Talk:Averageness

Fix talk

The info that references the flickr user's research will need to be removed, because (since it has not been published) it is considered original research. Recury 20:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, I wasn't the one who contributed these images to Wikipedia, I just saw them on Rating sites and so wrote this article a few minutes ago. Second, an example of "morphed image" showing that the average is more attractive does not constitute "novel" or "original" research; it was done originally by Galton in 1883, and repeated numerous times. Talk:Bohr model is an example a debate on image uploading, where we had to explain the "methods" behind how we constructed the images, of Bohr's 1914 atom model. Hence, elaborating on how a well-known image was created for use in Wikipedia does not constitute a violation of WP:OR. Or, maybe you know of some free content morphed images in the commons that are better than these. Moreover, maybe you would like to join in here for further discussion. --Sadi Carnot 20:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, as second alternative, we could take out the person's name and change the name of the header, but that would seem to detract from the article. --Sadi Carnot 20:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean the "recent studies" section of the text, not the image. Recury 20:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. The images are already in the commons. To utilize them in different articles, as has already been done, someone needs to explain how the images were created. In this direction, User:Quadell found the name of the person, and I added it in for clarity. I don't see the problem here? In my opinion, these images are excellent and are used in a good way to support an historical concept. --Sadi Carnot 21:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's published on the web, right? On Flicker. Oh, I see, you mean the text. If the text is original interpretation of the images, then I suppose I see your point. If the text is just summarizing what is in the photos, the accompanying text (on Flicker), and the material here, then it's not OR. I guess it's a matter of interpretation. (Sadi, you might want to reference that metafilter info, and also an interesting links from it.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, interesting metafilter discussion; some of the comments, though, were very un-scientific, but, nevertheless, kind of interesting. I agree that we have to summarize what is in the photos; thus if we use the photographer's statement as an outline, then we will have to reference it or else it will be considered copyright infringement or plagiarism. --Sadi Carnot 03:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hot or not research?

Are you guys kidding me? I can't give any exact numbers as to how many people LEGITIMATELY rate what they are thinking, but I'm willing to bet it's extremely low. People very rarely (except for maybe new users) go to the site for this. They want to meet new people or just look through a bunch of photos. In that case, they "lock" onto a number like 5, since the x/y of the ratings buttons hardly move in each page. People doing rapid fire on "5" is NOT accurate research. For a page such as Wikipedia, I would count this as original research and illegitimate.

Proposed merger with article on Koinophilia

"Averageness" is synonymous with koinophilia, but is currently used almost exclusively to describe the role of koinophilia in human beauty, whereas "koinophilia" covers its broader biological importance. The two articles could therefore, theoretically, be merged, but that would tend to make the combined article almost textbook in nature. There are very many articles in Wikipedia that discuss the ingredients of human beauty and physical attraction. All of them have cross references to this article, which serves very well as a stand alone article on "Averageness/Koinophilia", containing enough information to satisfy most readers sent here via the "human beauty" route.

What I have done (as an experiment) is add a heading on koinophilia, with a brief description of why "Averageness" is an important determinant of physical attractiveness. I think it rounds the article off, as, at the moment, "Averageness" is simply "there", without any explanation of why it should be there, or why it contributes to beauty and physical attractiveness. The authors of this article might like to re-word this section to bring it into line with the style of the rest of the article.

With just this section added to the article (a complementary section already exists in the "Koinophilia" article), the potential desirability for merging the two articles falls away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkoeslag (talk • contribs) 08:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion resumed at #Merger proposal below.

If I kill all the people at my school

So is averageness relative to a population? If I kill all the people at my school with small ears will my freakishly big ears suddenly be more beautiful? Likewise if a group of people with still bigger ears join my school? Or what?? Please answer - my suicide depends on it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.189.228 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this article rife with fallacy?

I feel almost certain that some of the claims in the "Koinophilia" section are fallacious. To say that "[i]t makes biological sense that sexual creatures should be attracted to mates sporting a predominance of common or average features, as opposed to extraordinary features" seems to presuppose [a] that reproducing "average" features tends to increase the "fitness" of a species or population over time, [b] that people respond positively to the averageness of other people's appearance because to them, averageness indicates superior "fitness," and [c] that whether or not every individual feels this way, averageness nonetheless indicates superior "fitness."

