Wheat Waffles Response Video In The Making

[thecel]

The following YouTube video by Wheat Waffles has so many flaws that it practically demands a takedown by a true intellectual (like myself of course).




My main points:

• Wheat Waffles uses examples that don't support his claims in the first section of his video.
  • He uses several photos of unattractive men to try to support his claim that 1s, 2s, and 3s are basically the same, but all the guys are 3s and higher. None of those guys are 1s and 2s.
  • He says there's a "massive gap" in attractiveness from 4 to 5 and from 7 to 8, but the massive jump is just not there.
• Wheat Waffles criticizes the 1–10 scale for its inability to do things it was never meant to do.
  • The 1–10 scale doesn't need to be objective in and of itself. The idea is that you survey a large sample of people and then take the average rating as the subject's "official" attractiveness rating.
  • He says the decile scale doesn't do X, Y, Z. Well, duh. The decile scale can't provide all the information; no scale can. You need to use measurements of multiple dimensions to get a comprehensive idea.
• He discusses the problem of virtue signaling as if it's a problem with the 1–10 scale. But the problem isn't the scale; the problem is who you ask for ratings from.
  • Just don't ask women to rate.
  • Additionally, women can't rate you with the 3-tier system either.
• The 3-tier system is a different tool that should be used for different purposes.
• The 3-tier system introduces a barrier of entry to be able to use it. A man must have interacted with women to have the information required to be placed in one of the 3 categories.
  • A permarotter can't use the 3-tier system because he doesn't talk to women. On the other hand, the 1–10 scale has the same accuracy on everyone regardless of whether they approach women regularly or rot in their basements 24/7.
• The 3-tier system is a system made for males only. We'd still use the 1–10 scale to rate women. If we abandon the 1–10 scale for men, identifying looksmatches based on numerical ratings will no longer be a thing.

 

[SOS-Sonic]

You should start a youtube channel.

 

[thecel]

You should start a youtube channel.

I have a channel

 

[BUY$DRUGS]

whats ur channel faggo

 

[thecel]

whats ur channel faggo

• https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCecC8c19ACxhwBgKdXtW7Xw/playlists
• https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWEvoC31Ldm0WsZrV0OFYtw
• https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtNpfbNQHXEePxokVwBef5w
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ZKY3XHlrQ

 

[thecel]

You should start a youtube channel.

whats ur channel faggo

New channel: TURBO BLACKPILL

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEBH1q18MK-72zSBUA4aAsA/about

This is the channel I’ll upload responses to Wheat Waffles to.

 

[Lawton88]

So he doesn't have true 1s in there? Was hoping to see who mogged who out of Beetlejuice and Brian Peppers.

 

[Deleted member 18452]

The following YouTube video by Wheat Waffles has so many flaws that it practically demands a takedown by a true intellectual (like myself of course).




My main points:

• Wheat Waffles uses examples that don't support his claims in the first section of his video.
  • He uses several photos of unattractive men to try to support his claim that 1s, 2s, and 3s are basically the same, but all the guys are 3s and higher. None of those guys are 1s and 2s.
  • He says there's a "massive gap" in attractiveness from 4 to 5 and from 7 to 8, but the massive jump is just not there.
• Wheat Waffles criticizes the 1–10 scale for its inability to do things it was never meant to do.
  • The 1–10 scale doesn't need to be objective in and of itself. The idea is that you survey a large sample of people and then take the average rating as the subject's "official" attractiveness rating.
  • He says the decile scale doesn't do X, Y, Z. Well, duh. The decile scale can't provide all the information; no scale can. You need to use measurements of multiple dimensions to get a comprehensive idea.
• He discusses the problem of virtue signaling as if it's a problem with the 1–10 scale. But the problem isn't the scale; the problem is who you ask for ratings from.
  • Just don't ask women to rate.
  • Additionally, women can't rate you with the 3-tier system either.
• The 3-tier system is a different tool that should be used for different purposes.
• The 3-tier system introduces a barrier of entry to be able to use it. A man must have interacted with women to have the information required to be placed in one of the 3 categories.
  • A permarotter can't use the 3-tier system because he doesn't talk to women. On the other hand, the 1–10 scale has the same accuracy on everyone regardless of whether they approach women regularly or rot in their basements 24/7.
• The 3-tier system is a system made for males only. We'd still use the 1–10 scale to rate women. If we abandon the 1–10 scale for men, identifying looksmatches based on numerical ratings will no longer be a thing.

Good thread,wheat waffles wantes to debate with u now

 

[thecel]

Good thread,wheat waffles wantes to debate with u now

dead serious ?

 

[Deleted member 18452]

dead serious ?

Yeah bro
Did u take an iq test before?