The biggest style essence myths

53-year-old Paul Rudd has a shockingly youthful face, and the most youthful-looking style essences are allegedly Gamine and Ingenue—yet Paul has neither essence. He’s an Ethereal Dramatic Classic.

"Paul Rudd" by Mirka23 is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0.

"Paul Rudd 2023 (cropped)" by Eva Rinaldi is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Left: Rudd in 2002 in his early 30s.

Right: Rudd in 2023 at 53 years old.

Given the pervasive association of Gamine and Ingenue with youth, and of Paul’s face with youth, the odds are stacked against his ability to accurately determine his style type.

Nine of the biggest myths that jeopardize Paul’s and everyone’s attainment of visual harmony:

Myth: I look really young for my age, so I probably have Gamine or Ingenue

Reality: many celebrities with no notable Gamine or Ingenue are known for looking young—not just Paul but also Brandy, Jared Leto, Olivia Newton-John, Bianca Lawson, and many, many others.

"File:Bianca Lawson publicity shot.jpg" by Publicity photo owned by Bianca Lawson is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

Romantic Dramatic Bianca Lawson—this photo may have been taken in her 30s, but she still looks about the same today at 44.

What do all of those above-named celebrities have in common? They have either Ethereal or Romantic or both.

Ethereals and Romantics commonly look young

In a figurative sense, Ethereals and Romantics tend to look mature. But in a literal sense, both types commonly have features that biologically imply youth, like large eyes, moderate to very plump lips, and full or curving cheeks.

So from a literal, biological perspective, Ethereals and Romantics actually possess a youthfulness that rivals that of Gamines and Ingenues.

Dramatics and Naturals may also look young

Even types without any of the Gamine, Ingenue, Ethereal, or Romantic essences can appear young for their age. For example, Dramatic Natural Classics like Lucy Liu, Heidi Klum, and Olivia Munn have strong bone structure that’s arguably characteristic of youthful faces (because as we age, bone mass including in our faces decreases).

Factors beyond style essences are highly relevant to age

And obviously factors beyond the style essences, like skin texture, have a strong influence on apparent age.

So, any of the types can look young for their age, and certain types (like Romantic and Ethereal, though you could argue others as well) may tend to look just as, or even younger than, Gamines and Ingenues.

Of course, celebrities do have creative strategies for defying aging. But these are patterns I’ve witnessed in regard to non-celebrities, too.

Myth: I look really friendly and nice, so I probably don’t have Dramatic

Reality: plenty of friendly-looking people have a lot of Dramatic.

Going with the Paul Rudd theme, despite his notable Dramatic, he isn’t considered intimidating in his features or vibe—the masses seem to perceive him as kind and down-to-earth.

Other style essences can dampen Dramatic’s intensity

One reason it’s a myth that people with Dramatic generally look intimidating is that even if you have Dramatic, your other essences may downplay or cancel out Dramatic intimidation.

In Paul’s face, his gentle Ethereal characteristics stand out, like his high forehead, getle brows, and oval eyes. The Ethereal (and Classic) elements of his face are strong enough where he doesn’t appear conventionally intimidating.

So even if you think you look extremely friendly, you may still have Dramatic—your other essences may just downplay its intensity.

Fear is subjective

Another reason people with Dramatic don’t necessarily look intimidating is that the vibes of the essences are partly subjective. This seems especially true when the vibe is related to an emotion like fear, because there’s such large variability in the extent to which people feel fear. And there’s such large variability in the specific triggers for different people’s fear.

So Dramatics may look intimidating to some people but not others. Or in certain contexts but not in others—our facial expressions, mannerisms, and other nonverbal gestures also influence perceptions of friendliness.

Myth: I look intimidating, so I must have Dramatic

Reality: people who can appear really intimidating often have no Dramatic.

One reason is that faces with a lot of Natural tend to have wide, strong, assertive bone structure. On a very highly Natural face, the assertive quality may be so strong that it can read as aggressive.

Examples of Natural faces that may to some people seem intimidating include Mollie King and Selma Blair, who are both Natural Classic. Their faces have a strength that can mimic the powerful Dramatic aura, and what creates this quality is their high amount of Natural.

"IMG_12856.jpg" by Tabercil is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Selma Blair has very strong bone structure but based on my typing isn’t harmonious in sharp Dramatic fashion.

And again, intimidation is partly subjective, so in theory any of the essences can appear intimidating. Like maybe Ingenues are intimidating to some people, because Ingenues look conventionally pretty, and that makes some people nervous.

Myth: I’m really symmetrical, so I probably have Classic

Reality: many celebrities who appear highly symmetrical aren’t harmonious in Classic fashion.

After initially typing Jennifer Lawrence as an Ethereal Dramatic Gamine, I retyped her several times, because I was unconvinced that she didn’t have Classic.

