Insights · How it is measured here · refuted

Facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR)what a photo can give, and how we take it.

Width:height with your hairline placed (auto-detected or from your hair-back photo), scored, plus a masculinity axis built from the traits that genuinely separate the sexes.

Why the textbook version needs more than a photo
refuted
Canthion reports
Photographic equivalent

What we report

Width:height with your hairline placed (auto-detected or from your hair-back photo), scored, plus a masculinity axis built from the traits that genuinely separate the sexes.

Why not the clinical number itself

As an individual-level trait indicator, discredited. Kramer (2015) found no sexual dimorphism in fWHR across photographs, 3D scans and direct anthropometry. Kordsmeyer et al. (2022) showed bizygomatic width alone is dimorphic when size-adjusted — the ratio's denominator destroys the signal. Deaner et al. (2012): body weight, not fWHR, predicts aggression in hockey players. Facial expression alone (a brow raise) changes it.

Sources
What we measure instead

Ratios of near-coplanar frontal distances, angles relative to the interpupillary line, and skin appearance — each with an error bar, each against a population you choose. Start an analysis or read the methodology.

How every bone-level measurement is taken here · all insights