Rate this Asian dude (mogger)

Tigermoggerlol

Tigermoggerlol

Professional skin bleacher
Joined
May 30, 2025
Posts
15,061
Reputation
23,367
I think hes high htn
IMG 7616
IMG 7617
IMG 7618


@pfl @Glorious King @slaters @lastofus123 @Jason Voorhees
 
  • +1
  • JFL
  • Ugh..
Reactions: browncurrycel, Glorious King, hopecel and 9 others
@greycel @iblamexyz
 
  • +1
Reactions: iblamexyz
@Node husband
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: browncurrycel, iblamexyz and Tigermoggerlol
Bump
 
  • +1
Reactions: Glorious King and iblamexyz
@unon @grilldaddy❤️ @Luca_. @MogsGymMaxx @Alias!
 
  • +1
Reactions: grilldaddy❤️, Mogsgymmaxx and iblamexyz
High chadlite
 
  • +1
  • JFL
  • Hmm...
Reactions: mvpisafaggot420, GynoGladiator, Klasik616 and 3 others
Chadlite tbh
 
  • +1
Reactions: hopecel, GynoGladiator, greycel and 1 other person
mtn
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: mvpisafaggot420, GynoGladiator and Tigermoggerlol
harmony is uncanny as fuck but he has good bones, lean and fashionmaxxed
 
  • +1
Reactions: RiceChigga, 1966Ford, bakpaokukus and 3 others
Mogger in Asia but 2/10 in australia
 
  • +1
  • JFL
  • So Sad
Reactions: mvpisafaggot420, qxdr, GynoGladiator and 1 other person
Chadlite tbh
He would be Cl but his ang gets capped at a 7 bc he has low set cheek bones and no chin despite being Tera lean
 
  • +1
Reactions: GynoGladiator
  • +1
Reactions: Glorious King and Tigermoggerlol
Science usually has it that way. Like for example Lucas Karger has a 9 dimo 8 ang 9 misc but a 5 harmony. So he’s high Cl. If I wear to just focus on his strong points like say fuck harmony and just give him chad that wouldnt fit the aesthetic stand point. Why? Bc harmony brings all of that together and prevents u from having that “uncanny” look. Or vise versa 5 ang 5 dimo misc but 9 harmony that’s still low htn bc he just looks like a normie in that case like nothing stands out
 
  • +1
Reactions: Glorious King and greycel
chadlite easy, best looking guy out of every 100 asians
 
  • +1
Reactions: Tigermoggerlol
  • +1
Reactions: Glorious King, mvpisafaggot420 and gonnabehappy
beutiful
 
  • +1
Reactions: Tigermoggerlol
Science usually has it that way. Like for example Lucas Karger has a 9 dimo 8 ang 9 misc but a 5 harmony. So he’s high Cl. If I wear to just focus on his strong points like say fuck harmony and just give him chad that wouldnt fit the aesthetic stand point. Why? Bc harmony brings all of that together and prevents u from having that “uncanny” look. Or vise versa 5 ang 5 dimo misc but 9 harmony that’s still low htn bc he just looks like a normie in that case like nothing stands out
Three things. They are interdependent + splits would vary by person + the more factors you consider the wider the variance, which is why your rates are so inconsistent

If I told somebody rate this girl using just 2 factors (2 scales 0-10).. it would be out of 20.
First guy might go for a 6 then a 7 = 13, 6.5. Second goes for 7 then 8 =15, 7.5. All the way up to 100 guys..
But now if I add 10 factors, and asked 100 people, on average the ratings between one person and another might average out (because it's a bell curve too), but there's a wider range for difference because it's out of 10 factors × 0-10 scoring system = 100 potential points.
Visualize a flattened bell curve:
1760228975604



Other than the factors containing influence from others + splits being wrong, you have 4 factors which is too many compared to somebody who's using 1 scale: your rates will be inconsistent
Each factor is fundamentally subjective (ultimately it's you deciding what score it closely relates to 4x the amount the average person does - using 1 scale)
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Glorious King and Tigermoggerlol
Three things. They are interdependent + splits would vary by person + the more factors you consider the wider the variance, which is why your rates are so inconsistent

If I told somebody rate this girl using just 2 factors (2 scales 0-10).. it would be out of 20.
First guy might go for a 6 then a 7 = 13, 6.5. Second goes for 7 then 8 =15, 7.5. All the way up to 100 guys..
But now if I add 10 factors, and asked 100 people, on average the ratings between one person and another might average out (because it's a bell curve too), but there's a wider range for difference because it's out of 10 factors × 0-10 scoring system = 100 potential points.


