Should the PSL scale have negative numbers for subhumans?

[thecel]

Most people use the term "subhuman" incorrectly, as real subhumans are on a whole different level the current PSL rating system can't accurately quantify.

I think one flaw of the PSL and decile rating scales is that TRUE SUBHUMANS are grouped into the same "1" rating as extremely ugly but not quite subhuman people.

Examples of 1s:




See, these guys have the lowest attractiveness rating of 1.

However, these guys are not truly subhuman. There are people who look much worse:




People who are not only ugly but are significantly deformed are considered true subhumans, but there aren't low enough numbers on the PSL/decile attractiveness scale to accurately place them.

If rating scales had zero and negative numbers — let's say, down to minus 5 — I'd put the 2 above men at negative 1 and negative 2, respectively. Zero would be the borderline where a person just barely meets the criteria to be considered human in physical appearance.

I've never seen any real human examples of −5s, but I think these would qualify:




Should the PSL scale have negative ratings to better measure TRUE SUBHUMAN INCELS? What do you think the numerical range of the scale should be?

 

[needsolution]

simply 0psl, you cant get lower

 

[Lorsss]

no, the PSL scale is a normal distribution

 

[aestheticallypleasin]

the deformed people are 1 psl, the ones at the start are 1.5-2

 

[000]

Most people use the term "subhuman" incorrectly, as real subhumans are on a whole different level the current PSL rating system can't accurately quantify.

I think one flaw of the PSL and decile rating scales is that TRUE SUBHUMANS are grouped into the same "1" rating as extremely ugly but not quite subhuman people.

Examples of 1s:

View attachment 442299
View attachment 442301

See, these guys have the lowest attractiveness rating of 1.

However, these guys are not truly subhuman. There are people who look much worse:

View attachment 442302
View attachment 442303

People who are not only ugly but are significantly deformed are considered true subhumans, but there aren't low enough numbers on the PSL/decile attractiveness scale to accurately place them.

If rating scales had zero and negative numbers — let's say, down to minus 5 — I'd put the 2 above men at negative 1 and negative 2, respectively. Zero would be the borderline where a person just barely meets the criteria to be considered human in physical appearance.

I've never seen any real human examples of −5s, but I think these would qualify:

View attachment 442298
View attachment 442300

Should the PSL scale have negative ratings to better measure TRUE SUBHUMAN INCELS? What do you think the numerical range of the scale should be?

The PSL scale is bs anyway

 

[thecel]

no, the PSL scale is a normal distribution

View attachment 442352

Just because PSL is a normal distribution doesn’t mean you can’t make the scale support negative numbers.

Normal distributions never go to 0, so in theory there could be a guy who’s –10 PSL and +20 PSL if the scale had no upper and lower bounds.

The bounds of the scale, 0 to 8, are just limits we’ve set. We can easily extend the bottom of the scale down into the negatives.

 

[thecel]

It’s time to standardize the PSL system. Does a PSL rating equal a /10 rating multiplied by 0.8, or does a PSL rating equal 2 subtracted from a /10 rating?

 

[Preoximerianas]

Why would you waste time wanting to rate people negatives? Every single picture you posted could fit together because to everybody else a 1 and a -5 are practically the same when it comes to physical attraction.