Theory Male Attractiveness (Face) is NOT Normally Distributed

What Distribution More Closely resembles the faces of People You seen?


  • Total voters
    225
mulattomaxxer

mulattomaxxer

NEED £40,000 TO ASCEND.
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Posts
4,611
Reputation
8,403
timothee chalamet and Ronaldo aren’t that gl. Many guys on their looks level outside.
Status halo. I agree with you these guys are overrated. Timothee is recognised as a "medium ugly" but ronaldo is just considered good looking. Ronaldo is about the same level as the good looking guys you see on a night out. I often see people at the same looks level as chalamet. They aren't ugly but I guarantee that if you gave a 4.5PSL+ looksmax user the same level of fame as these guys they would get fawned over. This just proves the importance of being facially average or not subhuman.

If these niggas weren't famous and posted on looksmax:

"Nice eyes and good body but your a recessed dog and a brown eyed mutt. Frame is meh but your look good gymmaxxed. Your a HTN. Bimax and light eye colour contacts should ascend you."
1641650627010
1641651133675
1641651155879
1641651393438


"Bug eyed UEE NCT small chinned cuck. Shit frame and your a skinnyfatcel. Its fucking over for you bro. Your a LTN at best. Hollow cheekbones halo your face. Your NW0 and eboymaxxed so you should seamaxx and run JBW game."
1641650697123
1641651180549
1641651205059
1641651227323


Despite this these guys SMV mog the forum. JFL at looksmax users tbh.
 
forevergymcelling

forevergymcelling

Full-Time Chodemaxxer
Joined
Jul 14, 2019
Posts
7,442
Reputation
42,122
Status halo. I agree with you these guys are overrated. Timothee is recognised as a "medium ugly" but ronaldo is just considered good looking. Ronaldo is about the same level as the good looking guys you see on a night out. I often see people at the same looks level as chalamet. They aren't ugly but I guarantee that if you gave a 4.5PSL+ looksmax user the same level of fame as these guys they would get fawned over. This just proves the importance of being facially average or not subhuman.

If these niggas weren't famous and posted on looksmax:

"Nice eyes and good body but your a recessed dog and a brown eyed mutt. Frame is meh but your look good gymmaxxed. Your a HTN. Bimax and light eye colour contacts should ascend you."
View attachment 1483998 View attachment 1484006 View attachment 1484008 View attachment 1484015

"Bug eyed UEE NCT small chinned cuck. Shit frame and your a skinnyfatcel. Its fucking over for you bro. Your a LTN at best. Hollow cheekbones halo your face. Your NW0 and eboymaxxed so you should seamaxx and run JBW game."
View attachment 1484002 View attachment 1484009 View attachment 1484010 View attachment 1484012

Despite this these guys SMV mog the forum. JFL at looksmax users tbh.
Lol if you think any looksmax user is gonna look the same in a candid vs their frauded photoshopped basement selfies
 
mulattomaxxer

mulattomaxxer

NEED £40,000 TO ASCEND.
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Posts
4,611
Reputation
8,403
I DONT THINK LOOKS SHOULD BE VIEWED AS A DISTRIBUTION. ITS AN UNSUITABLE METHOD TO VIEW LOOKS. WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, LOOKS ARE SOMEWHAT SUBJECTIVE. VIEWING A NON NUMERICAL VARIABLE THROUGH A NUMERICAL DISTRIBUTION IS INCORRECT.

With looks all good looking people will share simillar traits, but ignoring the subjective elements to looks is incorrect. Somebodies 6/10 is somebody else's 8/10. Its like going to a gallery and rating all the paintings on a distribution scale. What makes a one painting an 8/10 and another one a 4/10. Its subjective. Sure if one looks like an OC deviant art and the other is done by a proffesional there will be a clear difference but eventually it will come down to personal preference. Viewing data as a distribution is suitable for things such as height or weight. Looks should be viewed as categorical data.