Other than the factors containing influence from others + splits being wrong, you have 4 factors which is too many compared to somebody who's using 1 scale: your rates will be inconsistent
Each factor is fundamentally subjective (ultimately it's you deciding what score it closely relates to 4x the amount the average person does - using 1 scale)
What you just described is the sex appeal standards Wich yes it’s a good way to rate both and women based one there appeal. BUT what I’m preaching aesthetics/psl. It’s been a known thing that all pro raters use 4 categories. Bc us humans have 4 categories in attraction wich is our angularity (facial sharpness), harmony (ratios), dimo (for men features and robustness of the face for women features, ratios and cheek bone projection) and misc wich is our health indicators and features. That’s why it’s important to use 4 categories
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: Glorious King and greycel
What you just described is the sex appeal standards Wich yes it’s a good way to rate both and women based one there appeal. BUT what I’m preaching aesthetics/psl. It’s been a known thing that all pro raters use 4 categories. Bc us humans have 4 categories in attraction wich is our angularity (facial sharpness), harmony (ratios), dimo (for men features and robustness of the face for women features, ratios and cheek bone projection) and misc wich is our health indicators and features. That’s why it’s important to use 4 categories
Forget about it
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: Glorious King and Tigermoggerlol
Three things. They are interdependent + splits would vary by person + the more factors you consider the wider the variance, which is why your rates are so inconsistent

If I told somebody rate this girl using just 2 factors (2 scales 0-10).. it would be out of 20.
First guy might go for a 6 then a 7 = 13, 6.5. Second goes for 7 then 8 =15, 7.5. All the way up to 100 guys..
But now if I add 10 factors, and asked 100 people, on average the ratings between one person and another might average out (because it's a bell curve too), but there's a wider range for difference because it's out of 10 factors × 0-10 scoring system = 100 potential points.
Visualize a flattened bell curve:
View attachment 4200364


Other than the factors containing influence from others + splits being wrong, you have 4 factors which is too many compared to somebody who's using 1 scale: your rates will be inconsistent
Each factor is fundamentally subjective (ultimately it's you deciding what score it closely relates to 4x the amount the average person does - using 1 scale)
No they’d be more consistent because deviations from the true value on any scale would be more likely to cancel out when taking a mean if error is random
 
  • +1
Reactions: Tigermoggerlol
HLTN too GOOK looking
 
  • Hmm...
Reactions: Tigermoggerlol
Changlite fs
 
  • +1
Reactions: Tigermoggerlol
No they’d be more consistent because deviations from the true value on any scale would be more likely to cancel out when taking a mean if error is random
Variance would be higher because potential range is higher.. leading to more inconsistencies
Average doesn't exist in this case, he's the only guy doing it
You might be meaning average of categories, all containing bias from the same individual

Imagine the bell curve squashed, with the total area under kept the same.. the area under what's further from the middle will increase
 
  • Hmm...
  • +1
Reactions: Glorious King and Tigermoggerlol
Cl
 
  • +1
Reactions: Tigermoggerlol
1760230973178
mid cl
 
  • +1
Reactions: GynoGladiator and Tigermoggerlol
No they’d be more consistent because deviations from the true value on any scale would be more likely to cancel out when taking a mean if error is random
This.
 
  • +1
  • Ugh..
Reactions: widdi, MyDreamIsToBe183CM and GynoGladiator
How tall is he?
 
  • +1
Reactions: Tigermoggerlol
  • +1
Reactions: GynoGladiator, Phillybeard1996 and widdi
Variance would be higher because potential range is higher.. leading to more inconsistencies
Average doesn't exist in this case, he's the only guy doing it
You might be meaning average of categories, all containing bias from the same individual

Imagine the bell curve squashed, with the total area under kept the same.. the area under what's further from the middle will increase
The range is the same because he’s normalizing the rates to a /10 scale to get the final rating

The way he normalizes is by taking a weighted mean of each scale

So yeah he’s taking an average, which means underrates from the latent true value on any individual would partially cancel out overrates on another scale
 
  • +1
Reactions: Tigermoggerlol
He’s ugly as fuck no girl woupd
Choose hik
Irl
 
  • Ugh..
  • +1
Reactions: slaters and GynoGladiator

Similar threads

Tigermoggerlol
Replies
46
Views
305
Glorious King
Glorious King
Tigermoggerlol
Replies
194
Views
1K
Tigermoggerlol
Tigermoggerlol
Tigermoggerlol
Replies
70
Views
377
slaters
slaters
Tigermoggerlol
Replies
40
Views
388
pprimus43
pprimus43
Tigermoggerlol
Replies
24
Views
276
Tigermoggerlol
Tigermoggerlol

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top