• Stop coping, and start posting. Register an account in order to gain full access to Lookism's features.

FWHR is life

lono

Banned
Joined
Jul 4, 2015
Messages
2,604
Reputation
16
The fWHR king is back with new and old information on how this little known facial metric predicts everything from how sexy you are to how financially successful you'll be.

fWHR is based on the amount of pubertal testosterone you have. Testosterone is the hormone that's responsible for such things as extroversion, status striving, mating ability, dominance, etc.

fWHR is the one physical metric that is directly correlated with testosterone levels. fWHR is more correlated with Testosterone than muscles, height, masculinity, and any other physical measure. fWHR literally = testosterone.



fWHR was only discovered in the last few years but in that short amount of time we've found that fWHR is correlated with such things as dominance, aggression, short term attraction, fighting ability, financial success, trustworthiness, status, etc.


Men with high fwhr are better fighters when all other factors such as bodyweight and training are taken out of the equation:


http://************/uploads/imgur/cso4LRW.png


FWHR is directly correlated with financial success:

[font=Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif]Firms whose male CEOs have wider faces (relative to facial height, also known as FWHR) achieve superior financial performance. The average male facial width-height ratio (based on lots of studies) is 1.88[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif]

Researchers have theorized that innate personal traits are related to leadership success. Although links between psychological characteristics and leadership success have been well established, research has yet to identify any objective physical traits of leaders that predict organizational performance. In the research reported here, we identified leaders' facial structure as a specific physical trait that correlates with organizational performance.
Specifically, we found that firms whose male CEOs have wider faces (relative to facial height) achieve superior financial performance. Decision-making dynamics within a firm's leadership team moderate this effect, such that the relationship between a given CEO's facial measurements and his firm's financial performance is stronger in firms with cognitively simple leadership teams.
[/font]


FWHR, not masculinity, is correlated with dominance and aggression:


[font=Lato, 'Myriad Pro'][size=small][font=Lato, 'Myriad Pro']Recently, associations between facial structure and aggressive behaviour have been reported. Specifically, the facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) is thought to link to aggression, although it is unclear whether this association is related to a specific dimension of aggression, or to a more generalized concept of dominance behaviour. Similarly, an association has been proposed between facial masculinity and dominant and aggressive behaviour, but, to date, this has not been formally tested. Because masculinity and fWHR are negatively correlated, it is unlikely that both signal similar behaviours. Here, we thus tested these associations and show that: (i) fWHR is related to both self-reported dominance and aggression; (ii) physical aggression, verbal aggression and anger, but not hostility are associated with fWHR; (iii) there is no evidence for a sex difference in associations between fWHR and aggression; and (iv) the facial masculinity index does not predict dominance or aggression. Taken together, these results indicate that fWHR, but not a measure of facial masculinity, cues dominance and specific types of aggression in both sexes.[/font][/font][/size]
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #2

lono

Banned
Joined
Jul 4, 2015
Messages
2,604
Reputation
16
Techno Viking said:
you never left brotha

I did. I had my account deleted on that other piece of shit site. This place is 10x better
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #4

lono

Banned
Joined
Jul 4, 2015
Messages
2,604
Reputation
16
Machiavellian said:
Time to wake up everyone here who denies the power of fWHR

fWHR controls 30% of a mans attraction for short term relationship. This is the single biggest factor.
 

Sociopath1983

Regular
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
1,819
Reputation
3
all these bullshit studies have been contradicted by other studies. It's all cherry picking bullshit done by quacks looking for funding for more bullshit studies. A fwhr of 2.0 is ideal for looks both male and female but its caused by good genetics/development. Not testosterone.


http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091208/full/news.2009.1131.html

There are so many contradicting studies on testosterone's effects. Coping faggots and coping ethnics should all be burned alive. Only handsome men should be allowed to live.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7

lono

Banned
Joined
Jul 4, 2015
Messages
2,604
Reputation
16
LarryBoi said:
Welcome back, boiii.

Sup bro


Sociopath1983 said:
all these bullshit studies have been contradicted by other studies. It's all cherry picking bullshit done by quacks looking for funding for more bullshit studies. A fwhr of 2.0 is ideal for looks both male and female but its caused by good genetics/development. Not testosterone.


http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091208/full/news.2009.1131.html

There are so many contradicting studies on testosterone's effects. Coping faggots and coping ethnics should all be burned alive. Only handsome men should be allowed to live.



There's no contradiction, bro. FWHR is testosterone and testosterone is everything.
 

Anakind

Champion
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
12,639
Reputation
35
Sociopath1983 said:
all these bullshit studies have been contradicted by other studies. It's all cherry picking bullshit done by quacks looking for funding for more bullshit studies. A fwhr of 2.0 is ideal for looks both male and female but its caused by good genetics/development. Not testosterone.
How does this refute the fact that it's highly influenced by T and DHT?
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2015
Messages
645
Reputation
3
Anakind said:
Sociopath1983 said:
all these bullshit studies have been contradicted by other studies. It's all cherry picking bullshit done by quacks looking for funding for more bullshit studies. A fwhr of 2.0 is ideal for looks both male and female but its caused by good genetics/development. Not testosterone.
How does this refute the fact that it's highly influenced by T and DHT?

