Perfect symmetry equals perfect beauty.

Perfect symmetry equals perfect beauty. It doesn’t — and chasing it often leads to distortion, not enhancement.

Dr. Harry Singh

Dr. Harry Singh Author - UK's No1 Aesthetic Mentor

It doesn’t.

Here’s The Nonsense The Industry Loves To Push…

You’ve heard it. You’ve probably said it. That beauty = symmetry. That your job as an injector is to “restore balance.” That faces should be corrected to match. That asymmetry is a flaw.

You know where this idea comes from? The same place as the thigh gap and the duck face: pop-culture pseudo-science and a bad reading of Da Vinci.

We’ve taken the Golden Ratio and turned it into the Golden Excuse to justify overfilling, overcorrecting, and overcharging.

Result? Zombie clones with one purpose: to please the grid on Facetune.

Reality Check: Symmetry Is A Marketing Myth, Not A Clinical Target

Let’s dismantle this drivel with actual evidence, shall we?

1. Faces are naturally asymmetrical. That’s what makes them human.

Want a perfectly symmetrical face? Great. Flip half of someone’s face in Photoshop and mirror it.

You’ll get a result that’s objectively horrifying—uncanny valley stuﬀ. In a 2007 study from Evolution and Human Behaviour, people preferred faces with mild asymmetry over perfectly symmetrical ones. Why? Because our brains crave realism, not robotics.

2. Mild asymmetry is more attractive—and more trustworthy.

A 2011 paper in Perception found that slightly asymmetrical faces were rated as more approachable and emotionally expressive than symmetrical ones.

Perfect symmetry can be unsettling. Think: mannequins. Serial killers. Politicians in HD.

When you iron out every irregularity, you strip a face of its soul.

3. Overcorrection causes distortion, not “enhancement.”

This is the kicker. When injectors chase symmetry—trying to match one brow to the other, balance every nasolabial, align every jaw corner—they usually end up overfilling one side.

Cue migration, puﬃness, volume stacking, and that classic “left cheek sitting on a pillow” look.

Oh, and by the way: No one in the history of patients has EVER said, “I’d love more medial cheek volume on my left zygoma to match the shadowing on the right.”

They say: “I want to look fresher.” They mean: “Don’t make me look weird.” You give them: “Balance.” They walk out looking like a statue made of marshmallow.

Truth Bomb: Stop Trying To Fix What Was Never Broken

Let me be very clear. Asymmetry is NOT a pathology. It doesn’t need “correcting.” It doesn’t mean your injecting hand was possessed by Satan.

It means your patient is alive, human, and hasn’t been butchered by someone who learned aesthetics from a TikTok trend called “Golden Ratio Queen.”

Want to know what actually makes someone attractive?

None of which you can measure with callipers.

The Better Framework: Functional Aesthetics

Try this instead:

Look at how the face moves. Smiles, squints, resting expressions— these tell you where volume matters and where it doesn’t.
Balance the perception, not the angles. Ask yourself: “What draws attention here?” Often it’s shadow, not shape.
Inject to blend, not to match. The goal isn’t to make the sides identical. It’s to make them cohesive.
Respect individuality. That slight eyelid ptosis? It’s part of who they are. That uneven lip movement? Charming. Don’t erase character in the name of faux “perfection.”

So... Stop Being A Symmetry Soldier And Start Being A Face Whisperer.

You’re not Michelangelo sculpting some clinical Venus. You’re a modern day aesthetic coach helping people express the best version of their fac —not some Photoshopped fantasy built for grid likes and ego validation.

Perfect symmetry is a myth. Clinical excellence isn’t about correction—it’s about discernment.

And maybe, just maybe, we need fewer injectors trying to fix faces……and more who know when to leave them alone.

References

Rhodes, G., et al. "Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty." Psychological Science, 2005.
Zaidel, D. W., & Hessamian, M. "Asymmetry and attractiveness: Facial beauty and occlusion." Perception, 2011.
Fink, B., & Penton-Voak, I. "Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness." Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2002.

Get Free Updates

Subscribe for free updates on blog posts, success stories, and growth insights!