That entire construction is circular: Take a supposition, say that it's a part of nature, say that "it makes sense" that nature would be that way, then make unsupported conjectures about the supposed survival advantages of having nature work that way.

Supposition [a] is also, I think, based on a flawed understanding of genetics. Mutations are mostly neutral with respect to survival; they are sometimes harmful or even fatal, but they can also have enormous value to a population. "Extraordinary features" are essential to any species' survival as well as to its future development (evolution). Populations with low genetic diversity become dependent on the precise ecological niche to which they have adapted over time. If their habitat changes, there aren't enough individuals with characteristics that are favorable in the changed circumstances; then there's nothing for evolution to "prefer," and the population declines or dies out.

Recessive genes are a similar, vital resource. The word "inbreeding" has unpleasant connotations, but when members of restricted populations mate only with one another over many generations, the results clearly don't enhance "fitness." If God was really smart, He would set Victorian thinking aside and endow us with a varying mixture of "koinophilia" and its exact opposite, so as to preserve already-successful genes and genetic diversity.

--I also feel a certain lack of cultural awareness in the viewpoint of the article as a whole. Even within one country there rarely is a spontaneous, even near-unanimous preference for the looks of any one individual. When there is such a "craze," generally its object wouldn't have been considered so attractive a generation or two earlier--making it hard to blame the whole thing on biology. Also, such people often have a strikingly atypical appearance, one which perhaps has some special meaning for the times.

What is actually being shown by those averaged photos of beauty contest results? Surely they say more about beauty contests--who enters them, who is selected to judge them, and what those judges base their decisions on--than they say about humanity (or all animal life!) in general. To say the least, a huge amount of conformity to stereotypes is built in. The contestants don't try to look as they naturally look; they put a huge amount of effort into crafting their image. To me that invalidates them as evidence for "koinophilia." No doubt the pictures are interesting, but it takes some critical thinking to realize what they are pictures of.

--best regards

DSatz (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Software

Is there software in the wild for createing composites for conducting this type of research?

OrenBochman (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the "Method" section

I have taken the liberty to remove the "Method" section as it does not describe any of the methods used by the scientists working on attractive and average faces. Instead it describes an entirely arbitrary "Hot or Not" construction on the internet that has no scientific merit (nor was it intended as a scientific experiment). The other external links take one to inappropriate (and aggressive) advertisements for goods that have nothing to do with attractiveness or averageness.

All the methods used by Galton and Langlois et al. are described fully in the previous section. It could be added in there that a wide variety of other averaging methods have been used (e.g. using line drawings of faces, or faces in profile etc. etc.) always with the same results. Oggmus (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

source

This topic is debated please see this source for peer level discussion Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny: Cross-cultural Evidence and Implications [and Comments and Reply] Doug Jones, C. Loring Brace, William Jankowiak, Kevin N. Laland, Lisa E. Musselman, Judith H. Langlois, Lori A. Roggman, Daniel Pérusse, Barbara Schweder and Donald Symons Current Anthropology Vol. 36, No. 5 (Dec., 1995), pp. 723-748 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research [1] There is a great deal of work that could be done here. J8079s (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Koinophilia be merged into Averageness. The core concept of both articles is the same, indeed they already share content; other aspects that the Koinophilia article suggests can be explained by Koinophilia (averageness) will make exactly as much sense here (I make no claim for their validity, and they may need cutting down whether a merge takes place or not, as they seem to wander quite far off topic). The merged article will not become unreasonably long. I note in addition that merger has been proposed before with substantial support, so it isn't clear why it didn't take place; it should happen now. Finally, I note that there is a conflict of interest with an editor who has published research on the subject and has apparently coined the term "Koinophilia", as well as contributing substantially to both articles; his views are of course of interest, but must be seen in context, and like any other editor's cannot be assumed to be definitive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I support the move. I also find no suggestion of "research" by Koeslag. There is a lot of work to do (see source above) on the question of "Averageness as a tool of evolution. J8079s (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of above remark?

I oppose the move for the following reasons:

1. "Averageness" only describes a method for generating beautiful and attractive faces. Koinophilia suggests the reason why it works.

