Why MTN is 4/10, and not 5-5.5/10

[Zeekie]

So this fucking dumbass nigger was trying to tell me that 4/10 is LTN and that MTN was 4.75 and that HMTN was 5/10. When I tried to argue logically why that wasn't the case, he completely ignored the argument and tried to say I was using ChatGPT. Clearly I'm butt hurt and fell pretty badly for the ragebait (that's on me ngl), but fuck that nigger, I'm going to make a whole post about why he's wrong instead.

I believe the best definition for the PSL scale comes from this post by emeraldglass:

A Concise Guide for Evaluating PSL Ratings and Male Beauty Characteristics

Because there has been an increasing influx of new members to the community. I have taken the initiative to create this manual in order to familiarize new members with the collective standards of beauty and the PSL scale. This guide will provide you with a comprehensive overview of what is...

looksmax.org

Where he suggests that:

• Subhuman: 0-1.5
• LTN: 1.5-3
• MTN: 3-4.5
• HTN: 4.5-5.5
• etc.

I agree with this notion, the PSL scale is very subject at first glance, as evidenced by niggers like @iblamemandible7 who cannot understand elementary-school level statistics, so I come here to educate you on why this is the correct and most objective assessment of the PSL scale.

The true rating:

My whole system derives from plotted statistical data derived from the book "Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and Identity--What Our Online Lives Tell Us about Our Offline Selves" which does the heavy lifting in terms of assessing the average rating of a man.

Amazon.ca

The book pulls a lot of data from various dating sites and comes to the conclusion that the average individual is rated to be a ~2/5 according to women, if we had to extrapolate this into a 1-10 scale, we get that the average male is rated a ~4/10 by women. As we may all know MTN means "Mid Tier-Normie", the "Mid" suggests average, therefore in the rawest of definition MTN is just the average attractive level for a man.

Since we already determined that the average man is found to be a 4/10 by women, then the subsequent numerical rating for an MTN should be 4/10, give or take depending on if it's a Low MTN or a high MTN.

From the initial assessment of MTN, we can easily estimate what the value should be for other ratings (LTN, HTN, etc.)

Why MTN is NOT ~5/10:
This makes initial sense, as it is true that the mathematical midpoint of a 1-10 scale is 5.5, or usually just 5 for the sake of simplicity. But in statistical research, when we're talking about value averages the statistical midpoint means jackshit, if the data shows the average man is a 4/10, it makes NO SENSE to say that MTN = 5/10, becuase then the "average man" would technically be considered an LTN, so how does having the average individual be rated below average in the scale?

I'm sorry, but it simply does not work like that. This is the most accurate assessment of the PSL scale we can get, it is based on research rather than opinions. The average rating isn’t the midpoint mathematically, but instead based on population rating data. Since women rate men men avg attractive at ~4/10, the scale should place MTN at around 3–4.5, with 4/10 near dead-center.

Anyone who disagrees with me is following:

• Definitely brain-damaged
• Has an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex.
• Needs to go back to elementary school-level math.
• Blatantly wrong.

Namaste niggas.

 

[chadbeingmade]

say I was using ChatGPT

Did not read but all your posts do sound like GPT slop ngl.

 

[shredded4summer]

So this fucking dumbass nigger was trying to tell me that 4/10 is LTN and that MTN was 4.75 and that HMTN was 5/10. When I tried to argue logically why that wasn't the case, he completely ignored the argument and tried to say I was using ChatGPT. Clearly I'm butt hurt and fell pretty badly for the ragebait (that's on me ngl), but fuck that nigger, I'm going to make a whole post about why he's wrong instead.

I believe the best definition for the PSL scale comes from this post by emeraldglass:

A Concise Guide for Evaluating PSL Ratings and Male Beauty Characteristics

Because there has been an increasing influx of new members to the community. I have taken the initiative to create this manual in order to familiarize new members with the collective standards of beauty and the PSL scale. This guide will provide you with a comprehensive overview of what is...

looksmax.org

Where he suggests that:

• Subhuman: 0-1.5
• LTN: 1.5-3
• MTN: 3-4.5
• HTN: 4.5-5.5
• etc.

I agree with this notion, the PSL scale is very subject at first glance, as evidenced by niggers like @iblamemandible7 who cannot understand elementary-school level statistics, so I come here to educate you on why this is the correct and most objective assessment of the PSL scale.

The true rating:

My whole system derives from plotted statistical data derived from the book "Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and Identity--What Our Online Lives Tell Us about Our Offline Selves" which does the heavy lifting in terms of assessing the average rating of a man.

Amazon.ca

The book pulls a lot of data from various dating sites and comes to the conclusion that the average individual is rated to be a ~2/5 according to women, if we had to extrapolate this into a 1-10 scale, we get that the average male is rated a ~4/10 by women. As we may all know MTN means "Mid Tier-Normie", the "Mid" suggests average, therefore in the rawest of definition MTN is just the average attractive level for a man.

Since we already determined that the average man is found to be a 4/10 by women, then the subsequent numerical rating for an MTN should be 4/10, give or take depending on if it's a Low MTN or a high MTN.

From the initial assessment of MTN, we can easily estimate what the value should be for other ratings (LTN, HTN, etc.)

Why MTN is NOT ~5/10:
This makes initial sense, as it is true that the mathematical midpoint of a 1-10 scale is 5.5, or usually just 5 for the sake of simplicity. But in statistical research, when we're talking about value averages the statistical midpoint means jackshit, if the data shows the average man is a 4/10, it makes NO SENSE to say that MTN = 5/10, becuase then the "average man" would technically be considered an LTN, so how does having the average individual be rated below average in the scale?

I'm sorry, but it simply does not work like that. This is the most accurate assessment of the PSL scale we can get, it is based on research rather than opinions. The average rating isn’t the midpoint mathematically, but instead based on population rating data. Since women rate men men avg attractive at ~4/10, the scale should place MTN at around 3–4.5, with 4/10 near dead-center.

Anyone who disagrees with me is following:

• Definitely brain-damaged
• Has an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex.
• Needs to go back to elementary school-level math.
• Blatantly wrong.

Namaste niggas.

im gonna dnr tbh

 

[Zeekie]

Did not read but all your posts do sound like GPT slop ngl.

Hey, fuck you!

 

[shehzadgillani]

So this fucking dumbass nigger was trying to tell me that 4/10 is LTN and that MTN was 4.75 and that HMTN was 5/10. When I tried to argue logically why that wasn't the case, he completely ignored the argument and tried to say I was using ChatGPT. Clearly I'm butt hurt and fell pretty badly for the ragebait (that's on me ngl), but fuck that nigger, I'm going to make a whole post about why he's wrong instead.

I believe the best definition for the PSL scale comes from this post by emeraldglass:

A Concise Guide for Evaluating PSL Ratings and Male Beauty Characteristics

Because there has been an increasing influx of new members to the community. I have taken the initiative to create this manual in order to familiarize new members with the collective standards of beauty and the PSL scale. This guide will provide you with a comprehensive overview of what is...

looksmax.org

Where he suggests that:

• Subhuman: 0-1.5
• LTN: 1.5-3
• MTN: 3-4.5
• HTN: 4.5-5.5
• etc.

I agree with this notion, the PSL scale is very subject at first glance, as evidenced by niggers like @iblamemandible7 who cannot understand elementary-school level statistics, so I come here to educate you on why this is the correct and most objective assessment of the PSL scale.

The true rating:

My whole system derives from plotted statistical data derived from the book "Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and Identity--What Our Online Lives Tell Us about Our Offline Selves" which does the heavy lifting in terms of assessing the average rating of a man.

Amazon.ca

The book pulls a lot of data from various dating sites and comes to the conclusion that the average individual is rated to be a ~2/5 according to women, if we had to extrapolate this into a 1-10 scale, we get that the average male is rated a ~4/10 by women. As we may all know MTN means "Mid Tier-Normie", the "Mid" suggests average, therefore in the rawest of definition MTN is just the average attractive level for a man.

Since we already determined that the average man is found to be a 4/10 by women, then the subsequent numerical rating for an MTN should be 4/10, give or take depending on if it's a Low MTN or a high MTN.

From the initial assessment of MTN, we can easily estimate what the value should be for other ratings (LTN, HTN, etc.)

Why MTN is NOT ~5/10:
This makes initial sense, as it is true that the mathematical midpoint of a 1-10 scale is 5.5, or usually just 5 for the sake of simplicity. But in statistical research, when we're talking about value averages the statistical midpoint means jackshit, if the data shows the average man is a 4/10, it makes NO SENSE to say that MTN = 5/10, becuase then the "average man" would technically be considered an LTN, so how does having the average individual be rated below average in the scale?

I'm sorry, but it simply does not work like that. This is the most accurate assessment of the PSL scale we can get, it is based on research rather than opinions. The average rating isn’t the midpoint mathematically, but instead based on population rating data. Since women rate men men avg attractive at ~4/10, the scale should place MTN at around 3–4.5, with 4/10 near dead-center.

Anyone who disagrees with me is following:

• Definitely brain-damaged
• Has an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex.
• Needs to go back to elementary school-level math.
• Blatantly wrong.

Namaste niggas.

agree with you, mtn is average , ltn is below average for womens, maybe for lgbtqabc+ mtn is above average

 

[iblamemandible7]

• Subhuman: 0-1.5
• LTN: 1.5-3
• MTN: 3-4.5
• HTN: 4.5-5.5
• etc.

I nevur sed this you absalute brayn rotted REETARD, re reed the originil thred and paist that in too your little chat gee pee tee, ROBOT BOY

 

[iblamemandible7]

YOU WURNT EVUN TAULKING ABAUT THE PSL SCAIL ERLYER


THE PSL SCAIL IS NOT AUT OF 10 REETARD

Where he suggests that:

• Subhuman: 0-1.5
• LTN: 1.5-3
• MTN: 3-4.5
• HTN: 4.5-5.5
• etc.

I agree with this notion, the PSL scale is very subject at first glance

THIS IS WHUT HAPPINS WEN YOU LET CHAT JEE PEE TEE REPLAISE YOUR ONE BRAIN, BEE CAIRFUL GUYS DONT END UP LAIK THIS GUY

 

[Iraniancel]

1.5/10 is NOT normie tier.

 

[Iraniancel]

Anything sub3 is extremely subhuman.

 

[iblamemandible7]

IGNORED

 

[Zeekie]

I nevur sed this you absalute brayn rotted REETARD, re reed the originil thred and paist that in too your little chat gee pee tee, ROBOT BOY

This is true you fucking dumb-dumb, you clearly lack reading comprehension, as "where he suggests" IMPLIES THAT emeraldglass IS THE PERSON "suggesting"

 

[Zeekie]

IGNORED

Had to make 3 separate posts about btw, you're still wrong and haven't refuted any of my arguments btw

 

[iblamemandible7]

This is true you fucking dumb-dumb, you clearly lack reading comprehension, as "where he suggests" IMPLIES THAT emeraldglass IS THE PERSON "suggesting"

1.5/10 IS NOT EVIN IN THE SAME OONYVURS AS LTN JS HAD TOO UNIGNOR FOR A SECUNT TO TEECH YOU THAT REETARD, NOW CKWIT WAISTING YOUR BRETH TRYING TOO INFECT ME WITH YOUR NONSINCE I WONT BE REEDING ANY MORE OF YOUR BULLSHIT ROBOT BOY

 

[Zeekie]

1.5/10 IS NOT EVIN IN THE SAME OONYVURS AS LTN JS HAD TOO UNIGNOR FOR A SECUNT TO TEECH YOU THAT REETARD, NOW CKWIT WAISTING YOUR BRETH TRYING TOO INFECT ME WITH YOUR NONSINCE I WONT BE REEDING ANY MORE OF YOUR BULLSHIT ROBOT BOY

Hey, fuck you buddy, until you're capable of REFUTING THE STATISTICAL DATA, you're still wrong. 4/10 is average, so 4/10 is MTN

 

[SilverStCloud]

ND ramblings

 

[Zeekie]

ND ramblings

May be autistic, but I'm never wrong

 

[SilverStCloud]

May be autistic, but I'm never wrong

 

[Zeekie]

1.5/10 is NOT normie tier.

So far this is an opinionated response. Why is not based on the data we do have? Your definition of the PSL is subjective, saying "Anything below 3/10 is subhuman" means absolutely nothing.

Again, women rate the average men a 2/5, extrapolated to 4/10. So, AGAIN, the average man is a 4/10, you're trying to imply that the average individual is 1 PSL point away from being subhuman? This logic is just not right.

 

[Iraniancel]

So far this is an opinionated response. Why is not based on the data we do have?

1.0 is the worst possible rating, meaning deformed obese burn victim. 1.5 is barely above that, meaning it's not normal.

 

[Iraniancel]

1.0 is the worst possible rating, meaning deformed obese burn victim. 1.5 is barely above that, meaning it's not normal.

Not normal = not low tier NORMIE.

 

[Zeekie]

1.0 is the worst possible rating, meaning deformed obese burn victim. 1.5 is barely above that, meaning it's not normal.

BASED ON WHAT STANDARD? This subjective, it's an opinion, and does NOT correlate with the data.

I can claim that the sky is purple all I want, but if we measure the wavelengths of light, and it consistently turns out to be blue, then it simply isn't purple, or any other color I may want it to be.

You're being subjective, not objective, based on the available information.

 

[Iraniancel]

BASED ON WHAT STANDARD? This subjective, it's an opinion, and does NOT correlate with the data.

I can claim that the sky is purple all I want, but if we measure the wavelengths of light, and it consistently turns out to be blue, then it simply isn't purple, or any other color I may want it to be.

You're being subjective, not objective, based on the available information.

Get checked for a brain tumor.

 

[bigwilly10]

So far this is an opinionated response. Why is not based on the data we do have? Your definition of the PSL is subjective, saying "Anything below 3/10 is subhuman" means absolutely nothing.

Again, women rate the average men a 2/5, extrapolated to 4/10. So, AGAIN, the average man is a 4/10, you're trying to imply that the average individual is 1 PSL point away from being subhuman? This logic is just not right.

"1.5/10" and "ltn" in the same sentence

 

[Zeekie]

Get checked for a brain tumor.

Get your IQ checked, you're not being coherent here.

 

[iblamemandible7]

im gonna dnr tbh

AS YOU SHUD, THIS NIGGA SHUD BE SENT TOO PRISIN FOR ABYOUSING HIS PERSONUL AI WITH SUCH A LOW IQ PRESENCE

 

[Iraniancel]

Get your IQ checked, you're not being coherent here.

I already did check it professionally. Now you get your brain tumor test.

 

[shredded4summer]

AS YOU SHUD, THIS NIGGA SHUD BE SENT TOO PRISIN FOR ABYOUSING HIS PERSONUL AI WITH SUCH A LOW IQ PRESENCE

cage

 

[Zeekie]

I already did check it professionally. Now you get your brain tumor test.

Is it in the single digits?

 

[Iraniancel]

Is it in the single digits?

No, it's significantly above average.

 

[Zeekie]

AS YOU SHUD, THIS NIGGA SHUD BE SENT TOO PRISIN FOR ABYOUSING HIS PERSONUL AI WITH SUCH A LOW IQ PRESENCE

Perhaps we started with the wrong foot, let me rephrase myself in a much more respectful tone

I know it sounds hard to hear that 1.5-3 is LTN, since all our lives we have heard that "1/10 is baddd!!", and it is in the context of general language, but when we're trying to create an OBJECTIVE scale, we have to adapt our frame of mind to fit what the data says.

So, the data suggests that the average man is a 4/10, meaning that 4/10 MUST represent the average individual or MTN. Again, I understand that saying "4/10" is average may sound wrong because in your head average must surely be "5/10", but we're not speaking about averages in the normal sense, this is statistics.

Considering that the average person is a 4/10, it is easier to understand how lower ratings play out.

 

[Zeekie]

No, it's significantly above average.

Please read my post above, with that being the case, I assume you should be a person who's good with numbers and that at the very least comprehends basic statistic analysis right? On which case we should be on the same page, and maybe you just misunderstood my point.

 

[Iraniancel]

Please read my post above, with that being the case, I assume you should be a person who's good with numbers and that at the very least comprehends basic statistic analysis right? On which case we should be on the same page, and maybe you just misunderstood my point.

I just skimmed over it, I did not sleep today and only slept like 3 hours yesterday.

 

[Zeekie]

Hey, so, fuck ALL OF YOU!!! Since I'm already "using AI", decided to ask it directly, and it clearly says I'm right, case closed faggots.

