Deleted member 20131
Gold
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2022
- Posts
- 837
- Reputation
- 1,779
People have never really been able to rate properly for the most part except for a select few. This negatively affects the collective perception on the forum for what is required.
People bias ratings and rate lower OR higher (the need to ascend) when the person they're rating has the same failos as them
People bias ratings and rate higher OR lower when the person they're rating has similar features to them
People bias ratings and rate higher OR lower when the person they're rating has a similar pheno to them
People bias ratings and rate higher OR lower when the person they're rating has features that THEY WANT
People bias ratings and rate lower or higher if the person is normal height or tall due to the raters concept on height and how it interferes with the persons overall package and what their idea of height ranges are for modern Man
People bias ratings and rate lower or higher if the person has a small/normal/big frame due to the raters perception of what is "over tier" and what is "slayer" tier. Some people think overly big, disproportionate features are the best. I used to include this in my ratings as a bias, now a resolved issue.
People don't factor in the inevitable looks variance - pictures, videos and even real life aren't static realities in a vacuum, they're dynamic constantly changing environments that alters the appearance of everyone. The best looking people have the lowest looks variance. They're tanned, dense hair, golden ratio proportions and clean cut CHAD+ in all environments (lighting, angle, distance) and to add to this, the best, most universally appealing chads also AGE the best - this is time related looks variance.
Then there is the fact that women are slightly more nuanced than we give them credit for. They have phenotype preferences due to their own internal biases (upbringing, hormonal status, phenotype and several other factors)
My simple philosophy is that rating is a snap judgement, it takes 0.1seconds to rate someone. If you then need to break it down as to perhaps why that person is that rating you need to make sure you're factoring for all mentioned variables in your analysis. The closer you are to perfection the more godlike you look. Or rather, the more you look like a demi-god. Like Zeus and a 5'9 9.5/10Swedish Shield Maiden had a child
to add to this, people have a misconception of what "Harmony" is as well
Harmony is flow within ones body. How congruent are your features from feature to feature? is there any disruption to the flow of your face or body or overall appearance? not all features are the same failo on all faces. It depends on the harmony/flow of the individual.
Not to mention what was mentioned above which is about being TRAINED what to be attracted to via social media algorithm programming. Then there's the extremely complex subject of Mineral balance, birth control, hormonal status, upbringing (deadbeat criminal dad). What kind of guy took their virginity? what do the guys in her dating history past look like?
So many factors.
Good day.
- Pinhead, top tier rater on planet Earth
People bias ratings and rate lower OR higher (the need to ascend) when the person they're rating has the same failos as them
People bias ratings and rate higher OR lower when the person they're rating has similar features to them
People bias ratings and rate higher OR lower when the person they're rating has a similar pheno to them
People bias ratings and rate higher OR lower when the person they're rating has features that THEY WANT
People bias ratings and rate lower or higher if the person is normal height or tall due to the raters concept on height and how it interferes with the persons overall package and what their idea of height ranges are for modern Man
People bias ratings and rate lower or higher if the person has a small/normal/big frame due to the raters perception of what is "over tier" and what is "slayer" tier. Some people think overly big, disproportionate features are the best. I used to include this in my ratings as a bias, now a resolved issue.
People don't factor in the inevitable looks variance - pictures, videos and even real life aren't static realities in a vacuum, they're dynamic constantly changing environments that alters the appearance of everyone. The best looking people have the lowest looks variance. They're tanned, dense hair, golden ratio proportions and clean cut CHAD+ in all environments (lighting, angle, distance) and to add to this, the best, most universally appealing chads also AGE the best - this is time related looks variance.
Then there is the fact that women are slightly more nuanced than we give them credit for. They have phenotype preferences due to their own internal biases (upbringing, hormonal status, phenotype and several other factors)
My simple philosophy is that rating is a snap judgement, it takes 0.1seconds to rate someone. If you then need to break it down as to perhaps why that person is that rating you need to make sure you're factoring for all mentioned variables in your analysis. The closer you are to perfection the more godlike you look. Or rather, the more you look like a demi-god. Like Zeus and a 5'9 9.5/10Swedish Shield Maiden had a child
to add to this, people have a misconception of what "Harmony" is as well
Harmony is flow within ones body. How congruent are your features from feature to feature? is there any disruption to the flow of your face or body or overall appearance? not all features are the same failo on all faces. It depends on the harmony/flow of the individual.
Not to mention what was mentioned above which is about being TRAINED what to be attracted to via social media algorithm programming. Then there's the extremely complex subject of Mineral balance, birth control, hormonal status, upbringing (deadbeat criminal dad). What kind of guy took their virginity? what do the guys in her dating history past look like?
So many factors.
Good day.
- Pinhead, top tier rater on planet Earth
