Selinity
Zephir
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2021
- Posts
- 1,757
- Reputation
- 4,421
-Wheat Waffles YT
The 1-10 scale that we have been using in heavily flawed. In this post I will be going over my main critisisms of this manner of appraising male aesthetics, and in the end offering a better way of measuring your attractiveness.
Inconsistent Numbers
You would assume that the 1-10 scale would have equal jumps in attractiveness from each number to the next. In other words, each numerical jump on the scale would be an equal 10% forwards in attractiveness. Ideally, the increase in looks from each looks level would look like this:
However, in reality the jumps in attractiveness on the looks scale are something like this:
1 = 2 = 3 -> 4 --> 5 -> 6 -> 7 --> 8 = 9
As you can see, a 1-out-of-ten is essentially the same as the 2 and the 3-out-of-ten. They all mean the same thing--no one is going to find you good looking. Additionally, the jump from 4 to 5 is disproportionately large, same thing when you go from '7' to '8' on the 1-10 scale.
A 7 out of ten and an 8 out of 10 look like they're complete different species despite supposedly being only 1 looks level apart:
Besides the aforementioned inconsistencies, some of the numbers on the looks scale don't even exist. The 1-out-of-10 and 10-out-of-10 respectively are essentially imaginary numbers that exist in the scale for no reason but to act as place-holders.
Additionally, 8 and 9 mean basically the same thing.
At this point people might as well reduce it to the 3-8 scale.
Virtue Signalling
When rating men women tend to lie and fluffy up your rating a little bit. This is called 'virtue signalling,' something which women have adapted to do since offending a male used to mean certain death.
Even in today's age it's not beneficial to be honest, and women still have a natural compulsion to try and be agreeable. In accordance with this your actual looks rating can be inflated 2 to 3 points by a women so that she can come across as virtuous and polite.
But it is not just women who virtue signal when it comes to ratings.
Men also tend to fudge up looks-ratings, especially for themselves.
How can you expect to be able to objectively rate someone when there's all of these factors skewing the numbers in the background?
As a result there is little proper variation in looks ratings.
If ever you ask someone to rate you, unless you are borderline deformed you can expect one of three ratings:
Context
When you ask people to rate you they factor in many other things with their rating. After someone's known you for a little it's basically impossible for them to rate your aesthetics objectively because many other factors such as your perceived worth and SMV skew the results.
Things like body and height can effect your rating, even if you ask for one dependant on your looks.
Besides that what if the person rating you has heard things about you?
Those things will certainly influence your rating.
There are so many things going on in the background that most definitely alter the rating and thus make it inaccurate.
A good example of context working positively would be in the case of social proof (e.g men with girlfriends are seen as more attractive)
Subjectivity
Looks are subjective.
Of course some things have more apeal and whatever but people still have 'types' and 'preferences.'
This can skew the results again.
What if the person who's rating you prefers pretty boys? This preference will alter the person's ideal '10' and thus the remainder of the looks chart.
Of course the disparity caused by preference is not very big, but on a scale as wonky as this one which in practice essentially works like this,
People here for example praise masculine features above all, but on female equivalents to this site they prefer and worship more androgynous looking chads (facially)
Alternative
I propose we use a three-point-scale.
This scale will have only three ratings: Sub-5, Normie, Chad.
Rather than using arbitrary numbers and shit distribution like the 1-10 scale, this scale will be more accurate by using your female attention and treatment as the measuring stick for attractiveness.
Chad
Characteristics: negatives seen as positives (or at least overlooked), easily able to obtain relationships with females
-shy becomes cute
-arrogance becomes confidence
-intimacy on demand
-bad jokes are voluntarily laughed at, etc
Normie
Characteristics: Gets 'soft rejections,' Women virtue signal
-negative traits seen for what they are
-Struggles to get relationships with females (sexual)
-Needs two of the following in order to be successful with a women: 6ft+, her type, gym body, talents, status, social circle, game, luck, common interests, hyper NT, etc
Sub-5
Characteristics: Gets 'Hard rejections,' Positives seen as Negatives
-Confidence is arrogance
-Intelligence is geeky/nerdy
-Gym body is over compensating (gymcel)
The 1-10 scale that we have been using in heavily flawed. In this post I will be going over my main critisisms of this manner of appraising male aesthetics, and in the end offering a better way of measuring your attractiveness.