2. The term "koinophilia" has repeatedly been used on internationally popular TV shows such as the Discovery TV channel with Nancy Etcoff (from Harvard University)

as celebrity guest, "The Office", and Stephen Fry's BBC program "QI", which was aired less than a year ago. Koinophilia, while not quite a household term,

is nevertheless in current use in popular culture (See Richard Fein's poem entitled "Koinophilia" speculating on whether Helen of Troy's face

really launched 1000 ships or whether her face was simply a composite of 1000 women's faces giving her her legendary beauty).

3. "Koinophilia" and its implication in several different fields is discussed in the following recent scientific press:

Unnikrishnan M.K. (2009) How is the individuality of a face recognized? Journal of Theoretical Biology. 261 (3), 469–474. doi:10.1016/ j.jtbi.2009.08.011

Naini F.B. (2011) Facial aesthetics. Concepts and clinical diagnosis. (Chapter: The enigma of facial beauty). Blackwell Publishing, Chichester, West Sussex. ISBN: 978-1-4051-8192-1.

Unnikrishnan M.K. (2012) Koinophilia revisited: the evolutionary link between mate selection and face recognition. Current Science, 102 (4) :563-570.

Miller W.B. (2013) The Microcosm within: Evolution and Extinction in the Hologenome. (Chapter: What is the big deal about evolutionary gaps?) pp. 177, 395-396. Universal Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. ISBN 10:1-61233-2773.

Unnikrishnan, M.K. and Akhila, H.S. (2014). "The phenotypic differences between carrion and hooded crows across the hybridization zone in Europe are unlikely to be due to assortative mating. Comment on Poelstra, J.W. et al. (2014). The genomic landscape underlying phenotypic integrity in the face of gene flow in crows.". Science 344: 1410–1414. doi:10.1126/science.1253226. PMID 24948738.

If a merger is necessary, it would make more sense to do it the other way round, retaining the article "Koinophilia" and relabelling the heading "Physical attractiveness" -> "Averageness". There is nothing in the "Averageness" article that is not discussed more fully, thoroughly and informatively in the Koinophilia article. Oggmus (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That would work only if K. were the senior or far more common term for the concept, which it does not appear to be. I'm glad, though, to note that we agree the two terms are synonyms and we therefore require a merger. Note, however, that BOTH terms will appear in boldface at the head of the article, in the manner (something like) "Averageness, also called Koinophilia, is ...", and searching on K. will immediately pop up the article, so it effectively will have both names. Hope this helps a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If priority is the criterion by which this is judged then Koinophilia almost certainly is the more "senior" term. Langlois and Roggman (Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science 1:115-121) and Koeslag (Koinophilia groups sexual creatures into species, promotes stasis, and stabilizes social behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology 144:15-35) published their first articles on this subject almost simultaneously in 1990. Langlois and Roggman use the terms "composite faces", "composites", "average face", "prototypical faces" and "typicalness" to describe the attractive faces they had produced. They used the term "averageness" in brackets and in parenthesis to explain what what they meant by "typicalness", and once again in passing, with no particular emphasis, when discussing whether movie stars might be rated as being more attractive than the composites they had produced. Koeslag, on the other hand, used the term "koinophilia" in the title of his first article on the subject. S.P. Otto writing in 1991 (the year after the Langlois and Koeslag papers appeared) used the term "koinophilia" instead of "averageness" in his paper "On evolution under sexual and viability selection: a two locus diploid model." Evolution 45:1443-1457, as, by then, Langlois' fascinating results were generally being referred to as "koinophilia", and have continued to be known by that name up to the present in popular culture. Oggmus (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like quite a close call, if this analysis is correct and complete, as K. would be prior and A. seems to be more commonly used. I personally don't mind which way round we do this but the WP:FORK seems well worth removing. What I'm getting therefore is a desire to merge Averageness to Koinophilia. Let's see what other editors think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm tempted to oppose this merger. Averageness, while an awkward term, seems to be about the aesthetic phenomenon, while koinophilia in my understanding is a partner selection strategy that is proposed to correspond to it. The way it's currently arranged, with averageness having a subsection about k., makes some sense to me. What I'm not comfortable with is rushing an article through GAN that's been mostly written by the author that is most strongly advocating use of the term and who is the author of the vast majority of papers mentioning the term in their title. We do want expert editors of course, but extra eyes from other people who understand the subject would be good to ensure such an article remains balanced (WP:NPOV). I'm not sure that among the current participants in these discussions, we have anyone that has both the time and expertise for this. Perhaps it makes sense to list this on some relevant WikiProject talk pages to see if anyone bites - I see that Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology has not yet been listed as a relevant WikiProject on the talk page, although it almost certainly is, so it should be mentioned there if on any WikiProject page, imo. Samsara 11:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

1) By all means post it on that Project.

