delicate frame of a classic ballerina..is not the nose bridge..is not the hair color is the way a woman..any woman proyects herself to a man..what appeals to you the author of this page it will not appeal to every one..my husband is australian english and to him Greta Garbo is ugly..you see it depends in each person judgment of ‘’beauty’’ certainly if a woman has a curvaceos body men in general will not notice her nose at all and problably it will not matter to them at all..

Posted by clara on March 01, 2009, 01:05 AM | #

this was really useful for my human biol project
thanks

Posted by Arletta on March 18, 2009, 06:56 AM | #

The true beauty of the white race, is that it is not a race, but just one breed of human - humans are the race. All human breeds are beautiful, and most of them look darn good when combined with any of the other ones. Why? Because they look human, and humans are beautiful.

I do agree that the mask thingy does not do justice to “white beauty” or “black beauty” and etc. In fact, most beauty is perceived to occur in people who fall outside of molds, whatever the molds look like at the time. People with bigger lips, thinner lips, bigger breasts, smaller breasts, longer legs, shorter legs. more fat, less fat, than the average.
.
Which means that beauty is also most easily found by an average. It has nothing to do with supermodels. Just, there are wide set eyes, there are narrow eyes And there are average eyes. It is not subjective of anyone but the person being measured. A person with wide set eyes has eyes that are wider apart than one of their own eye widths; a person with narrow set eyes has less than one eye width between them, and a person with average eyes has exactly, or almost exactly, one eye width of space between their eyes. This is generally found to be beautiful, regardless of color of skin. It is balanced! It looks healthy!

And, that sort of measuring never insults the persons ethnicity, nor does it give one leave to put on airs, based on same.

Posted by Englander on March 18, 2009, 03:21 PM | #

So human races don’t exist, but breeds do? Race in the context we use it is synonymous with breed. Why do you fear the ‘R’ word so much?

Posted by gauche on March 26, 2009, 12:30 AM | #

jolie is bloody ugly. dumb

Posted by Matt on March 28, 2009, 03:35 PM | #

I agree with wot some1 else sed about ‘plain jane’ some of these faces ake good canvases and although i think there is absolutely a truth 2 the correlation between this ratio and physical beauty, in real life there are other significant factors such as charisma andpersonal taste

Posted by bambi on May 03, 2009, 07:10 PM | #

what the hell. The person who wrote this blog or whatever you would call it, is not racist you retards. If you read through the whole thing then you would see that he/she is disproving Marquardt’s mask golden ratio. Read the whole thing before you freaking call someone racist!!!

Posted by passer-by on May 29, 2009, 03:43 AM | #

i came across this article which i found adequately interesting. it seems inevitable to neglect the concept which is deemed an essential demand of man: beauty. while there is the enjoyable beauty (accdg to aquinas), which is “in the eyes of the beholder”. there is a thing called objective beauty. looking at facial features, it is not necessarily true that caucasians are the most beautiful unless one bases it on racial differences/ skin color, which can be categorized as a subjective take on the matter. apparently, you can find beautiful faces in every part of the world, because beauty is based on three important elements namely, harmony, radiance and unity. it’s more or less a combination of everything and not singling out one aspect.

Posted by Ally on June 06, 2009, 03:21 AM | #

Actually, now that I come to think about it, the standard for beauty in the U.S. is turning into a mix of all the major races within the country: Caucasian chin and jaw, Caucasian nose but not too big, Negroid lips, Mongoloid cheekbones and eyebrows in addition to slight upward angle (this describes current beauty standards for women, not sure about the men, though). So perhaps beauty does have more to do with cultural norms. What was considered beautiful in the U.S. just 50 years ago is a world of difference from what is considered the pinnacle of beauty today. The blonde, blue-eyed all-Americans are being replaced by a more mixed look with features hailing from many ethnic groups. So the standard of beauty definitely changes over time within each country according to social norms, whether static or fluid, in addition to other evolutionary factors, I’m sure.

