Selinity
Zephir
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2021
- Posts
- 1,757
- Reputation
- 4,421
The 'PSL system' is the widely used rating system on looksmaxxing forums in appraising male attractiveness. This model of rating beauty is based on the 'population distribution model,' which if you haven't seen before, looks something like this:
This model of appraising attractiveness--although better than the standard '1-10 scale,' still has it's own flaws, and there are a few criticisms to be made about it. Everyone's PSL ratings seem to have some inconsistencies, but I will be using the model with @tincelw sent me.
psl 2 = 2% truecel
psl 3 = 14% incel
psl 4 = 50% average
psl 5 = 84% chadlite
psl 6 = 97% chad
psl 7 = 99% chad
psl 8 = 99.9% chad
**I beleive '%' refers to percentile, not percnetage**
In this post we will be going over these inconsistencies and flaws in the psl system as well as some other, better, ways of rating attractiveness.
The Method
The method the psl system uses to quantify male aesthetics is the 'population distribution model.' This is the main issue with the psl system--it's flawed at it's core. According to this system, attractiveness is distributed like a bell-curve with the highest most represented group being psl 4, or 'average looking,'
The problem with this is that that is not how attractiveness is distributed. in fact, if PSL wants to use the distribution model, it has to make it's ratings even more harsh than they already are!
This is the real model for distribution of attractiveness:
As we can see, the average for static faces sits at 40/100, or a preverbial '4/10,' on an IRL rating scale, which according to you guys is the equivalent of a 2.75 PSL. I did not make this conversion model myself, but it's you guys who said PSL scale is 1.25 points harsher than IRL, not me.
According to this, the psl scale needs to be even more harsh than it already is, because it uses a model of distribution which does not exist.
A solution to this problem of course would be 're-calibrating' the psl system to be inline with today's research. Under a 're calibrated' psl system an average '4 PSL' would be the equivalent of a '3/10'
The reason it would work this way is because supposedly the psl system is based on the distribution of attractiveness, not actual ratings themselve.
Bill McDonald, a marketing researcher said quote, "It is not gaussian (a bell curve), unless you force it to be." when talking about the distribution of attracitveness.
And this idea is supported not only by the professionals and the study which I pulled the image from (sources at the end), but by research done by others such as okCupid
James Taranto said quote, "The average male is unsightly"
You can not say try and defend the psl-system and say that 'women are just being too harsh, bro,' when this is how they rate men. It doesn't matter if you think it's too harsh because at the end of the day, the average women thinks the average man is a sub-human and will not fuck an average man.
I am not someone who points out flaws without solutions though, like I said before, if you want to keep using the psl-scale then you need to re-calibrate it to be inline with the data and make a 4/8 PSL = a 3/10 IRL.
Rating
The next issue with PSL is that when people rate using the psl system, they don't rate using the psl system. I know you are special and the exception to the rule, and 'most people can't rate for shit' but you, blah, blah blah.
But the reality is that most people don't even think through rating in psl using the population distribution model, they look at a man's face, and the the first number which jumps at them they type (using irl) and then they convert the rating to PSL by being harsher or deducting more points, etc.
The problem with this is a) it completely abandons the use of the 'population distribution model,' thus making most PSL ratings on this site not actual PSl rating by definition, and b) the conversion from PSL to IRL does not work.
You can not transfer a rating over to IRL with a proper conversion method, it simply does not work.
The reason why is simple: You can't quantify a population distribution system outside of it's system. The PSL and IRL scales are essentially incompatible, not to mention the IRL rating system is grounded in *nothing* but someone's quick impression (it lacks objectivity).
And this is not the fault of the raters--most people can't think of a distribution model when rating, they just want to quickly be done with it and more on. That is one of the other faults of the PSL system--it's not fast enough.
Objectivity
The 'PSL scale' as much as you may want it to be, is not objective. The reason why is simple. Not only does it use a flawed distribution model and is thought through in irl but there is no set criteria for each level on the scale.
Whenever people dispute eachother's ratings saying things like 'oh, he's a psl 5, not a 6 you coping faggot,' they don't have anything to back up their claims other than what they feel is correct (something which they thought throuigh in irl without any distribution model btw).
It's basically gotten to the point where everyone is basing their ratings off of their feelings because there's no set criteria for each looks-level.
I searched this site for a proper 'looks scale' using psl and couldnt find any, at least not any good ones with set requirements for each looks level, etc.
Then there is also the issue of things like harmony, etc, which make the whole manner of appraising faces with quantified numbers utter dog-shit.
@gamma, in my previous thread you said that Sean O'pry was a 9.5/10, how did you reach that conclusion? Because I guantee you that there's a less attractive individual who meets those same specifications (whatever they may be)
Different levels on the looks scale can have basically the same features, there's no big distinguishing factors.
Alternatives
There are other systems to use instead of PSL, one of which I beleive we should be using, the 1-3 scale. This scale was inspired by "Wheat Waffles" and is based on attention and treatment from women rather than a model which in practice does not work:
However, this is not the only alternative to the PSL scale which I have seen. On female equivelents to this site they use a 'tier system' in which every 'looks level' is represented by a tier, and within these tiers there are sub catagonries or declining attractiveness. The chart looks like this:
S tier (S1, S2, S3)
A tier (A1, A2, A3)
B tier (B1, B2, B3)
C tier (C1, C2, C3)
D tier (D1, D2, D3)
E tier (E1, E2, E3)
Personally, I do not like this chart, but I thought it would be nice to include it here since we are on the topic of rating systems.
Anyways, that's all for this post. Now would be a good time to try and dispute this in the replies or to leave a react if you appreciated this thread.
