halfeclipse said:
Average as in you can see an example of this negative trait to x level of severity in a reasonable chunk of the population.
my previous comment takes into account the severity and degree of commonality already. Again, it's also about quantity, trait type and facial balance. If those things are out of whack, bam, ugly person. Not rare.
halfeclipse said:
Given that most people won't have any severe examples of a negative trait, [creating an unattractive person is] doable but it requires you to take an extraordinary number of possible features and tweak them towards the negative
no, no it does not. Please stop trying to engage in hyperbole. You're taking to an artist who actually knows what they're doing. While there are a multitude of variables on a person's face (most of which theoretically could be negative), It only takes about 2-5 substantially negative traits in the normal range, without any positive traits to balance it out. You're also failing to take into account that different kinds of traits are more off putting, regardless of their severity. You seriously don't seem to know what you're talking about here. It's like you WANT to make it so that, unless a person has some kind of physical abnormality, it's rare that they can be viewed as less than attractive. That's simply not the case.
halfeclipse said:
and even then she wouldn't be an example of the average person (average as in the measure of central tendency not average appearance) simply because of the number of negatives.
and yet we're not trying to make an example of the average person. Good god, why do you keep bringing this up? Are you trying to say that OP is requesting too large a volume of something that is too rare to be required for equal representation? Are you making a comment about Alyx? Are you actually saying it's virtually impossible to make someone ugly and average at that same time (no shit). This comment makes no sense in context to my previous conversation and the comment you quoted me with.
halfeclipse said:
My point is this:
1. The distribution of appearance is a Gaussian function. Lots of people who sit somewhere between 4-6 out of 10, far less who trend towards a 2-3 or 7-8, very few 1s or 9s and practically no one who's a 0 or 10.
yes, I'm aware of how averages work. Unfortunately, that's not what we were talking about here. As an integral part of your point, you've done a horrible job presenting it up until now.
halfeclipse said:
2. Average is still pretty damn attractive
no it's not. At least, not based on the hotness scale most guys seem to adhere to. Pretty damn attractive would be like a 7.5 or something. Average (as in 5 out of ten) is "okay looking" to "not necessarily ugly". Perhaps vaguely attractive with enough make up or whatever.
halfeclipse said:
Below average is still going to be at least somewhat attractive.
No it's not. You can have degrees of ugly. There are plenty of people in this world I would not bang but wouldn't call hideous either. Once you start hitting the "4" range it's just a matter of how much alcohol you would need to consume (paraphrasing in brospeak there).
halfeclipse said:
Again using the x/10 scale, 3 or lower is where you'll find genuinely unattractive and at that point you're at least one standard standard deviation from the mean, maybe two.
I'd say 4 is getting closer to that point, given the potential range that exists. and if we're talking about most guys, anything below is a six is no longer considered "attractive". The problem is that you're conflating how difficult it is to "create" a physically unattractive person and how common they are. The other problem is that you're trying to apply standard deviations to a scale which has no actual fixed "average". You're using a scale based on levels of attractiveness, not actual averages of appearances. People say "average", but they mean medium to okay looking. Plain looking. Etc. For all we know, a rating of 4 in the eyes of the public could be the true "average" in terms of what the average person actually looks like. This is especially possible when you take into account all the different ethnic variations and an age range of 18-45.
halfeclipse said:
Provided videogames don't swing excessively to the opposite extreme, you won't find unattractive people (female or male) that often simply because unattractive people don't happen that often.
This sounds like a point directed at the OP. Why you would quote me about it? I have no idea, since I was making a point about how Alyx is "above average" before you quoted me. Are you trying to say because Alyx is just moderately pretty she falls into the "completely average" range? If so, I don't buy it. I also happen to think you're wrong about the occurrence rate of "unattractive" people.