again with the projection shaming
Not him.
Its 95% ngl
It depends how you measure. I use one tail distrubution , but if you use two tail it's ~ 95
tails are about significance, not the distribution itself if I am not mistaken
One tail and two tail is used in hypothesis testing not for standard deviations...retard
This
Rating are cope. Either you get attention from women or not, which isn't determined by this retarded shit
Tail is not about distribution as you see on the image, its about whether you start from the end points to calculate the percentile (further to use it in your hypothesis testing), or you are considering only the middle area of distribution. 2-6PSL is about the area equally distant from the 0-8 scale ends. So, you can use the calculator for 2 tailed test.
Dude he's literally retarded. Just don't bother with him. He doesn't even understand basic statistics
U can use a z table or t table by hand but ain't nobody got time for.that
Yes, he actually writes 2-6 psl and then changes it to 3-5 psl, so i fucked it up when copying too. I was talking about 95% for 2-6psl.
the funny thing is his standard deviation scale doesn't have anything to do with PSI ratings it's just another rating scale it's not based on percentages or standard deviations. Because ratings are a subjective thing you can't have standard deviations, which would rely on the mean which also can't be known for the same reason. like you can't assign a mean rating to a subjective thing like looks levels of multiple people for the population standard deviationlike you can't assign a mean rating to a subjective thing like looks levels of multiple people for the population standard deviation
No man. People here sometimes rate Nick batemen as a 5 PSL and others as 7+ PSL lol. In this way it IS subjective.
That's dumb lol
Yeah he told me that he's a 4 PSL loooool. Legit retard hypocrite scammer. To all the newcels: don't trust this beautiful bones guy. He's an ugly poser. I actually was ugly af and became beautiful, so maybe listen to me instead of some guy who's so ugly he won't even post his pics lol
He said that he slayed 5-6 PSL females (which according to his "PSL scale" is the 80th percentile for PSL 5 women and 97.5th percentile for PSL 6 women [which is literally model tier]) you know what the best part is? He did all of this while he was still a self proclaimed PSL 2-3.
Oh yeah but he somehow thinks he mogs me as a 6'3 WHITE broad-shouldered man with perfect glowing skin and perfect hair...even disregarding face which most people here most likely destroy him in. Just lol at his narcy copes he'll be bullied out of here when the noobies realize he's a fag scammer bitch
He is the worst kind of person, praying on desperate men to push him his overpriced "ascension strategies" without providing any proof that they actually work.
Exactly. Like another user called.him out on yesterday when he talked about mogging people, "empty words and baseless claims without any proof"
Lmao just b urself face software! Just be ignorant and use empty, big words to make the idiots here think you're smart, even tho it actually has nothing to do with what you're trying to explain!This follows his improve your personality ascension program though maybe he is on to something
Well, for me its much more efficient to use the scale, rather than not use it. Cuz I have my own subjective sense of beauty which often corresponds with some of people whom I consider people that understand something about aesthetics. From my own experience, people who say that psl shit does not matter, often do not know much about aesthetics. I am not saying psl is the ultimate reflection of the level of attraction a guy receives, but it attempts to represent it and does the job quite well tbh.
I agree with this. I sort of use my own scale since I happen to be pretty knowledgable about looks theory, having studied it for a few years now in addition to looking at real life interactions with those around me and myself
Its a good baseline, but has a lot of missing gaps. What r ur thoughts
Yes, and in that sense I have my own scale which I dont adjust to other people's rating, but I can make it comparable to their ratings If I have a view at how they rate others. My scale is similar to this, almost identical, with percentiles etc, which sounds useful for me. I had 4.5 as a median which I then shifted to 4. Btw, percentiles are a good attempt to make the scale of one person comparable to others', you just need to say that the median for you is 4 or 5 or 10. And my rating of bateman of 7 psl (for the sake of example) suddenly becomes more reasonable, so it is a good idea to make a unified comparison mechanism, not just bare numbers with words like normie or psl following it.
Well, that's my personal opinon, maybe I am too ignorant about that. If psl dont correspond to you reality, create your own rating to describe it, then compare to others. And the common sense says there should be some close results of our view of how one's aestethics compares to another man's. That will be a good representation of a male's sucess on dating platforms or IRL.
Ah yeah I'm glad someone else uses medians instead of means, cuz with looks you have outliers and medians are resistent to those said outliers. But yea curious as to why you have the median less than the mean? Imo it should be higher as looks are skewed to the left (more lower outlier than higher ones)
Yep I've sort of intrisically done this over the past years to create a pretty accurate scale that predicts irl interactions. Of course, there are always outliers and special cases to take into consideration
No, I basically meant that the median I used was 4.5, but then I decided to modify my scale and made 4.0 as a median. Mean concept is not applicable to this looks scale, cuz it makes no sense even to discuss it, cuz 4 being the median from 0 to 8 is a coincidence because we decided that a number "4.0" to represent the median of our normal distribution. So, the number in the looks scale represents the "number of SD's from the mean - the number we decided to represent mean.". So bateman with 7 psl, with 4 being the average means he is 3SDs from the median (cuz we assumed the normality of distribution beforehand). Thus, we have no information of the mean and if we try to even calculate the mean with psl numbers, it will not give accurate results cuz that numbers are showing SDs rather than the "perfect number that ideally reflects looks as a measure". In short, if we assume that numbers show the percentile, mean has no sense, but if we assume that numbers ultimately show the comparable looks measure, then we can collect results and create our distribution of looks, and then judge whether it is skewed or not, find the formula which descibes the non normal distribution and judge about percentiles
I am interested in ways to incorporate height to the psl scale, only height, not body.
