ULTIMATE FACE VS HEIGHT RELATIONSHIP FORMULA ("HIGH IQs" GTFIH)

[liberated]

INTRODUCTION
THIS POST AIMS TO DIG DEEPER INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HEIGHT AND FACE ATTRACTIVENESS COMBO.

MANY USERS HERE ASK QUESTIONS LIKE: "WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT, FACE OR HEIGHT?"
OR DO DUMB CALCULATIONS LIKE: (YOUR HEIGHT + YOUR FACE) / 2.

HERE I WANT SMART USERS TO HELP ME GET CLOSER TO THE TRUTH.

LET'S PROPOSE A MORE ACCURATE RELATIONSHIP TOGETHER.


MY PROPOSED HEIGHT FORMULA

AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS FORMULA IS BASED ON THE LOGIC OF DISTRIBUTION AND FEMALE PREFERENCE. COUNTLESS TIMES, FEMALES RATE 6'3" AS THE IDEAL HEIGHT. MORE HEIGHT SLIGHTLY DECREASES YOUR ATTRACTION LEVEL TOO.

ACCORDING TO MY FORMULA, YOU GET 0.5 AS A 5'9", 1 AS A 6'3", 0 AS A 5'5", AND IT FOLLOWS AN UPSIDE-DOWN QUADRATIC EQUATION. SIMPLE. VALUES OF y ARE FROM 0 ≤ y ≤ 1.


NOW FOR THE FACE

IT'S A LITTLE TRICKY BUT STILL A SIMPLE-LOOKING GRAPH.

BASICALLY, IT MEANS THAT FROM A SUB-5 (x < 5) TO A 5 IT'S AN EXPONENTIAL CLIMB, AND FROM 5 TO A CHAD (10) IT'S AN EXPONENTIAL CLIMB AS WELL. AGAIN, VALUES OF y ARE FROM 0 ≤ y ≤ 1.
NOW WE COMBINE THEM:
HeightScore × FaceScore = FinalScore (from 0 to 1)
You can multiply it by 10 to get your rating.

NOW THE MOST IMPORTANT PART:
I NEED YOUR HELP TO REFINE THIS.
ANY HIGH-IQ FEEDBACK WOULD BE COOL.

Dnrd
Schizo Ramblings from the Slums of Minnesota
"Muh chad doesn't care about ratings"
and etc.


EDIT1:
thanks to @mvpisafaggot420
H = -1/72 (x-75)^2 + 1, forgot the minus

 

[GymcellingForLife]

Ok so if i study this, will my doctor be better at the bimax. Or do i get insta looks boost and confidence?

 

[mvpisafaggot420]

interesting proposition. i like that youre actually thinking about lookism systematically.

 

[liberated]

Ok so if i study this, will my doctor be better at the bimax. Or do i get insta looks boost and confidence?

Nope

 

[walidthelooksmaxxer]

bro we havent studied exponential climb yet, how do i use ts?

 

[liberated]

interesting proposition. i like that youre actually thinking about lookism systematically.

thank you bhai

 

[GymcellingForLife]

bro we havent studied exponential climb yet, how do i use ts?

brother no wonder american only know how to shoot in school

 

[liberated]

bro we havent studied exponential climb yet, how do i use ts?

ask gpt to teach you exponential functions brah, its not that hard, trust

 

[mvpisafaggot420]

your formula for H doesn't stay between [0,1] for all values for h tho?

 

[Mogsgymmaxx]

INTRODUCTION
THIS POST AIMS TO DIG DEEPER INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HEIGHT AND FACE ATTRACTIVENESS COMBO.

MANY USERS HERE ASK QUESTIONS LIKE: "WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT, FACE OR HEIGHT?"
OR DO DUMB CALCULATIONS LIKE: (YOUR HEIGHT + YOUR FACE) / 2.

HERE I WANT SMART USERS TO HELP ME GET CLOSER TO THE TRUTH.

LET'S PROPOSE A MORE ACCURATE RELATIONSHIP TOGETHER.


MY PROPOSED HEIGHT FORMULA

View attachment 4096044
AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS FORMULA IS BASED ON THE LOGIC OF DISTRIBUTION AND FEMALE PREFERENCE. COUNTLESS TIMES, FEMALES RATE 6'3" AS THE IDEAL HEIGHT. MORE HEIGHT SLIGHTLY DECREASES YOUR ATTRACTION LEVEL TOO.

