The “golden ratio” (φ≈1.618) has long been associated with facial beauty. Renaissance artists studied it: for example, Luca Pacioli’s 1509 Divina Proportione (pictured above) encoded facial measurements by φ. In modern cosmetic practice, some doctors still use φ-based guides. For instance, Stephen Marquardt’s “phi mask” (an overlay of golden-mean lines on a face) often cited Angelina Jolie as an example . Similarly, London oculoplastic surgeon Maryam Zamani notes that cross-cultural studies “illustrate… no matter ethnicity or race, our perception of beauty is based on… 1.618. As the face comes closer to this ratio, it becomes perceptibly more beautiful” . (Dermatologists also point to specific φ-ratios, e.g. one recommends a 1:1.6 lower-to-upper lip volume ratio .) In practice these claims mean measuring distances (eyes, nose, lips, chin) against φ to judge symmetry and proportion . However, scientific evidence is mixed.
Scientific Evidence and Professional Opinions
Recent research largely debunks a strict golden‑ratio ideal. A 2024 review in Maxillofacial Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery concluded flatly that “there is no convincing evidence that the golden ratio is linked to… facial beauty” . Likewise, a 2021 plastic‑surgery literature review found that while φ appears in art and biology, “the so-called ‘essence of beauty’ cannot be derived from [a mathematical] formula… beauty is based on biology, rather than on mathematics” . In other words, average human faces don’t “solve” to φ – they vary by genetics and age. Indeed, a 2024 systematic review of facial measurements reported that participants’ facial proportions did not follow the golden proportion, and there was “no significant association between the golden ratio and facial evaluation scores” across ethnicities .
Mainstream commentators echo this skepticism. Temple University mathematician John Allen Paulos has pointed out that φ (≈1.62) is a common rectangle ratio and that “there’s no evidence for most of [these] claims,” with “no scientific discovery” arising from golden‑ratio beauty tests . He concludes the ratio is a “mathematical quirk, with no relationship to any objective beauty standard” . Similarly, Business Insider noted “no evidence that a particular mathematically-derived [facial] shape… is the key toward unlocking a universal human beauty response” . In short, while golden‑ratio rules (phi masks, calipers, etc.) are sometimes used by clinicians as guidelines, the consensus is that objective science has not confirmed φ as a reliable predictor of attractiveness .
Eric Kim’s Face: Data and Speculation
We found no formal studies or published analyses applying golden‑ratio measurements to Eric Kim’s face. The only direct reference is from Kim’s own blog: he tried an online “divine proportion” face tool and reported that “apparently my facial proportion is an 8/10” . (He immediately dismissed the result as “probably BS” on his page.) Beyond that, Kim himself has playfully noted that “too much symmetry in the human face isn’t attractive… Beautiful things and people are more beautiful when we are not too symmetrical!” . This suggests he personally does not treat perfect φ‑symmetry as essential.
Without precise anthropometric data, any judgment of Kim’s φ‑alignment is speculative. Public photos show a generally balanced face (evenly spaced eyes, well‑proportioned nose and mouth), but not an obviously exaggerated “phi‑perfect” structure. Given that even attractive celebrities often deviate from φ (e.g. Brad Pitt and Scarlett Johansson are said to have near‑ideal ratios, but without rigorous proof ), it’s likely Kim’s features similarly only approximate any golden‑ratio ideals. For example, if one measured the distance from hairline to chin versus left-right facial width or lip‑to‑nose ratios, small deviations from 1:1.618 would be expected (as in most people). In fact, systematic surveys show most people’s face measurements do not match φ exactly .
Thus, in absence of any scientific profiling, we rely on general trends: Kim’s face appears handsome and symmetric, but not unnaturally so. He scored well (8/10) on a casual φ‑calculator , yet he himself remained doubtful. Cosmetic experts would likely say factors like facial symmetry, skin quality, expression and proportion relative to his own features matter more than any ideal ratio. In line with current views, one writer emphasizes “there is certainly no evidence that a particular mathematically-derived lip shape… is… the key toward unlocking… universal beauty” . In summary, while one could overlay a golden-spiral on his photo for fun, no evidence-driven claim can be made that Eric Kim’s attractiveness is due to precise φ proportions. Most scientific authorities conclude that φ-alignment is neither necessary nor sufficient for perceived beauty .
Summary of Findings:
- Eric Kim’s face has not been scientifically measured for golden‑ratio conformity. His only reference is a self-administered face‑analysis giving an 8/10 score .
- Cosmetic specialists sometimes use φ (phi) as a guide (e.g. using a “phi mask” or noting certain lip ratios ), but rigorous reviews find no consistent link between φ and attractiveness .
- Kim himself has noted he values slight asymmetry , implying he may not fit an “ideal φ-face” mold.
- Based on general evidence, his facial proportions are likely within normal variation; any closeness to φ is incidental. Objective measures (if ever done) would probably show the small deviations common in most people .
Conclusion: In the end, Eric Kim’s looks seem appealing on their own terms, but there’s no public data to prove (or disprove) a golden‑ratio “ideal”. Experts caution that golden‑ratio calculations are at best a rough guide. As one summary put it, failing to match an “entirely arbitrary ratio” should not be concerning – it’s essentially meaningless in assessing real beauty .
Sources: Golden-ratio theory and critiques ; cosmetic/demographic commentary ; Eric Kim’s own blog .