untouchable_coper
Silver
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2022
- Posts
- 535
- Reputation
- 542
The distribution of attractiveness is normal (to a degree). Let's say that a 5/10 true MTN (normie just means regular person, but MTN means average attractiveness) is the 50th percentile just to ground the scale on one point. In order for the distribution to be normally distributed, there should be no skew left or right. We know that naturally-occurring features are normally distributed, like height, so likewise, quantitative features on the face, such as ratios, are also normally distributed.
Oftentimes, though, the ideal is not in the extreme end like how the most attractive are the least common. However, this does not matter. Let's say that the ideal is average features and ratios. Most (let's say half) of people will have each feature. When we acquire the aggregate of all of these features, the probability compounds over many, many features. If there are 10 key features & ratios on the face and 50% of men have each of it, just 1 in 1024 (2^10) will have all ten. 1/1024 will also have none of the correct features/ratios. Therefore, the most attractive are still the rarest with many more than ten features. Look into the 'binomial distribution' for more information, but basically the more the factors (in this case features & ratios), the closer and closer the distribution approaches normality. When the aggregate is taken, attractiveness is normally distributed.
The question is, how much is a standard deviation if the distribution is normal? Take a look around you. Are the majority of people close together in attractiveness, with just a few 'moggers,' and just a few people that 'cannot be saved?' When looking for unattractive people, do not take into account overweight people and just look for genuinely ugly people that require surgery to ascend to a normie level. If a strong majority of people are normies, then most people fall between 4-6. These are the 'normies.' If there are just a couple of Chads in your school/uni, then almost everyone falls between 3-7. Thus, the standard deviation is probably 1, but this model worsens at the extremes (technically there can be an 11 or a -1 because six sigma is not impossible). Can anyone think of a different distribution that is like a normal curve but cuts off at 0? This works well for 99.7% of the population, so it's fine for now.
And this is functionally a PSL scale: pretty much anyone you can think of falls between 2-8. However, setting the average to 4 is a bad idea, because without adding fat people, the distribution is symmetric; there are as many Chadlites as there are Incels (opposite of Chad is Truecel, not Incel) and there are as many 'above-average' guys as 'below-average' ones.
Here are my previous threads establishing each rating level:
As you can see, the normies, even some of the LTNs are not hard to look at like some people on this forum think. The average (young, not fat) person is, well, average, not unattractive. Only when the ills of society are factored in does the 'average' person become unattractive (today it is obesity, before it was hunger and sanitation).
Btw this does not take into account the slowly increasing attractiveness over the years. Like IQ (always set white Americans to 100 average), I always set the average for each race to 5/10.
Oftentimes, though, the ideal is not in the extreme end like how the most attractive are the least common. However, this does not matter. Let's say that the ideal is average features and ratios. Most (let's say half) of people will have each feature. When we acquire the aggregate of all of these features, the probability compounds over many, many features. If there are 10 key features & ratios on the face and 50% of men have each of it, just 1 in 1024 (2^10) will have all ten. 1/1024 will also have none of the correct features/ratios. Therefore, the most attractive are still the rarest with many more than ten features. Look into the 'binomial distribution' for more information, but basically the more the factors (in this case features & ratios), the closer and closer the distribution approaches normality. When the aggregate is taken, attractiveness is normally distributed.
The question is, how much is a standard deviation if the distribution is normal? Take a look around you. Are the majority of people close together in attractiveness, with just a few 'moggers,' and just a few people that 'cannot be saved?' When looking for unattractive people, do not take into account overweight people and just look for genuinely ugly people that require surgery to ascend to a normie level. If a strong majority of people are normies, then most people fall between 4-6. These are the 'normies.' If there are just a couple of Chads in your school/uni, then almost everyone falls between 3-7. Thus, the standard deviation is probably 1, but this model worsens at the extremes (technically there can be an 11 or a -1 because six sigma is not impossible). Can anyone think of a different distribution that is like a normal curve but cuts off at 0? This works well for 99.7% of the population, so it's fine for now.
And this is functionally a PSL scale: pretty much anyone you can think of falls between 2-8. However, setting the average to 4 is a bad idea, because without adding fat people, the distribution is symmetric; there are as many Chadlites as there are Incels (opposite of Chad is Truecel, not Incel) and there are as many 'above-average' guys as 'below-average' ones.
Here are my previous threads establishing each rating level:
As you can see, the normies, even some of the LTNs are not hard to look at like some people on this forum think. The average (young, not fat) person is, well, average, not unattractive. Only when the ills of society are factored in does the 'average' person become unattractive (today it is obesity, before it was hunger and sanitation).
Btw this does not take into account the slowly increasing attractiveness over the years. Like IQ (always set white Americans to 100 average), I always set the average for each race to 5/10.