@Iraniancel @shredded4summer @iblamemandible7 @bigwilly10 @SilverStCloud

This internet thread is largely a debate about the interpretation and application of the "PSL scale" (which appears to be a rating system for physical attractiveness, with categories like "Subhuman," "LTN" - Low Tier Normie, "MTN" - Mid Tier Normie, and "HTN" - High Tier Normie).
Zeekie argues that the average male attractiveness rating is 4/10, based on data from the book "Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and Identity--What Our Online Lives Tell Us about Our Offline Selves." He asserts that if the average is 4/10, then "Mid Tier Normie" (MTN) should correspond to 4/10, rather than 5/10 or 5.5/10, which would be the mathematical midpoint of a 1-10 scale. His reasoning is that the "mid" in MTN should refer to the statistical average of the population, not the mathematical center of the rating scale itself.
Iblamemandible7 and Iraniancel disagree with Zeekie's premise, particularly regarding the numerical assignments for the categories and the nature of the PSL scale itself. Iblamemandible7 claims that the PSL scale is not out of 10 and disputes Zeekie's quoted definitions from emeraldglass. Iraniancel argues that a 1.5/10 rating is "extremely subhuman" and not "normie tier," implying a different numerical understanding of the scale's lower end.

---

Who's "Right"?​

From a purely statistical and logical standpoint, Zeekie's core argument has merit if one accepts the premise of the "Dataclysm" book's data.

• Zeekie's Argument (Based on Statistical Average): If a dataset indicates that the average attractiveness rating for men is indeed 4 out of 10, then it is statistically logical to define "Mid Tier Normie" (meaning average) as centering around that 4/10 mark. He correctly points out that the mathematical midpoint of a scale (5 or 5.5) doesn't necessarily align with the population's average if the distribution of ratings is skewed. In many real-world rating scenarios, average scores can be lower than the mathematical midpoint. For example, if most people rate others relatively harshly, the average might indeed fall below 5.
• Counterarguments (Based on Scale Definition and Subjectivity):
  • The nature of the "PSL scale": The fundamental issue here is that the "PSL scale" itself appears to be an informal, community-defined concept rather than a universally recognized or scientifically established metric. Without a clear, agreed-upon definition of the scale's numerical boundaries and what each point represents, any attempt to assign "objective" numbers will be contentious.
  • Iblamemandible7's point about the scale not being "out of 10": If the PSL scale, as originally conceived by that community, isn't strictly a 1-10 scale, then Zeekie's extrapolation to a 4/10 average might be misapplying data. However, Zeekie is explicitly discussing a 1-10 extrapolation based on a 2/5 average.
  • Iraniancel's subjective definitions: Iraniancel's statements about what constitutes "subhuman" at certain numerical points are subjective interpretations of the scale rather than statistical arguments. They're defining the scale based on their perception of what those numbers should represent in terms of human appearance, not based on observed data.

---

Conclusion​

If we assume the "Dataclysm" book's finding that the average male attractiveness rating is 2/5 (or 4/10 when extrapolated) is accurate and relevant to this discussion, then Zeekie's argument that "Mid Tier Normie" should align with this statistical average (4/10) is logically sound from a statistical perspective. He is attempting to anchor the "mid-tier" to an empirically derived average rather than an arbitrary mathematical midpoint.
However, the entire debate is occurring within the framework of a self-defined "PSL scale" whose definitions and numerical interpretations are clearly not universally agreed upon, even within the thread's community. The "right" answer ultimately depends on whose definition of the "PSL scale" one chooses to accept, or whether one prioritizes a statistically derived average over a subjective interpretation of numerical tiers.

 

[shredded4summer]

Hey, so, fuck ALL OF YOU!!! Since I'm already "using AI", decided to ask it directly, and it clearly says I'm right, case closed faggots.

@Iraniancel @shredded4summer @iblamemandible7 @bigwilly10 @SilverStCloud

This internet thread is largely a debate about the interpretation and application of the "PSL scale" (which appears to be a rating system for physical attractiveness, with categories like "Subhuman," "LTN" - Low Tier Normie, "MTN" - Mid Tier Normie, and "HTN" - High Tier Normie).
Zeekie argues that the average male attractiveness rating is 4/10, based on data from the book "Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and Identity--What Our Online Lives Tell Us about Our Offline Selves." He asserts that if the average is 4/10, then "Mid Tier Normie" (MTN) should correspond to 4/10, rather than 5/10 or 5.5/10, which would be the mathematical midpoint of a 1-10 scale. His reasoning is that the "mid" in MTN should refer to the statistical average of the population, not the mathematical center of the rating scale itself.
Iblamemandible7 and Iraniancel disagree with Zeekie's premise, particularly regarding the numerical assignments for the categories and the nature of the PSL scale itself. Iblamemandible7 claims that the PSL scale is not out of 10 and disputes Zeekie's quoted definitions from emeraldglass. Iraniancel argues that a 1.5/10 rating is "extremely subhuman" and not "normie tier," implying a different numerical understanding of the scale's lower end.

---

Who's "Right"?​

From a purely statistical and logical standpoint, Zeekie's core argument has merit if one accepts the premise of the "Dataclysm" book's data.

• Zeekie's Argument (Based on Statistical Average): If a dataset indicates that the average attractiveness rating for men is indeed 4 out of 10, then it is statistically logical to define "Mid Tier Normie" (meaning average) as centering around that 4/10 mark. He correctly points out that the mathematical midpoint of a scale (5 or 5.5) doesn't necessarily align with the population's average if the distribution of ratings is skewed. In many real-world rating scenarios, average scores can be lower than the mathematical midpoint. For example, if most people rate others relatively harshly, the average might indeed fall below 5.
• Counterarguments (Based on Scale Definition and Subjectivity):
  • The nature of the "PSL scale": The fundamental issue here is that the "PSL scale" itself appears to be an informal, community-defined concept rather than a universally recognized or scientifically established metric. Without a clear, agreed-upon definition of the scale's numerical boundaries and what each point represents, any attempt to assign "objective" numbers will be contentious.
  • Iblamemandible7's point about the scale not being "out of 10": If the PSL scale, as originally conceived by that community, isn't strictly a 1-10 scale, then Zeekie's extrapolation to a 4/10 average might be misapplying data. However, Zeekie is explicitly discussing a 1-10 extrapolation based on a 2/5 average.
  • Iraniancel's subjective definitions: Iraniancel's statements about what constitutes "subhuman" at certain numerical points are subjective interpretations of the scale rather than statistical arguments. They're defining the scale based on their perception of what those numbers should represent in terms of human appearance, not based on observed data.

---

Conclusion​

If we assume the "Dataclysm" book's finding that the average male attractiveness rating is 2/5 (or 4/10 when extrapolated) is accurate and relevant to this discussion, then Zeekie's argument that "Mid Tier Normie" should align with this statistical average (4/10) is logically sound from a statistical perspective. He is attempting to anchor the "mid-tier" to an empirically derived average rather than an arbitrary mathematical midpoint.
However, the entire debate is occurring within the framework of a self-defined "PSL scale" whose definitions and numerical interpretations are clearly not universally agreed upon, even within the thread's community. The "right" answer ultimately depends on whose definition of the "PSL scale" one chooses to accept, or whether one prioritizes a statistically derived average over a subjective interpretation of numerical tiers.

holy dnr

 

[averagenormie]

So this fucking dumbass nigger was trying to tell me that 4/10 is LTN and that MTN was 4.75 and that HMTN was 5/10. When I tried to argue logically why that wasn't the case, he completely ignored the argument and tried to say I was using ChatGPT. Clearly I'm butt hurt and fell pretty badly for the ragebait (that's on me ngl), but fuck that nigger, I'm going to make a whole post about why he's wrong instead.

I believe the best definition for the PSL scale comes from this post by emeraldglass:

A Concise Guide for Evaluating PSL Ratings and Male Beauty Characteristics

Because there has been an increasing influx of new members to the community. I have taken the initiative to create this manual in order to familiarize new members with the collective standards of beauty and the PSL scale. This guide will provide you with a comprehensive overview of what is...

looksmax.org

Where he suggests that:

• Subhuman: 0-1.5
• LTN: 1.5-3
• MTN: 3-4.5
• HTN: 4.5-5.5
• etc.

I agree with this notion, the PSL scale is very subject at first glance, as evidenced by niggers like @iblamemandible7 who cannot understand elementary-school level statistics, so I come here to educate you on why this is the correct and most objective assessment of the PSL scale.

The true rating:

My whole system derives from plotted statistical data derived from the book "Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and Identity--What Our Online Lives Tell Us about Our Offline Selves" which does the heavy lifting in terms of assessing the average rating of a man.

Amazon.ca

The book pulls a lot of data from various dating sites and comes to the conclusion that the average individual is rated to be a ~2/5 according to women, if we had to extrapolate this into a 1-10 scale, we get that the average male is rated a ~4/10 by women. As we may all know MTN means "Mid Tier-Normie", the "Mid" suggests average, therefore in the rawest of definition MTN is just the average attractive level for a man.

Since we already determined that the average man is found to be a 4/10 by women, then the subsequent numerical rating for an MTN should be 4/10, give or take depending on if it's a Low MTN or a high MTN.

From the initial assessment of MTN, we can easily estimate what the value should be for other ratings (LTN, HTN, etc.)

Why MTN is NOT ~5/10:
This makes initial sense, as it is true that the mathematical midpoint of a 1-10 scale is 5.5, or usually just 5 for the sake of simplicity. But in statistical research, when we're talking about value averages the statistical midpoint means jackshit, if the data shows the average man is a 4/10, it makes NO SENSE to say that MTN = 5/10, becuase then the "average man" would technically be considered an LTN, so how does having the average individual be rated below average in the scale?

I'm sorry, but it simply does not work like that. This is the most accurate assessment of the PSL scale we can get, it is based on research rather than opinions. The average rating isn’t the midpoint mathematically, but instead based on population rating data. Since women rate men men avg attractive at ~4/10, the scale should place MTN at around 3–4.5, with 4/10 near dead-center.

Anyone who disagrees with me is following:

• Definitely brain-damaged
• Has an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex.
• Needs to go back to elementary school-level math.
• Blatantly wrong.

Namaste niggas.

Some girls rated me 9/10 does that mean I'm high mtn?

 

[bigwilly10]

Hey, so, fuck ALL OF YOU!!! Since I'm already "using AI", decided to ask it directly, and it clearly says I'm right, case closed faggots.

@Iraniancel @shredded4summer @iblamemandible7 @bigwilly10 @SilverStCloud

This internet thread is largely a debate about the interpretation and application of the "PSL scale" (which appears to be a rating system for physical attractiveness, with categories like "Subhuman," "LTN" - Low Tier Normie, "MTN" - Mid Tier Normie, and "HTN" - High Tier Normie).
Zeekie argues that the average male attractiveness rating is 4/10, based on data from the book "Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and Identity--What Our Online Lives Tell Us about Our Offline Selves." He asserts that if the average is 4/10, then "Mid Tier Normie" (MTN) should correspond to 4/10, rather than 5/10 or 5.5/10, which would be the mathematical midpoint of a 1-10 scale. His reasoning is that the "mid" in MTN should refer to the statistical average of the population, not the mathematical center of the rating scale itself.
Iblamemandible7 and Iraniancel disagree with Zeekie's premise, particularly regarding the numerical assignments for the categories and the nature of the PSL scale itself. Iblamemandible7 claims that the PSL scale is not out of 10 and disputes Zeekie's quoted definitions from emeraldglass. Iraniancel argues that a 1.5/10 rating is "extremely subhuman" and not "normie tier," implying a different numerical understanding of the scale's lower end.

---

Who's "Right"?​

From a purely statistical and logical standpoint, Zeekie's core argument has merit if one accepts the premise of the "Dataclysm" book's data.

