People are still debating this shit

[reptiles]

I thought this was already common sense even most women you ask agree these days looks are everything but on reddit every 1 seems to go retarded

 

[Akhi]

you can immediately tell that this post was made by an org user

 

[reptiles]

you can immediately tell that this post was made by an org user

Nah if your on .org for long enough this isn't the black pill even shit head normies know looks are everything what shit head normies don't know is that whores literally only want the top quintile in genetics in 1 aspect be it body face or height or dick size what the previous statement states is common sense the latter of what most .orgers state is not common sense.

if we plug this into an equation the total female attraction is linked to the formula

A = (w1 * P + w2 * B + w3 * J) - (w4 * Dx * C) + (w5 * G)

• A represents total female attraction.
• P represents the individual's phenotype score as described earlier.
• B represents societal beauty standards, trends, and universals.
• J represents the robustness of the individual's jawline.
• Dx represents differentials in locations x.
• C represents cross-validation by groups of women.
• G represents other genetic and psychological factors influencing attraction.
• w1, w2, w3, w4, and w5 are weighting factors that allow us to assign different degrees of importance to each component. These factors can vary depending on individual preferences, cultural factors, and historical context.
• We can introduce additional sub-components for societal beauty standards, such as facial symmetry, skin quality, and body proportions, each with their respective weighting factors and scoring systems.
• For the robustness of the jawline (J), we can add parameters related to facial geometry, such as the angle of the jaw, chin projection, and overall facial structure.
• To account for differentials in locations (Dx), we can introduce geographical, cultural, and temporal indices that dynamically adjust based on the context. These indices can be highly complex and data-driven.
• Cross-validation by groups of women (C) can be extended to consider multiple groups with varying preferences, each contributing to the overall attraction score with its own weighting factor.
• The factor G encompasses a wide range of genetic and psychological factors, such as genetic compatibility, pheromone perception, and individual psychological traits, which can all influence attraction. These factors can be further decomposed into sub-components with their own weighting factors.
• We can introduce temporal dynamics, where attraction changes over time due to shifts in cultural norms, trends, and historical events. This would require the introduction of time-dependent functions and historical data.
• Incorporating machine learning and neural network models to adapt the weights and parameters over time based on real-world data, thereby creating a self-adjusting and evolving model of attraction.

overall I'm shocked people still debate this topic

 

[Akhi]

Nah if your on .org for long enough this isn't the black pill even shit head normies know looks are everything what shit head normies don't know is that whores literally only want the top quintile in genetics in 1 aspect be it body face or height or dick size what the previous statement states is common sense the latter of what most .orgers state is not common sense.

if we plug this into an equation the total female attraction is linked to the formula

A = (w1 * P + w2 * B + w3 * J) - (w4 * Dx * C) + (w5 * G)

• A represents total female attraction.
• P represents the individual's phenotype score as described earlier.
• B represents societal beauty standards, trends, and universals.
• J represents the robustness of the individual's jawline.
• Dx represents differentials in locations x.
• C represents cross-validation by groups of women.
• G represents other genetic and psychological factors influencing attraction.
• w1, w2, w3, w4, and w5 are weighting factors that allow us to assign different degrees of importance to each component. These factors can vary depending on individual preferences, cultural factors, and historical context.
• We can introduce additional sub-components for societal beauty standards, such as facial symmetry, skin quality, and body proportions, each with their respective weighting factors and scoring systems.
• For the robustness of the jawline (J), we can add parameters related to facial geometry, such as the angle of the jaw, chin projection, and overall facial structure.
• To account for differentials in locations (Dx), we can introduce geographical, cultural, and temporal indices that dynamically adjust based on the context. These indices can be highly complex and data-driven.
• Cross-validation by groups of women (C) can be extended to consider multiple groups with varying preferences, each contributing to the overall attraction score with its own weighting factor.
• The factor G encompasses a wide range of genetic and psychological factors, such as genetic compatibility, pheromone perception, and individual psychological traits, which can all influence attraction. These factors can be further decomposed into sub-components with their own weighting factors.
• We can introduce temporal dynamics, where attraction changes over time due to shifts in cultural norms, trends, and historical events. This would require the introduction of time-dependent functions and historical data.
• Incorporating machine learning and neural network models to adapt the weights and parameters over time based on real-world data, thereby creating a self-adjusting and evolving model of attraction.

overall I'm shocked people still debate this topic

cool formula however we cant do anything with it because its impossible to quantify the weightings