Lets say you go to mumbai and take 100,000 people. You can view their height and weight as a distribution but what about their looks? The average indian isn't aesthetic. Especially if you view them though a eurocentric lens.

In reality there should only be 3 ways to rate looks. Ugly, Average and Attractive. If I were to develop this further I would make 5 catergories.

>Model - Attractive and Unique.
>Attractive - Attractive but not exceptional. Popular kids at school level of good looking.
>Average - Ordinary person. I would say this is the last catergory where you would be considered attractive. Being neutral is not bad, your just not going to be the "hot person" in your social circle. Your personality matters most here because your looks aren't going to halo you or fail you.
>Unattractive -
These people aren't hideous but they usually look different. Maybe they don't take good care of themselves. Will have a few glaring flaws (fat, ance, balding, short, strange facial feature etc). You see people like this in relationships but they will struggle more in comparison to the average normie.
>Subhuman - Ugly as fuck. They may be hard to look at. Will get hard rejected by love interests. Most commonly deformed or morbidly obese (or both).

This is how I would rate people.
 
chadsmith

chadsmith

Fractalpilled
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Posts
113
Reputation
164
I was thinking about this the other day, and I think the amount of positive skew must be a function of exposure to online dating, social media. As exposure increases the skew increases. I think this has foundations in how action potentials in neurons work, wherein there must be a threshold level of excitatory actions so higher exposure will increase this threshold. This leads to an all or nothing pareto type distribution of attractiveness. Without the confounding variable of increased online exposure I think it's just a slight positive skew, which can be attributed to balding, being overweight.
 
TrestIsBest

TrestIsBest

Eating Finestaride and Adderall for breakfast
Joined
Jul 31, 2021
Posts
1,528
Reputation
1,587
I DONT THINK LOOKS SHOULD BE VIEWED AS A DISTRIBUTION. ITS AN UNSUITABLE METHOD TO VIEW LOOKS. WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, LOOKS ARE SOMEWHAT SUBJECTIVE. VIEWING A NON NUMERICAL VARIABLE THROUGH A NUMERICAL DISTRIBUTION IS INCORRECT.

With looks all good looking people will share simillar traits, but ignoring the subjective elements to looks is incorrect. Somebodies 6/10 is somebody else's 8/10. Its like going to a gallery and rating all the paintings on a distribution scale. What makes a one painting an 8/10 and another one a 4/10. Its subjective. Sure if one looks like an OC deviant art and the other is done by a proffesional there will be a clear difference but eventually it will come down to personal preference. Viewing data as a distribution is suitable for things such as height or weight. Looks should be viewed as categorical data.

Lets say you go to mumbai and take 100,000 people. You can view their height and weight as a distribution but what about their looks? The average indian isn't aesthetic. Especially if you view them though a eurocentric lens.

In reality there should only be 3 ways to rate looks. Ugly, Average and Attractive. If I were to develop this further I would make 5 catergories.

>Model - Attractive and Unique.
>Attractive - Attractive but not exceptional. Popular kids at school level of good looking.
>Average - Ordinary person. I would say this is the last catergory where you would be considered attractive. Being neutral is not bad, your just not going to be the "hot person" in your social circle. Your personality matters most here because your looks aren't going to halo you or fail you.
>Unattractive -
These people aren't hideous but they usually look different. Maybe they don't take good care of themselves. Will have a few glaring flaws (fat, ance, balding, short, strange facial feature etc). You see people like this in relationships but they will struggle more in comparison to the average normie.
>Subhuman - Ugly as fuck. They may be hard to look at. Will get hard rejected by love interests. Most commonly deformed or morbidly obese (or both).

