This is a good example of the type of scientific caveats you need to worry about when you run an experiment. Chances are, your experiment will tell you something, but it won't tell you the full story, and if you drill down further you'll discover something else that's more accurate but probably a less sensational headline.
The essence of the problem is in the generalizing of the conclusion. The experiment will rigorously demonstrate something utterly abstract and then the experimenter will make huge intuitive leaps when interpreting the results.
I have found this to be the most overwhelmingly common flaw with experiments reported by mainstream journalism, particularly those in the field of psychology.
The experiment will rigorously demonstrate something utterly abstract
Actually, the "average faces are more beautiful" claim hung up on something very specific (skin tone). I think it's small details that aren't controlled for that often invalidate the more abstract conclusion of psychology experiments.
I don't think you can make this observation from these two faces. There appear to be differences in terms of hair and eye color as well. Plus, the facial hair isn't as visible in the smoothed-out face. I may be being pedantic in pointing the second point out, but I still think it says that there's more involved here than just the skin.
Not to mention that the skin color appears to me to "dull" some of the sharper features of the face by making them less noticeable. I think a case can be made that skin can have an enhancing effect on an average face, but I don't think this is enough to write facial structure out altogether.
yeah, well does "attractiveness" of a 2d picture of a face that looks like it was computer generated (the second male picture) as compared to an actual person's face actually correlate to physical attraction in the real world? I don't think you're being overly pedantic.
-g_an_m(1-32)-s.jpg){kind=link}
-s_an_m(1-32)-g.jpg){kind=link}
