Science is wrong! dont get me wrong she isn't ugly and she's certainly above average but there are lots of people out there that look better that her.
I think there is some truth to the 'perfect face' as some proportions look better than others but I dont think you can measure how good looking someone is. Plus there are other things that influence how good looking someone is such as their nose, eyes, mouth, skin colour, hair colour.
It seems strange that now science has taken possession of the word 'perfect'. I feel that is completely subjective, and you can not define the perfect face with maths and science and ratios - perfect has a different meaning for everyone.
"contestants were judged without make-up" ... she's clearly wearing mascara and blusher
Whilst she is a very pretty girl, I wouldn't say she has the "perfect face" Trying to use science to define what is physical perfection is ridiculous. People like different things. Personally, I think Emma Watson and Natalie Portman have truely beautiful faces.
I'm only being critical because she is meant to have a 'perfect' face, of course she is really pretty! But one of her eyes is slightly smaller (although does everyone have one smaller eye? ) and her lips are huge/chodey - perfection anyway, as people have said, is an intangible concept that's probably impossible to find because of how subjective beauty is - personally I go for people who have a more unique look
When are they going to learn that beauty isn't measurable or mathematical.
I could drive the starship enterprize through that hole in her lips. Strong plucked eyebrows also, she probably has a monobrow if it wasn't maintained. Pale skin could do with a tan. She's also wearing blusher and there's definitely some **** on her lips.
this is a perfect example of why beauty isn't mathematical or scientific...she looks average