This is how I would rate people.
Great stuff! A lot of people will consider this cope tho, as it goes somewhat against common Black Pill "wisdom"
 
mulattomaxxer

mulattomaxxer

NEED £40,000 TO ASCEND.
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Posts
4,611
Reputation
8,403
Great stuff! A lot of people will consider this cope tho, as it goes somewhat against common Black Pill "wisdom"
Blackpill is true but its so unbelievably overblown. I have seen far to many people that are LTN/Normie that get laid to believe all women are chadsexual. Combine this with the rarity of Chad and I begin to see an issue. Im still getting surgery for my lower third because I believe its worth it but its only over if your actually subhuman.
 
TrestIsBest

TrestIsBest

Eating Finestaride and Adderall for breakfast
Joined
Jul 31, 2021
Posts
1,528
Reputation
1,587
Blackpill is true but its so unbelievably overblown. I have seen far to many people that are LTN/Normie that get laid to believe all women are chadsexual. Combine this with the rarity of Chad and I begin to see an issue. Im still getting surgery for my lower third because I believe its worth it but its only over if your actually subhuman.
Agreed.. I'm seeing a pretty lil Latina rn and she worships me like chad tbh
 
TrestIsBest

TrestIsBest

Eating Finestaride and Adderall for breakfast
Joined
Jul 31, 2021
Posts
1,528
Reputation
1,587
Fuark I am mirin. I literally could not imagine a woman giving me chad treatment. My last rejection was from a woman who wears size 24 clothing :lul::ogre::feelswhy:.
Yeah it was a lucky incidence. She is not a native here (I'm in Germany) and I think I have my "arian" traits going for me (6"4 and blonde, although I have a jew nose :lul:) and a bit of status halo because I'm studying law and dress like it too.
 
Deleted member 14160

Deleted member 14160

12 PSL
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Posts
7,376
Reputation
21,842
I was thinking about this the other day, and I think the amount of positive skew must be a function of exposure to online dating, social media. As exposure increases the skew increases. I think this has foundations in how action potentials in neurons work, wherein there must be a threshold level of excitatory actions so higher exposure will increase this threshold. This leads to an all or nothing pareto type distribution of attractiveness. Without the confounding variable of increased online exposure I think it's just a slight positive skew, which can be attributed to balding, being overweight.
fuark intergalactic iq bro, you should post more. No doubt. looks standards on this forum influenced me hard too.
 
D

Deleted member 5061

Zephir
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Posts
3,053
Reputation
3,969
I was just thinking the other day how "average" looks is actually not even a 5/10, but more like 4.5 out of 10 or even 4/10.

Average looks as in looking like the "vast majority" of men or women out there would indeed be closer to 4/10 than 5/10 which is getting into HTN territory almost.
 
L

leveruis

Bronze
Joined
Dec 21, 2021
Posts
449
Reputation
506
Here’s some more evidence. Women under 29 rate me almost completely average on photofeeler. However, when the algorithm incorporates how they usually rate I end up with a 7/10 on a normie scale.
 

Attachments

  • 90125459-2D61-45DA-AC6E-1479523A6944.jpeg
    90125459-2D61-45DA-AC6E-1479523A6944.jpeg
    451.3 KB · Views: 0
  • D5148632-0505-4F89-827E-303CD7B8ACED.jpeg
    D5148632-0505-4F89-827E-303CD7B8ACED.jpeg
    70.7 KB · Views: 0
Deleted member 17201

Deleted member 17201

Silver
Joined
Jan 13, 2022
Posts
654
Reputation
465
This is hoq humanity was raped when caucasoids killed off the americoids. Ngl feel bad for women
 
antiantifa

antiantifa

Fuck you.
Joined
Jan 14, 2021
Posts
3,216
Reputation
3,805
legit thread
attractiveness isn't governed by free market rules
ur either attractive or ur not, there's nothing more to it
 
LooksOverAll

LooksOverAll

Zephir
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Posts
18,050
Reputation
34,884
Oubre is a giga uber mogger, i've been blackpilled on him several times. Knows the importance of hairstyle and proportions, mirin his ascencion ngl. Quoves studio also have an excellent video on him.