I also heavily disagree with girls expecting to percentile guys only, if you go outside youll see thats just objectively not true

 

[Aypo129]

Nah if your on .org for long enough this isn't the black pill even shit head normies know looks are everything what shit head normies don't know is that whores literally only want the top quintile in genetics in 1 aspect be it body face or height or dick size what the previous statement states is common sense the latter of what most .orgers state is not common sense.

if we plug this into an equation the total female attraction is linked to the formula

A = (w1 * P + w2 * B + w3 * J) - (w4 * Dx * C) + (w5 * G)

• A represents total female attraction.
• P represents the individual's phenotype score as described earlier.
• B represents societal beauty standards, trends, and universals.
• J represents the robustness of the individual's jawline.
• Dx represents differentials in locations x.
• C represents cross-validation by groups of women.
• G represents other genetic and psychological factors influencing attraction.
• w1, w2, w3, w4, and w5 are weighting factors that allow us to assign different degrees of importance to each component. These factors can vary depending on individual preferences, cultural factors, and historical context.
• We can introduce additional sub-components for societal beauty standards, such as facial symmetry, skin quality, and body proportions, each with their respective weighting factors and scoring systems.
• For the robustness of the jawline (J), we can add parameters related to facial geometry, such as the angle of the jaw, chin projection, and overall facial structure.
• To account for differentials in locations (Dx), we can introduce geographical, cultural, and temporal indices that dynamically adjust based on the context. These indices can be highly complex and data-driven.
• Cross-validation by groups of women (C) can be extended to consider multiple groups with varying preferences, each contributing to the overall attraction score with its own weighting factor.
• The factor G encompasses a wide range of genetic and psychological factors, such as genetic compatibility, pheromone perception, and individual psychological traits, which can all influence attraction. These factors can be further decomposed into sub-components with their own weighting factors.
• We can introduce temporal dynamics, where attraction changes over time due to shifts in cultural norms, trends, and historical events. This would require the introduction of time-dependent functions and historical data.
• Incorporating machine learning and neural network models to adapt the weights and parameters over time based on real-world data, thereby creating a self-adjusting and evolving model of attraction.

overall I'm shocked people still debate this topic

Very nice formulation but u need to expand into Dt
This need a graphical mechanism over time period to explain different attraction

 

[Deleted member 19911]

Nah if your on .org for long enough this isn't the black pill even shit head normies know looks are everything what shit head normies don't know is that whores literally only want the top quintile in genetics in 1 aspect be it body face or height or dick size what the previous statement states is common sense the latter of what most .orgers state is not common sense.

if we plug this into an equation the total female attraction is linked to the formula

A = (w1 * P + w2 * B + w3 * J) - (w4 * Dx * C) + (w5 * G)

• A represents total female attraction.
• P represents the individual's phenotype score as described earlier.
• B represents societal beauty standards, trends, and universals.
• J represents the robustness of the individual's jawline.
• Dx represents differentials in locations x.
• C represents cross-validation by groups of women.
• G represents other genetic and psychological factors influencing attraction.
• w1, w2, w3, w4, and w5 are weighting factors that allow us to assign different degrees of importance to each component. These factors can vary depending on individual preferences, cultural factors, and historical context.
• We can introduce additional sub-components for societal beauty standards, such as facial symmetry, skin quality, and body proportions, each with their respective weighting factors and scoring systems.
• For the robustness of the jawline (J), we can add parameters related to facial geometry, such as the angle of the jaw, chin projection, and overall facial structure.
• To account for differentials in locations (Dx), we can introduce geographical, cultural, and temporal indices that dynamically adjust based on the context. These indices can be highly complex and data-driven.
• Cross-validation by groups of women (C) can be extended to consider multiple groups with varying preferences, each contributing to the overall attraction score with its own weighting factor.
• The factor G encompasses a wide range of genetic and psychological factors, such as genetic compatibility, pheromone perception, and individual psychological traits, which can all influence attraction. These factors can be further decomposed into sub-components with their own weighting factors.
• We can introduce temporal dynamics, where attraction changes over time due to shifts in cultural norms, trends, and historical events. This would require the introduction of time-dependent functions and historical data.
• Incorporating machine learning and neural network models to adapt the weights and parameters over time based on real-world data, thereby creating a self-adjusting and evolving model of attraction.

overall I'm shocked people still debate this topic

Blud thinks he’s a Mathematician

 

[reptiles]

cool formula however we cant do anything with it because its impossible to quantify the weightings

I also heavily disagree with girls expecting to percentile guys only, if you go outside youll see thats just objectively not true

I don't have the funds to do a proper scientific study I have to piggy back of off online dating data and speed dating results as women lie as a variable 2nd most of the world still has different standards of what is beautiful and what isn't 3rd I don't know how to minimize my own bias after all if I did do a study which conformed perfectly with my equation then some 1 else could argue I was shoe horning my own views into the modelling.