Oh, btw, I forgot to mention Beyonce and Tyra Banks...two more ladies who have a blend from all different races. Maybe this means that we are truly (albeit slowly) becoming a melting pot

Posted by Ally on June 06, 2009, 03:25 AM | #

Oh, I should also note that the Nordic woman posted in the pic in the article is a far cry from current American beauty standards. She’s too plain. You wouldn’t find girls like her on the covers of magazines nowadays. Maybe a few decades ago, but as I mentioned in my last post, “exotic” and “multi-cultural” are defining themes in American beauty standards nowadays.

Posted by John on July 02, 2009, 11:13 AM | #

You arguments are well stuctured and accurate.I have a SE Asian wife because I’m not attractive enough to get a European woman.That just about sums it up,dosen’t it…

Posted by Alura on July 11, 2009, 08:32 AM | #

First of all, I’d like to say that I disagree that people with those proportions are beautiful. Beauty is all a matter of opinion not fact. I watched the video hosted by John Cleese on the human face and the girl choosen for modeling (I thought) was ugly because she has two bucked teeth making her appear like a rabbit… her smile showed her gums which was also unappealing… and her upper lip was sooo big, it looked like it was gonna explode- seriously, and that’s supposedly beautiful? I feel more attractive than her, but I don’t fit those proportions.

Not to mention, WGWAG mentioned that half white and half asian children are the most beautiful. I grew up thinking I was one of the few… maybe like 1% in the entire world back in the late 80s and early 90s. As I got older, my thoughts were dropped and nowadays they’re a bit more common. The reason why white men are typically attracted to asian women is because they’re exotic looking- different. Also, Asians think that whites are more attractive and purposely try to make their skin look whiter. I know this as a fact when directly speaking to Taiwanese people a few years ago and also while watching their commercials. Truthfully, few cultures are told to look beautiful just the way they are- there’s always a need for change… too fat, too ugly… too dark… too white, etc. Some cultures wanna look more asian, some more western. Some people think curly hair is beautiful- some think straight. Again, all a matter of opinion. But if you ask me, I think the reason why anyone might think that a different culture is more beautiful is because it is unique… something they’re not used to seeing.

I’d also like to point out that I’m half white and half asian and have taken glamour shots in Taiwan within the last 2 years. A friend of mine’s parents felt I should get into modeling because they were so beautiful. Others have also said I’m beautiful and they and doctors both felt I looks fairly well proportioned, yet I don’t fit these mathematical proportions as mentioned in this article. Why not claiming that they’re “perfectly proportioned” rather than ‘beautiful’ because again- beauty is only a matter of opinion- not a fact.

If you’re interested in discussing this further with me, find me on myspace under Alura (Northern Illinois University is also shown)- my link is apparently inactive, but you can still contact me there.

Posted by Jacky on August 20, 2009, 08:46 PM | #

Oh, btw, I forgot to mention Beyonce and Tyra Banks...two more ladies who have a blend from all different races. Maybe this means that we are truly (albeit slowly) becoming a melting pot

Absolutely true. I have nothing to add to this. I’m mixed race (black, white, native american). What I find attractive in women is an oval face,big eyes, a small cute nose (that doesn’t mean a pointy ‘white’ nose, but more of a baby-like nose) and full lips. Check out Andrea’s Choice on youtube. She is half Swedish and half Afric. American. Gorgeous girl.

Posted by DavidR on September 01, 2009, 09:42 PM | #

I don’t wish to sound rude, but none of the three women near the top of this page are REMOTELY ‘beautiful’, not even attractive!

Marquardt’s ‘beauty mask’ is obviously WRONG.

I have never seen it applied to women who MOST men find beautiful…

Try this woman for a start:

http://images.sportsbybrooks.com/girls/7/7/7737d594a64a45978afe540bba42a309_MP2216.jpg

And Fred Scrooby is right on the ball - Hollywood is telling us ‘evil’ whites that we are ‘evil’ if we merely want to a) have white children and b) separate from other races.