ACCORDING TO MY FORMULA, YOU GET 0.5 AS A 5'9", 1 AS A 6'3", 0 AS A 5'5", AND IT FOLLOWS AN UPSIDE-DOWN QUADRATIC EQUATION. SIMPLE. VALUES OF y ARE FROM 0 ≤ y ≤ 1.


NOW FOR THE FACE

IT'S A LITTLE TRICKY BUT STILL A SIMPLE-LOOKING GRAPH.

View attachment 4096071
View attachment 4096072
BASICALLY, IT MEANS THAT FROM A SUB-5 (x < 5) TO A 5 IT'S AN EXPONENTIAL CLIMB, AND FROM 5 TO A CHAD (10) IT'S AN EXPONENTIAL CLIMB AS WELL. AGAIN, VALUES OF y ARE FROM 0 ≤ y ≤ 1.
NOW WE COMBINE THEM:
HeightScore × FaceScore = FinalScore (from 0 to 1)
You can multiply it by 10 to get your rating.

NOW THE MOST IMPORTANT PART:
I NEED YOUR HELP TO REFINE THIS.
ANY HIGH-IQ FEEDBACK WOULD BE COOL.

Dnrd
Schizo Ramblings from the Slums of Minnesota
"Muh chad doesn't care about ratings"
and etc.

do the math for me pls

 

[liberated]

your formula for H doesn't stay between [0,1] for all values for h tho?

YES, assume that after y = 0 it stays 0 for values of x

 

[Bonesmashmaxxer]

INTRODUCTION
THIS POST AIMS TO DIG DEEPER INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HEIGHT AND FACE ATTRACTIVENESS COMBO.

MANY USERS HERE ASK QUESTIONS LIKE: "WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT, FACE OR HEIGHT?"
OR DO DUMB CALCULATIONS LIKE: (YOUR HEIGHT + YOUR FACE) / 2.

HERE I WANT SMART USERS TO HELP ME GET CLOSER TO THE TRUTH.

LET'S PROPOSE A MORE ACCURATE RELATIONSHIP TOGETHER.


MY PROPOSED HEIGHT FORMULA

View attachment 4096044
AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS FORMULA IS BASED ON THE LOGIC OF DISTRIBUTION AND FEMALE PREFERENCE. COUNTLESS TIMES, FEMALES RATE 6'3" AS THE IDEAL HEIGHT. MORE HEIGHT SLIGHTLY DECREASES YOUR ATTRACTION LEVEL TOO.

ACCORDING TO MY FORMULA, YOU GET 0.5 AS A 5'9", 1 AS A 6'3", 0 AS A 5'5", AND IT FOLLOWS AN UPSIDE-DOWN QUADRATIC EQUATION. SIMPLE. VALUES OF y ARE FROM 0 ≤ y ≤ 1.


NOW FOR THE FACE

IT'S A LITTLE TRICKY BUT STILL A SIMPLE-LOOKING GRAPH.

View attachment 4096071
View attachment 4096072
BASICALLY, IT MEANS THAT FROM A SUB-5 (x < 5) TO A 5 IT'S AN EXPONENTIAL CLIMB, AND FROM 5 TO A CHAD (10) IT'S AN EXPONENTIAL CLIMB AS WELL. AGAIN, VALUES OF y ARE FROM 0 ≤ y ≤ 1.
NOW WE COMBINE THEM:
HeightScore × FaceScore = FinalScore (from 0 to 1)
You can multiply it by 10 to get your rating.

NOW THE MOST IMPORTANT PART:
I NEED YOUR HELP TO REFINE THIS.
ANY HIGH-IQ FEEDBACK WOULD BE COOL.

Dnrd
Schizo Ramblings from the Slums of Minnesota
"Muh chad doesn't care about ratings"
and etc.

water

 

[mvpisafaggot420]

also i think attractivness and height is best described by a logistical curve like a sigmoid or something similar. there's no downside to being infinitely taller, also nicely shows the cutoff for sub-human height

 

[liberated]

Ok so if i study this, will my doctor be better at the bimax. Or do i get insta looks boost and confidence?

Actually studying this shit will open your growth plates and improve your harmony

 

[mvpisafaggot420]

you meant to write -1/72... right?

