asian_ascender
Bronze
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2024
- Posts
- 315
- Reputation
- 422
Subhuman is -2 standard deviations below median. 1 & 2 PSL (bottom 2%)
LTN is -1 std dev. 3 PSL (2-16th percentile)
MTN is median. 4 PSL (16-84th percentile)
HTN is +1 std dev. 5 PSL (84th-98th percentile)
CL is +2 std dev. 6 PSL (top 2%)
Chad is +3 std dev. 7 PSL (top 0.1%) 1 in 1000
So most people are actually MTN. Could be low MTN or high MTN but still 68% of the population is considered MTN. This retarded forum thinks half the world is LTN for some reason when in fact it is only 14% of the population. Most LTNs rated here should be considered low MTN or even mid MTN.
HTN+ are in fact not that rare (16% of population). This means 1 in every 6 people u see in public around you is HTN+. Some MTN rated here are in fact high MTN even HTN.
CL are also not that uncommon (2% of population), meaning that if you take a stroll in an urban city area, it’s likely you would encounter at least 1 or 2 CL. Chads are the real rarity at 1 in 1000 people and there’s perhaps maybe only 1 in your entire school or town. Most people do not know chads irl.
I believe looks is centrally normally distributed. Some people think that looks is right skewed (image below), leading them to conclude that there exist way more sub MTN than MTN+ when in fact it’s the same.
Right skewed distribution
Central normal distribution
I have a reason to argue that looks is centrally normal distributed. This is because genetic traits (looks, height, iq etc) tends to the mean throughout generations (google reversion to the mean). That’s unlike traditional right skewed distributions like income where the rich generally get richer and poor remain poor. Genetically blessed parents do not guarantee good looking children (look at Herman Drago and Alain Delon sons, nowhere near their looks).
LTN is -1 std dev. 3 PSL (2-16th percentile)
MTN is median. 4 PSL (16-84th percentile)
HTN is +1 std dev. 5 PSL (84th-98th percentile)
CL is +2 std dev. 6 PSL (top 2%)
Chad is +3 std dev. 7 PSL (top 0.1%) 1 in 1000
So most people are actually MTN. Could be low MTN or high MTN but still 68% of the population is considered MTN. This retarded forum thinks half the world is LTN for some reason when in fact it is only 14% of the population. Most LTNs rated here should be considered low MTN or even mid MTN.
HTN+ are in fact not that rare (16% of population). This means 1 in every 6 people u see in public around you is HTN+. Some MTN rated here are in fact high MTN even HTN.
CL are also not that uncommon (2% of population), meaning that if you take a stroll in an urban city area, it’s likely you would encounter at least 1 or 2 CL. Chads are the real rarity at 1 in 1000 people and there’s perhaps maybe only 1 in your entire school or town. Most people do not know chads irl.
I believe looks is centrally normally distributed. Some people think that looks is right skewed (image below), leading them to conclude that there exist way more sub MTN than MTN+ when in fact it’s the same.
Right skewed distribution
Central normal distribution
I have a reason to argue that looks is centrally normal distributed. This is because genetic traits (looks, height, iq etc) tends to the mean throughout generations (google reversion to the mean). That’s unlike traditional right skewed distributions like income where the rich generally get richer and poor remain poor. Genetically blessed parents do not guarantee good looking children (look at Herman Drago and Alain Delon sons, nowhere near their looks).