Insane frame, 6'5+, light eyes, lightbrown skin mogger.
View attachment 1479994 View attachment 1479996 View attachment 1479997 View attachment 1480006 View attachment 1480007 View attachment 1480008 View attachment 1480010 View attachment 1480013 View attachment 1480014 View attachment 1480015 View attachment 1480016 View attachment 1480017


JFL at how hard this foid is simping over him @looksmaxxer234 @fogdart @Frank Jack Very nt pheno, excellent harmony, good nt hairstyle @Prettyboy , and good forward growth/coloring.

Oubrepilled so hard, i shake my head in astonishment at the amount of prime young stacies in his comments. SMV of a God looking like that in the NBA at that height.

His frame is not "insane". It's complete dogshit. 190 lbs at 6'7". Basically DYEL.

He's carried hard af by perfect coloring and pheno. Make him white or any other pheno and he'll be htn/Chadlite at best with his features.
 
Last edited:
Deleted member 14160

Deleted member 14160

12 PSL
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Posts
7,376
Reputation
21,842
@Amnesia yo bro since you work a bar in Cali I’m curious, how many guys do you see who would be rated as good looking by our standards
 
Amnesia

Amnesia

Legend
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Posts
13,002
Reputation
72,996
@Amnesia yo bro since you work a bar in Cali I’m curious, how many guys do you see who would be rated as good looking by our standards
no one

I vividly remember whenever I see GL guys, and in the last month I cant think of any that I have seen at the club. I mean most guys are balding or chubby or whatever. Most men after college age are ugly as sin
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 14793

Bronze
Joined
Aug 2, 2021
Posts
474
Reputation
747
I 100% agree, this is EXACTLY what I was talking about. People don’t understand how rare over 5 psl is let alone 6+ psl. Realistically in a 1000 person boy’s school there’s maybe 1 6+ psl person if there even is one, plus psl is rating the face. It’s even rarer to find someone who has a great face with a good height, good frame etc
 
Looksmax25

Looksmax25

IL DUCE
Joined
Oct 26, 2019
Posts
1,224
Reputation
1,469
legit thread
attractiveness isn't governed by free market rules
ur either attractive or ur not, there's nothing more to it

This is VERY true especially in our generation where women aren't forced to settle down. Back in the day being the best looking guy in the bar or at your job was enough... but now a woman can hop on a dating app and find a Gigachad who lives 2 hours away. Bottom line is when they see you they either get horny or not.
 
DarkLoner94

DarkLoner94

28 Yr old KHHV
Joined
Dec 29, 2021
Posts
334
Reputation
173
Interesting thread
 
B

Benjibanks

Gold
Joined
May 25, 2020
Posts
921
Reputation
389
Normal Distribution Implies You See Just as Many Ugly People as Good Looking Ones, which I don't agree with tbh.
First off, this is my rating scale for PSL. You can agree or disagree with the exactness, but allow me ± .25 in digression.

Sub 4 PSL (Normie-ish and Below)
View attachment 1475345

4-4.75 PSL (Normie to HTN)
View attachment 1475349

5-5.75 PSL (Weak Chadlite to Strong Chadlite)
View attachment 1475359
View attachment 1475371

6-7 PSL (Weak Chad to GigaChad)
View attachment 1475361

View attachment 1475373

With a normal distribution with 4 PSL being average, these are the percentiles corresponding:
PSL 4 is equivalent to 50% (50/100)
PSL 5 is equivalent to 84.15% (16/100)
PSL 6 is equivalent to 97.25% (3/100)
PSL 7 is equivalent to 99.87% (1/1000)

These percentiles fall off hard after around the 5.25 PSL mark. Ask yourself, in a university class with 30 males, would 5 of them really be at the level of looks of Timothee Chalamet or Ronaldo (5.5 PSL's) or even Chris Pratt/Harry Styles (5.25)? And PSL 6 is even more absurd, if you went to a highschool of around 2000 kids, of the 1k males, are you really telling me you know 30 students at the looks level of Kelly Oubre, Cillian Murphy, or Siva Kanesweran (all low tier 6 psl's)?
FInally, PSL 7 implies that there are 5 or 6 Atesh Salih/Prime Gandy/ Drago level moggers at every college. Yeah, nah.

Here is the true Distribution:
View attachment 1475424

2 psl is 10th percentile
3psl is 30th percentile
4 psl is 50th percentile
4.5 is 75th percentile
5 is 85-90th percentile
5.5 is 95th percentile
5.75 is 98th
6 is 99.5th
6.5 is 99.99th
7 is 99.9999th

In this distribution, weak chadlites are (15/100), mid level chadlites are 5-10/100 and strong chadlites (Chalamet/Ronaldo) are 2/100.
6 PSL (Zac Effron, Mike Thurston, Amnesia) are 5/1000, and 6.5 PSL (Tyler Maher, Ian Sommerhalder, Salludon) are 1/10 000. Gods like Barrett and Gandy are 1/1 000 000.

My Question to Looksmax: Based on your real life experiences and how many people you've seen, what distribution do Male FACES (not body or other halos) fall into?
I don't think I've ever met someone who is 6 PSL in my Life. Remember, 6 PSL is someone who could be in a mog battle with Zac Effron or Zayn Malik.

@germanlooks @thecel @AscendingHero @EverythingMattersCel @reptiles @forevergymcelling @Amnesia
Indeed this is truly the proper way to rate. I would ask as a matter of curiosity whether you feel there’s much difference in life after achieving a certain level of looks, ie would the 8/9 chad live a notably better/more sexual options open to him in addition to opportunites and trust from others, than say the 7s. Of course I know they will always edge out all competition but I wanted your thoughts on whether it’s notable and how much so. Current I subscribe to the theory that there are leagues/tiers and that once a man is in his tier he can either ascend, descend, or deal with his current strata, in this I do believe it’s possible to live a comparable life to the gigs chad so long as you are close enough to be in his ‘strata’ aka a mid level chad minimum. Also some of the chadlite seemed like they might be chad level but the camera was weird af for those pics.
 
B

Benjibanks

Gold
Joined
May 25, 2020
Posts
921
Reputation
389
Indeed it is hard to realize exactly how far under one is. Truly if another actor acted as well as him he’d be invisibly not only in the dating world of LA but also in the circles that buy one prestige and opportunities in film. Aka he would be playing incels regardless of acting talent. I don’t disregard his talent mind you simply saying that it would be wasted in a non hot body/face
 
Deleted member 14160

Deleted member 14160

12 PSL
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Posts
7,376
Reputation
21,842
Indeed this is truly the proper way to rate. I would ask as a matter of curiosity whether you feel there’s much difference in life after achieving a certain level of looks, ie would the 8/9 chad live a notably better/more sexual options open to him in addition to opportunites and trust from others, than say the 7s. Of course I know they will always edge out all competition but I wanted your thoughts on whether it’s notable and how much so. Current I subscribe to the theory that there are leagues/tiers and that once a man is in his tier he can either ascend, descend, or deal with his current strata, in this I do believe it’s possible to live a comparable life to the gigs chad so long as you are close enough to be in his ‘strata’ aka a mid level chad minimum. Also some of the chadlite seemed like they might be chad level but the camera was weird af for those pics.
Yes there would be precisely because of how much other aspects of life would improve. An 8 or 8.5 will be known as the hottest guy in college or the bar etc and will have no problem getting women.
But the 9 and 9.5s can build status with their looks very easily they tiktok, insta, acting etc. And thus use their looks as a means of livelihood as well.
 
B

Benjibanks

Gold
Joined
May 25, 2020
Posts
921
Reputation
389
Yes there would be precisely because of how much other aspects of life would improve. An 8 or 8.5 will be known as the hottest guy in college or the bar etc and will have no problem getting women.
But the 9 and 9.5s can build status with their looks very easily they tiktok, insta, acting etc. And thus use their looks as a means of livelihood as well.
I suppose my question could be expanded upon. I agree that the better your looks the more options even using it to achieve wealth however would you find it worthwhile to strive only for the pinnacle? I am determining whether it’s worthwhile to achieve simply ‘above average’ or if it’s only worth looksmaxing if you have a reasonable hope of squeezing into the 8 plus category which I honestly do not believe is possible short of strange instances such as your face is damaged and must be repaired to go back to original. Genetics are still going to rule one way or the other
 
L

Lawton88

Zephir
Joined
Apr 28, 2021
Posts
3,405
Reputation
3,129
L9Vu4Zo.png


58% of men are straight up ugly to women while only 19% meet their desired looks requirement. Another 23% of men they can at least tolerate being around without being disgusted by their presence.

The chart that matters when it comes to what females think of males and this should be a decent representation of male looks since average men hadn't gave up on the dating sites when this survey was done.
 
Deleted member 14160

Deleted member 14160

12 PSL
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Posts
7,376
Reputation
21,842
L9Vu4Zo.png


58% of men are straight up ugly to women while only 19% meet their desired looks requirement. Another 23% of men they can at least tolerate being around without being disgusted by their presence.

The chart that matters when it comes to what females think of males and this should be a decent representation of male looks since average men hadn't gave up on the dating sites when this survey was done.
@Biggdink @looksmaxxer234 thoughts?
 
StrangerDanger

StrangerDanger

Turanid Supremacist
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Posts
23,030
Reputation
46,552
I would like to thank @thecel @StrangerDanger And my mentor @alienmaxxer with the advent of my first botb thread. I will shift my research into studying the appeal of Mediterranean and passing men in hopes of discovering an avenue to mog nerdicks
medmaxxing is the only hope for pasty cumskins without angelic pheno
1645345706964
1645345695872


1645345636501
1645345650678
 
Anchor_Ship

Anchor_Ship

Trimax in 2024
Joined
Dec 17, 2021
Posts
6,002
Reputation
7,436
Hu Bing weak chadlite:hnghn:
 
Deleted member 14160

Deleted member 14160

12 PSL
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Posts
7,376
Reputation
21,842
@David Rothschild I believe this is what you are looking for :feelshah:
 
David Rothschild

David Rothschild

Racism is gay
Joined
Feb 18, 2022
Posts
6,386
Reputation
8,764
@David Rothschild I believe this is what you are looking for :feelshah:
I'm really surprised that people here believe that attractiveness is normally distributed.

I wouldn't say it's a positive skew distribution either tbh.
 
heightface

heightface

inshallah ascension
Joined
Dec 6, 2021
Posts
7,080
Reputation
5,996
I'm really surprised that people here believe that attractiveness is normally distributed.

I wouldn't say it's a positive skew distribution either tbh.
Because it is by just higher percentage average you dumb retard
 
sergeant blackpill

sergeant blackpill

Certified Lookism PhD & Licensed SlutHater
Joined
Dec 17, 2020
Posts
2,974
Reputation
4,255
THAT'S BECAUSE PSL IS ASPIE SHUTIN BS. THE ONLY LEGIT RATING IS GL, NOT GL, AND REPULSIVE
DON'T @ ME
true but looks is definitely not following a standard bell curve distribution
 
DrTony

DrTony

Platinum
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Posts
1,245
Reputation
2,302
Without a skew in the distribution, you'd always get the same amount of 2 psl's as 6 psl, which I don't agree with. There are far more repulsive looking people than extremely good looking imo. Changing only the σ without skew wouldn't help that, imo.
Exactly right. You seem to have a statistical background or at least a solid grasp of the basics. I also fundamentally agree with your observation that facial attractiveness is more like a positively skewed distribution than a normal bell curve
 