I for one got a dom brow ridge, deep voice, above average muscle tone without needing to work for it from the start of puberty, and higher adult T yet but got a bad fWHR. Observing pictures growing up my midface stretch during braces. My oral posture has been pushing the bottom teeth forward and no upward action at all. The bottom teeth perhaps pushed my top to move forward so I got a projected maxilla which is usually not observed in longer faces.

Meanwhile, we got plenty of feminine men who got good good midfaces despite high voices, soft baby face development, no facial hair, etc.

fWHR is usually associated with more test, but there is just a little more to it.

Midface and fWHR are different. Midface does not factor how much the face widens past your eyes which is a more pronounced feature in men compared to women which makes testosterone more applicable. What I am suggesting is midface is negatively influenced by poor developmental conditions and that the face elongation as a result leads to a weaker fWHR. I wonder if morphing a bunch of faces to share the same midface ratio would result in a more accurate portrayal of pubertal test. Lets say mFWHR for morphed.
 

Anakind

Champion
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
12,639
Reputation
35
Machiavellian said:
Meanwhile, we got plenty of feminine men who got good good midfaces despite high voices, soft baby face development, no facial hair, etc.

fWHR is usually associated with more test, but there is just a little more to it.

Nobody said otherwise.
 

lono

Banned
Joined
Jul 4, 2015
Messages
2,604
Reputation
16
Machiavellian said:
Anakind said:
Sociopath1983 said:
all these bullshit studies have been contradicted by other studies. It's all cherry picking bullshit done by quacks looking for funding for more bullshit studies. A fwhr of 2.0 is ideal for looks both male and female but its caused by good genetics/development. Not testosterone.
How does this refute the fact that it's highly influenced by T and DHT?

I for one got a dom brow ridge, deep voice, above average muscle tone without needing to work for it from the start of puberty, and higher adult T yet but got a bad fWHR. Observing pictures growing up my midface stretch during braces. My oral posture has been pushing the bottom teeth forward and no upward action at all. The bottom teeth perhaps pushed my top to move forward so I got a projected maxilla which is usually not observed in longer faces.

Meanwhile, we got plenty of feminine men who got good good midfaces despite high voices, soft baby face development, no facial hair, etc.

fWHR is usually associated with more test, but there is just a little more to it.

Midface and fWHR are different. Midface does not factor how much the face widens past your eyes which is a more pronounced feature in men compared to women which makes testosterone more applicable. What I am suggesting is midface is negatively influenced by poor developmental conditions and that the face elongation as a result leads to a weaker fWHR. I wonder if morphing a bunch of faces to share the same midface ratio would result in a more accurate portrayal of pubertal test. Lets say mFWHR for morphed.

What you're describing is masculinity. Masculinity is negatively correlated with fwhr.
 

heilsa

Rotter
Joined
Jun 29, 2015
Messages
3,693
Reputation
101

smellysocks

Megastar
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
8,589
Reputation
260
I don't think the correlation is perfect.

It's retarded to say that just because just because one guy has a fwhr of 1.9, that every single man that has ever existed with a fwhr >=1.91 automatically has higher T than that guy. What about stunted paedomorphic faces? Genetic differences between anthropological races? Lifestyle variances that have an effect on T?

It's the same for height and dick size, skull and neck size etc.

Otherwise fwhr is definitely pretty legit as a rule of thumb.

Masculinity is a complex metric and there will be variances within different anthropological categories. I think the best method would be a fwhr comparison of certain populations.


Also, in the bottom pic, the left and right pics have roughly the same FWHRs.. so there goes that. Although the right image has more health indicators, bigger jaw, browner skin, thicker eyebrows, better brow ridge, thicker neck, less tear trough hollowing


 

ketzdinio

Rotter
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Messages
3,583
Reputation
9
holy chit is this the OG fwhr thread??

you posted more on sluthate tho right?
 

igesio

Banned
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
1,851
Reputation
3
ketzdinio said:
holy chit is this the OG fwhr thread??

you posted more on google.com tho right?

of course, but all of Lono's posts got deleted, including his account

[font=Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://tinyurl.com/nwo87y6[/font][/SIZE]
[font=Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I WILL MURDER ALL SLUTHAT ADMINS  :rage: :rage: :rage: :rage: [/font]
 

Browmog

Regular
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
2,280
Reputation
1
Sociopath1983 said:
all these bullshit studies have been contradicted by other studies. It's all cherry picking bullshit done by quacks looking for funding for more bullshit studies. A fwhr of 2.0 is ideal for looks both male and female but its caused by good genetics/development. Not testosterone.


http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091208/full/news.2009.1131.html

There are so many contradicting studies on testosterone's effects. Coping faggots and coping ethnics should all be burned alive. Only handsome men should be allowed to live.



:clap:
 
Top