The Problem With Rating Male Attractiveness | Why The 'PSL Scale' Is Flawed

[Deleted member 12611]

When you go to new places, do you notice that some girls get attracted to you simply because of your looks? You are good-looking if that happens regularly.

Do girls feel disgusted because of your looks? You are subhuman.

This is a very good intuitive way of measuring.

 

[Deleted member 12611]

The main problem with my strategy/method is sympathy for you and fear of rejection skewing her score. What if we tried to lessen those two things as much as possible?

When are women most honest about who they like? WITH OTHER WOMEN!

Set up an account, match with people, and then ask them to rate a guy (you choose on how you introduce them, this can be formalized later). This way:
1. Only the person's face is available for them to rate attractiveness, and not status, money, height, body, or NT/aspie pics
2. Her sympathy is partially removed by her being farther seperation from the person they are rating
3. Fear of rejection is lessened because women wont get as defensive and aggressive as the person being rated themselves or someone close to them.

It is an idea, and has potential.

This is how you would ask them:
You: heyy
Them: hey
You: *waits 10-15 min*
You: sorryy I took so long this guy messaged me
You: *posts pics*
You: what would you rate him /10??

 

[Wallenberg]

This is a very good intuitive way of measuring.

That's how you know where you stand without asking people here.

 

[pizza]

A Look Into Female Looksmaxxing Forums

does it exist?

 

[Selinity]

does it exist?

yes, female looksmaxxing forums exist, many of them do and some of them are 'black pilled' and they talk about 'male nature' jfl.
It's honestly very interesting to look into.

 

[AscendingHero]

Good High IQ thread, Mods sticky this ASAP

@her @Gargantuan @knajjd @Kingkellz @Alexanderr @Lorsss

 

[pizza]

yes, female looksmaxxing forums exist, many of them do and some of them are 'black pilled' and they talk about 'male nature' jfl.
It's honestly very interesting to look into

interesting

 

[Deleted member 10579]

yes, female looksmaxxing forums exist, many of them do and some of them are 'black pilled' and they talk about 'male nature' jfl.
It's honestly very interesting to look into.

Name some of them? I'd like to check them out ngl

 

[Selinity]

Name some of them? I'd like to check them out ngl

I will be making a thread on some of them, so wait until then. I will add you to the @ list so you get notified when it comes out

 

[Deleted member 7253]

DNR

 

[RICO]

only accurate looksmax rating system would be how random girls you don't know treat you off first impression keeping all other variables like height and body constant

everything else will always be slightly flawed and inaccurate but for the most part PSL rating is good enough, no need to complicate shit tbh

PSL is good enough for practical uses. This could be a science, but complicating the rating system further is unnecessary. I agree with you that the ultimate rating system is seeing how real girls react to you.

Use pictures of different guys post on tinder and see what the ladies like best. Simplicity is best.

 

[Deleted member 7076]

PSL is good enough for practical uses. This could be a science, but complicating the rating system further is unnecessary. I agree with you that the ultimate rating system is seeing how real girls react to you.

Use pictures of different guys post on tinder and see what the ladies like best. Simplicity is best.

yeah thats what i thought aswell

 

[efidescontinuado]

 

[oldcelloser]

its l

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:

View attachment 1089819​

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:

View attachment 1089846​

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"

View attachment 1089869
​

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:

Spoiler: 1-3 'Looks Scale'

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)

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[/Uits literally [/CENTER]
[/QUOTE]​

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:

View attachment 1089819​

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:

View attachment 1089846​

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"

View attachment 1089869
​

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:

Spoiler: 1-3 'Looks Scale'

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)

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​

its literally cope for retarded autists thats all you need to know ; men that were rated 6 or 7 PSL i know for a fact they would be huge JBs slayers IRL, but yeah ppl here are spending their whole life on the forums searching for their 10/10 instead of going out, so what can you do

 

[dnrd]

my name

 

[ascentium]

Good post:
(.) Attractiveness follows power-law not Gaussian.
(.) corollary: the “mean” > the center of gravity of the distribution.
(.) psl fails insofar as it attempts to be a non-biased population parameter.
(.) psl fails inasmuch as it does not accurately describe the pay-off function of attractiveness.

That last part you attempted to describe with the 1-3 scale.

ideally we’d decompose the pay-off function from the input. The challenge is that both the distribution (power) & pay-off (exponential) are non-linear so highly sensitive to small perturbations, essentially making the entire enterprise futile.

I think the operational definition you proposed in the 1-3 range can be further enumerated, as they’re are subcategories in 2-3 range do to the exponential returns on attractiveness i.e. jumping from two to three s.d. from the mean will yield a larger increase in payoff than jumping from one to two s.d..

To further complicate the payoff function is multivariate & n-dimensional, and there are likely concavities within certain features of the pay-off set. PSL tends to be an attempt at ceteris paribus, but women don’t make ceteris paribus judgments when making grooming (attention) & reproductive decisions.

So firstly we have to enumerate the various pay-off spaces, and secondly take a wholistic clinical approach when diagnosing ones attractiveness/desirability in the mating market. This has been my approach.

Ps: Psl ratings have mostly served as cope for entitlement, but markets never lie. One either commands grooming & reproductive opportunities or he he does not. Everything is noise & non-fungible.