Previous Threads:
The Problem With Rating Male Attractiveness | Why the 1-10 'Looks Scale' Is Flawed
Future Threads:
A Look Into Female Looksmaxxing Forums
Fixing The PSL System (With Science)
psl 2 = 2% truecel
psl 3 = 14% incel
psl 4 = 50% average
psl 5 = 84% chadlite
psl 6 = 97% chad
psl 7 = 99% chad
psl 8 = 99.9% chad
**I beleive '%' refers to percentile, not percnetage**
The Method
The method the psl system uses to quantify male aesthetics is the 'population distribution model.' This is the main issue with the psl system--it's flawed at it's core. According to this system, attractiveness is distributed like a bell-curve with the highest most represented group being psl 4, or 'average looking,'
The problem with this is that that is not how attractiveness is distributed. in fact, if PSL wants to use the distribution model, it has to make it's ratings even more harsh than they already are!
This is the real model for distribution of attractiveness:
As we can see, the average for static faces sits at 40/100, or a preverbial '4/10,' on an IRL rating scale, which according to you guys is the equivalent of a 2.75 PSL. I did not make this conversion model myself, but it's you guys who said PSL scale is 1.25 points harsher than IRL, not me.
According to this, the psl scale needs to be even more harsh than it already is, because it uses a model of distribution which does not exist.
A solution to this problem of course would be 're-calibrating' the psl system to be inline with today's research. Under a 're calibrated' psl system an average '4 PSL' would be the equivalent of a '3/10'
The reason it would work this way is because supposedly the psl system is based on the distribution of attractiveness, not actual ratings themselve.
Bill McDonald, a marketing researcher said quote, "It is not gaussian (a bell curve), unless you force it to be." when talking about the distribution of attracitveness.
And this idea is supported not only by the professionals and the study which I pulled the image from (sources at the end), but by research done by others such as okCupid
James Taranto said quote, "The average male is unsightly"
I am not someone who points out flaws without solutions though, like I said before, if you want to keep using the psl-scale then you need to re-calibrate it to be inline with the data and make a 4/8 PSL = a 3/10 IRL.
Rating
The next issue with PSL is that when people rate using the psl system, they don't rate using the psl system. I know you are special and the exception to the rule, and 'most people can't rate for shit' but you, blah, blah blah.
But the reality is that most people don't even think through rating in psl using the population distribution model, they look at a man's face, and the the first number which jumps at them they type (using irl) and then they convert the rating to PSL by being harsher or deducting more points, etc.
The problem with this is a) it completely abandons the use of the 'population distribution model,' thus making most PSL ratings on this site not actual PSl rating by definition, and b) the conversion from PSL to IRL does not work.
You can not transfer a rating over to IRL with a proper conversion method, it simply does not work.
The reason why is simple: You can't quantify a population distribution system outside of it's system. The PSL and IRL scales are essentially incompatible, not to mention the IRL rating system is grounded in *nothing* but someone's quick impression (it lacks objectivity).
And this is not the fault of the raters--most people can't think of a distribution model when rating, they just want to quickly be done with it and more on. That is one of the other faults of the PSL system--it's not fast enough.
Objectivity
The 'PSL scale' as much as you may want it to be, is not objective. The reason why is simple. Not only does it use a flawed distribution model and is thought through in irl but there is no set criteria for each level on the scale.
Whenever people dispute eachother's ratings saying things like 'oh, he's a psl 5, not a 6 you coping faggot,' they don't have anything to back up their claims other than what they feel is correct (something which they thought throuigh in irl without any distribution model btw).
It's basically gotten to the point where everyone is basing their ratings off of their feelings because there's no set criteria for each looks-level.
I searched this site for a proper 'looks scale' using psl and couldnt find any, at least not any good ones with set requirements for each looks level, etc.
Then there is also the issue of things like harmony, etc, which make the whole manner of appraising faces with quantified numbers utter dog-shit.
@gamma, in my previous thread you said that Sean O'pry was a 9.5/10, how did you reach that conclusion? Because I guantee you that there's a less attractive individual who meets those same specifications (whatever they may be)
Different levels on the looks scale can have basically the same features, there's no big distinguishing factors.
Alternatives
There are other systems to use instead of PSL, one of which I beleive we should be using, the 1-3 scale. This scale was inspired by "Wheat Waffles" and is based on attention and treatment from women rather than a model which in practice does not work:
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)
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)
However, this is not the only alternative to the PSL scale which I have seen. On female equivelents to this site they use a 'tier system' in which every 'looks level' is represented by a tier, and within these tiers there are sub catagonries or declining attractiveness. The chart looks like this:
S tier (S1, S2, S3)
A tier (A1, A2, A3)
B tier (B1, B2, B3)
C tier (C1, C2, C3)
D tier (D1, D2, D3)
E tier (E1, E2, E3)
Personally, I do not like this chart, but I thought it would be nice to include it here since we are on the topic of rating systems.
Anyways, that's all for this post. Now would be a good time to try and dispute this in the replies or to leave a react if you appreciated this thread.
Previous Threads:
The Problem With Rating Male Attractiveness | Why the 1-10 'Looks Scale' Is Flawed
Future Threads:
A Look Into Female Looksmaxxing Forums
Fixing The PSL System (With Science)
@sergeant blackpill @Philtrumcel @AcneScars @Rift678 @Alexanderr @tyronelite @BeautyIsEverything @Spiral @wereqryan @Lihito @wanttobeattractive @gamma @tincelw @PrestonYnot @Toska @pizza @kjsbdfiusdf
Last edited:
