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

[holytruecoper]

dnrd

 

[Deleted member 161065]

@Iraniancel @iblamemandible7 @bigwilly10 @SilverStCloud @Zeekie

Here is an accurate representation. each categories lines up as you go down

this pretty much means that if you are getting rated 5 by normies you are subhuman. this has to be a normie that doesnt hate you cause they might troll you and say youre a 3 or smth or if youre attractive say you are a 5 to hate on you but if they like you and they give these values then this is what it equates to in reality

Screenshot-2025-07-11-at-16-25-57 hosted at ImgBB

Image Screenshot-2025-07-11-at-16-25-57 in the Raw Milk's images album

ibb.co

as you can see the normie scale is a min of 5 and it goes above 10 (when they rate you 10 they dont mean you are perfect so when a true chad pulls up they gotta change their scale and rate them an 11. this is how retarded foids are btw)

i hope this makes sense. the drawing is a lil shit so i can explain it but in essence

normie rating to org rating to true scale conversion

5 = subhuman = 1-2 (deformity)
6 = ltn = 3-4 (ehh kinda ugly)
7 = mtn = 4-5~ (alright standard)
8 = htn = 6-7! (handsome)
9 = cl = 7-8 (very attractive)
10+ = chad = 8-10 (close to perfection)

these are very approximate i just want to make it for the sake of understanding.

the thing to consider here is that no scale is true. its not accurate to say that the normie rating scale is bad cause it works, at the end of the day it gets the point across even if it isnt scaled perfectly but its honestly idiotic to say 1 scale is wrong and the other is right unless you are making a real distribution curve but that would be useless because as i mentioned women cant see men that are ugly therefore the "average" doesnt matter and is stupid to care about in this context. if we did it based on average then a most attractive people would be 9.9 since being in the top 1% is easy asf

Agreed.

There also these foids rating men by smv tho. Where every normie is a 0/10.

 

[Prøphet]

@Iraniancel @iblamemandible7 @bigwilly10 @SilverStCloud @Zeekie

Here is an accurate representation. each categories lines up as you go down

this pretty much means that if you are getting rated 5 by normies you are subhuman. this has to be a normie that doesnt hate you cause they might troll you and say youre a 3 or smth or if youre attractive say you are a 5 to hate on you but if they like you and they give these values then this is what it equates to in reality

Screenshot-2025-07-11-at-16-25-57 hosted at ImgBB

Image Screenshot-2025-07-11-at-16-25-57 in the Raw Milk's images album

ibb.co

as you can see the normie scale is a min of 5 and it goes above 10 (when they rate you 10 they dont mean you are perfect so when a true chad pulls up they gotta change their scale and rate them an 11. this is how retarded foids are btw)

i hope this makes sense. the drawing is a lil shit so i can explain it but in essence

normie rating to org rating to true scale conversion

5 = subhuman = 1-2 (deformity)
6 = ltn = 3-4 (ehh kinda ugly)
7 = mtn = 4-5~ (alright standard)
8 = htn = 6-7! (handsome)
9 = cl = 7-8 (very attractive)
10+ = chad = 8-10 (close to perfection)

these are very approximate i just want to make it for the sake of understanding.

the thing to consider here is that no scale is true. its not accurate to say that the normie rating scale is bad cause it works, at the end of the day it gets the point across even if it isnt scaled perfectly but its honestly idiotic to say 1 scale is wrong and the other is right unless you are making a real distribution curve but that would be useless because as i mentioned women cant see men that are ugly therefore the "average" doesnt matter and is stupid to care about in this context. if we did it based on average then a most attractive people would be 9.9 since being in the top 1% is easy asf

I thot win niggas hear say "normie scail" they're just talking about the blackpilled bell curve /10 scail

I think FaceIQ scail is the gold standerd tbh, tryed to find a picshure too show you guys but can't fined it

 

[Zeekie]