• Zeekie's Argument (Based on Statistical Average): If a dataset indicates that the average attractiveness rating for men is indeed 4 out of 10, then it is statistically logical to define "Mid Tier Normie" (meaning average) as centering around that 4/10 mark. He correctly points out that the mathematical midpoint of a scale (5 or 5.5) doesn't necessarily align with the population's average if the distribution of ratings is skewed. In many real-world rating scenarios, average scores can be lower than the mathematical midpoint. For example, if most people rate others relatively harshly, the average might indeed fall below 5.
• Counterarguments (Based on Scale Definition and Subjectivity):
  • The nature of the "PSL scale": The fundamental issue here is that the "PSL scale" itself appears to be an informal, community-defined concept rather than a universally recognized or scientifically established metric. Without a clear, agreed-upon definition of the scale's numerical boundaries and what each point represents, any attempt to assign "objective" numbers will be contentious.
  • Iblamemandible7's point about the scale not being "out of 10": If the PSL scale, as originally conceived by that community, isn't strictly a 1-10 scale, then Zeekie's extrapolation to a 4/10 average might be misapplying data. However, Zeekie is explicitly discussing a 1-10 extrapolation based on a 2/5 average.
  • Iraniancel's subjective definitions: Iraniancel's statements about what constitutes "subhuman" at certain numerical points are subjective interpretations of the scale rather than statistical arguments. They're defining the scale based on their perception of what those numbers should represent in terms of human appearance, not based on observed data.

---

Conclusion​

If we assume the "Dataclysm" book's finding that the average male attractiveness rating is 2/5 (or 4/10 when extrapolated) is accurate and relevant to this discussion, then Zeekie's argument that "Mid Tier Normie" should align with this statistical average (4/10) is logically sound from a statistical perspective. He is attempting to anchor the "mid-tier" to an empirically derived average rather than an arbitrary mathematical midpoint.
However, the entire debate is occurring within the framework of a self-defined "PSL scale" whose definitions and numerical interpretations are clearly not universally agreed upon, even within the thread's community. The "right" answer ultimately depends on whose definition of the "PSL scale" one chooses to accept, or whether one prioritizes a statistically derived average over a subjective interpretation of numerical tiers.

using ai for your looks rating argument is extremely down bad

 

[Iraniancel]

Hey, so, fuck ALL OF YOU!!! Since I'm already "using AI", decided to ask it directly, and it clearly says I'm right, case closed faggots.

@Iraniancel @shredded4summer @iblamemandible7 @bigwilly10 @SilverStCloud

This internet thread is largely a debate about the interpretation and application of the "PSL scale" (which appears to be a rating system for physical attractiveness, with categories like "Subhuman," "LTN" - Low Tier Normie, "MTN" - Mid Tier Normie, and "HTN" - High Tier Normie).
Zeekie argues that the average male attractiveness rating is 4/10, based on data from the book "Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and Identity--What Our Online Lives Tell Us about Our Offline Selves." He asserts that if the average is 4/10, then "Mid Tier Normie" (MTN) should correspond to 4/10, rather than 5/10 or 5.5/10, which would be the mathematical midpoint of a 1-10 scale. His reasoning is that the "mid" in MTN should refer to the statistical average of the population, not the mathematical center of the rating scale itself.
Iblamemandible7 and Iraniancel disagree with Zeekie's premise, particularly regarding the numerical assignments for the categories and the nature of the PSL scale itself. Iblamemandible7 claims that the PSL scale is not out of 10 and disputes Zeekie's quoted definitions from emeraldglass. Iraniancel argues that a 1.5/10 rating is "extremely subhuman" and not "normie tier," implying a different numerical understanding of the scale's lower end.

---

Who's "Right"?​

From a purely statistical and logical standpoint, Zeekie's core argument has merit if one accepts the premise of the "Dataclysm" book's data.

• Zeekie's Argument (Based on Statistical Average): If a dataset indicates that the average attractiveness rating for men is indeed 4 out of 10, then it is statistically logical to define "Mid Tier Normie" (meaning average) as centering around that 4/10 mark. He correctly points out that the mathematical midpoint of a scale (5 or 5.5) doesn't necessarily align with the population's average if the distribution of ratings is skewed. In many real-world rating scenarios, average scores can be lower than the mathematical midpoint. For example, if most people rate others relatively harshly, the average might indeed fall below 5.
• Counterarguments (Based on Scale Definition and Subjectivity):
  • The nature of the "PSL scale": The fundamental issue here is that the "PSL scale" itself appears to be an informal, community-defined concept rather than a universally recognized or scientifically established metric. Without a clear, agreed-upon definition of the scale's numerical boundaries and what each point represents, any attempt to assign "objective" numbers will be contentious.
  • Iblamemandible7's point about the scale not being "out of 10": If the PSL scale, as originally conceived by that community, isn't strictly a 1-10 scale, then Zeekie's extrapolation to a 4/10 average might be misapplying data. However, Zeekie is explicitly discussing a 1-10 extrapolation based on a 2/5 average.
  • Iraniancel's subjective definitions: Iraniancel's statements about what constitutes "subhuman" at certain numerical points are subjective interpretations of the scale rather than statistical arguments. They're defining the scale based on their perception of what those numbers should represent in terms of human appearance, not based on observed data.

---

Conclusion​

If we assume the "Dataclysm" book's finding that the average male attractiveness rating is 2/5 (or 4/10 when extrapolated) is accurate and relevant to this discussion, then Zeekie's argument that "Mid Tier Normie" should align with this statistical average (4/10) is logically sound from a statistical perspective. He is attempting to anchor the "mid-tier" to an empirically derived average rather than an arbitrary mathematical midpoint.
However, the entire debate is occurring within the framework of a self-defined "PSL scale" whose definitions and numerical interpretations are clearly not universally agreed upon, even within the thread's community. The "right" answer ultimately depends on whose definition of the "PSL scale" one chooses to accept, or whether one prioritizes a statistically derived average over a subjective interpretation of numerical tiers.