If a group of bookmakers did and it was verified by an independent source then it would be truly unbiased but with a lot of the black pills posted on this forum it seems like people are just making shit up as they go along rather than citing studies but the studies I cite piggy backs heavily of off anecdotal evidence combined with speed dating and online dating evidence

 

[Aypo129]

Equation is
dA/dt = int(w1 * P + w2 * B + w3 * J) - (w4 * Dx * C) + (w5 * G) Over X graph of fertillity

Without integration you would merge all age demo in one

 

[reptiles]

Blud thinks he’s a Mathematician

Mathematics is the language of logic the black pill is inherently embedded in evolutionary psychology and statical modelling yeah you have to cite maths

 

[Matthias8272]

I'd probably lose a debate now about looks being most important because it's so natural like saying the sky is blue I forgot all the arguments

 

[reptiles]

Equation is
dA/dt = int(w1 * P + w2 * B + w3 * J) - (w4 * Dx * C) + (w5 * G) Over X graph of fertillity

I like the equation tbqh it's well formulated the next part is testing it out but I don't have the back ground necessary to actually create a paper like this I can understand the equations but to apply that in real life that's harder

 

[Akhi]

I don't have the funds to do a proper scientific study I have to piggy back of off online dating data and speed dating results as women lie as a variable 2nd most of the world still has different standards of what is beautiful and what isn't 3rd I don't know how to minimize my own bias after all if I did do a study which conformed perfectly with my equation then some 1 else could argue I was shoe horning my own views into the modelling.

as I said I think its impossible to find out these weightings

alone by the fact that individuals have different preferences

all you could do is calculate an average based on a closed group (say for example only spanish women)

there are methods to exclude most of your own biases but even then its an impossible formula because it depends on the individual

If a group of bookmakers did and it was verified by an independent source then it would be truly unbiased but with a lot of the black pills posted on this forum it seems like people are just making shit up as they go along rather than citing studies but the studies I cite piggy backs heavily of off anecdotal evidence combined with speed dating and online dating evidence

fully agreed, most people here only talk out of their biased asses

 

[Aypo129]

I like the equation tbqh it's well formulated the next part is testing it out but I don't have the back ground necessary to actually create a paper like this I can understand the equations but to apply that in real life that's harder

You require a large population sample to confirm it
More surveys more data set
All we have currently is some context on application data
however A CS background can do it
I will try giving it to someone maybe the data will spport the functions

 

[reptiles]

You require a large population sample to confirm it
More surveys more data set
All we have currently is some context on application data
however A CS background can do it
I will try giving it to someone maybe the data will spport the functions

Who would sign up for such a study if societies predisposed beliefs are that looks don't matter or aren't the main determining factor in mating and courting endeavours

 

[Aypo129]

I like the equation tbqh it's well formulated the next part is testing it out but I don't have the back ground necessary to actually create a paper like this I can understand the equations but to apply that in real life that's harder

Also you need to condese the variable in smaller pods

It should look like this

 

[Aypo129]

Who would sign up for such a study if societies predisposed beliefs are that looks don't matter or aren't the main determining factor in mating and courting endeavours

I am trying learning mathematics so maybe i can do it

 

[reptiles]

I am trying learning mathematics so maybe i can do it

That would be very based indeed tbqh this is beyond my genetic potential I can understand this subject but to measure them is way beyond my capacity

 

[Chadelite]

bhai why are you still high bf after 4 years on here?