Inconsistent Numbers
You would assume that the 1-10 scale would have equal jumps in attractiveness from each number to the next. In other words, each numerical jump on the scale would be an equal 10% forwards in attractiveness. Ideally, the increase in looks from each looks level would look like this:
1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 -> 6 -> 6 -> 7 -> 8 -> 9 -> 10
However, in reality the jumps in attractiveness on the looks scale are something like this:
1 = 2 = 3 -> 4 --> 5 -> 6 -> 7 --> 8 = 9
A 7 out of ten and an 8 out of 10 look like they're complete different species despite supposedly being only 1 looks level apart:
Additionally, 8 and 9 mean basically the same thing.
At this point people might as well reduce it to the 3-8 scale.
Virtue Signalling
When rating men women tend to lie and fluffy up your rating a little bit. This is called 'virtue signalling,' something which women have adapted to do since offending a male used to mean certain death.
Even in today's age it's not beneficial to be honest, and women still have a natural compulsion to try and be agreeable. In accordance with this your actual looks rating can be inflated 2 to 3 points by a women so that she can come across as virtuous and polite.
But it is not just women who virtue signal when it comes to ratings.
Men also tend to fudge up looks-ratings, especially for themselves.
Unattractive people think they are more attractive than they are, while attractive people underrate their attractiveness
New research published in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology suggests that unattractive people are largely unaware of how unattractive they are.
www.psypost.org
How can you expect to be able to objectively rate someone when there's all of these factors skewing the numbers in the background?
As a result there is little proper variation in looks ratings.
If ever you ask someone to rate you, unless you are borderline deformed you can expect one of three ratings:
5, 6, 7
Because of human nature and my first criticism of the looks-scale, the scale's full range is not even properly used.
Context
When you ask people to rate you they factor in many other things with their rating. After someone's known you for a little it's basically impossible for them to rate your aesthetics objectively because many other factors such as your perceived worth and SMV skew the results.
Things like body and height can effect your rating, even if you ask for one dependant on your looks.
Besides that what if the person rating you has heard things about you?
Those things will certainly influence your rating.
There are so many things going on in the background that most definitely alter the rating and thus make it inaccurate.
A good example of context working positively would be in the case of social proof (e.g men with girlfriends are seen as more attractive)
Subjectivity
Looks are subjective.
Of course some things have more apeal and whatever but people still have 'types' and 'preferences.'
This can skew the results again.
What if the person who's rating you prefers pretty boys? This preference will alter the person's ideal '10' and thus the remainder of the looks chart.
Of course the disparity caused by preference is not very big, but on a scale as wonky as this one which in practice essentially works like this,
5, 6, 7 --> 8/9
That slight change will throw an even bigger wrench into things.
People here for example praise masculine features above all, but on female equivalents to this site they prefer and worship more androgynous looking chads (facially)
Alternative
I propose we use a three-point-scale.
This scale will have only three ratings: Sub-5, Normie, Chad.
Rather than using arbitrary numbers and shit distribution like the 1-10 scale, this scale will be more accurate by using your female attention and treatment as the measuring stick for attractiveness.
Chad
Characteristics: negatives seen as positives (or at least overlooked), easily able to obtain relationships with females
-shy becomes cute
-arrogance becomes confidence
-intimacy on demand
-bad jokes are voluntarily laughed at, etc
Normie
Characteristics: Gets 'soft rejections,' Women virtue signal
-negative traits seen for what they are
-Struggles to get relationships with females (sexual)
-Needs two of the following in order to be successful with a women: 6ft+, her type, gym body, talents, status, social circle, game, luck, common interests, hyper NT, etc
Sub-5
Characteristics: Gets 'Hard rejections,' Positives seen as Negatives
-Confidence is arrogance
-Intelligence is geeky/nerdy
-Gym body is over compensating (gymcel)
tagging some users who may be interested in this topic:
@sergeant blackpill @Philtrumcel @AcneScars @Rift678 @Alexanderr @tyronelite @BeautyIsEverything @Spiral @wereqryan @Lihito @wanttobeattractive
@sergeant blackpill @Philtrumcel @AcneScars @Rift678 @Alexanderr @tyronelite @BeautyIsEverything @Spiral @wereqryan @Lihito @wanttobeattractive
Last edited:
