Man, I'd hate to be one of the models for one of these pictures. "Ohhhh yeah," say thousands of internet users. "That computer-generated version really is a lot better-looking than the real one due to those horrible flaws on that person's face". No thanks, I'd rather not see the difference between my face and a better-looking version of my face, it'd just make me feel bad.
On a broader point though, the human taste for "average-looking" faces is an interesting one. Aside from anything else it's an interesting Nash equilibrium -- I want to find a mate with an average-looking face so that we can produce children with average-looking faces who will be the most desirable breeding partners in the next generation.
What I really wonder is whether "average-looking" is hard-wired in, or whether we're programmed to spend our childhood scanning all the faces around us and mentally averaging them out to determine what a human face should look like. I suspect the latter -- it's a much more stable strategy over evolutionary timescales, and also explains things like why people often find people of their own race more attractive, and why mixed-race people are often unusually attractive.
I'm too lazy to look up the ref, but someone told me that the preference for average faces was actually an artifact of the averaging process. It turns out that averaging images of faces also makes the skin look a lot younger and smoother, and therefore more attractive.
One way to test it would be to see if the median face, by some choice of metric, was also more attractive. The problem with other averaging methods, like simple pixel averaging, is that you can produce a result that is not actually particularly similar to any face anyone has. For example, if you had a population where everyone's face was highly asymmetric, but 50% in one direction and 50% in the other direction, the average would be a symmetric face that is completely atypical for the population.
How does the second hypothesis explains both of those tendencies at the same time? It would rather seem to predict that people of mixed race would be found less attractive then those of the same race as the subject and more attractive then those of the other race. I.e. an averaging out of attractiveness rather then an increase of it.
Oh, it depends where you're brought up. What you really find attractive is a mix of all the races in the community where you were brought up. If everyone you meet in childhood is of the same race then you'll probably find that race attractive, but if you (say) spend half your time hanging out with whites and half your time hanging out with Asians...
>Aside from anything else it's an interesting Nash equilibrium -- I want to find a mate with an average-looking face so that we can produce children with average-looking faces who will be the most desirable breeding partners in the next generation.
Isn't it a wrong Nash equilibrium? You should choose a mate with someone on the other side of "average", so your children will have average faces. An average face and your (more likely than not) non-average face do not make average faces.
This "other side of average" effect is to some extent seen with the major histocompatibility complex.
I don't think we have a preference for average looking faces.
We do have a strong preference for symmetrical faces, maybe because that indicates you've been very healthy for many years.
And averaging out a bunch of non-perfectly symmetrical faces, results in a very symmetrical face.
But that's very different from average. We strongly prefer decidedly rare features showing off high levels of sex hormones. An average face would have average sized eyes for example, but we prefer bigger eyes which indicate youth.
But I 100% agree with you on having a picture of your better looking twin, no thanks.
I would think the opposite, as the 'familiar face' idea would lead to more inbreeding in groups, thus less healthy offspring. Plus, one should keep in mind that for millions of years, beauty was not as important a constraint as proximity and availability.
On a broader point though, the human taste for "average-looking" faces is an interesting one. Aside from anything else it's an interesting Nash equilibrium -- I want to find a mate with an average-looking face so that we can produce children with average-looking faces who will be the most desirable breeding partners in the next generation.
What I really wonder is whether "average-looking" is hard-wired in, or whether we're programmed to spend our childhood scanning all the faces around us and mentally averaging them out to determine what a human face should look like. I suspect the latter -- it's a much more stable strategy over evolutionary timescales, and also explains things like why people often find people of their own race more attractive, and why mixed-race people are often unusually attractive.