 

[liberated]

also i think attractivness and height is best described by a logistical curve like a sigmoid or something similar. there's no downside to being infinitely taller, also nicely shows the cutoff for sub-human height

true, but what about mfs who are 250cm or 3m tall, im not sure that gigantism looks attractive, is there any research on this?

 

[Futura]

Robert wadlow height + gandy face or death

 

[mvpisafaggot420]

true, but what about mfs who are 250cm or 3m tall, im not sure that gigantism looks attractive, is there any research on this?

we need not concern ourselves with like 5 people in the world, in their case it matters whether their height cripples them etc. doesnt really matter tho

 

[liberated]

we need not concern ourselves with like 5 people in the world, in their case it matters whether their height cripples them etc. doesnt really matter tho

true, I will write a new post when I get free time again and tag you,
write some more suggestions bhai, will read later
tagged you here too

 

[liberated]

Robert wadlow height + gandy face or death

poor fellow, gigantism sucks

 

[mvpisafaggot420]

yeah i mean modelling them without data is more just showing one another how we think women think, but the logistical approach seems more reasonable to me, and it naturally transforms from (0,1)

 

[Tomer Solomon]

INTRODUCTION
THIS POST AIMS TO DIG DEEPER INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HEIGHT AND FACE ATTRACTIVENESS COMBO.

MANY USERS HERE ASK QUESTIONS LIKE: "WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT, FACE OR HEIGHT?"
OR DO DUMB CALCULATIONS LIKE: (YOUR HEIGHT + YOUR FACE) / 2.

HERE I WANT SMART USERS TO HELP ME GET CLOSER TO THE TRUTH.

LET'S PROPOSE A MORE ACCURATE RELATIONSHIP TOGETHER.


MY PROPOSED HEIGHT FORMULA

View attachment 4096044
AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS FORMULA IS BASED ON THE LOGIC OF DISTRIBUTION AND FEMALE PREFERENCE. COUNTLESS TIMES, FEMALES RATE 6'3" AS THE IDEAL HEIGHT. MORE HEIGHT SLIGHTLY DECREASES YOUR ATTRACTION LEVEL TOO.

ACCORDING TO MY FORMULA, YOU GET 0.5 AS A 5'9", 1 AS A 6'3", 0 AS A 5'5", AND IT FOLLOWS AN UPSIDE-DOWN QUADRATIC EQUATION. SIMPLE. VALUES OF y ARE FROM 0 ≤ y ≤ 1.


NOW FOR THE FACE

IT'S A LITTLE TRICKY BUT STILL A SIMPLE-LOOKING GRAPH.

View attachment 4096071
View attachment 4096072
BASICALLY, IT MEANS THAT FROM A SUB-5 (x < 5) TO A 5 IT'S AN EXPONENTIAL CLIMB, AND FROM 5 TO A CHAD (10) IT'S AN EXPONENTIAL CLIMB AS WELL. AGAIN, VALUES OF y ARE FROM 0 ≤ y ≤ 1.
NOW WE COMBINE THEM:
HeightScore × FaceScore = FinalScore (from 0 to 1)
You can multiply it by 10 to get your rating.

NOW THE MOST IMPORTANT PART:
I NEED YOUR HELP TO REFINE THIS.
ANY HIGH-IQ FEEDBACK WOULD BE COOL.

Dnrd
Schizo Ramblings from the Slums of Minnesota
"Muh chad doesn't care about ratings"
and etc.


EDIT1:
thanks to @mvpisafaggot420
H = -1/72 (x-75)^2 + 1, forgot the minus

Got 3.89

 

[NudeSelfiesTilliDie]

DNR grey but nice effort, soon youll be shitposting like the rest of us haha

 

[snmuaen]

i hate integrals but high iq thread

 

[yussimania]

dnr mirin avi

 

[liberated]

INTRODUCTION
THIS POST AIMS TO DIG DEEPER INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HEIGHT AND FACE ATTRACTIVENESS COMBO.

MANY USERS HERE ASK QUESTIONS LIKE: "WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT, FACE OR HEIGHT?"
OR DO DUMB CALCULATIONS LIKE: (YOUR HEIGHT + YOUR FACE) / 2.

HERE I WANT SMART USERS TO HELP ME GET CLOSER TO THE TRUTH.

LET'S PROPOSE A MORE ACCURATE RELATIONSHIP TOGETHER.


