Brutal [STUDY] Voice attractiveness is correlated with facial symmetry [Voicepill]

[Gymcelled]

If you're ugly, you're statistically more likely to sound like shit. We really can't catch a break.
Even the sound waves that escape your mouth are ugly

Are there vocal cues to human developmental stability? Relationships between facial fluctuating asymmetry and voice attractiveness | Request PDF

Request PDF | Are there vocal cues to human developmental stability? Relationships between facial fluctuating asymmetry and voice attractiveness | Fluctuating asymmetry (FA), deviation from perfect bilateral symmetry, is thought to reflect an organism's relative inability to maintain stable... |...

www.researchgate.net

Fluctuating asymmetry (FA), deviation from perfect bilateral symmetry, is thought to reflect an organism's relative inability to maintain stable morphological development in the face of environmental and genetic stressors. Previous research has documented negative relationships between FA and attractiveness judgments in humans, but scant research has explored relationships between the human voice and this putative marker of genetic quality in either sex.

Only one study (and in women only) has explored relationships between vocal attractiveness and asymmetry of the face, a feature-rich trait space central in prior work on human genetic quality and mate choice. We therefore examined this relationship in three studies comprising 231 men and 240 women from two Western samples as well as Hadza hunter-gatherers of Tanzania. Voice recordings were collected and rated for attractiveness, and FA was computed from two-dimensional facial images as well as, for a subset of men, three-dimensional facial scans.

Through meta-analysis of our results and those of prior studies, we found a negative association between FA and vocal attractiveness that was highly robust and statistically significant whether we included effect sizes from previously published work, or only those from the present research, and regardless of the inclusion of any individual sample or method of assessing FA (e.g., facial or limb FA). Weighted mean correlations between FA and vocal attractiveness across studies were −.23 for men and −.29 for women. This research thus offers strong support for the hypothesis that voices provide cues to genetic quality in humans.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

I have a Chad voice tbh. Voice is gigacope.
No voice for your face.

 

[tulasdanslos]

Retard humdrum voice, one eyelid droopier than the other.
Seems legit.

 

[Gymcelled]

I have a Chad voice tbh. Voice is gigacope.
No voice for your face.

All the study says is that there's a correlation between looks and voice. It doesn't say anything about voice making up for looks. And obviously since it's a correlation there are (many) outliers. It's just a general tendency

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

All the study says is that there's a correlation between looks and voice. It doesn't say anything about voice making up for looks. And obviously since it's a correlation there are (many) outliers. It's just a general tendency

I know, just added my point on top of yours though.

 

[Deleted member 19546]

Of course, warped face = warped airways = voice is affected

 

[Gymcelled]

I know, just added my point on top of yours though.

I wasn't too sure since the other day you said that you think your mental faculties may be getting worse
My apologies shouldn't have doubted you

Of course, warped face = warped airways = voice is affected

Could be that or just in general bad genes come in a package.

@soymonkcel see you on saturday

 

[Haywire]

i sound like a low T retard on drugs.

@ Blacktarpill has high T mogger voice he ttrys to hide since i exposed him

 

[TheBasedCel]

I have a Chad voice tbh. Voice is gigacope.
No voice for your face.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

I wasn't too sure since the other day you said that you think your mental faculties may be getting worse
My apologies shouldn't have doubted you

Oh yeah, well when I'm foggy brained I'll make sure to double and triple read posts so I can do my best to understand.

 

[Gymcelled]

Bump ngl

 

[mNFwTJ3wz9]

The correlation is absolute shit lmao. The relation is barely there.
If anything it shows it's pretty independent.

 

[Gymcelled]

View attachment 365195
The correlation is absolute shit lmao. The relation is barely there.
If anything it shows it's pretty independent.

A .23 to .29 correlation is about the same as the correlation between crime and poverty which no one denies tbh.

 

[mNFwTJ3wz9]

Pic related what what

Spoiler: Code

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
x = np.random.normal(50, 20, 240)
y = np.random.normal(3.5, 0.7, 240)
plt.scatter(x,y)
plt.xlim([0,120])
plt.ylim([1,6])
plt.show()

looks like

 

[ionlycopenow]

Even when I was on xbox live all the female gamer whores would straight up insult me and show clear disinterest. Even in the fucking voice you give away you're non NT and ugly

I've had dudes tell me a foid told him "I don't like this dude you're with" when we were in a party together on call of duty

 

[Deleted member 4159]

Of course. If a face is symmetrical, the vocal chords and throat most likely are. There is a reason why men with subhuman faces are more prone to developing sleep apnea.

