The 1-10 Scale, and Other Rating Scales Aren’t Transferable IRL

[CherryVinyls]

One thing should be clear: appearances have a major role in instant attraction. In a sense, they are the first filter. If people aren't drawn to your appearance right away, they won't get to know your personality. That's the way things are. The problem is that when you're in person with someone, attempting to assess them on a scale of 1 to 10 doesn't make sense.

Yes, if you're looking at a still shot and examining its aspects like a chart, you might be able to assign a rating based on symmetry or ratios. However, in reality? No one is doing that. It's not necessary to boil someone down into a number when you see them in person. In the moment, attraction is much more intuitive. Either you find their appearance appealing or you don't. Determining if someone is a 6.5 or a 7.2 is a meaningless idea because it never occurs.

And this is especially true when it comes to how people perceive you. Women, for example, aren’t going to categorize you as a “6” or a “7.” They’re not thinking about your “score.” They’re just deciding, almost instantly, if they find you attractive or not. It’s black and white in that sense. If you check the box for being good-looking in their eyes, that’s all that matters. Whether you’d technically rank higher or lower compared to someone else is irrelevant.

Attraction is binary in practice. Either someone’s good-looking to you, or they’re not—it’s as simple as that. The whole 1-10 scale might seem like a logical way to think about it, but it falls apart in real life. Nobody’s rating people like a math problem when they’re just deciding if they’re attracted to them. Looks matter a ton, but the way we experience attraction doesn’t involve numbers. It’s either a yes or a no.

 

[sover]

One thing should be clear: appearances have a major role in instant attraction. In a sense, they are the first filter. If people aren't drawn to your appearance right away, they won't get to know your personality. That's the way things are. The problem is that when you're in person with someone, attempting to assess them on a scale of 1 to 10 doesn't make sense.

Yes, if you're looking at a still shot and examining its aspects like a chart, you might be able to assign a rating based on symmetry or ratios. However, in reality? No one is doing that. It's not necessary to boil someone down into a number when you see them in person. In the moment, attraction is much more intuitive. Either you find their appearance appealing or you don't. Determining if someone is a 6.5 or a 7.2 is a meaningless idea because it never occurs.

And this is especially true when it comes to how people perceive you. Women, for example, aren’t going to categorize you as a “6” or a “7.” They’re not thinking about your “score.” They’re just deciding, almost instantly, if they find you attractive or not. It’s black and white in that sense. If you check the box for being good-looking in their eyes, that’s all that matters. Whether you’d technically rank higher or lower compared to someone else is irrelevant.

Attraction is binary in practice. Either someone’s good-looking to you, or they’re not—it’s as simple as that. The whole 1-10 scale might seem like a logical way to think about it, but it falls apart in real life. Nobody’s rating people like a math problem when they’re just deciding if they’re attracted to them. Looks matter a ton, but the way we experience attraction doesn’t involve numbers. It’s either a yes or a no.

dnr so lazy rn for some reason should be studying aswell gosh darn it

 

[jordanbarett122]

I feel like this is common sense. Increasing your objective rating only increases the chances of more people finding you attractive .

 

[mazola]

One thing should be clear: appearances have a major role in instant attraction. In a sense, they are the first filter. If people aren't drawn to your appearance right away, they won't get to know your personality. That's the way things are. The problem is that when you're in person with someone, attempting to assess them on a scale of 1 to 10 doesn't make sense.

Yes, if you're looking at a still shot and examining its aspects like a chart, you might be able to assign a rating based on symmetry or ratios. However, in reality? No one is doing that. It's not necessary to boil someone down into a number when you see them in person. In the moment, attraction is much more intuitive. Either you find their appearance appealing or you don't. Determining if someone is a 6.5 or a 7.2 is a meaningless idea because it never occurs.

And this is especially true when it comes to how people perceive you. Women, for example, aren’t going to categorize you as a “6” or a “7.” They’re not thinking about your “score.” They’re just deciding, almost instantly, if they find you attractive or not. It’s black and white in that sense. If you check the box for being good-looking in their eyes, that’s all that matters. Whether you’d technically rank higher or lower compared to someone else is irrelevant.

Attraction is binary in practice. Either someone’s good-looking to you, or they’re not—it’s as simple as that. The whole 1-10 scale might seem like a logical way to think about it, but it falls apart in real life. Nobody’s rating people like a math problem when they’re just deciding if they’re attracted to them. Looks matter a ton, but the way we experience attraction doesn’t involve numbers. It’s either a yes or a no.

i agree, the key is that the higher "psl" you arre, the more women you would tik the yes box