Maybe the average professionally photographed in good lighting person…
Also white; even though Europe and North America only have around 15% of the world population.
(I would try to find a better estimate of population of “white” people, which is not even a well-defined group, in the world; but I cannot find it.)
The actual average probably looks much more Asian, given where the largest population centres are.
What’s the data set from? It will at least be skewed towards people most posting to the social media networks scraped for training data. I wouldn’t be surprised if foreign language social media was substantially underrepresented in the data set because the programmers putting it together weren’t as familiar with it.
I see fuck and marry, but where’s kill?
I suppose in reality it’s the average of people who post pictures online and are willing to display it publicly, and probably weighted slightly by how many pictures of a person are uploaded (e.g. if someone has uploaded tens of thousands of pics of themselves - a celebrity or whatever - they will throw the average slightly towards their own face). Assuming the sample set is something like: all of social media photos of a person’s face.
People in the comment seems to not understand that it doesn’t mean average on the “scale of beauty/attractiveness”. But averaged features. Like if you merge all nose shapes of a million person you get this nose, ect.
It was tested already several years ago that people tend to like faces made by merging a lot of faces together and “averaging” them. Most of the time rating them more attractive than the individual faces used.
I don’t find the source anymore… I’ll check better later.
People in the comment seems to not understand that it doesn’t mean average on the “scale of beauty/attractiveness”. But averaged features. Like if you merge all nose shapes of a million person you get this nose, ect.
It more likely means ‘like faces that were called average in the dataset’ rather than an actual average.