She looks so symmetrical, and her features also have an averageness to them, not appearing especially large or small or uniquely spaced.

But even after retyping, I still don’t think she has Classic, not even a small amount as a fourth essence.

"Dior ads with Jennifer Lawrence, styled by Tiina Laakkonen." by tiinal91 is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Something about Jennifer’s face to me really reads as Classic, despite that I don’t think it’s a significant essence for her. If you’re unconvinced, you could compare her face to Ethereal Dramatic vs. Ethereal Dramatic Classic fashion, or Ethereal Dramatic vs. Ethereal Dramatic Classic celebrities, to see if the addition of Classic increases or decreases harmony.

Classics are more than just symmetrical

Having the Classic essence may in part be about having very specific facial proportions. I don’t know what those proportions would be (maybe for a future post I’ll be extra obsessive and measure the relative distance between the features of Classic faces to see if a pattern emerges). But it does seem that the general arrangement of, for example, Ethereal Classic Gamines’ facial features tends to be different than that of Ethereal Gamines’.

Classics have features of average sizes, shapes, and positions—

—and lots of people who aren’t exactly average are still close to the average.

The example I use is that lots of women who aren’t the average height of an American woman (5’4’’) are close in height to 5’4’’—many, many women are 5’3’’ or 5’5’’. And unless we break out a tape measure, we might not be able to tell that a woman who’s 5’3’’ slightly deviates from the average height just by looking at her.

Similarly, you can’t always tell just by looking that a given face doesn’t have Classic, because to the naked eye, that face may look really symmetrical and proportionate.

If you have Classic, you have a special degree of symmetry and balance to your face. But people who don’t have Classic often still appear very symmetrical and balanced. It’s just that their faces don’t quite fit Classic’s very specific proportions.

Myth: I’m really hot, so I must have Romantic

Reality:

"File:Paul Rudd LF.JPG" by lukeford.net is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5.

Romantics are beautiful, and Romantic features like large curvy turned up eyes and very plump lips are conventionally sexy features in modern American society.

But plenty of celebrities and laypeople who are considered hot and sexy have no Romantic.

Hotness is subjective

Because concepts like “hot” and “sexy” are so based in personal opinion, it can feel imprecise to use those terms as defining characteristics of the Romantic essence, unless you always add the qualifier “conventionally.”

And even then, you can argue that conventional hotness and sexiness means more than just Romantic features, given that strong, straight, angular features are currently popular, and these features aren’t at all characteristic of the Romantic essence.

It’s also possible to have features that are associated with conventional sex appeal but for those features not to be Romantic. For instance—

Myth: I have very full lips, so I probably have Romantic

In reality, the Natural essence is characterized by wide, large shapes, and so having large, full lips can often indicate Natural. More on that here under the subheading “How can Kylie Jenner have plump lips yet have no significant Romantic style essence?”

Plus, Ingenues and Ethereals commonly have full lips, too.

Myth: There are masculine and feminine style essences

Also covered before, but to me, it may be the single biggest myth.

Myth: I can’t pull off curls, so I don’t have Romantic or Ingenue

In reality, you might have a lot of Romantic or Ingenue but still not look your most harmonious in curls, because you overall may have a higher percentage of Dramatic, Natural, Ethereal, Classic, and/or Gamine, none of whom are harmonious in curls.

The same is true for other hairstyles. Like even if you have a lot of Gamine, like you’re 50% Gamine, if you’re also 50% Ethereal, it’s quite possible that a pixie won’t be your most harmonious style. This is because short hair isn’t harmonious on the elongated Ethereal essence. So maybe a chin-length hairstyle will be your best look, because it can read as short enough to flatter Gamine and is more flattering to Ethereal than a pixie.

Any time a style—whether it’s a hairstyle, makeup look, or fashion statement—is fairly extreme and tends to most flatter only one essence, that style won’t necessarily be highly flattering on you, even if you have a lot of that essence.

Myth: using words to argue about what style essences people have is a good way to prove what style essences people have

In reality, accurately typing a face relies on sensory perception rather than rational judgment. It’s visual rather than logic-based and verbal.

So if you’re unconvinced by any of these typings—which would be understandable; many of them seem counterintuitive—you could compare the celebrity’s face back-and-forth to fashion that represents the type you think they have and fashion that represents the type I think they have.

I can sometimes use words to provide evidence of why it may be likely that someone has one type rather than another type, but I can’t really use words to prove that someone is or isn’t a certain type.

Ultimately the only way to know is to compare their face to different styles and see what best harmonizes.

Soon I’ll implicitly endorse this myth—the myth that you can’t ultimately prove your typings with words—by writing many posts about why certain celebrities do and don’t have certain essences, but I’ll probably find a way to justify the hypocrisy.