The moment i measured my lower third height..

paulus

Banned
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Messages
11,179
Reputation
21
was the moment i lost all hope

 

paulus

Banned
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Messages
11,179
Reputation
21
Pinhead said:
same brother

at least its fixable with genio or implants

I need cw double jaw with downgrafting bestie
 

paulus

Banned
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Messages
11,179
Reputation
21
Pinhead said:
u wont even tell anyone ur measurement, ur just a mentally ill fraud who thinks he deserves 99% in everything

srsly wtf mane

Too embarassed to post dem stats
 

paulus

Banned
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Messages
11,179
Reputation
21
TuxedoMask said:
"Influence of lower facial height changes on frontal facial attractiveness and perception of treatment need by lay people" by Selin Kale Varlık ; Evren Demirbas; Metin Orhan

Materials and Methods: Frontal facial silhouettes of a man and a woman with normal lower facial height values (male: 81.5 mm; female: 70.5 mm) were modified by increasing and decreasing their lower facial heights in steps of 1 mm to obtain frontal images with different lower facial height alterations ranging from +6 mm to -6 mm for each sex. A panel of 100 lay people scored each silhouette’s attractiveness on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and also indicated whether they would seek treatment



According to Arnett and McLaughlin mean values of lower one-third facial height are 71 +/- 3.5 mm for females and 81.1 +/- 4.7 mm for males. The current study was based on these values, and the results revealed that the images that had the LFH normal values determined by Arnett and McLaughlin received the highest scores from the raters. [...] 
This result illustrates that Arnett and McLaughlin normal values can be used at the planning stage of the treatment, but in order to achieve esthetically pleasing results, the value range should be kept to +/-2 mm, which is lower than the +/-4-mm range recommended by Arnett and McLaughlin. Furthermore, more than 70% of the raters stated that they would seek treatment when the change in the LFH was +/-4 mm, which supports the conclusion that the value range should not be as broad +/-4 mm. [...]
In this study, there was a preference for the increased LFH over the decreased LFH in male images when the change exceeded 2 mm [...]

CONCLUSIONS
-The hypothesis that LFH has no influence on frontal facial attractiveness and the treatment need perception of lay people was rejected. 
-The findings of this study can be used to determine the minimum changes required in LFH so that an esthetically satisfying result can be achieved. 
-When the LFH values fall outside of the 66.5–74.5- mm range for females and outside of the 77.5–85.5- mm range for males, the majority of the raters report that treatment is needed.




IT IS OVER SHORTFACED BRETHREN. THIS IS OUR ETERNAL REMINDER THAT 100% OF PEOPLE THINK A 75.5MM LOWER THIRD REQUIRES TREATMENT FOR SHORTFACEDNESS.
THE IDEAL LOWER FACE HEIGHT IS 82.5MM! JUST LOL IF YOU THOUGHT FOR EVEN A MOMENT THAT ONE CHIN WING IS ENOUGH.




Bonus round:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11982450

[font=arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif]RESULTS:[/font]
[font=arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif]The odds of having a psychotic disorder were increased in those with wider skull bases (odds ratio [OR], 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.17), smaller lower-facial heights (glabella to subnasal) (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44-0.75), protruding ears (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.05-2.82), and shorter (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.37-3.82) and wider (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.43-3.65) palates. Compared with controls, those with psychotic disorder had skulls that were more brachycephalic. These differences were found to distinguish patients with nonaffective and affective psychoses from controls.[/font]


[font=arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif]@"Pinhead" @"paulus" [/font]


 

paulus

Banned
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Messages
11,179
Reputation
21
True Romance said:
paulus said:
was the moment i lost all hope


This is a tough measurement to take; I get anywhere between 74 to 82 mm depending on angling. If I try it exactly like in the picture I get like, what, 78 mm? I find it hard to believe because I've never considered myself to have a strong chin or jaw.

Everythin under 82mm is subhuman

See study i reposted above
 

Dolly Buster

Champion
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
13,617
Reputation
534
You are measuring something wrong.

The text says 81.5 mm frontal is normal, but the OP chart says 73.3 mm diagonal is average.
 

Gucci_Gang

Banned
Joined
Jun 26, 2016
Messages
1,655
Reputation
3
What exactly constitutes Chin/Jaw Growth besides, Puberty, Testosterone, HGH, and Genetics?

I've heard in a Study, that Mastication Increases the Size of the Chin in proportion to the mandible, and we already know what Falimceling does.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Dolly Buster

Champion
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
13,617
Reputation
534
Pinhead said:
then you're in the same boat as me, you're fucked.

No, I think the numbers are wrong.

You're comparing yourself to a false statistic, so you're bummed for no reason.
 

Dolly Buster

Champion
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
13,617
Reputation
534
@"Pinhead" @"paulus"

So do you guys recognize that this statistic is wrong, and it should say 70 instead of 80 ?

It means your lower thirds are normal, and not 1 cm short.
 
Top