2) There will be no rush to GAN, that is clearly not appropriate now.

3) The terms do appear to be extremely close, and perhaps exact synonyms. Koinophilia does not seem to be purely about looks but can apply to any characteristic, so it is hard to see any difference between it and averageness. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have done a bit of reading and to my mind there is a clear distinction in topic and research area between Averageness and Koinophilia. To me:

Averageness is research about the sexual attractiveness of Human faces - exclusively.

Koinophilia is an evolutionary hypothesis based on the idea that animals (including humans) are sexually attracted to individuals displaying a minimum of unusual features (where these features encompass all physical and behavioural characteristics of those animals, not just physical human faces). The other half of the hypothesis is its intention to help explain Darwin's Dilemma, a topic which is unlikely to be addressed in the Averageness research.

From both Pages' Reference sections the first articles on Averageness seem to have appeared in Psychology journals whilst the first articles on Koinophilia seem to have appeared in Theoretical Biology journals suggesting entirely different academic interests.

The wikipedia articles in their current form don't make this distinction at all clear though - I've made a comment at the bottom of the Koinophilia Talk page suggesting why this confusion may have arisen and how we may be able to address it (see the section there titled "Proposal to move the Koinophilia#Physical Attractiveness section to the Averageness page"). Ambercritter (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Rather than refer to something somewhere else, could you please bring whatever is relevant here? Thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. Copied below. Ambercritter (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to move the Koinophilia#Averageness and Physical Attractiveness section to the Averageness page

The Physical Attractiveness section of the Koinophilia article seems out of place on a page concerning Evolutionary biology theory. Though the research described in the section lends an ounce of support for the theory in question, the bulk of it belongs elsewhere. To my eye, this section being so large and high up on the page means it is confusing to the reader trying to understand the proposal and intention of the evolutionary idea.

Therefore I recommend this should be moved, and suggest the Averageness page as a destination as there are points made in this section which are not made in the Averageness page and the Averageness page is referenced as this sections main article.

(Aside: It's possible that the merger conversation has come about because of the confusion this section causes.) Ambercritter (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ambercritter: Leaving aside where in the article the section on averageness/attractiveness should come, do you not think it necessary to have a short summary of the topic there? You seem to consider K. and A. separate topics, in which case if A. has to be discussed in the K. article, a summary is necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Physical Attractiveness section of this article seems out of place on a page concerning Evolutionary biology theory. Though the research described in this section lends an ounce of support for the theory in question, the bulk of it belongs elsewhere. To my eye, this section being so large and high up on the page means it is confusing to the reader trying to understand the proposal and intention of the evolutionary idea.

Therefore I recommend this should be moved, and suggest the Averageness page as a destination as there are points made in this section which are not made in the Averageness page and the Averageness page is referenced as this sections main article.

(Aside: It's possible that the merger conversation has come about because of the confusion this section causes. I intend to comment on discussion of the merger of the Koinophilia and Averageness pages on the Averageness Talk page very shortly) Ambercritter (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

*** The following comments copied from Talk:Koinophilia as they seem relevant here:

Also, I've just noticed that the paragraph in the [Koinophilia] introduction starting 'Koinophilia provides simple explanations for' includes the items 'what constitutes a beautiful face' and 'how the individuality of a face is recognized' which are not in the same sphere as the evolutionary items in the rest of the sentence or paragraph so I would delete those as well (or incorporate them the following paragraph perhaps). Ambercritter (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, move and merge. For this article [Koinophilia], the content seems too broad. Samsara 10:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