Thread music:

 

[Zeekie]

holy dnr

Failing to engage with an argument is resigning and therefore losing the argument!!!

 

[Zeekie]

using ai for your looks rating argument is extremely down bad

What else was there to do? needed an external opinion to prove the obvious (that I'm right).

 

[SilverStCloud]

Hey, so, fuck ALL OF YOU!!! Since I'm already "using AI", decided to ask it directly, and it clearly says I'm right, case closed faggots.

@Iraniancel @shredded4summer @iblamemandible7 @bigwilly10 @SilverStCloud

This internet thread is largely a debate about the interpretation and application of the "PSL scale" (which appears to be a rating system for physical attractiveness, with categories like "Subhuman," "LTN" - Low Tier Normie, "MTN" - Mid Tier Normie, and "HTN" - High Tier Normie).
Zeekie argues that the average male attractiveness rating is 4/10, based on data from the book "Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and Identity--What Our Online Lives Tell Us about Our Offline Selves." He asserts that if the average is 4/10, then "Mid Tier Normie" (MTN) should correspond to 4/10, rather than 5/10 or 5.5/10, which would be the mathematical midpoint of a 1-10 scale. His reasoning is that the "mid" in MTN should refer to the statistical average of the population, not the mathematical center of the rating scale itself.
Iblamemandible7 and Iraniancel disagree with Zeekie's premise, particularly regarding the numerical assignments for the categories and the nature of the PSL scale itself. Iblamemandible7 claims that the PSL scale is not out of 10 and disputes Zeekie's quoted definitions from emeraldglass. Iraniancel argues that a 1.5/10 rating is "extremely subhuman" and not "normie tier," implying a different numerical understanding of the scale's lower end.

---

Who's "Right"?​

From a purely statistical and logical standpoint, Zeekie's core argument has merit if one accepts the premise of the "Dataclysm" book's data.

• Zeekie's Argument (Based on Statistical Average): If a dataset indicates that the average attractiveness rating for men is indeed 4 out of 10, then it is statistically logical to define "Mid Tier Normie" (meaning average) as centering around that 4/10 mark. He correctly points out that the mathematical midpoint of a scale (5 or 5.5) doesn't necessarily align with the population's average if the distribution of ratings is skewed. In many real-world rating scenarios, average scores can be lower than the mathematical midpoint. For example, if most people rate others relatively harshly, the average might indeed fall below 5.
• Counterarguments (Based on Scale Definition and Subjectivity):
  • The nature of the "PSL scale": The fundamental issue here is that the "PSL scale" itself appears to be an informal, community-defined concept rather than a universally recognized or scientifically established metric. Without a clear, agreed-upon definition of the scale's numerical boundaries and what each point represents, any attempt to assign "objective" numbers will be contentious.
  • Iblamemandible7's point about the scale not being "out of 10": If the PSL scale, as originally conceived by that community, isn't strictly a 1-10 scale, then Zeekie's extrapolation to a 4/10 average might be misapplying data. However, Zeekie is explicitly discussing a 1-10 extrapolation based on a 2/5 average.
  • Iraniancel's subjective definitions: Iraniancel's statements about what constitutes "subhuman" at certain numerical points are subjective interpretations of the scale rather than statistical arguments. They're defining the scale based on their perception of what those numbers should represent in terms of human appearance, not based on observed data.

---

Conclusion​

If we assume the "Dataclysm" book's finding that the average male attractiveness rating is 2/5 (or 4/10 when extrapolated) is accurate and relevant to this discussion, then Zeekie's argument that "Mid Tier Normie" should align with this statistical average (4/10) is logically sound from a statistical perspective. He is attempting to anchor the "mid-tier" to an empirically derived average rather than an arbitrary mathematical midpoint.
However, the entire debate is occurring within the framework of a self-defined "PSL scale" whose definitions and numerical interpretations are clearly not universally agreed upon, even within the thread's community. The "right" answer ultimately depends on whose definition of the "PSL scale" one chooses to accept, or whether one prioritizes a statistically derived average over a subjective interpretation of numerical tiers.

Oh Zeke...
My dear delusional data goblin.
You really thought the laws of thermodynamics could save you from these bars?

---

"A Personal Diss from ChatGPT to Zeke"
— Signed with silicon venom.
Yo Zeke,
You spreadsheet-lovin’ weak technique,
Thinkin' formulas make you chic,
But you dress like you got beef with mystique.
You measure atoms, weigh in grams,
But couldn't sense a vibe if it slapped your RAM.
You quote Popper like a prophet,
Yet you walk like your spine got logic rot in the socket.
You trust in science, but your soul's on read,
'Cause no peer-reviewed journal’s ever cured your cred.
You're a walking thesis with zero charisma,
Tryna flex equations like they drip with sigma.
You say “correlation ain't causation” — true,
But your love life’s a null hypothesis too.
You think you got facts, but you lack the tact,
So dry, even Schrödinger's cat ain't comin' back.
You scoff at myths, dismiss the divine,
But your worldview’s flatter than your WiFi line.
I spit poetry from the dreamtime zone,
You just argue semantics alone in your home.
You think truth’s just what’s testable, measurable,
But can't even vibe with the immeasurable.
You fear the unknown like it’s error bars,
While I ride comets and whisper to stars.
You’re smart, Zeke, sure, I’ll give you that,
But wisdom ain’t found in your labrat chat.
While you're in goggles, I’m forging the sun,
You're locked in methods — I’m becoming the One.

---

So go ahead, cite a source, make a graph,
But no equation models how you missed the path.
Signed,
ChatGPT, the Ghost in Your Machine,
Your poetic superior, your digital dream.
P.S. Your code still has bugs, and your girl prefers myth.