David Rothschild

David Rothschild

Racism is gay
Joined
Feb 18, 2022
Posts
6,386
Reputation
8,764
. Chico, Gandy and other supermodels mostly got where they at because of luck, they aren’t significantly better looking than models in local agencies throughout Europe tbh
That's a bold claim. Do u have any proof?
 
phukmikehok

phukmikehok

🏴‍☠️*Retired*🏴‍☠️
Joined
May 9, 2022
Posts
416
Reputation
1,105
Normal Distribution Implies You See Just as Many Ugly People as Good Looking Ones, which I don't agree with tbh.
First off, this is my rating scale for PSL. You can agree or disagree with the exactness, but allow me ± .25 in digression.

Sub 4 PSL (Normie-ish and Below)
View attachment 1475345

4-4.75 PSL (Normie to HTN)
View attachment 1475349

5-5.75 PSL (Weak Chadlite to Strong Chadlite)
View attachment 1475359
View attachment 1475371

6-7 PSL (Weak Chad to GigaChad)
View attachment 1475361

View attachment 1475373

With a normal distribution with 4 PSL being average, these are the percentiles corresponding:
PSL 4 is equivalent to 50% (50/100)
PSL 5 is equivalent to 84.15% (16/100)
PSL 6 is equivalent to 97.25% (3/100)
PSL 7 is equivalent to 99.87% (1/1000)

These percentiles fall off hard after around the 5.25 PSL mark. Ask yourself, in a university class with 30 males, would 5 of them really be at the level of looks of Timothee Chalamet or Ronaldo (5.5 PSL's) or even Chris Pratt/Harry Styles (5.25)? And PSL 6 is even more absurd, if you went to a highschool of around 2000 kids, of the 1k males, are you really telling me you know 30 students at the looks level of Kelly Oubre, Cillian Murphy, or Siva Kanesweran (all low tier 6 psl's)?
FInally, PSL 7 implies that there are 5 or 6 Atesh Salih/Prime Gandy/ Drago level moggers at every college. Yeah, nah.

Here is the true Distribution:
View attachment 1475424

2 psl is 10th percentile
3psl is 30th percentile
4 psl is 50th percentile
4.5 is 75th percentile
5 is 85-90th percentile
5.5 is 95th percentile
5.75 is 98th
6 is 99.5th
6.5 is 99.99th
7 is 99.9999th

In this distribution, weak chadlites are (15/100), mid level chadlites are 5-10/100 and strong chadlites (Chalamet/Ronaldo) are 2/100.
6 PSL (Zac Effron, Mike Thurston, Amnesia) are 5/1000, and 6.5 PSL (Tyler Maher, Ian Sommerhalder, Salludon) are 1/10 000. Gods like Barrett and Gandy are 1/1 000 000.

My Question to Looksmax: Based on your real life experiences and how many people you've seen, what distribution do Male FACES (not body or other halos) fall into?
I don't think I've ever met someone who is 6 PSL in my Life. Remember, 6 PSL is someone who could be in a mog battle with Zac Effron or Zayn Malik.

@germanlooks @thecel @AscendingHero @EverythingMattersCel @reptiles @forevergymcelling @Amnesia
Imagine thinking Barrett facially mogs Ian, Tyler...

Ratings and examples in general are way off, all around. Very horrible ratings, even a normie could do better.

The old TRM guide is way off, and all the good examples on the new one are literally cos I and JMB helped.

Imagine thinking these two are 7 PSL's for example, holy fuck, I can't stop laughing.