 

[mNFwTJ3wz9]

A .23 to .29 correlation is about the same as the correlation between crime and poverty which no one denies tbh.

Well you need to have several considerations before you take a study that shows data like this seriously, especially with subjective data and correlations that look like shit when actually graphed out.

If you take the data from the previous graph and use the

Spoiler: code

coeffs = []
for i in range(10000):
x = np.random.normal(50, 20, 250)
y = np.random.normal(3.5, 0.7, 250)
valid = np.where(((x>0)*(x<120)*(y>1)*(y<6)))
x = x[valid]
y = y[valid]
coeffs.append(np.corrcoef(x, y)[0,1])

plt.hist(coeffs,bins = 30)
plt.ylabel('Number')
plt.xlabel('Coefficient')
plt.plot()

to test correlation, it seems like 0.07 - 0.1 error in correlation

However if you look at the study and see that they used people from different races in the study

We therefore examined this relationship in three studies comprising 231 men and 240 women from two Western samples as well as Hadza hunter-gatherers of Tanzania.

If you add 50% split between races, and one of the races is 1 std deviation different from the other (pretty much expected)

Spoiler: Code

race = np.where(np.random.normal(0, 1, 250)>0)
x = np.random.normal(50, 20, 250)
y = np.random.normal(3.5, 0.7, 250)
x[race] += 20
y[race] += 0.7
valid = np.where(((x>0)*(x<120)*(y>1)*(y<6)))
x = x[valid]
y = y[valid]
plt.scatter(x,y)
plt.xlim([0,120])
plt.ylim([1,6])
plt.show()

And after running it 10000 times and checking the correlation for each run :

Spoiler: Code

coeffs = []
for i in range(10000):
race = np.where(np.random.normal(0, 1, 250)>0)
x = np.random.normal(50, 20, 250)
y = np.random.normal(3.5, 0.7, 250)
x[race] += 20
y[race] += 0.7
valid = np.where(((x>0)*(x<120)*(y>1)*(y<6)))
x = x[valid]
y = y[valid]
coeffs.append(np.corrcoef(x, y)[0,1])

plt.hist(coeffs,bins = 30)
plt.ylabel('Number')
plt.xlabel('Coefficient')
plt.plot()

There's your 0.2 correaltion

 

[Gymcelled]

Well you need to have several considerations before you take a study that shows data like this seriously, especially with subjective data and correlations that look like shit when actually graphed out.

If you take the data from the previous graph and use the

Spoiler: code

coeffs = []
for i in range(10000):
x = np.random.normal(50, 20, 250)
y = np.random.normal(3.5, 0.7, 250)
valid = np.where(((x>0)*(x<120)*(y>1)*(y<6)))
x = x[valid]
y = y[valid]
coeffs.append(np.corrcoef(x, y)[0,1])

plt.hist(coeffs,bins = 30)
plt.ylabel('Number')
plt.xlabel('Coefficient')
plt.plot()

to test correlation, it seems like 0.07 - 0.1 error in correlation

View attachment 365203
However if you look at the study and see that they used people from different races in the study

If you add 50% split between races, and one of the races is 1 std deviation different from the other (pretty much expected)

Spoiler: Code

race = np.where(np.random.normal(0, 1, 250)>0)
x = np.random.normal(50, 20, 250)
y = np.random.normal(3.5, 0.7, 250)
x[race] += 20
y[race] += 0.7
valid = np.where(((x>0)*(x<120)*(y>1)*(y<6)))
x = x[valid]
y = y[valid]
plt.scatter(x,y)
plt.xlim([0,120])
plt.ylim([1,6])
plt.show()

View attachment 365206

And after running it 10000 times and checking the correlation for each run :

Spoiler: Code

coeffs = []
for i in range(10000):
race = np.where(np.random.normal(0, 1, 250)>0)
x = np.random.normal(50, 20, 250)
y = np.random.normal(3.5, 0.7, 250)
x[race] += 20
y[race] += 0.7
valid = np.where(((x>0)*(x<120)*(y>1)*(y<6)))
x = x[valid]
y = y[valid]
coeffs.append(np.corrcoef(x, y)[0,1])

plt.hist(coeffs,bins = 30)
plt.ylabel('Number')
plt.xlabel('Coefficient')
plt.plot()

There's your 0.2 correaltion
View attachment 365207

Why would there be an error in their correlation though?