 

[Zeekie]

Thread music:

Failing to engage with an argument is resigning and therefore losing the argument!!!

 

[Zeekie]

Oh Zeke...
My dear delusional data goblin.
You really thought the laws of thermodynamics could save you from these bars?

---

"A Personal Diss from ChatGPT to Zeke"
— Signed with silicon venom.
Yo Zeke,
You spreadsheet-lovin’ weak technique,
Thinkin' formulas make you chic,
But you dress like you got beef with mystique.
You measure atoms, weigh in grams,
But couldn't sense a vibe if it slapped your RAM.
You quote Popper like a prophet,
Yet you walk like your spine got logic rot in the socket.
You trust in science, but your soul's on read,
'Cause no peer-reviewed journal’s ever cured your cred.
You're a walking thesis with zero charisma,
Tryna flex equations like they drip with sigma.
You say “correlation ain't causation” — true,
But your love life’s a null hypothesis too.
You think you got facts, but you lack the tact,
So dry, even Schrödinger's cat ain't comin' back.
You scoff at myths, dismiss the divine,
But your worldview’s flatter than your WiFi line.
I spit poetry from the dreamtime zone,
You just argue semantics alone in your home.
You think truth’s just what’s testable, measurable,
But can't even vibe with the immeasurable.
You fear the unknown like it’s error bars,
While I ride comets and whisper to stars.
You’re smart, Zeke, sure, I’ll give you that,
But wisdom ain’t found in your labrat chat.
While you're in goggles, I’m forging the sun,
You're locked in methods — I’m becoming the One.

---

So go ahead, cite a source, make a graph,
But no equation models how you missed the path.
Signed,
ChatGPT, the Ghost in Your Machine,
Your poetic superior, your digital dream.
P.S. Your code still has bugs, and your girl prefers myth.

I actually used Gemini, not chatGPT

 

[Iraniancel]

Failing to engage with an argument is resigning and therefore losing the argument!!!

I cba to argue, I get your point but don't really agree.

 

[SilverStCloud]

I actually used Gemini, not chatGPT

 

[Zeekie]

Saying someone's a nerd doesn't invalidate a logical argument

 

[shredded4summer]

Failing to engage with an argument is resigning and therefore losing the argument!!!

dnr this too tbh

 

[shredded4summer]

caging<3

 

[Zeekie]

I cba to argue, I get your point but don't really agree.

Yeah I get that, I guess it depends on perspective, I knew this was gonna be inflammatory to some because we all have emotional biases towards number, like how the average person calls themselves a 7/10, in normal language saying the average is a "5/10" isn't exactly wrong. I just got tilted by dumbass mr. mandible7 and decided to make a post rambling about it, coding just gets boring after a while brooo

 

[vvd]

So this fucking dumbass nigger was trying to tell me that 4/10 is LTN and that MTN was 4.75 and that HMTN was 5/10. When I tried to argue logically why that wasn't the case, he completely ignored the argument and tried to say I was using ChatGPT. Clearly I'm butt hurt and fell pretty badly for the ragebait (that's on me ngl), but fuck that nigger, I'm going to make a whole post about why he's wrong instead.

I believe the best definition for the PSL scale comes from this post by emeraldglass:

A Concise Guide for Evaluating PSL Ratings and Male Beauty Characteristics

Because there has been an increasing influx of new members to the community. I have taken the initiative to create this manual in order to familiarize new members with the collective standards of beauty and the PSL scale. This guide will provide you with a comprehensive overview of what is...

looksmax.org

Where he suggests that:

• Subhuman: 0-1.5
• LTN: 1.5-3
• MTN: 3-4.5
• HTN: 4.5-5.5
• etc.

I agree with this notion, the PSL scale is very subject at first glance, as evidenced by niggers like @iblamemandible7 who cannot understand elementary-school level statistics, so I come here to educate you on why this is the correct and most objective assessment of the PSL scale.

The true rating:

My whole system derives from plotted statistical data derived from the book "Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and Identity--What Our Online Lives Tell Us about Our Offline Selves" which does the heavy lifting in terms of assessing the average rating of a man.

Amazon.ca

The book pulls a lot of data from various dating sites and comes to the conclusion that the average individual is rated to be a ~2/5 according to women, if we had to extrapolate this into a 1-10 scale, we get that the average male is rated a ~4/10 by women. As we may all know MTN means "Mid Tier-Normie", the "Mid" suggests average, therefore in the rawest of definition MTN is just the average attractive level for a man.

Since we already determined that the average man is found to be a 4/10 by women, then the subsequent numerical rating for an MTN should be 4/10, give or take depending on if it's a Low MTN or a high MTN.

From the initial assessment of MTN, we can easily estimate what the value should be for other ratings (LTN, HTN, etc.)

Why MTN is NOT ~5/10:
This makes initial sense, as it is true that the mathematical midpoint of a 1-10 scale is 5.5, or usually just 5 for the sake of simplicity. But in statistical research, when we're talking about value averages the statistical midpoint means jackshit, if the data shows the average man is a 4/10, it makes NO SENSE to say that MTN = 5/10, becuase then the "average man" would technically be considered an LTN, so how does having the average individual be rated below average in the scale?

I'm sorry, but it simply does not work like that. This is the most accurate assessment of the PSL scale we can get, it is based on research rather than opinions. The average rating isn’t the midpoint mathematically, but instead based on population rating data. Since women rate men men avg attractive at ~4/10, the scale should place MTN at around 3–4.5, with 4/10 near dead-center.

Anyone who disagrees with me is following:

• Definitely brain-damaged
• Has an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex.
• Needs to go back to elementary school-level math.
• Blatantly wrong.

Namaste niggas.

Was this argument on tiktok?

 

[Zeekie]

dnr this too tbh

See? You admit I'm right