Oh the humanity! How ‘evil’ we whites must be, to simply want to live in all white countries. You know, the way white countries have been since the dawn of mankind…

Seriously - this Marquardt Beauty Mask is a joke. I remember seeing it over twenty years ago, in a newspaper magazine, and knew then it was rubbish, because the supposedly ‘beautiful’ face that it fit wasn’t particularly beautiful!

Look at Gail Porter (ten years ago), or any number of models who appear in ‘Lad’s mags’, if you want to see what actually IS beautiful.

I also have to laugh when I see idiotic ‘experts’ saying that ‘the ideal of beauty has changed throughout the ages, look at Ruben’s paintings’, what bullshit. That is simply what RUBEN found attractive, or maybe he could only find larger women who were willing to pose for him, or lived in his area, etc.etc.

And simply put, in certain parts of the world, due to a lack of genetic diversity, most people were hideously UGLY hundreds of years ago. There simply didn’t exist even ONE attractive woman in the entire U.K. prior to the early 1900s. Seriously, I am not kidding, just look at hundreds of photographs from that era - women were hideously unattractive.

If you want to see the most attractive women on Earth, look at http://www.sportsbybrooks.com - there are four or five large breasted women on there who are also facially incredibly beautiful, and are literally the most beautiful women on EARTH right now.

But the Jews in Hollywood and the media won’t allow them to become famous, because their other Jewish friends in the porn industry want to force all big breasted women into pornography, and they won’t go down that path if they can make a hundred times as much by starring in Hollywood movies…

To reiterate what Fred Scrooby said - who runs 99% of your entire media? Who runs the entire publishing industry, who decides what books get printed, and what magazines get printer? Who decides what you read in ALL the newspapers, and see on ALL the TV programmes? Who runs your government, and tells Congress what to do? Who starts wars with its neighbours and then gets YOUR children to fight and die in those bloody wars?

THE JEW.

Posted by DavidR on September 01, 2009, 09:57 PM | #

Furthermore, ugly people are MUTANTS.

The more mutated a person is, from the human normal, the more ugly they are.
So somebody with their eyes an inch higher up their face than they should be, would be more ugly than other people.

Human beings are the ugliest animals on Earth. Just look at other animals, in nature. (Not domesticated animals, whose breeding has been made unnatural by humans.) Look at wild deer, cats, the wolf, the snow leopard, the deer, etc. All animals within one species look beautiful and perfect.

But human beings look, 99% of the time, ugly - meaning mutated.
How does this occur?
It occurs because human beings are the only animals on Earth who can IMAGINE things while having sex. 99% of human beings are having sex with ugly, mutated human beings, and thus producing more ugly human beings. Those sick fuckers, for want of a better term, fantasise about whoever it is that they DO find attractive, while having sex with their wives. For example, a paedophile will fantasise about raping a child, while physically having sex with his (no doubt butt ugly) wife. Human beings sexual perversions are endless, and due to childhood traumatic events.

This woman is about as incredibly attractive as a woman can get:
http://images.sportsbybrooks.com/girls/b/a/ba752502114262b24527fab2c3478ef6_MP2993.jpg

And what man wouldn’t almost faint if he suddenly saw this incredibly beautiful woman:
http://images.sportsbybrooks.com/girls/9/2/92a139429b84ca1c72bcda875f1bd749_MP2786a.jpg

But they will never be allowed in these studies, they will never be allowed to be film starts, precisely because they are so beautiful, and SEXUALLY attractive to boot.

And with regard to Africans and their endemic ugliness - just LOOK at them.

The most beautiful women in the world are NOT 100% African. Any ‘African’ women which are regarded as even remotely attractive are ALWAYS part white.

And this comment above is ABSOLUTELY true, and everybody knows it:
“Subsaharan Africans are very ugly but the ugliest race is that of Aboriginal Australians and Papuans. They have apelike facial features and even their body movements are apelike. So the hierarchy is angel-like Nordics on top and apelike-Aboriginal Australians/Papuans/ Melanesians at the bottom. “

I mean - who on Earth has ever looked at an Aboriginal Australian, or a Papuan, and found them anything other than ugly?

Posted by lol on September 01, 2009, 11:38 PM | #

I mean - who on Earth has ever looked at an Aboriginal Australian, or a Papuan, and found them anything other than ugly?

Blond Australian girls.

Posted by Lurker on September 02, 2009, 01:44 AM | #

I mean - who on Earth has ever looked at an Aboriginal Australian, or a Papuan, and found them anything other than ugly?

Blond Australian girls.

Lol - for your theory to hold true you would have to supply some kind of evidence that blond Australian girls actually preffered these men to any other. Of course you can’t do that…

Posted by Med on September 06, 2009, 12:13 PM | #

“ The Nordic people are more beautifull than the Mediteranians” ?????

TAKE A LOOK AT MONICA BELLUCCI. SHE IS FAR BETTER THAN ANYONE OF THE NORDIC RACE WILL EVER BE!!!! And there are thousands other examples like this for every race.

And yes. All you people with inferiority complexes and can bost about your looks. Besides, you don’t have anything else valiable on you.

Unforturatelly these are times that “looks” are more important and the entire world is full of low intelligence “beautifull” wannabes and of shallow men.

I also enjoy beauty. But I want at least to have around me people that maintain some brain standards. And not induldge to such racistic texts.

There are other things that matter.

I am sorry to see some people that support this kind of discrimination. It is just a big shame....

Posted by Desmond Jones on September 06, 2009, 06:43 PM | #

I am sorry to see some people that support this kind of discrimination.

It’s called freedom.

Posted by Euro on September 06, 2009, 07:01 PM | #

“It’s called freedom. ”

Yes,but freedom can sometimes be coterminous with;stupid,wrong,or vile.

Posted by Euro on September 06, 2009, 07:24 PM | #

From J. J. Winckelmann, The History of Ancient Art.

The well-known fact of the earlier maturity and puberty of youth in warm countries shows how much more powerful in them is the influence of nature over the complete development of our race; and the brilliancy of the brighter color of the eyes, which are more frequently brown or black than is the case in cold climates, may offer -to those who are unable to pursue the inquiry themselves- additional probability in favor of the superiority of conformation to be found in warm climates. This differences shows itself even in the hair of the head and of the beard, and both, in warm climates, have a more beautiful growth even from childhood, so that the greater number of children in Italy are born with fine curling hair, which loses none of its beauty with increasing years. All the beards, also, are curly, ample, and finely shaped; whereas, those of the pilgrims who come to Rome from the other side of the Alps are, generally, like the hair of their heads, stiff, bristly, straight, and pointed; so that it would be difficult, in the countries of these privileged idlers, to grow a beard like those which we see on the heads of the ancient Greek philosophers. In accordance with this observation, the ancient artists figured the Gauls and Celts with straight hair, as we may see on several monuments, but especially on two seated figures of captive warriors of these races which are in the villa of the Cardinal Alexander Albani. In connection with these remarks upon the hair, I will observe that fair hair is not of so frequent occurrence in warm as in cold climates; but still it is common, and beautiful persons with hair of this languishing color are seen in the former as well as in the latter, - with this difference, however, that the color of it never becomes entirely whitish, the usual effect of which is to give to a person an air of coldness and insipidity.

Precisely the same reflection may be made in reference to the modern Greeks. For -not to mention that their blood during several centuries has been mingled with that of the descendants of so many nations who have settled among them- it is easy to conceive that their present political condition, bringing up, instruction, and mode of thought may have an influence even on their conformation. Notwithstanding all these unfavorable conditions, the Greek race of the present day is still celebrated for its beauty; on this point all observant travellers agree; and the nearer we draw to the climate of Greece, the more beautiful, lofty, and vigorous is the conformation of man.

