Face versus height study

[Reckless Turtle]

This commonly referenced study in spaces discusses "looks" (not specifically facial attractiveness) and height:

http://home.uchicago.edu/~hortacsu/onlinedating.pdf

In the monetary value analysis, height tends to be a stronger indicator than looks (to women) in terms of monetary value, but the study only showed average values for ten percentile groupings for looks:

However, in contact initiation, women respond much more favorably to looks than height:

 

[Deleted member 13754]

Ooh a new topic, face vs height

 

[Deleted member 5786]

Dnr but i mog everyone at 5'9 its best compact height @subhuman incel @N1666

 

[mortis]

only face matters. op is 5'5 tho just to mention.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

only face matters. op is 5'5 tho just to mention.

OP is 6'1. That's irrelevant to the study results though.

 

[ifyouwannabemylover]

I see so many busted af looking tall guys get women that I'm really starting to think height is more important. especially because good looking men are so rare it's just be tall and you're set it seems.

 

[mortis]

OP is 6'1. That's irrelevant to the study results though.

yeah im joking. if you are a zoomer or young person then you must be 6 ft plus.

 

[Alibaba69]

retards don't realize height is sexually attractive, a socioeconomic indicator etc
height is part of your looks retards it signals good genes

 

[khvirgin]

I see so many busted af looking tall guys get women that I'm really starting to think height is more important. especially because good looking men are so rare it's just be tall and you're set it seems.

I once saw a tiktok "men don't even need to be attractive, they just to be tall and caring"
brutal

 

[Alibaba69]

saying height is attractive is not denying the blackpill faggots
its literally part of your looks

 

[volcelfatcel]

An entire part of our brain is made to pump dopamine when we see an attractive face.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

This is all you need to see. It's be Chad or you're just genetic waste. The difference between every level is small except for the 96th percentile (Top 4% of men). It's not even 80/20 anymore, it's 96/4.

Negligible difference between 5'11" and 6'5". Being 6'1" is the same as 6'5".

This study just proves face >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> height.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

This is all you need to see. It's be Chad or you're just genetic waste. The difference between every level is small except for the 96th percentile (Top 4% of men). It's not even 80/20 anymore, it's 96/4.

View attachment 1341079

Negligible difference between 5'11" and 6'5". Being 6'1" is the same as 6'5".

View attachment 1341076


This study just proves face >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> height.

The study tends to show that manlets get knocked increasingly harder the shorter they are. But if you're below average in "looks," you're already unattractive to women so it really doesn't matter how much uglier you are. Severe manletism poses a threat to beta provider security whereas ugly guys can still function as beta providers.

 

[Cidre enjoyer]

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Being 6'1" is the same as 6'5".

6'5 has more monetary value to women than 6'1 though; somewhere around $40k per year.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

6'5 has more monetary value to women than 6'1 though; somewhere around $40k per year.

That monetary study is so fucking cope. It was a verbal study. When a girl imagines someone who's 5'4" she imagines an ugly balding janitor. When she imagines someone 6'5" she thinks of some Chad hunk. Same when you imagine a girl with big tits and small tits. The girl with big tits in your head will have the same or better face. It doesn't account for differences in real life.

I'd love to see a study where they take men of equal and different facial percentiles and compare them to different heights. I guarantee 6'5" normie is like 5% more attractive than 5'9" normie and gets blown out of the water by high tier normie of any height.

 

[Deleted member 5786]

That monetary study is so fucking cope. It was a verbal study. When a girl imagines someone who's 5'4" she imagines an ugly balding janitor. When she imagines someone 6'5" she thinks of some Chad hunk. Same when you imagine a girl with big tits and small tits. The girl with big tits in your head will have the same or better face. It doesn't account for differences.

I'd love to see a study where they take men of equal and different facial percentiles and compare them to different heights. I guarantee 6'5" normie is like 5% more attractive than 5'9" normie and gets blown out of the water by high tier normie of any height.

it gets exponentionally better once you are htn

 

[Deleted member 7725]

it gets exponentionally better once you are htn

I see no data for that.

 

[Deleted member 5786]

I see no data for that.

@subhuman incel said this

 

[Biiyo03]

I see so many busted af looking tall guys get women that I'm really starting to think height is more important. especially because good looking men are so rare it's just be tall and you're set it seems.

@LooksOverAll im not the only one who thinks that way

 

[Deleted member 7725]

@LooksOverAll im not the only one who thinks that way

I see so many busted af looking tall guys get women that I'm really starting to think height is more important. especially because good looking men are so rare it's just be tall and you're set it seems.

Yeah because you guys probably don't see that many 6'5"+ guys around. I know tons of them and the only ones getting girls are the ones who are high in PSL, and they only get the same level girls that a guy 5'11" with their face would get.

None of the guys I've seen on campus who are my height get any girls that they wouldn't get otherwise. The LTN and below guys are incel and the normies are in cuck LTRs or incel too.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

I'd love to see a study where they take men of equal and different facial percentiles and compare them to different heights.

I would too.

This is one of the few height studies I've seen that actually shows benefits up to as tall as 6'6. The 6'5-6'6 range has high variance in the contacts graph too.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

I see no data for that.

The data support this since the 95th percentile is still technically HTN.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

I would too.

This is one of the few height studies I've seen that actually shows benefits up to as tall as 6'6. The 6'5-6'6 range has high variance in the contacts graph too.

Yeah but variance is cope. Say the study uses 1,000 women and 2 of them are height fetishists for one reason or another. They still have enough options to find a tall htn+ and not an incel/ltn/normie.

 

[Deleted member 7725]

The data support this since the 95th percentile is still technically HTN.

