Using 2021 global population data, estimate the attractiveness percentile of the average, purebred "white" (at least 90% European DNA) female

[thecel]

Most people will only ever interact with a few thousand people in their lifetime, so their perception is narrow. I don't think I've seen a 9/10 female (~1/32k) in my real life. That's because they're concentrated in particularly high-profile places starting at a young age.

TRM is a dogshit subreddit.

What people fail to understand is that attractiveness in humans has an upper limit.

Consider a normally distributed Tic-Tac-Toe skill rating system from 0 to 100. There is an absolute upper limit of how good you can be at Tic-Tac-Toe (which isn’t that hard to achieve). If you make the scale’s standard deviation 5, the best Tic-Tac-Toe players would maybe be rated 60/100, which is stupid.

If the SD of the normal distribution is too small, the upper limit of human attractiveness will be under the highest number in the scale. This problem is exactly what we observe when the SD is set to 1: no one rates anyone over 9, and many people don’t rate anyone over 8. If Gandy is an 8, what’s a 9, and what’s a 10? 9 and 10 exceed the limits of naturally-occurring human beauty.

---

~1/32k

1/32k is about as attractive as humans can be. 1 in a trillion isn’t more attractive than 1 in a billion isn’t more attractive than 1 in a million. At some point of rarity the beauty level simply tops out and can’t be increased.

 

[thecel]

The numbers 68, 95, and 99.7 should induce an immediate erection for those who have at least passed an entry-level statistics course.

Doesn’t mean that these numbers are better.

In the SD 1.5 case,

68% are between 3.5 and 6.5.
95% are between 2 and 8.
99.7% are between 0.5 and 9.5.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

depends. if u live in nyc u will see an assortment of subhumans and occasional chad/stacy because theres so many people

You can see extremely attractive women in the lower half of Manhattan due to the modeling industry.

Attractive females in major cities tier list

This is all highly speculative. Make your own below if you disagree with these. Cities are somewhat ranked within each tier. The first tier list isn't per capita (it would be way too difficult), therefore larger cities tend to have an inherent advantage. Major cities with highest amounts of...

looksmax.org

 

[Reckless Turtle]

People who insist on making the SD 1 create a scale in which 9 is only used for a 1-digit number of models and 10 is never used.

There are ~245k 9s currently in existence. FMD only had 16k models listed, and many of those are diversity hires.

Fashion Model Directory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Reckless Turtle]

What people fail to understand is that attractiveness in humans has an upper limit.

Consider a normally distributed Tic-Tac-Toe skill rating system from 0 to 100. There is an absolute upper limit of how good you can be at Tic-Tac-Toe (which isn’t that hard to achieve). If you make the scale’s standard deviation 5, the best Tic-Tac-Toe players would maybe be rated 60/100, which is stupid.

If the SD of the normal distribution is too small, the upper limit of human attractiveness will be under the highest number in the scale. This problem is exactly what we observe when the SD is set to 1: no one rates anyone over 9, and many people don’t rate anyone over 8. If Gandy is an 8, what’s a 9, and what’s a 10? 9 and 10 exceed the limits of naturally-occurring human beauty.

---

1/32k is about as attractive as humans can be. 1 in a trillion isn’t more attractive than 1 in a billion isn’t more attractive than 1 in a million. At some point of rarity the beauty level simply tops out and can’t be increased.

1/32k (9/10):

1/3.5m (10/10):

 

[thecel]

There are ~245k 9s currently in existence.

Yeah according to the normal distribution that’s just a model for real-world data that’s not always perfectly normally distributed.

The normal distribution becomes unrealistic at the extremes.

With an SD of 1, there’re 8 people in the world who’d be rated 11, in theory. The problem is that beauty just can’t go that high. Like in the Tic-Tac-Toe example. A Tic-Tac-Toe player can only get so good until he’s playing 100% perfectly. If you rank Tic-Tac-Toe players on a normal distribution, the top tail would have a sharp drop-off at the “skill ceiling”. Humans have a beauty ceiling.

 

[thecel]

1/32k (9/10):
View attachment 2118745

1/3.5m (10/10):
View attachment 2118746

I see an 8 and a 7.

You do understand that there’s no significant attractiveness difference between 9s and 10s on your scale? Because human beauty naturally doesn’t go past 9 on a 1-SD scale? So you have to “stretch” the top end just to be able to say some people are 10s?

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Doesn’t mean that these numbers are better.

In the SD 1.5 case,

68% are between 3.5 and 6.5.
95% are between 2 and 8.
99.7% are between 0.5 and 9.5.

The only intuitive part of a SD of 1.5 is ending up with ~50% of the population between a 4/10 and a 6/10. Beyond that, it stops being intuitive because 1.0 is a cleaner number than 1.5.

 

[thecel]

The only intuitive part of a SD of 1.5 is ending up with ~50% of the population between a 4/10 and a 6/10. Beyond that, it stops being intuitive because 1.0 is a cleaner number than 1.5.

The intuitiveness has literally nothing to do with the SD number.

An intuitive scale means that someone who does not know what the SD of the scale is would happen to rate accurately by coincidence.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Yeah according to the normal distribution that’s just a model for real-world data that’s not always perfectly normally distributed.

The normal distribution becomes unrealistic at the extremes.

With an SD of 1, there’re 8 people in the world who’d be rated 11, in theory. The problem is that beauty just can’t go that high. Like in the Tic-Tac-Toe example. A Tic-Tac-Toe player can only get so good until he’s playing 100% perfectly. If you rank Tic-Tac-Toe players on a normal distribution, the top tail would have a sharp drop-off at the “skill ceiling”. Humans have a beauty ceiling.

I see an 8 and a 7.

You do understand that there’s no significant attractiveness difference between 9s and 10s on your scale? Because human beauty naturally doesn’t go past 9 on a 1-SD scale? So you have to “stretch” the top end just to be able to say some people are 10s?

Cope. A roughly ~240k-person distance between a 9 and 10 is significantly observable, as per my example. If I posted a Priscilla Ricart candid thread in a similar manner as the Bianci Balti one, the trend would follow (albeit, the average score would also be an underrate for her because most users here can't accurately rate, despite the overall ratings being precise).

 

[thecel]

The only intuitive part of a SD of 1.5 is ending up with ~50% of the population between a 4/10 and a 6/10. Beyond that, it stops being intuitive because 1.0 is a cleaner number than 1.5.

95% being between 2 and 8 makes the top 2.5% of men Chads. Seems realistic.

99.7% being between 2 and 8 makes the top 0.15% of men Chads. Too small.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

The intuitiveness has literally nothing to do with the SD number.

An intuitive scale means that someone who does not know what the SD of the scale is would happen to rate accurately by coincidence.

As I explained, most people cannot intuitively rate because they do not have a broad enough perception of the human population. Only rating experts (such as myself) can pinpoint approximate percentiles.

 

[thecel]

As I explained, most people cannot intuitively rate because they do not have a broad enough perception of the human population. Only rating experts (such as myself) can pinpoint approximate percentiles.

Intuitive rating isn’t for pinpointing percentiles. Intuitive rating is for quantifying the intensity of a person’s sexual attractiveness. How broad your perception of the population is doesn’t affect this. If I lived in a land of Stacies and had no Internet access, I’d rate them 8, not 5, because I’d feel very attracted to them despite them being the norm in that fantasy land. Similarly, if I lived in Ogreville with no Internet, I’d rate them 1,2,3 because I’m repulsed by them.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

99.7% being between 2 and 8 makes the top 0.15% of men Chads. Too small.

Post some examples of Chads (8/10)-on-the-dot so I can assess your delusion level.

 

[thecel]

Post some examples of Chads (8/10)-on-the-dot so I can assess your delusion level.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Intuitive rating isn’t for pinpointing percentiles. Intuitive rating is for quantifying the intensity of a person’s sexual attractiveness. How broad your perception of the population is doesn’t affect this. If I lived in a land of Stacies and had no Internet access, I’d rate them 8, not 5, because I’d feel very attracted to them despite them being the norm in that fantasy land. Similarly, if I lived in Ogreville with no Internet, I’d rate them 1,2,3 because I’m repulsed by them.

If you lived in an area with a disproportionate contribution to the female modeling pool (like @MoggerChad in Estonia), you would probably underrate women because your surrounding is skewed by abnormally attractive women.

 

[thecel]

If you lived in an area with a disproportionate contribution to the female modeling pool (like @MoggerChad in Estonia), you would probably underrate women because your surrounding is skewed by abnormally attractive women.

Low-T trait. My ratings reflect how much they make my PP hard.

If I lived in Sexytown I’d have a perma erection. If I lived in Uglyville I’d be flaccid 24/7.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

View attachment 2118776

Yes, indeed, you are giga-delusional for placing him (6') at the 97.5 percentile. 1/44 men are not having hoards of women trembling with creampie fantasies. You are clearly a suboptimal rater.

Females referring to the reproductive process when presented with specific males megathread

@douglasferrari10_

looksmax.org

 

[thecel]

Yes, indeed, you are giga-delusional for placing him (6') at the 97.5 percentile.

Females referring to the reproductive process when presented with specific males megathread

@douglasferrari10_

looksmax.org

This is a 9:

 

[Reckless Turtle]

This is a 9:

You're arguing that there's a 75 million man difference between his face and Theo James'. Meanwhile, at least 7.2 billion people are ethnic.

 

[thecel]

You're arguing that there's a 75 million man difference between his face and Theo James'. Meanwhile, at least 7.2 billion people are ethnic.

Theo James has low IPD, asymmetry, and brown eyes.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Theo James has low IPD, asymmetry, and brown eyes.

 

[thecel]

Well those are the things that make him not look as good as the 2nd guy.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Well those are the things that make him not look as good as the 2nd guy.

Not to the extent of a 75 million man difference. The second guy also has a worse upper lip and philtrum.