For this reason, we seldom find in the fairest portions of Italy the features of the face unfinished, vague, and inexpressive, as it is frequently the case on the other side of the Alps; but they have partly an air of nobleness, partly of acuteness and intelligence; and the form of the face is generally large and full, and the parts of it in harmony with each other. The superiority of conformation is so manifest, that the head of the humblest man among the people might be introduced in the most dignified historical painting, especially one in which aged men are to be represented. And among the women of this class, even in places of the least importance, it would not be difficult to find a Juno. The lower portion of Italy, which enjoys a softer climate than any other part of it, brings forth men of superb and vigorously defined forms, which appear to have been made, as it were, for the purposes of sculpture. The large stature of the inhabitants of this section must be apparent to everyone; and the fine development and robustness of their frames may be most easily seen in the half-naked sailors, fishermen, and others whose occupation is by the sea; and precisely from that circumstance might seem to have originated the fable of the mighty Titans contending with the Gods in the Phlegraean Fields, -which were near Pozzuoli, in the vicinity of Naples. It is asserted that, in Sicily, the handsomest women of the island are found, even at the present day, in ancient Eryx, where the celebreated temple of Venus was situated

Consequently, that noble beauty which consists not merely in a soft skin, a brilliant complexion, wanton or languishing eyes, but in the shape and form, is found more frequently in countries which enjoy a uniform mildness of climate. If, therefore, the Italians alone know how to paint and figure beauty, as an English author says, the beautiful conformation of the people themselves is a measure, the ground of their capability, which the daily view and study of beauty can produce more readily here than elsewhere. Beauty. however, was not a general quality, even among the Greeks, and Cotta in Cicero says that, among the great numbers of young persons at Athens, there were only a few possessing true beauty.

The most beautiful race among the Greeks, especially in regard to complexion, must have been been beneath the skies of Ionia, in Asia Minor, according to the testimony of Hippocrates and Lucian; and another writer, in order to express manly beauty with one word, terms it Ionic. This province is also productive, even at the present day, in beautiful conformations, as appears from the statement of an observant traveller of the sixteenth century, who finds himself unable to extol sufficiently the beauty of the women there, their soft and milk-white skin, and fresh and healthful color. For in this land, on account of its situation, and in the islands of the Archipelago, the sky is much clearer, and the temperature -which is intermediate between warm and cold- more constant and uniform, than it is even in Greece, especially in those parts of it lying on the sea, which are very much exposed to the sultry wind from Africa, like all the southern coast of Italy, and other lands, which lie opposite to the the hot tract in Africa…

Posted by just for this one comment on December 19, 2009, 02:16 AM | #

Is it possilbe edit a pic on here? If somebody knows how, they should put a little something to cover the Igbo woman’s chest.

Posted by Dylan on December 24, 2009, 04:50 AM | #

I couldn’t agree more with this.

Absolutely valid.

Posted by c on December 28, 2009, 01:14 AM | #

May we please leave politics out of it. Name calling and acting like children doesn’t resolve anything. There is no such thing as beauty as it is a matter of personal preference and opinion. Everyone has an aspect of themselves that is considered “beautiful”. It is probably due to genetics possibly due to environment but who really cares. People are people. We are all of the same species so racism is just hating yourself and what you are. Everyone is probably related somewhere way back on their family tree. I could write an entire article on this and it would be completely opinion just like this comment is and the comments preceding it and the article it is based off of and the articles and books from which everyone has gathered their informations.

Posted by dumbass on January 02, 2010, 07:20 PM | #

your application of the golden mean is inapplicable. as a designer, i know how it applies and to what degree. this is just flat out a dumb ass test. its douche bags like this that one that thinks he knows his shit. get a fookin life. what do u know about what looks good?

Posted by Eon on February 01, 2010, 05:28 AM | #

An enraged Swede speaks. I am speechless at the amount of non-sense on this page. As a Swede I am insulted that people would even dare to propose that my Nordic race is better than another. And it is not because I am not proud of my background but because it is rather non-sense.

First, race is a social construct, there is no statistically significant genetic difference between one race an another. This is a scientific fact, that the author of this non-sense should have cared to reasearch before spitting garbage up their…

Two, there is no scientific evidence that race mixing causes any health issues, given that biologically we are all the same. So another unsupported remark the author makes.