 

[mNFwTJ3wz9]

Why would there be an error in their correlation though?

Their correlation is fine, there's nothing wrong with their numbers. It's just there's a underlying variable (race) and that the standard deviations are large (which masks it to the naked eye) and that only the studies showing some correlation tend to be published (if your study shows 0 correlation, then it is scrapped), also P-hacking (Not sure if it applies here).
either way, I'm inclined to believe their study has no/very little merit just looking at the graphs and finding that I can't really see a good line of best fit.

 

[Gymcelled]

Their correlation is fine, there's nothing wrong with their numbers. It's just there's a underlying variable (race) and that the standard deviations are large (which masks it to the naked eye) and that only the studies showing some correlation tend to be published (if your study shows 0 correlation, then it is scrapped), also P-hacking.

Aaah yeah I didn't even check what the SD was like. Plus survivor bias yeah maybe.

I really can't find too much on voices that isn't already on the blackpill wiki unfortunately, thought i found something potentially interesting

 

[muharremabi]

I always knew it. Due to your shitty palate which is caused by facial recession, your voice becomes weak and you develop a voice thats more different and feminine than your peers. I always had comments like "why does your voice sound so weird, i can't even understand what you are saying"

 

[mNFwTJ3wz9]

Aaah yeah I didn't even check what the SD was like. Plus survivor bias yeah maybe.
I really can't find too much on voices that isn't already on the blackpill wiki unfortunately, thought i found something potentially interesting

There are a lot of shitty studies about subjective things like this.
I've never really thought about the voicepill.

 

[Gymcelled]

There are a lot of shitty studies about subjective things like this.
I've never really thought about the voicepill.

I don't expect the voicepill to be that important because of my own life experiences and because of the incels on youtube like on faceandlms' streams or those who have youtube channels. The voices don't seem particularly subhuman on average to me, but obviously that's not a serious assessment

 

[CaveManSupreme]

Bullshit my voice is great but symmetry is through the floor

There's your 0.2 correaltion
View attachment 365207

Lots of numbers but you agree with my opinion so you're right.

 

[dirtykombatcel]

Voice doesn't matter much but mine is shit anyway.

 

[FinnCel]

Incel is born to suffer

 

[Gymcelled]

(wtf, I didn't realize I wasn't following you )

New info and gr8 thread, as always

I wouldn't say bad genes come in a package, but rather that a single bad gene can bring you a package of bad phenotypes. Think about cyclops babies: the deficit of Shh (a protein being called Sonic hedgehog will never cease to amaze me ) not only causes the baby to be born with only one eye... but the baby is also born dead, with systemic failures here and there.

Again, 1 bad gene = phenotypical catastrophe.

Followed you back tho
Also i think you might have nailed it with the part in bold

 

[Gymcelled]

I'm flattered

Yeah, I see the "bad genes come in a package" being said a lot here. I'm not denying you can be dealt a bad hand and get several bad genes or whole chromosomal alterations/deletions, but if you get such a bad hand, it is a product of hazard. Because else, what "force" makes bad genes come together?

Spoiler

None

Truth is we are frail creatures, and a minimal unbalance can be disastrous.

Well by come together I mean one causes the others because they're all linked to some extent. If your lower third is really bad you're more likely to have bad cheekbones, wimp skull, bad teeth orientation, bad submental area etc. The growth or lack of development of one part of the face usually influences other parts of your face.

So maybe if you're ugly/asymmetric this impacts your airway in some capacity leading to this weak correlation?

Likewise if you're a manlet you're probably going to have a small frame and there's a slight correlation of a smaller penis too. Of course some manlets have thick bones, thick joints, a big dick etc but the odds are against them.

I'd say things like balding kind of stand on their own though.

 

[IamJacksBrokenHeart]

Fulltimeloser exposed

 

[andinocel]

I have a Chad voice tbh. Voice is gigacope.
No voice for your face.

Same. Basically the only thing I have received compliments for is my voice

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

Same. Basically the only thing I have received compliments for is my voice

I've never even been complimented on that because I'm just that ugly.

 

[Words2_live_bye]

tfw ugly manlet AND have a childish voice