Cope. 95th percentile is Chad.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Cope. 95th percentile is Chad.

Ironic.

Normie: 50th percentile
HTN: 84th percentile (1/6.3) (1 SD)
Chadlite: 98th percentile (1/44) (2 SD)
Chad: 99.7th percentile (1/740.8) (3 SD)
GigaChad: 99.997th percentile (1/31,574.4) (4 SD)

 

[.👽.]

Yeah because you guys probably don't see that many 6'5"+ guys around. I know tons of them and the only ones getting girls are the ones who are high in PSL, and they only get the same level girls that a guy 5'11" with their face would get.

None of the guys I've seen on campus who are my height get any girls that they wouldn't get otherwise. The LTN and below guys are incel and the normies are in cuck LTRs or incel too.

this forum will never learn man.

 

[eduardkoopman]

imo:

Deformed face > Manlet > Face > Height

 

[SexuallyAbusive]

height > face > frame

 

[Deleted member 7725]

height > face > frame

 

[Deleted member 7580]

View attachment 1341131

Muh face

face is literally last thing girls care about… I once saw a 5’8 Brad Pitt look alike get rejected by a Becky in club …. Same chick was making out with a 6’2 normie few mins later lol

 

[Looks234]

Muh face

face is literally last thing girls care about… I once saw a 5’8 Brad Pitt look alike get rejected by a Becky in club …. Same chick was making out with a 6’2 normie few mins later lol

NT and height mog hard

 

[Reckless Turtle]

@Reckless Turtle

I am so sorry OP. You shared a study to discuss it and the comments is full of 200 different “well once I saw a 6ft2 normie get a girl” “but my 6ft5 friend is incel”

People cling to their anecdotes.

 

[Diremeyer]

This commonly referenced study in spaces discusses "looks" (not specifically facial attractiveness) and height:

http://home.uchicago.edu/~hortacsu/onlinedating.pdf

In the monetary value analysis, height tends to be a stronger indicator than looks (to women) in terms of monetary value, but the study only showed average values for ten percentile groupings for looks:

However, in contact initiation, women respond much more favorably to looks than height:

Thanks for posting, but the study is weak. Match outcomes are «simulated» and it's from 2006. The one clear finding is to succeed you oughta be in the top 5 percentiles in looks.

Height preferences is hard to get a feel for online. It's a number. Women know men lie. It's something different towering over a girl at a club than her reading some digits online. Her preferences IRL are different. And like @LooksOverAll points out, it seems like the cut off isn't as sharp and brutal: if you're tall enough you qualify for the next round.

Ironic.

Normie: 50th percentile
HTN: 84th percentile (1/6.3) (1 SD)
Chadlite: 98th percentile (1/44) (2 SD)
Chad: 99.7th percentile (1/740.8) (3 SD)
GigaChad: 99.997th percentile (1/31,574.4) (4 SD)

If you're 1/44, you're likely to be better looking than the best looking dude in any school class. You're doing great if you're that good looking. If there's a school with 180 pupils, boys and girls, there's like two dudes who fulfill that two standard deviations criteria.

 

[ChristianChad]

This is all you need to see. It's be Chad or you're just genetic waste. The difference between every level is small except for the 96th percentile (Top 4% of men). It's not even 80/20 anymore, it's 96/4.

View attachment 1341079

Negligible difference between 5'11" and 6'5". Being 6'1" is the same as 6'5".

View attachment 1341076


This study just proves face >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> height.

Irl tho height can be a massive halo, especially in short countries

 

[Deleted member 15099]

6'2 chad will outslay 6'6 chadlite

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Match outcomes are «simulated» and it's from 2006.

What do you mean; that it's online dating information?

If you're 1/44, you're likely to be better looking than the best looking dude in any school class. You're doing great if you're that good looking.

Yes, Chadlites will be attractive.

 

[Diremeyer]

What do you mean; that it's online dating information?

Yes, Chadlites will be attractive.

I skim read the abstract so you may be right. It's this passage I noted «In order to examine the quantitative importance of the estimated preferences in the formation of matches, we simulate match outcomes using the Gale-Shapley algorithm and examine the resulting correlations in mate attributes», so it's not like a tinder match only a theoretical match, but again, I only skim read.

HTN, chadlite, chad, gigachad etc etc if you're among the 2 % most good looking guys you're past the «attractive enough for interaction» barrier and other things come into play. Things like game in the broad sense, and personality and such. Personality such a dark triad, extroversion, charisma, convo skills, setting up things so you more easily score, things of that nature. That's what matters when you've reached the top two percent imo.

 

[randomvanish]

View attachment 1341131

 

[Cidre enjoyer]

Why the rage
Are you a manlet

 

[randomvanish]

Why the rage
Are you a manlet

yes 5'9

 

[wollet2]

I once saw a tiktok "men don't even need to be attractive, they just to be tall and caring"
brutal

caring is a code word for girthy dick
brutal

 

[wollet2]

Muh face

face is literally last thing girls care about… I once saw a 5’8 Brad Pitt look alike get rejected by a Becky in club …. Same chick was making out with a 6’2 normie few mins later lol

rea;. this forum is retarded

 

[human304]

This commonly referenced study in spaces discusses "looks" (not specifically facial attractiveness) and height:

http://home.uchicago.edu/~hortacsu/onlinedating.pdf

In the monetary value analysis, height tends to be a stronger indicator than looks (to women) in terms of monetary value, but the study only showed average values for ten percentile groupings for looks:

However, in contact initiation, women respond much more favorably to looks than height:

this study was published in 2006 and the study is based on data set collected in 2004. it was based on how online dating behavior was like in year 2004.