@MD_Hopeful69

 

[Deleted member 3479]

only accurate looksmax rating system would be how random girls you don't know treat you off first impression keeping all other variables like height and body constant

everything else will always be slightly flawed and inaccurate but for the most part PSL rating is good enough, no need to complicate shit tbh

Girls are passive and will treat u good first time regardless

 

[Deleted member 7076]

Girls are passive and will treat u good first time regardless

u can guage how into you they are tho by their body language most the time

 

[PenileFacialSurgery]

Seriously the fucking new 2-8 PSL is FUCKING RETARDED...

PURE AUTISM

1-9 was fucking good enough since perfect 10s don’t exist to everyone, neither 0, but a fucking 1 might aswell be zero same as a 9 being a 10.

1-9 PSL which is basically 0-10... same shit, IS FUCKING GOOD ENOUGH.


Anyone using 2-8 scale is fucking pathetic and joined last year.

 

[NeoDandi]

Basically:

When you go to new places, do you notice that some girls get attracted to you simply because of your looks? You are good-looking if that happens regularly.

Do girls feel disgusted because of your looks? You are subhuman.

If the answer is no to both questions, you are average/normie.

Exactly what I meant @PapiMew

 

[antiantifa]

tfw normie that is 6ft+ and gymmaxxed.

 

[Deleted member 3789]

 

[tyronelite]

Will read later, catching up on threads. Congrats on making it in BoB

 

[thisisasupersaiyan]

This is how you would ask them:
You: heyy
Them: hey
You: *waits 10-15 min*
You: sorryy I took so long this guy messaged me
You: *posts pics*
You: what would you rate him /10??

unironically doing this rn. will report back.

 

[Deleted member 12611]

unironically doing this rn. will report back.

Based username tbh

 

[tyronelite]

Just finished reading. High IQ as usual brotha. I'm glad people are getting away from PSL

 

[thisisasupersaiyan]

Based username tbh

represents the process we're all trying for my man.

Just got rated a 6/10 by some girl from Malaysia. Higher than I believe I am, probably getting JBW boost.

Sent a pic of one of my normie friends to gauge her rating scale and he got a 5, and I think this is accurate. Then sent a pic of another guy from before he ascended and he got a 5, but I believe he is way lower than this. Sent his post ascension pic (one of the few unrecognizable giga ascensions of our time) and he got a 7, but I believe he is really higher than this.

Just one girl, but very good stuff so far. She at least lines up with the theory that rating scales for girls are compressed around the middle, and when they say 5-7 they actually mean 2-4. Need to collect more data.

 

[Deleted member 12611]

represents the process we're all trying for my man.

Just got rated a 6/10 by some girl from Malaysia. Higher than I believe I am, probably getting JBW boost.

Sent a pic of one of my normie friends to gauge her rating scale and he got a 5, and I think this is accurate. Then sent a pic of another guy from before he ascended and he got a 5, but I believe he is way lower than this. Sent his post ascension pic (one of the few unrecognizable giga ascensions of our time) and he got a 7, but I believe he is really higher than this.

Just one girl, but very good stuff so far. She at least lines up with the theory that rating scales for girls are compressed around the middle, and when they say 5-7 they actually mean 2-4. Need to collect more data.

Very interesting, keep us updated. I think I'm gonna try it too.

 

[Selinity]

Congrats on making it in BoB

When did that happen? The threads not in BoB

 

[tyronelite]

When did that happen? The threads not in BoB

My b bro I’m baked out of my mind

 

[Edgar]

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 N

Stopped reading here cuz this applies to me. I was a normie with severe acne. Does that mean that fixing my skin will ascend me to htn?

 

[Biiyo03]

I have never been into PSL ranking.

I use a 3-tiered ranking: good-looking, normie/average, subhuman. I don't see the need to debate whether a guy is chadlite or chad.

GL guys get attention because of their looks. There are different levels of GL guys: 7/10 "everyday GL guys" and 10/10 gigachads, but all of them get some attention because of their good looks.

Normies have to jestermaxx etc. Most guys are normies/average.

Subhumans have a very hard time with women.

this is legit how girls see attractiveness ngl, this is the best irl rating. Girls legit think chris hemsworth is 10/10 just as much as hexum is a 10/10 or fucking chico or pitt but they're just like 'oh that guy is more cute than him, my type' they wont say oh that guy has nct or w/e the fuck. (most people even males are like that too).
then there's good looking people

then theres normies which is invisible

then theres ugly people which makes them mad and disgusted at you, brutal.

 

[Deleted member 14262]

OP is 14

Yet he still managed to IQmog a 70% of the forum.

 

[JamesHowlett]

PSL is dog shit for IRL rating

 

[BigNigga69]

Shit analysis
Regardless of attractiveness ratings of men from women, that's irrelevant. Attractiveness is still symmetrically distributed. Let's say 100,000 perfectly representative men are rated from two options, fuck or no by 100,000 women. Then the guy who has the median number of yeses is the 50% percentile. The guy who gets the most is 99.999 percentile, guy who gets least yeses is 0.001 percentile, and so on and so forth you have a symmetrical distribution. You see, since attraction is subjective, you are allowing the women's subjective opinions to influence your distribution. This is statistical folly. You HAVE to look at appeal level rankings