Real PSL Distribution (All ages and ethnicities factored in) [Male]

[x30001]

0-1PSL: 15.387%
1-2PSL: 22.696%
2-3PSL: 23.265%
3-4PSL: 16.573%
4-5PSL: 8.204%
5-6PSL: 2.821%
6-7PSL: 0.673%
7-8PSL: 0.112%
8-9PSL: 0.013%
9-10PSL: 0.001%

Mean: 2.068PSL
Variance: 2.666PSL
St. Deviation: 1.632789024950866‬PSL

<0PSL: 10.255% (N/A) [Subhuman Cutoff]
<1PSL: 25.642%
<2PSL: 48.338%
<3PSL: 71.603%
<4PSL: 88.176%
<5PSL: 96.38%
<6PSL: 99.201%
<7PSL: 99.874%
<8PSL: 99.986%
<9PSL: 99.999%
<10PSL: 100%

 

[middayshowers]

Where are you getting this from? provide reasoning

 

[x30001]

Where are you getting this from? provide reasoning

Will take to long to explain but think of it this way. Your PSL is based on the % of 16-45 year old men that you're better looking than. At 2.068PSL you will still be better looking than 50% of 16-45yr old men that EXIST. Not necessarily 50% of men that you're friends with. At subhuman levels when it's actually over, at exactly 0PSL you're still better looking than 10.255%. But you're just better looking than other subhumans that are significantly more hideous than you. It's just a relative guide showing what % of existing 16-45yr old men you're better looking than (factoring in manlets, norwoods, ethnics etc). Showing how out of control hypergamy has become and possibly how lucky you might be. Still hard to place an exact PSL rating on yourself since it can be bias and subjective. If you give yourself a PSL 5, you're assuming only 3.62% of 16-45yr old men are better looking than you.

If you feel only 10% are better looking than you, then you're a PSL 4.15949.

 

[middayshowers]

Will take to long to explain but think of it this way. Your PSL is based on the % of 16-45 year old men that you're better looking than. At 2.068PSL you will still be better looking than 50% of 16-45yr old men that EXIST. Not necessarily 50% of men that you're friends with. At subhuman levels when it's actually over, at exactly 0PSL you're still better looking than 10.255%. But you're just better looking than other subhumans that are significantly more hideous than you. It's just a relative guide showing what % of existing 16-45yr old men you're better looking than (factoring in manlets, norwoods, ethnics etc). Showing how out of control hypergamy has become and possibly how lucky you might be. Still hard to place an exact PSL rating on yourself since it can be bias and subjective. If you give yourself a PSL 5, you're assuming only 3.62% of 16-45yr old men are better looking than you.

If you feel only 10% are better looking than you, then you're a PSL 4.15949.

I see

I don't think this type of PSL system is more useful than the widely accepted one (5 average, 6 attractive, 7 model,ect) because it's very precise

 

[x30001]

I see

I don't think this type of PSL system is more useful than the widely accepted one (5 average, 6 attractive, 7 model,ect) because it's very precise

I agree. Because this is factoring every 16-45yr old male. No one is comparing their PSL to everyone's PSL. People on here are just comparing themselves to male models off the internet who are obviously better looking. Just created this to show how potentially lucky people here are, and how male models make up such a small portion of the population.

0-1PSL: 15.387%
1-2PSL: 22.696%
2-3PSL: 23.265%
3-4PSL: 16.573%
4-5PSL: 8.204%
5-6PSL: 2.821%
6-7PSL: 0.673%
7-8PSL: 0.112%
8-9PSL: 0.013%
9-10PSL: 0.001%

Mean: 2.068PSL
Variance: 2.666PSL
St. Deviation: 1.632789024950866‬PSL

<0PSL: 10.255% (N/A) [Subhuman Cutoff]
<1PSL: 25.642%
<2PSL: 48.338%
<3PSL: 71.603%
<4PSL: 88.176%
<5PSL: 96.38%
<6PSL: 99.201%
<7PSL: 99.874%
<8PSL: 99.986%
<9PSL: 99.999%
<10PSL: 100%

It's a relativity thing too. If you "mog" everyone you know of. Then you're 10PSL in your own world. Until someone else comes along. Then you get bumped down. If you "mog" 100% of the world then you're PSL 10, and there can only be one PSL 10 at a time. Your PSL is sort of variable depending on who you hang around with. There's always gonna be tons of better and worse looking people than you, even if you're <0PSL. Looksmaxing obviously bumps up your PSL.