Also anyone familiar with the theory of evolution would have shut the mouth of this blatantly ignorant author right away. Homo sapiens originated from Africa (ooooh our accestors where dark-skinned at some point, if it hurts you deal with it). Migration patters allowed for physical differenciation given that such new traits would have enable survival. The reason us Nordics look the way we look is because given the place we live it enabled us to survive. Our skin does not need as much melanin as someone who would be living in hotter areas, our eyes do not need to be as light resistant as someone living in dryer areas (note that blue eyes are the most sensitive eyes to light among all other shades). The way we look enable us to also blend with our evironment (long white winters) providing us protection from predators. Are blacks much more apt to live in very hot areas and withstand longer periods of dryness and limited food supply? You bet they are because their traits enables them to live in the environment in which they are (dry, hot land not too apt for agriculture).

With that said even for those who proclaim themselves Christian would be suprised to know that their beloved savior Jesus would have been copper skinned man and not the caucasian man he is despicted in most work of art.

So again, what are we whites judging beauty by? Our own standards, wow, that seems very objective! The Golden ratio mask was intended to measure symmetry of the face not race. That the author have taken such and try to use it as justification for their own racist agenda only show how ignorant this person is.

I am just surprised at the amount of people who seem to be supporting this absurd idea, mainly because it is scientifically false let alone biased. Here in Europe, men for the most part do like dark-skinned women and date them and marry them all the time. As for me, I prefer a racially mixed woman, mainly Brazilians and yes I am a blond haired, blue eyed Swede.

I am sure the author and Hitler would have been best beer buddies but again that is why Hitler was a mentally illed man diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder.

So let’s take out the meds and the straight-jacket.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 01, 2010, 09:16 AM | #

Eon,

You are a vicim of the psychological, philosophical and political milieu in which we all live. You do not know Truth. You have never heard it. You will hear it here.

As a Swede I am insulted that people would even dare to propose that my Nordic race is better than another.

This writer of this article challenged an earlier “outraged liberal” as follows:

What is outright nonsensical about this article? And, how is it Nordic-centric? Posting one picture of a Nordic woman does not make it Nordic-centric.

The article critiques the claims made for Marquardt’s mask, on the statistical basis that no ideal facial proportions apply across races. His has no position with regard “better”, incidentally, but, again statistically, demonstrates elsewhere that the Nordic female has a “finer” bone structure with elements that are, in the technical sense, less “primitive”.

So your judgement of “better/worse” is crude and a strawman.

First, race is a social construct, there is no statistically significant genetic difference between one race an another.

The utterly discredited Lewontin Fallacy and all like Jewish-Marxist deceptions are put forward solely to encourage you to hate your own people, and to prevent you from defending them. Jewish academic race denial, such as flowed from the Sociobiology Study Group, is ethnic warfare ... hate speech.

Of course, there is vast scientific evidence for the fact of race and ethnicity. Often, though, in these dangerous times, it goes under other names. Academics and researchers in human genetics have to guard their funding and their reputations. Anti-racism is, like any religious puritanism, extremely dangerous and unprincipled.

Anyhow, google “gene mape Europe” and ask yourself why, if there is no such thing as race, Rwanda doesn’t appear right next door to Sweden - or, indeed, why there is any corelation at all between geography and genes (it’s very close)

The Social Construct is a piece of very ordinary psychology inflated beyond its importance so that the anti-racist lie can be justified to you. It is based on the fact that the thinking mind functions by constructing models of reality out of associative data. The thinking mind is one of three system Homo sapiens has evolved for sensing “the thing that is”. The other two are emotion, which operates by value ascription, and the motor centre, which operates through the senses. These three systems appeared at different times in our evolutonary history, speak in different languages and function via different areas of the brain.

The lie that the Social Constructors tell is that, because your thinking mind constructs a model, you do not ever quite contact with reality. This is not true, since the other two much older and faster systems do an excellent and very direct job in that respect. But even thought, as an evolved system, represents reality well enough for it - thought - to exist. That’s the point. It would not have evolved otherwise. What it tells us about race is not suddenly untrue because of the nature of its operation, and that goes for the conclusion labelled “prejudice” by the anti-racist left. What it tells us is perfectly true, but not the absolute reality. It in is the difference between these things that the Social Constructors spin their web of deceit.