These opinions imply that K. and A. are in Ambercritter' and Samsara's opinion separate topics, both notable, but that the Koinophilia article has attempted excessively broad and detailed coverage of Averageness and other topics. In that case (if there's reasonable consensus on that) then we should close the merger discussion with "no" as the outcome, and cut down Koinophilia to reduce overlap with the other articles - it can reasonably link to them, summarize them, and state their relevance to itself, but no more. Is that what people would like to do? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the initiative and made the moves as we've discussed (slightly pre-emptive, but not destructive, so hopefully acceptable to all). Ambercritter (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this should avoid a great deal of confusion. Moving the "Physical attraction" section to the Averageness page makes a great deal of sense, as long as no information is lost. The introduction to the Koinophilia article contains enough information and links to direct the interested reader to the "averageness" information that they might be looking for. I notice that the "Rate of evolution" section has been transferred in toto to an entirely new article by that name, and replaced by a very reasonable summary, if the diagram of the fossil record of Homonin evolution could be placed back into this section - without it the words don't really convey the main thrust of the section, and what koinophilia claims to explain.Oggmus (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

" I strongly feel against Wikipedia merging Koinophilia with Averageness . “Averageness” is a very strange and inappropriate title for an article of this nature. I became familiar with Koinophilia after reading: Unnikrishnan M.K. (2009) How is the individuality of a face recognized? Journal of Theoretical Biology. 261 (3), 469–474. doi:10.1016/ j.jtbi.2009.08.011. I have been captivated by the idea ever since, and I have done a fair amount of reading on the subject and related concepts. The Wikipedia article served as a brilliant introduction to the concept, enabling me to explore deeper into the more technical scientific literature. I realised that the evolutionary significance of Averageness can be understood best when the idea of koinophilia becomes clear. Therefore, I would think that Averageness may perhaps be placed under Koinophilia, not the other way round.

I have not come across a single paper that runs counter to the notion of Koinophilia. On the other hand, I have come across several articles that support the idea of Koinophilia, though without attribution. "Daathri (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Daathri

"Koinoplhilia" is not used by anyone to mean anything that "averageness" does not. There is criticism of averageness as a component of evolution that needs to be included, see Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny: Cross-cultural Evidence and Implications [and Comments and Reply] Doug Jones, C. Loring Brace, William Jankowiak, Kevin N. Laland, Lisa E. Musselman, Judith H. Langlois, Lori A. Roggman, Daniel Pérusse, Barbara Schweder and Donald Symons Current Anthropology Vol. 36, No. 5 (Dec., 1995), pp. 723-748 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2744016 J8079s (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we are about agreed that the merger should not proceed, but it seems clear that K. is a possible cause of A., so it is surprising that the entire section on K. should have been removed. The Averageness article certainly needs a brief section explaining K. as a possible explanation, at least. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, you're quite right. In my enthusiasm yesterday evening I removed more than I should have. I have just reinstated a summary on Koinophilia under a new heading which can contain other explanations. Ambercritter (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou so much. We can tweak the summary if need be "in slow time". Meanwhile, since it seems people are pretty much agreed, I shall close down the merger proposal now: the articles stay separate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Expansion of the Explanations section

The "Potential Evolutionary Explanations" section does not reflect the opinions expressed by the workers in this field, as to why the average face is as attractive as it is. I have tried to summarize their interpretations of the phenomenon as completely as possible within the confines of an encyclopedic entry. I hope it finds favor with the workers in this field as it does with the general readership of Wikipedia. Cruithne9 (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Image of an average face

Chiswick Chap and I discussed some time ago obtaining an image of an "average face" to complement the present article. At the time I could find no examples that could be used in Wikipedia, either on Wiki Media Commons, the internet, or from laboratories working on average faces.

But now I have found one that is copyrighted by the "Face Research Laboratory" (at the University of Glasgow, Scotland), but the caption states that it can be used by anyone for non-commercial purposes. I presume that it might therefore be available to be used in Wikipedia.

Contacting one of the researchers I was informed that the image we want for the Averageness article is already freely available at [[2]].

But I have no idea how to upload it on to the Wiki Media Commons if it is not "my own work". The jargon, acronyms and abbreviations are totally beyond me! Would anyone with the necessary know-how mind uploading that image for Wikipedia, please? Then, either letting me know, or insert it into the article yourself, with the appropriate adjustment of the text.

It will make a huge improvement to the Averageness article.

Cheers Oggmus (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

An NC license isn't enough for Wikipedia, we need unrestricted access like CC-by-SA 3.0. Perhaps the researcher would give us that for a small version of the image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The researcher has agreed to upload the composite photograph herself. Let's see how that goes. Oggmus (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)