The Average Faces of Women Around the World

The Average Faces of Women Around the World has published the results of a recent experiment where experimental psychologists at the University of Glasgow in Scotland have combined the faces of women around to world to approximate the "average face" of each country. Using a modern version of the technique that Sir Francis Galton pioneered in the 1800's, multiple images of faces are aligned and composited together to form the final result.

There is already controversy surrounding the results. Some people feel that the average is "too attractive." Part of this is explained by the process. Instead of having a lot of blurry images with undefined features, this method averages the shape of the features before blending the images together. Also when blending, remember that many singular issues are "averaged away." The study also does not reveal how the participants were selected or how large the sample size actually is.

No conclusive evidence, however, on Polish women's propensity for bangs.

average faces of women around the world

[Via 9gag]

Log in or register to post comments


Previous comments

Race does exist, but only as a socio-cultural construct, not a biological one. The categorization of people into races was invented by pseudoscientists who needed excuses for killing and enslaving people who didn't look like them. I do not know where you get your "data" from--(if you have legitimate sources, please post them)--but actual contemporary science has shown that there is more genetic variation within people of the same race than there is between the different racial groups.

Eduardo- congratulations, by stating this: "but actual contemporary science has shown that there is more genetic variation within people of the same race than there is between the different racial groups" and drawing the conclusion that that entirely negates race on biological grounds, you've employed Lewontin's Fallacy, which is well, a fallacy. Read:

There's a bit more to science than mindlessly repeating what your professor-afraid-of-being fired tells you about an unrelated subject in your Sociology 101 class.

¡Oh my god, he put "recent" on capitals, this proves his "recent studies" bullshit is TOTALLY TRUE!

Hahahaha, Preston Wiginton! Give a fool enough time and his true motivation will be revealed. Thanks for the entertainment. You ask what is BS? Look in the mirror, dude.

as a genomics researcher, I call bull on these assertions and your very bad interpretation of them.

You really don't understand genetics and populations, that much is obvious.

so, when can you start digging your grave... since you are "white". I've hope you've started already. OH! And I'll help! While you're at it, jump in, alive. Just sit there and keep posting, while I fill the grave in. :)
(One can only wish.)

... no known for their war-ish ways .. most were peaceful? i dont know i wasnt there.. from observing tribes elsewhere generally they war with a neighbour due to shortage of food to hunt locally, not a great deal more. its not the tribal way.. competing for land is the advent of capitalist greed or i suppose originally feudal greed from a land owner wanting from another land owner.

Why debate with this raging racist? Here is who he is:

Considering all humans evolved in Africa and migrated out (in multiple waves, according to the latest anthropological theories)
, that logic makes anyone not in Africa an immigrant. Your reasoning is flawed in a lot of places. So is your grammar.

That THEORY is believed by very few these days. Even Darwin didn't believe it. Regional Theory is the prevailing theory of the day.

Theories in science are not "believed" they are based on EVIDENCE. And all the evidence and modern antropologycal current indicates that our common ancestor comes from Africa
PD: When Darwin was alive, antropology and discoveries in this area were not advance like today

(English is not my native lenguage, forgive the mistakes)

so there is some truth to the regional theory also then or what the chinese believe that their origins start from Peking Man... you can go here for arguments against Out of Africa.

Sorry, i can only see that this idea is selecting some findings to acomodate them in to their believes and speculations based in a biased viewpoint. I see you defend the concept of races in humans and that is a lack of rigor and taxonomical validity. We only can talk about genotypic and fenotypic variations.

Citing Facebook is more embarrassing than citing Wikipedia, bro.

It's just the other way around, Preston. The out of africa theory gains more and more support. These days a large majority of scholars support it. With every new method science has at its disposal to actually find real answers to such questions, it becomes clearer. One example: genetic markers

But many South American countries have a mixture of European descended peoples, Descendants of African slaves, Indigenous peoples and Metiz@s ("mixed" folks). Also, the United States is not ALL immigrants. Many people were forced to live here and Indigenous peoples are still around.

A similar case for Brazil.

Peru is also very very mixed, all people I know here are white and fair-skinned (even my chinese friends are white and very tall (over 6'1''))
But you see the result, this is because it's an average so they also took people from the jungle and from the highlands and that influenced it.

And what about Brasil?? (and all America...)

brazil is there

Brazil is also made up of immigrants from all over the world. I think the difference is there are more interracial mixing in Brazil such that Brazilian women actually resemble the above picture.

The US is a settler-colonial state, but it doesn't mean that there aren't Indigenous peoples there...

the "settlers" murdered them all

Well, they were kind of killing and eating each other before the "settlers" came to America and introduced civilization to them.

Seriously? You discredit your "name." Chompsky would be disgusted at your comment and think quite the opposite.

Really then please tell me how Cherokees treated other tribes? Cherokees even had black African slaves that they saw as inferior.

My ancestors were neither a violent people, nor a cannibalistic people, you ignorant twit.

If they were Ameri Indian they surely were violent unless they were so isolated they had not competition for resources. Most in North America wre not cannibalistic but most from Mexico south were. They Aztecs and Myans in particular. They each practiced human sacrifice on a regular basis. Where the hell do you people get your education from?

They did practice human sacrifice, usually on prisoners of war, but they would also sacrifice a handful of their own people, who viewed it as one of the highest honors, and the most prestigious way to die, to the point that it was even called the "flowery death." Don't even try to act as if you understand those cultures, or their practices.

Very little cannibalism was going on in North America for one.
The population was over 20 million before settlers came for two.
The societies that thrived for thousands of years on the continent, thrived for a reason. Their societies were very civilized.
The structures of gov were sophisticated and mainly run by women. Womens roles in native society were revered.
What was done to natives in North America was UNCIVILIZED!
Every one had a role in life, no one was left out unless they were shunned by the society as a whole.
Learn some history not what was said while you sat on a knee.

More comments