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

Nah if your on .org for long enough this isn't the black pill even shit head normies know looks are everything what shit head normies don't know is that whores literally only want the top quintile in genetics in 1 aspect be it body face or height or dick size what the previous statement states is common sense the latter of what most .orgers state is not common sense.

if we plug this into an equation the total female attraction is linked to the formula

A = (w1 * P + w2 * B + w3 * J) - (w4 * Dx * C) + (w5 * G)

• A represents total female attraction.
• P represents the individual's phenotype score as described earlier.
• B represents societal beauty standards, trends, and universals.
• J represents the robustness of the individual's jawline.
• Dx represents differentials in locations x.
• C represents cross-validation by groups of women.
• G represents other genetic and psychological factors influencing attraction.
• w1, w2, w3, w4, and w5 are weighting factors that allow us to assign different degrees of importance to each component. These factors can vary depending on individual preferences, cultural factors, and historical context.
• We can introduce additional sub-components for societal beauty standards, such as facial symmetry, skin quality, and body proportions, each with their respective weighting factors and scoring systems.
• For the robustness of the jawline (J), we can add parameters related to facial geometry, such as the angle of the jaw, chin projection, and overall facial structure.
• To account for differentials in locations (Dx), we can introduce geographical, cultural, and temporal indices that dynamically adjust based on the context. These indices can be highly complex and data-driven.
• Cross-validation by groups of women (C) can be extended to consider multiple groups with varying preferences, each contributing to the overall attraction score with its own weighting factor.
• The factor G encompasses a wide range of genetic and psychological factors, such as genetic compatibility, pheromone perception, and individual psychological traits, which can all influence attraction. These factors can be further decomposed into sub-components with their own weighting factors.
• We can introduce temporal dynamics, where attraction changes over time due to shifts in cultural norms, trends, and historical events. This would require the introduction of time-dependent functions and historical data.
• Incorporating machine learning and neural network models to adapt the weights and parameters over time based on real-world data, thereby creating a self-adjusting and evolving model of attraction.

overall I'm shocked people still debate this topic

High IQ post!

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

I am trying learning mathematics so maybe i can do it

What mathematics are you trying to learn?

 

[Aypo129]

What mathematics are you trying to learn?

Probability and statistic
Calculus
Topology and differential equation

For fun
Set theory

 

[horizontallytall]

Nah if your on .org for long enough this isn't the black pill even shit head normies know looks are everything what shit head normies don't know is that whores literally only want the top quintile in genetics in 1 aspect be it body face or height or dick size what the previous statement states is common sense the latter of what most .orgers state is not common sense.

if we plug this into an equation the total female attraction is linked to the formula

A = (w1 * P + w2 * B + w3 * J) - (w4 * Dx * C) + (w5 * G)

• A represents total female attraction.
• P represents the individual's phenotype score as described earlier.
• B represents societal beauty standards, trends, and universals.
• J represents the robustness of the individual's jawline.
• Dx represents differentials in locations x.
• C represents cross-validation by groups of women.
• G represents other genetic and psychological factors influencing attraction.
• w1, w2, w3, w4, and w5 are weighting factors that allow us to assign different degrees of importance to each component. These factors can vary depending on individual preferences, cultural factors, and historical context.
• We can introduce additional sub-components for societal beauty standards, such as facial symmetry, skin quality, and body proportions, each with their respective weighting factors and scoring systems.
• For the robustness of the jawline (J), we can add parameters related to facial geometry, such as the angle of the jaw, chin projection, and overall facial structure.
• To account for differentials in locations (Dx), we can introduce geographical, cultural, and temporal indices that dynamically adjust based on the context. These indices can be highly complex and data-driven.
• Cross-validation by groups of women (C) can be extended to consider multiple groups with varying preferences, each contributing to the overall attraction score with its own weighting factor.
• The factor G encompasses a wide range of genetic and psychological factors, such as genetic compatibility, pheromone perception, and individual psychological traits, which can all influence attraction. These factors can be further decomposed into sub-components with their own weighting factors.
• We can introduce temporal dynamics, where attraction changes over time due to shifts in cultural norms, trends, and historical events. This would require the introduction of time-dependent functions and historical data.
• Incorporating machine learning and neural network models to adapt the weights and parameters over time based on real-world data, thereby creating a self-adjusting and evolving model of attraction.

overall I'm shocked people still debate this topic

You are the type pf people ,when they say too much iq is dysgenic and destructive for society and its well being

 

[czwarty]

I was reading comments in this thread and there was link to another thread, and there this:

JFL ye olde oofy doofy special this is what awaits all the average chumps who "have no issues with getting relationships despite not having looks"

muh DOWNGRADE

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

Probability and statistic
Calculus
Topology and differential equation

For fun
Set theory

Good luck! Homie.

I'm studying Precalculus by Ron Larson and Calculus by Thomas as well as James Stewart.(Stewart and Thomas are really good Calculus books)

Also check out "the math sorcerer" channel on YouTube for Maths inspiration.