The question is, why would you believe that your mind cannot tell you truth about races? And the answer to that is that you are a weak and suggestible fool, of which there are many. Snap out of it.

Two, there is no scientific evidence that race mixing causes any health issues, given that biologically we are all the same.

Wrong. We are not biologically all the same. We are evolved to live in our respective EEAs, and the process includes brain evolution. Sweden: average IQ 100. Rwanda: average IQ 68.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/alon_ziv_on_race_mixing/

Also anyone familiar with the theory of evolution would have shut the mouth of this blatantly ignorant author right away.

I note the violence and anger in your words. That is typical of the Marxist puritan. It is a dishonourable attitude. Do not express here, where free thought is encouraged.

Are blacks much more apt to live in very hot areas and withstand longer periods of dryness and limited food supply? You bet they are because their traits enables them to live in the environment in which they are (dry, hot land not too apt for agriculture).

The evidence contradicts you. Africans don’t have the intelligence to turn Africa into a food factory. That’s what the European farmer did wherever he was living - and still does, where he is allowed.

So a Christian as well as an evolutionist and a Marxist. No wonder you are so confused.

Here in Europe, men for the most part do like dark-skinned women and date them and marry them all the time.

Actually no - is that what you did? European men show no desire at all for African womanhood. Further, in all dark-skinned peoples, the lighter skin tones are sought after in a mate, and are associated with beauty and intelligence.

As for me, I prefer a racially mixed woman, mainly Brazilians and yes I am a blond haired, blue eyed Swede.

I am not surprised. Your mind is screwed over by postmodernity. You are not a serious man. Your kind is all too common, though, that’s for sure.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 01, 2010, 02:04 PM | #

”you are a weak and suggestible fool, of which there are many. Snap out of it.” (—Guessedworker, addressing “Eon” from Sweden)

Eon, here are a few items to help you “snap out of it” as GW suggests you do. I chose these at random: there’s tons and tons and tons of this sort of stuff out there, all excellent, all scientifically incontrovertible.

Here’s a listing of papers by Professor Rushton, an Englishman working in Canada. Browse them at your leisure, especially any co-authored by “Rushton & Jensen”:

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushton_pubs.htm .

This next is a good web-site on race which you might learn a great deal from:

http://racehist.blogspot.com/ .

Here are the latest couple of entries from Peter Frost’s site (an academic working in Canada) which just happen to touch on the subject of race-denial:

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/01/cavalli-sforza-price-of-collaboration.html ;

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/01/richard-dawkins-price-of-collaboration.html .

In one of the above Peter Frost recommends the following paper by Neven Sesardic on the subject of race-denial, published a month ago:

https://commerce.metapress.com/content/f53386k412547652/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=sdjr5q55j3bffdvzpp4sik3x&sh=www.springerlink.com .

You have to purchase the article but here’s the abstract:

Biol Philos

DOI 10.1007/s10539-009-9193-7

Race: a Social Destruction of a Biological Concept

Neven Sesardic
Lingnan University, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong

Received: 11 August 2009 / Accepted: 22 December 2009
_ Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract: It is nowadays a dominant opinion in a number of disciplines (anthropology, genetics, psychology, philosophy of science) that the taxonomy of human races does not make much biological sense. My aim is to challenge the arguments that are usually thought to invalidate the biological concept of race. I will try to show that the way ‘‘race’’ was defined by biologists several decades ago (by Dobzhansky and others) is in no way discredited by conceptual criticisms that are now fashionable and widely regarded as cogent. These criticisms often arbitrarily burden the biological category of race with some implausible connotations, which then opens the path for a quick eliminative move. However, when properly understood, the biological notion of race proves remarkably resistant to these deconstructive attempts. Moreover, by analyzing statements of some leading contemporary scholars who support social constructivism about race, I hope to demonstrate that their eliminativist views are actually in conflict with what the best contemporary science tells us about human genetic variation.