MY PROPOSED HEIGHT FORMULA

View attachment 4096044
AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS FORMULA IS BASED ON THE LOGIC OF DISTRIBUTION AND FEMALE PREFERENCE. COUNTLESS TIMES, FEMALES RATE 6'3" AS THE IDEAL HEIGHT. MORE HEIGHT SLIGHTLY DECREASES YOUR ATTRACTION LEVEL TOO.

ACCORDING TO MY FORMULA, YOU GET 0.5 AS A 5'9", 1 AS A 6'3", 0 AS A 5'5", AND IT FOLLOWS AN UPSIDE-DOWN QUADRATIC EQUATION. SIMPLE. VALUES OF y ARE FROM 0 ≤ y ≤ 1.


NOW FOR THE FACE

IT'S A LITTLE TRICKY BUT STILL A SIMPLE-LOOKING GRAPH.

View attachment 4096071
View attachment 4096072
BASICALLY, IT MEANS THAT FROM A SUB-5 (x < 5) TO A 5 IT'S AN EXPONENTIAL CLIMB, AND FROM 5 TO A CHAD (10) IT'S AN EXPONENTIAL CLIMB AS WELL. AGAIN, VALUES OF y ARE FROM 0 ≤ y ≤ 1.
NOW WE COMBINE THEM:
HeightScore × FaceScore = FinalScore (from 0 to 1)
You can multiply it by 10 to get your rating.

NOW THE MOST IMPORTANT PART:
I NEED YOUR HELP TO REFINE THIS.
ANY HIGH-IQ FEEDBACK WOULD BE COOL.

Dnrd
Schizo Ramblings from the Slums of Minnesota
"Muh chad doesn't care about ratings"
and etc.


EDIT1:
thanks to @mvpisafaggot420
H = -1/72 (x-75)^2 + 1, forgot the minus

Low IQ thread 5’9 normie (5) gets a rating of 25% lmao

 

[4Christ_sake]

INTRODUCTION
THIS POST AIMS TO DIG DEEPER INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HEIGHT AND FACE ATTRACTIVENESS COMBO.

MANY USERS HERE ASK QUESTIONS LIKE: "WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT, FACE OR HEIGHT?"
OR DO DUMB CALCULATIONS LIKE: (YOUR HEIGHT + YOUR FACE) / 2.

HERE I WANT SMART USERS TO HELP ME GET CLOSER TO THE TRUTH.

LET'S PROPOSE A MORE ACCURATE RELATIONSHIP TOGETHER.


MY PROPOSED HEIGHT FORMULA

View attachment 4096044
AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS FORMULA IS BASED ON THE LOGIC OF DISTRIBUTION AND FEMALE PREFERENCE. COUNTLESS TIMES, FEMALES RATE 6'3" AS THE IDEAL HEIGHT. MORE HEIGHT SLIGHTLY DECREASES YOUR ATTRACTION LEVEL TOO.

ACCORDING TO MY FORMULA, YOU GET 0.5 AS A 5'9", 1 AS A 6'3", 0 AS A 5'5", AND IT FOLLOWS AN UPSIDE-DOWN QUADRATIC EQUATION. SIMPLE. VALUES OF y ARE FROM 0 ≤ y ≤ 1.


NOW FOR THE FACE

IT'S A LITTLE TRICKY BUT STILL A SIMPLE-LOOKING GRAPH.

View attachment 4096071
View attachment 4096072
BASICALLY, IT MEANS THAT FROM A SUB-5 (x < 5) TO A 5 IT'S AN EXPONENTIAL CLIMB, AND FROM 5 TO A CHAD (10) IT'S AN EXPONENTIAL CLIMB AS WELL. AGAIN, VALUES OF y ARE FROM 0 ≤ y ≤ 1.
NOW WE COMBINE THEM:
HeightScore × FaceScore = FinalScore (from 0 to 1)
You can multiply it by 10 to get your rating.

NOW THE MOST IMPORTANT PART:
I NEED YOUR HELP TO REFINE THIS.
ANY HIGH-IQ FEEDBACK WOULD BE COOL.

Dnrd
Schizo Ramblings from the Slums of Minnesota
"Muh chad doesn't care about ratings"
and etc.


EDIT1:
thanks to @mvpisafaggot420
H = -1/72 (x-75)^2 + 1, forgot the minus

Geniune levels to lookism but your really smart dude

 

[liberated]

Got 3.89

Considering that my formula is too harsh, giving a 5’9 normie a score of 2.5, you are doing good