 

[Crescogenic]

legit high iq high t thread


make a graph of this distribution please

 

[x30001]

legit high iq high t thread


make a graph of this distribution please

lol. It's just to something to put things into perspective. The PSL number isn't so much what matters. What matters is to become more aware that there's tons of people who are better and worse looking than you. And if you're good looking you're very fortunate and if you're not then you're actually not unfortunate when you factor in the whole world and not just Tinder/Instagram etc. People say Salludon is 6PSL or 6.5PSL. That'd mean that only 1 in 7,999 (6PSL) or 1 in 33,200(6.5PSL) men aged 16-45yrs old in this world are better looking than him. So he is extremely fortunate. I'm pretty sure this forum has nowhere near 7,999 people. Even though this whole rubric is about comparison; it's sort of meant to act as something to aware you that you'll never be the best or worst looking man in the world. It's extremely extremely unlikely. So be greatful for how you look now and be greatful that you're not worse looking than you are now and start fucking looksmaxing.

Here's the distribution:

Red area = Looksmaxing won't work. Extreme manlet, deformity, severe poverty/third world. Factoring in 10.255% of the entire 16-45m population. And if you have the ability to see your screen because you weren't in an accident involving fire/acid/guns/knives, and if you're not living in extreme proverty in somewhere like Sierra Leone and can actually access this website, then you are not in that red area. Your life is not over, just need to realign your perception.

lol. It's just to something to put things into perspective. The PSL number isn't so much what matters. What matters is to become more aware that there's tons of people who are better and worse looking than you. And if you're good looking you're very fortunate and if you're not then you're actually not unfortunate when you factor in the whole world and not just Tinder/Instagram etc. People say Salludon is 6PSL or 6.5PSL. That'd mean that only 1 in 7,999 (6PSL) or 1 in 33,200(6.5PSL) men aged 16-45yrs old in this world are better looking than him. So he is extremely fortunate. I'm pretty sure this forum has nowhere near 7,999 people. Even though this whole rubric is about comparison; it's sort of meant to act as something to aware you that you'll never be the best or worst looking man in the world. It's extremely extremely unlikely. So be greatful for how you look now and be greatful that you're not worse looking than you are now and start fucking looksmaxing.

Here's the distribution:

Red area = Looksmaxing won't work. Extreme manlet, deformity, severe poverty/third world. Factoring in 10.255% of the entire 16-45m population. And if you have the ability to see your screen because you weren't in an accident involving fire/acid/guns/knives, and if you're not living in extreme proverty in somewhere like Sierra Leone and can actually access this website, then you are not in that red area. Your life is not over, just need to realign your perception.

The message of this is to not compare yourself to people in your own world in your life, but to come back here and compare yourself to the entire world to put things into proper perspective and to motivate you to continue with self improvement and to stop being a crybaby. When people say "muh it's over I'm 2.5PSL".. Yeah, you're still probably a bit fucking ugly but it's not wise to compare yourself to others who are better looking. Since you are still better looking (with better quality of life) than 60.433% of 16-45y/o men who exist. Looks and quality of life go hand in hand obviously and this distribution is showing a blend of the 2. If you're fucking starving to death, no food (forget LMS); you'll still have a significantly worse set of life circumstances than someone who may be objectively worse looking but is in a country where he is not starving to death for his entire life, until eventual death. "Banging Stacies" won't prevent the poor Sierra Leone man from dying in war or in a famine; and Stacy won't bang him anyway, let alone give him some fucking food. Or even visit his continent. I can go on but I assume my point is clear.

 

[Deleted member 2352]

Great fucking thread 10/10 psl

 

[x30001]

Great fucking thread 10/10 psl

Thank you mate

 

[Deleted member 2095]

Drop the ritalin bro JFL
Drop the ritalin bro JFL

 

[Achathin]

Highest iq poster I’ve ever seen

 

[Festrunk]

Alright, where's the 16% of you fuckers I'm more attractive than, or do I need to go to IT for that?

 

[Deleted member 2275]

i too pull numbers out of my ass

 

[Deleted member 3043]

I agree. Because this is factoring every 16-45yr old male. No one is comparing their PSL to everyone's PSL. People on here are just comparing themselves to male models off the internet who are obviously better looking. Just created this to show how potentially lucky people here are, and how male models make up such a small portion of the population.

It's a relativity thing too. If you "mog" everyone you know of. Then you're 10PSL in your own world. Until someone else comes along. Then you get bumped down. If you "mog" 100% of the world then you're PSL 10, and there can only be one PSL 10 at a time. Your PSL is sort of variable depending on who you hang around with. There's always gonna be tons of better and worse looking people than you, even if you're <0PSL. Looksmaxing obviously bumps up your PSL.

Can you tell me more ?

 

[x30001]

Highest iq poster I’ve ever seen

This thread was made to show an accurate representation of how rare it is to relatively mog tons of men, and how rare it is to have a high PSL when you factor in every single man and not just focusing on your own circle or focusing on instagram models etc. I suppose it gives a positive and realistic outlook for some people to cope too. Even when it's over for you, you still probably mog a lot of people. Standards are really high and not everyone can live up to the incredibly high standards they judge themselves against day-in day-out.

i too pull numbers out of my ass

And condoms, right bro?

 

[Chadelite]

0-1PSL: 15.387%
1-2PSL: 22.696%
2-3PSL: 23.265%
3-4PSL: 16.573%
4-5PSL: 8.204%
5-6PSL: 2.821%
6-7PSL: 0.673%
7-8PSL: 0.112%
8-9PSL: 0.013%
9-10PSL: 0.001%

Mean: 2.068PSL
Variance: 2.666PSL
St. Deviation: 1.632789024950866‬PSL

<0PSL: 10.255% (N/A) [Subhuman Cutoff]
<1PSL: 25.642%
<2PSL: 48.338%
<3PSL: 71.603%
<4PSL: 88.176%
<5PSL: 96.38%
<6PSL: 99.201%
<7PSL: 99.874%
<8PSL: 99.986%
<9PSL: 99.999%
<10PSL: 100%

so psl 9 = 1 in 100k males
not to bad tbh

 

[x30001]

so psl 9 = 1 in 100k males
not to bad tbh

Nah it's less than 1 in 100k ofc.

 

[Chadelite]

Nah it's less than 1 in 100k ofc.

something like that
still achievable
i heard 200k people have used this site
so 2 9psl people have been here
"statistically"

 

[Zygos4Life]

Reminder that this is how OP was born

 

[Seth Walsh]

so psl 9 = 1 in 100k males
not to bad tbh

At the high PSLs like that, ie: 9, it's gonna be <0.00001%. 1 in 100k is just the minimum benchmark. But relatively this model works, with μ as 2.068PSL σ as 1.632789024950866‬PSL and variance as 2.666PSL. With <=0PSL being the "it's over" area where ~10.55% of the current 16-45 male population lie.

The higher PSLs are significantly harder to achieve because it's a relative model where your PSL marginally increases less than it did before as you move up the curve.

 

[Chadelite]

At the high PSLs like that, ie: 9, it's gonna be <0.00001%. 1 in 100k is just the minimum benchmark. But relatively this model works, with μ as 2.068PSL σ as 1.632789024950866‬PSL and variance as 2.666PSL. With <=0PSL being the "it's over" area where ~10.55% of the current 16-45 male population lie.

The higher PSLs are significantly harder to achieve because it's a relative model where your PSL marginally increases less than it did before as you move up the curve.

i disagree

a psl 7 and a psl 8 the difference in looks is small

but the percentage is dramatic, ie psl 8 is like impossible, psl 7 is gigachad.
whereas psl 4 may be average, and psl 5 is above average so like 1 in 20

 

[Seth Walsh]

this makes no sense.

this states that a quarter of men are below 1 PSL. no.

Coz 0 isn't 0%. 0 is just the relative "it's over" cutoff. And I try my very hardest not to say it's over to anyone. But realistically it's about 10.5% of males between 16-45 that are trucels where looksmaxing won't yield a positive return no matter how much time is invested. And surgery is severely glamourised on here imo and it throws off harmony to the point where people know that you had face surgery and will know the reasons behind why you did, and that doesn't work in your favor in the grand scheme of things. Cocaine Cowboy made a nice surgerycope thread iirc

 

[Seth Walsh]

0-1PSL: 15.387%
1-2PSL: 22.696%
2-3PSL: 23.265%
3-4PSL: 16.573%
4-5PSL: 8.204%
5-6PSL: 2.821%
6-7PSL: 0.673%
7-8PSL: 0.112%
8-9PSL: 0.013%
9-10PSL: 0.001%

Mean: 2.068PSL
Variance: 2.666PSL
St. Deviation: 1.632789024950866‬PSL

<0PSL: 10.255% (N/A) [Subhuman Cutoff]
<1PSL: 25.642%
<2PSL: 48.338%
<3PSL: 71.603%
<4PSL: 88.176%
<5PSL: 96.38%
<6PSL: 99.201%
<7PSL: 99.874%
<8PSL: 99.986%
<9PSL: 99.999%
<10PSL: 100%

How does this hold up in 2022? I don't believe in "PSL ratings" but this model seems weirdly accurate even though I created it arbitrarily and as a joke