If I make a rating chart

What system should it be

  • x/10 (Normie scale)

    Votes: 19 41.3%
  • x/8 (PSL system)

    Votes: 27 58.7%

  • Total voters
    46
Meter Autism GIF - Meter Autism Peak GIFs
 
Imo theres no point for having a "no one can be here" tier. 8 is 7.5 with personal preference.

But legit scoring system. Mods should sticky it when you're done making it so everyone on this site could finally have a universal raring guide. @Framletgod @FaceandHFD @Lorsss
why using subjective numbers (everyone has a personal opinion on average PSL and maximum PSL) whe we could just measure the attractivity with percentiles?
incel: mogs 30% of population
normie: mogs 50% of population
upper tier normie: mogs 70% of population
chad: mogs 90% of population
 
  • +1
Reactions: BigBoy, Deleted member 3043 and Deleted member 2205
why using subjective numbers (everyone has a personal opinion on average PSL and maximum PSL) whe we could just measure the attractivity with percentiles?
incel: mogs 30% of population
normie: mogs 50% of population
upper tier normie: mogs 70% of population
chad: mogs 90% of population
yeah it sounds good
 
why using subjective numbers (everyone has a personal opinion on average PSL and maximum PSL) whe we could just measure the attractivity with percentiles?
incel: mogs 30% of population
normie: mogs 50% of population
upper tier normie: mogs 70% of population
chad: mogs 90% of population
That sounds good, but people are expecting a number when they come on here for rates. We should do the PSL number system alongside this. So people can use either. And the numbers can correlate with their word equvalent. For example: 3=incel, 4=normie, 5=uppertier normie, etc.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 2205
why using subjective numbers (everyone has a personal opinion on average PSL and maximum PSL) whe we could just measure the attractivity with percentiles?
incel: mogs 30% of population
normie: mogs 50% of population
upper tier normie: mogs 70% of population
chad: mogs 90% of population
Going back to this, I believe this is what's wrong with r/truerateme's scale right now. 40%-80% of the population look like they're the same psl level. It would be hard to rate people accurately in percentiles, which is why the 2nd and 3rd quartiles are all around the number rating 4.

Ex: I see deviations from 6.5 to 8 on a certain udespost on that sub,just because people didn't want to "overrate"
 
The normie scale seems like cope because you guys eep rating peopel 7/10 when they would be rated 9 or 10s by us.

The earlist rating scale used by blackpilled forums was decibil based. 9/10 was 90th percentile, 8/10 was 80th percentile, and so on.
I feel like this would be a shit way to rate because only 1 out of every 5 guys I see is what I consider good looking. And it would be stupid to have numbers 5-8 be all used to describe people who area normie tier.



The PSL system seems to be the best one. Here is my slightly revised version of it from judging people in burgerland.

8/8 - Universal attraction (No one can be here)

7/8 - Model (1 in a 1000) [Very rare]
6/8 - Chad (1 in 20) [5% of population]


5/8 - Upper normie/Chadlite (1 in 5) [20% of population]
4/8 - normie [50% of population]
3/8 - lower normie [20% of population]
incel

2/8 - ugly [5% of population] incel
1/8 - deformed [Very rare] incel


The 3 range is often used to describe incels or the bottom 10%. But it needed to encroach a more broad audience in to make decimal rating a lot easier.

Ex:
If lower tier normie was 10%, and normie was 20%, then rating people between the 2 (eg. a 3.5) will be confusing because each nomber away from normie tier doesn't hold the same value (6 would be more common than 3 even though both are 1 away)
This means more people who were originally 4 would be a low 3.

If everone accepts the values provided, I will work on making a new rating scale with help from the community. The ideal rating system has to be 1 standerdized system to avoid autists rating incorrectly, or confusing the poster.
The integration of having only 3 values (3,4,5) as 90% of the population allows for easier rating, and more effective use of decimals (.25, .5, etc.)
Good start but there is too much of a jump from 6 to 7. You can solve this by replacing the 8 with a 9, leaving more room
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 2205
I see. Would 30% of men really be incel tier? That seems very high.
Also I didn't want to say chadlite because I cringe everytime someone says it when seriously rating someone, but yeah I'll add that in.
most men definitely deserve incel tier, Incel should be judged by if a model would settle for them or not
Going back to this, I believe this is what's wrong with r/truerateme's scale right now. 40%-80% of the population look like they're the same psl level. It would be hard to rate people accurately in percentiles, which is why the 2nd and 3rd quartiles are all around the number rating 4.

Ex: I see deviations from 6.5 to 8 on a certain udespost on that sub,just because people didn't want to "overrate"
Yes percentiles dont really work for rating facial features. Most people look like complete shit that percentile is too lenient on them
chad: mogs 90% of population
Thats not accurate because if you factor in places like africa and south asia and south america the vast majority of people dont even come close to western standards
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 2205


Looks like the final graph was removed from the article but it's from a verified Washington Post reporter's account

Is there any info on the married vs unmarried by gender. It could be more of marriage dying causing inceldom if it' roughly equal
 
I see. Would 30% of men really be incel tier? That seems very high.
Also I didn't want to say chadlite because I cringe everytime someone says it when seriously rating someone, but yeah I'll add that in.
Ya there is a study around 28-30% of men age 18-35 don't have sex.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 2205
Ya there is a study around 28-30% of men age 18-35 don't have sex.

I would probably attribute this stat to the popularity of hookup apps like Tinder among women. It's not that Tinder has necessarily created "more" Chads -- it's just that the app has increased their exposure by making more women aware of the actual existence of Chads who may reside within a particular radius (e.g., 20 miles, 50 miles, etc.). Prior to Tinder, a Chad may have lived just 20-30 minutes away from a girl, but in the pre-Tinder days, she would've had practically no way of knowing he existed if she hadn't already been aware of his existence. Now, however, she not only knows that particular Chad exists -- she also now realizes that she can afford to hold off on having sex with any other, less attractive males in favor of the Tinder Chad.

So basically, Tinder has led to a much greater exposure to/awareness of Chads among girls and has resulted in them realizing that they can pull MUCH better-looking guys than they might've had to settle for in the past... which means that the less-attractive guys they would've hooked up with in the past are now incels.
 
  • +1
Reactions: MammothActuary and Deleted member 3043
Actual Chads are rare as fuck. Definitely 1% of the male population at the very most.
 

Similar threads

Htncel1
Replies
7
Views
431
Arzenic
Arzenic
shredded4summer
Replies
44
Views
1K
highcheekbones
highcheekbones
Zeekie
Replies
66
Views
2K
bigwilly10
bigwilly10
RealFunkyFlamingo
Replies
27
Views
227
RealFunkyFlamingo
RealFunkyFlamingo
Jatt
Replies
36
Views
1K
menas
menas

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top