“Those who subscribe to the opinion that there are no human races are
obviously ignorant of modern biology.” —Ernst Mayr, 2002

Once you’ve made a little progress you can tackle this next one, an entire free on-line book and the pièce de résistance — but don’t try to start with it or it’ll burn out your brain cells (you’ve got to toughen up your brain first with the other stuff):

http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ .

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 01, 2010, 02:24 PM | #

Actually, Eon, the best place for you to start “snapping out of it” is probably right here at this blog: on this blog’s home page, under the masthead at the upper left (just underneath the little Botticelli painting) you’ll see “Existential Issues,” and underneath that, “Race FAQ.” Click where it says “Race FAQ.” Read the material that comes up. Study it. It’s excellent and scientifically incontrovertible. Don’t be afraid. Just do it. You see, right now you’re an asshole. But it’s not hopeless because this material has the potential to change that. It has the potential to make a new man of you.

It’s not often in life that an asshole gets a second chance. Grab hold of it!

Posted by Dasein on February 01, 2010, 03:17 PM | #

The Sesardic paper is available here:

http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race.pdf

Posted by Gudmund on February 01, 2010, 03:55 PM | #

Eon’s comment is so ridiculous that I wonder if it isn’t an over-the-top troll job.

Posted by Gudmund on February 01, 2010, 05:20 PM | #

Posted by John on February 01, 2010, 05:38 PM | #

there is no statistically significant genetic difference between one race an another.

Du borde berätta det för dem forensiksa vetenskapsmännen, som antagligen är svårt vilseledad. Nästan alla de där (självklart rasistiska) narrarna egentligen tror att de kan bestämma vilken ras ett offer tillhör, bara från genetiskt undersökning av benfragment.

Håller du på att det trots finns phenotypisksa, beteende- oder intellektuella skillnader mellan människoraserna? Mellan Grand Danois och Pekingese även?

Posted by John on February 01, 2010, 05:59 PM | #

Sorry, “oder” above should be “eller”. I tend to mix up my German and Swedish prepositions/conjunctions.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 01, 2010, 06:49 PM | #

Thanks, John — maybe what you said will get through to him. Nothing else seems to.

Posted by John on February 01, 2010, 07:50 PM | #

Thanks, John — maybe what you said will get through to him. Nothing else seems to.

I just told him he should tell forensic scientists to give up their pathetic, rasist and obviously doomed-to-failure attempts to determine the race of murder victims absent skin or hair samples.

Posted by Mika on February 01, 2010, 09:38 PM | #

omg… all he is saying is that typical european faces are more proportional, and yes, it has been proven that most, not all people, but MOST people find more proportional and symmetric shapes, including faces and bodies, more beautiful, no matter the colour. it just happens to be so that the whites in general have more proportional faces.

so… a european face is in most cases more mathematically “correct”. this is science, and the writer is trying to find some kind of formula for what makes up beauty, what images does the brain appreciate?

this author is obviously not arguing that people are more attracted to white people, finding something beautiful and being attracted to someone are two completely different things. you might not be attracted to everything that you like to rest your eyes upon.

get over it and get a nose job if you cant live with your face after having read this… but seriously, just because youre face doesnt fit in with some golden ratio lines doesnt mean its not attractive, and no one has claimed that that is the case. so if you still feel bad after re-reading and re-thinking you must have serious issues with your self esteem, but thats not the guys fault. everyones beautiful in their own way.

Posted by Johann. on February 03, 2010, 01:16 PM | #

People can be ugly no matter what race they come from. As can they be beautiful no matter what race they come from. (When I say “beautiful” here I mean that they fit this “mask”.)

This was quite interesting but very biased. You post one example of a beautiful white woman but none of a white woman that does not fit the facial proportions. Very unbalanced. A good article if it was not clouded by your own personal opinion.

Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2

Next entry: An Ethnic-Hawaiian government could only be good for the mainland majority

Previous entry: Defining Leftism

Existential Issues

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

New Right

Science

Whites in Africa