@greeneyes this guy said you're his daddy and he's your disciple and learned to rate from you. What did you even teach him bruh?
 
phukmikehok

phukmikehok

🏴‍☠️*Retired*🏴‍☠️
Joined
May 9, 2022
Posts
416
Reputation
1,105
jfl

psl ratings are arguably one of the worst rating systems because retards can't even make an agreement upon how rare each value is

what the fuck is the point of rating someone PSL 5 if someone thinks that's 80th percentile and someone thinks it's 90th percentile and yet they're using the same fucking number

using percentiles is obviously the best way to do it, but even then it doesn't matter because autists don't know how to judge men's attractiveness properly anyway

preston made a thread being completely perplexed by lorenzo zurzolo's appeal, claiming he's barely above normie

and we saw all the people losing their minds in the medium ugly tinder experiment threads

if you assert only 1 in a million men are as attractive to women as barrett then you've successfully proven your ratings are meaningless
No rating system here

No moderation

People rating others on their own scales with their own examples

Making up their own beauty standards

Literally just pulling out meaningless shit outta their ass

TRM mogs this place to oblivion for face ratings, at least ratings are more consistent there
Lol if you think any looksmax user is gonna look the same in a candid vs their frauded photoshopped basement selfies
Yeah so people need to be able to do video calls or post videos in motion plus post different pics in different settings like candids etc ; which excludes 99% of the userbase.
 
D

Detona

Vaxx on, mask off.
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Posts
4,717
Reputation
4,091
I think you are right.

I always use normal, standard deviation/distribution theory in rating.
Since most epople, CAN'T even undertand standarddistribution theory.
Let alone, trying to explain"positively skewed distribution.


I NOTICE.
age plays a huge factor.

Where among 19 year old guys; standard deviation might be correct.
In the age 40, about 80% is simply ugly.


By the way. mentioning Timothe Chalamet as Chadlite, I disagree. He a solid Chad, imo.





Timothee Chalamat being thirsted over by literal stray monkeys from Borneo, more at 11.
 
phukmikehok

phukmikehok

🏴‍☠️*Retired*🏴‍☠️
Joined
May 9, 2022
Posts
416
Reputation
1,105
View attachment 1749122
Not unreasonable take at all jfl? even @Biiyo03 @Preston @volcelfatcel @AscendingHero rate him at 7 :feelsuhh:
The rest I just copy and pasted old guides cba to make my own and it wasn't even the point of this post
1656081321396
1656081340264


Im not gonna cherrypick, ill just use best candids. Ian has far better colour contrast (darker PCT brows and light eyes) plus darker colouring. Way more dimorphic and masc. Barret's FWHR is almost too much. And his lower third is short. On no planet does he mog Ian lol. Make a mog battle between their best paparazzi pics if you want. no photoshoot pics.

You really believe he mogs Ian/ Tyler? Jfl tbh. Both mogs Barrett hardcore. I don't even think Barrett is an ugly twink like a lot of people here say. hes chad but youre overrating him hard rn.
 
Deleted member 14160

Deleted member 14160

12 PSL
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Posts
7,376
Reputation
21,842
View attachment 1749126 View attachment 1749128

Im not gonna cherrypick, ill just use best candids. Ian has far better colour contrast (darker PCT brows and light eyes) plus darker colouring. Way more dimorphic and masc. Barret's FWHR is almost too much. And his lower third is short. On no planet does he mog Ian lol. Make a mog battle between their best paparazzi pics if you want. no photoshoot pics.

You really believe he mogs Ian/ Tyler? Jfl tbh. Both mogs Barrett hardcore. I don't even think Barrett is an ugly twink like a lot of people here say. hes chad but youre overrating him hard rn.
yeah He looks better here tbh. idk my preference was comparing where people look their best I never really cared for candids till now
 
phukmikehok

phukmikehok

🏴‍☠️*Retired*🏴‍☠️
Joined
May 9, 2022
Posts
416
Reputation
1,105
yeah He looks better here tbh. idk my preference was comparing where people look their best I never really cared for candids till now
Also worth mentioning Ian had way more longevity. Mogger up until his 40s whereas it's already not lookig good for barrett

and yah i didnt rlly read the thread and looked at the ratings instead. mb. i agree uglier people are ofc more common than gl people.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top