D
Deleted member 23865
Platinum
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
- Posts
- 1,089
- Reputation
- 1,302
when comparing face and height you have to use percentiles. I see many low iq cels saying things like "height is more important than face, 5'10 MTN mogs 5'5 HTN". this comparison for example makes no sense at all, because you are comparing 50 percentile height (assuming 5'10 is avg) 50p face with 4p height and 80p face (I guess HTN is around that percentile), which obviously isn't fair. a good comparison, for example, would be 5'5 HTN, which is 4p height, 80p face, and 6 feet and 1/3" (80p height), 4p face (which I'd say is subhuman 2.5-2.75/10 tier). it's obvious that the 5'5 HTN mogs HARD, and this is true at any percentiles if you think about it
another thing I haven't seen being talked about: you can be too tall, but you can't be too handsome. with height, after a certain point, you lose SMV the taller you are. this point will vary a lot depending on the location (mainly because for example Italy has a different avg height than Chadlands). I'd say the perfect height SMV wise is 10 inches taller than the avg female of your age. so assuming an avg male height of 5'10 and a difference between males and females of 13.25cm (= 5.2"), the avg female โ 5'5, so the perfect height would be 6'3, which makes sense to me. btw this is 5 inches taller than avg male and 98 percentile (1 in 50). after this point, the taller (and, ofc, shorter too) you are, the more you lose SMV, and it's exponential (the further you are from 6'3, or whatever the perfect height or a certain location is, the more each inch will impact your SMV). if you are less than an inch away from this point, you are in what we can call the ideal height range, which would be 6'2 to 6'3.99 (6'4 in practice, above 6'4 you start losing SMV), this means the change in SMV between 6'2 and 6'4 is almost nonexistent. this is from 95.5 to 99.2 percentile, so 3.7% of men are in the ideal height range.
this doesn't happen with face. the higher percentile your face is, the better. someone who is extremely handsome (let's say, 99 percentile and above, so 1 in 100) is rarer than a man in the perfect height (~4%, 1 in 25). height can't ascend you as hard as face can because a 99.9 percentile face would be absolutely insane halo while being 6'2-6'4 isn't that rare, and being 99.9p height (~6'6) obviously isn't ideal SMV wise despite what some blackpillers say (keep in mind that I'm talking in general, being 6'6 could be better than being 6'3 in some situations like in night clubs, or if your face is LTN 6'6 may be better for niche maxxing; also remember we're assuming avg = 5'10). there are many examples of male celebrities who are known for being attractive despite being short, like tom cruise or cillian murphy, but you don't see any who are considered attractive with a LTN face, no matter the height. when people see a 95p face 5p height guy, most of them think things like "he's so handsome but his height killed him, what a pity" or "he would be chad if he was taller", but when they see a 95p height 5p face guy it's rarer that they think things like "he's so tall but his face killed him" or "he would be chad if he was handsome", and this would be much more extreme if we compare 99.9p face 1p height and 1p face 99.9p height. this alone should be proof that face is more important than height and, therefore, face should be considered the base of your smv
another thing I haven't seen being talked about: you can be too tall, but you can't be too handsome. with height, after a certain point, you lose SMV the taller you are. this point will vary a lot depending on the location (mainly because for example Italy has a different avg height than Chadlands). I'd say the perfect height SMV wise is 10 inches taller than the avg female of your age. so assuming an avg male height of 5'10 and a difference between males and females of 13.25cm (= 5.2"), the avg female โ 5'5, so the perfect height would be 6'3, which makes sense to me. btw this is 5 inches taller than avg male and 98 percentile (1 in 50). after this point, the taller (and, ofc, shorter too) you are, the more you lose SMV, and it's exponential (the further you are from 6'3, or whatever the perfect height or a certain location is, the more each inch will impact your SMV). if you are less than an inch away from this point, you are in what we can call the ideal height range, which would be 6'2 to 6'3.99 (6'4 in practice, above 6'4 you start losing SMV), this means the change in SMV between 6'2 and 6'4 is almost nonexistent. this is from 95.5 to 99.2 percentile, so 3.7% of men are in the ideal height range.
this doesn't happen with face. the higher percentile your face is, the better. someone who is extremely handsome (let's say, 99 percentile and above, so 1 in 100) is rarer than a man in the perfect height (~4%, 1 in 25). height can't ascend you as hard as face can because a 99.9 percentile face would be absolutely insane halo while being 6'2-6'4 isn't that rare, and being 99.9p height (~6'6) obviously isn't ideal SMV wise despite what some blackpillers say (keep in mind that I'm talking in general, being 6'6 could be better than being 6'3 in some situations like in night clubs, or if your face is LTN 6'6 may be better for niche maxxing; also remember we're assuming avg = 5'10). there are many examples of male celebrities who are known for being attractive despite being short, like tom cruise or cillian murphy, but you don't see any who are considered attractive with a LTN face, no matter the height. when people see a 95p face 5p height guy, most of them think things like "he's so handsome but his height killed him, what a pity" or "he would be chad if he was taller", but when they see a 95p height 5p face guy it's rarer that they think things like "he's so tall but his face killed him" or "he would be chad if he was handsome", and this would be much more extreme if we compare 99.9p face 1p height and 1p face 99.9p height. this alone should be proof that face is more important than height and, therefore, face should be considered the base of your smv
Last edited:
