The Concept Of Rating Is Completely Flawed

[Deleted member 1100]

It makes absolutely no sense. It's complete mental masturbation.

You can't rate beauty because it's a science which no one has full understand of it, and can't possibly define the level on which each unwanted feature on its many levels of severity impacts the beauty of someone.

The only thing that can be rated is the attractiveness of someone, and this one is much more subjective.

That's why there are people here who think some above-average women like Amber Heard or Taylor Hill are at least +8/10.

PSL scale is a big fraud, I no longer will rate anyone.

It's cope and a big lie.

 

[WannaBeA6]

Real life already rated you

 

[Deleted member 1464]

Cope

 

[Petsmart]

shekel backed thread

 

[Butthurt Dweller]

Rate deez nuts

 

[Deleted member 2581]

Your either good looking or your not

simple

 

[Deleted member 1100]

Cope

It's not cope, the concept of rating is based on fractions:

1/10, 2/10, 3/10...10/10.

This means that you're claiming that you are aware of what the "10" means when you discuss on terms of beauty scale. You can't do that with beauty.

You can only rate on terms of attractiveness, because it's based on how YOU feel, based on your own perspectives.

Rating Beauty = Cope

 

[Deleted member 2486]

Your either good looking or your not

simple

uhm

 

[Deleted member 1100]

Your either good looking or your not

simple

That's just one of the many premises that can be derived from the concept of beauty. Doesn't mean it's right though

 

[wellthatsucks]

It's true

While we can all agree if someone is attractive or not, how much depends on our life experiences with say childhood crushes

You come to realize this when you go into the rating sections, sometimes ratings can deviate a whole 3 points. It's all pointless.

Subhuman, below average, average, attractive and striking is all you need. Everyone can group people into these categories consistently

 

[Deleted member 3043]

It makes absolutely no sense. It's complete mental masturbation.

You can't rate beauty because it's a science which no one has full understand of it, and can't possibly define the level on which each unwanted feature on its many levels of severity impacts the beauty of someone.

The only thing that can be rated is the attractiveness of someone, and this one is much more subjective.

That's why there are people here who think some above-average women like Amber Heard or Taylor Hill are at least +8/10.

PSL scale is a big fraud, I no longer will rate anyone.

It's cope and a big lie.

nice conclusion tbh

 

[wellthatsucks]

And yeah I don't find Taylor hill very attractive

Amber heard only looked great here

 

[Pietrosiek]

Real life already rated you

 

[Deleted member 1464]

OP has lost the plot
A rating gives you an idea of your potential, ofc a mentalcel is going to performe lower than his rating, richcel above his rating etc
Its subjective only to a certain point.
A lot of people rate inaccurately due to some bias.

 

[Deleted member 1100]

And yeah I don't find Taylor hill very attractive

Amber heard only looked great here

Another good example is Madison Bear vs Adriana Lima. There are users here who think Madison mogs Lima, which is a big cope, I could make an entire thread pointing that lima has better features which they are unable to see because of lack of deep knowledge on certain features.

Even then, you'd need to first picture what a 10/10 face looks like to be able to define what a 5/10 looks like. Which bad features detract more? How bad this feature has to be to detract X or Y?

An example on the matter of skin is: Dark circle under eyes. You have different types of it, vascular, structural, pigmented, etc.... how much each one detracts on someone's facial beauty? What about how much each level of severity impacts?

You'd need to consider ALL variables to define where the person is at on the scale, I'm pretty sure even if everything was defined clearly only a supercomputer would be able to define it.

The only scale worth using is the scale used on studies for attractiveness:

Very Unattractive/ Unattractive / Slightly Unattractive / Average / Slightly Attractive / Attractive / Very Attractive

Everyone here would agree that Lima and Madison would be on the "Very Attractive" portion of this scale. But saying that Lima is 0.5 points higher than Madison is just stupid, you don't know all the variables, so you're just coping, instead what you can do is prove that Lima has a better medial canthus, for example, and why.

 

[Avoidant]

S	U	C	K	M	Y	A	S	S
U	U
C		C
K			K
M				M
Y					Y
A						A
S							S
S								S

 

[spark]

Taylor Hill is more than above average lol. She is not even my type and she is clearly 8/10+.

 

[Deleted member 1100]

S	U	C	K	M	Y	A	S	S
U	U
C		C
K			K
M				M
Y					Y
A						A
S							S
S								S

 

[wellthatsucks]

Another good example is Madison Bear vs Adriana Lima. There are users here who think Madison mogs Lima, which is a big cope, I could make an entire thread pointing that lima has better features which they are unable to see because of lack of deep knowledge on certain features.

Even then, you'd need to first picture what a 10/10 face looks like to be able to define what a 5/10 looks like. Which bad features detract more? How bad this feature has to be to detract X or Y?

An example on the matter of skin is: Dark circle under eyes. You have different types of it, vascular, structural, pigmented, etc.... how much each one detracts on someone's facial beauty? What about how much each level of severity impacts?

You'd need to consider ALL variables to define where the person is at on the scale, I'm pretty sure even if everything was defined clearly only a supercomputer would be able to define it.

The only scale worth using is the scale used on studies for attractiveness:

Very Unattractive/ Unattractive / Slightly Unattractive / Average / Slightly Attractive / Attractive / Very Attractive

Everyone here would agree that Lima and Madison would be on the "Very Attractive" portion of this scale. But saying that Lima is 0.5 points higher than Madison is just stupid, you don't know all the variables, so you're just coping, instead what you can do is prove that Lima has a better medial canthus, for example, and why.

I remember that thread, that user had a reasonable point that limas eyes are too Dom for a female, browridge mogs 70% of the forum etc...

It's true but I still find her the best looking female though.

But yeah, we don't even know if a theoretical deal male/female can exist.

 

[Deleted member 1100]

Taylor Hill is more than above average lol. She is not even my type and she is clearly 8/10+.

You missed the point. Plus I could easily name at least 15 flaws only on her mid-face, and you wouldn't be able to tell me how much each of them detracts on your scale, because:

1- You can't
2- You aren't aware of what the perfect face looks like (That is, how a flawless face looks like to be able to use the "10" or whatever number you want after the "/")

 

[Deleted member 1464]

 

[JustTrynaGrow]

Beauty is objective.
Thicker hair IS better then thin hair.
Low hairline IS better then a high hairline. etc

I feel like op missed the point though. Everyone has prefrences when it comes to beauty but we can still say when someone is objectively beautiful

 

[Deleted member 1100]

Beauty is objective.
Thicker hair IS better then thin hair.
Low hairline IS better then a high hairline. etc

Everyone has prefrences when it comes to beauty but we can still say when someone is objectively beautiful

Preferences = Attractiveness = Subjective (although still based on beauty)
Beauty = Objective (Although it's not absolute but rather a strict range (50mm of forehead or 52mm doesn't make a difference)

We can all say these two things:

Lima is more attractive than Amber Heard
Lima is more beautiful than Amber Heard

But you can only say:

Lima is 9/10 Attractive, Amber Heard is 8/10 Attractive

You can't say:

Lima is 9/10 Beautiful, Amber is 8/10 Beautiful.

The attractiveness scale is based on your subjective preference of what you like, in not so many extreme cases like Lima vs Kate Li vs Madison, you'll still get people who will say one is more attractive than the other two.

For example, it's not easy to prove that Lima has a better medial canthus than the other two on a Beauty standpoint, but there will still have people who will say Kate Li's is more attractive despite that, just because of preference.

Second, no one knows the ideal eye shape, you can still find flaws on lima's eye shape, how much each of these flaws will detract? and how will you do that if you don't even know what the ideal shape is to detect which flaws she has (Even if the ideal is a range and not absolute)

 

[retard]

I remember that thread, that user had a reasonable point that limas eyes are too Dom for a female, browridge mogs 70% of the forum etc...

It's true but I still find her the best looking female though.

But yeah, we don't even know if a theoretical deal male/female can exist.

People on PSL idolizes faces on how unique their features are not how well they compliment their face

 

[Chintuck22]

jut m	U	C	K	M	Y	d	i	c
U	U
C		C
K			K
M				M
Y					Y
d						d
i							i
c								c

shit, it didn't looked how i imagined it to be