@Iraniancel @iblamemandible7 @bigwilly10 @SilverStCloud @Zeekie

Here is an accurate representation. each categories lines up as you go down

this pretty much means that if you are getting rated 5 by normies you are subhuman. this has to be a normie that doesnt hate you cause they might troll you and say youre a 3 or smth or if youre attractive say you are a 5 to hate on you but if they like you and they give these values then this is what it equates to in reality

Screenshot-2025-07-11-at-16-25-57 hosted at ImgBB

Image Screenshot-2025-07-11-at-16-25-57 in the Raw Milk's images album

ibb.co

as you can see the normie scale is a min of 5 and it goes above 10 (when they rate you 10 they dont mean you are perfect so when a true chad pulls up they gotta change their scale and rate them an 11. this is how retarded foids are btw)

i hope this makes sense. the drawing is a lil shit so i can explain it but in essence

normie rating to org rating to true scale conversion

5 = subhuman = 1-2 (deformity)
6 = ltn = 3-4 (ehh kinda ugly)
7 = mtn = 4-5~ (alright standard)
8 = htn = 6-7! (handsome)
9 = cl = 7-8 (very attractive)
10+ = chad = 8-10 (close to perfection)

these are very approximate i just want to make it for the sake of understanding.

the thing to consider here is that no scale is true. its not accurate to say that the normie rating scale is bad cause it works, at the end of the day it gets the point across even if it isnt scaled perfectly but its honestly idiotic to say 1 scale is wrong and the other is right unless you are making a real distribution curve but that would be useless because as i mentioned women cant see men that are ugly therefore the "average" doesnt matter and is stupid to care about in this context. if we did it based on average then a most attractive people would be 9.9 since being in the top 1% is easy asf

I completely agree with you, this whole thing is pretty subjective and just a mild troll on my part as I got mad by what iblamemandible7. The .org scale is sadly biased, in the sense that anything below a 5/10 is seen as negative, this is statistically dishonest, but I suppose it's right based on common conversations in the forum.

The whole point of my thread was to try and shred some light onto a more "objective" kind of scale based on data and not just the very shaky and varied opinion of an internet forum (and to try and dog on the nigger iblamemandible7)

 

[laworg]

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.

Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and Identity-What Our Online Lives Tell Us about Our Offline Selves: Rudder, Christian: 9780385347396: Books - Amazon.ca

Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race, and Identity-What Our Online Lives Tell Us about Our Offline Selves: Rudder, Christian: 9780385347396: Books - Amazon.ca

www.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.

Ratings dont matter below htn just another way to cope with not being attractive enough so ur nitpicking useless stuff

 

[Deleted member 159614]

Here is an accurate representation. each categories lines up as you go down

Upvoted for the effort

 

[Zeekie]

Ratings dont matter below htn just another way to cope with not being attractive enough so ur nitpicking useless stuff

Yes the numerical value of the PSL scale doesn't matter, but it also serves to functional issue to figure out what happens when you put a frog in zero gravity, yet there has been research done on that. Why? Cuz it's cool to know I guess, MTN being 4/10 doesn't matter, but why's it a problem to suggest it?

 

[Deleted member 159614]

why my shi bricked

Distorted oedipal fixation

 

[bigwilly10]

@Iraniancel @iblamemandible7 @bigwilly10 @SilverStCloud @Zeekie

Here is an accurate representation. each categories lines up as you go down

this pretty much means that if you are getting rated 5 by normies you are subhuman. this has to be a normie that doesnt hate you cause they might troll you and say youre a 3 or smth or if youre attractive say you are a 5 to hate on you but if they like you and they give these values then this is what it equates to in reality

Screenshot-2025-07-11-at-16-25-57 hosted at ImgBB

Image Screenshot-2025-07-11-at-16-25-57 in the Raw Milk's images album

ibb.co

as you can see the normie scale is a min of 5 and it goes above 10 (when they rate you 10 they dont mean you are perfect so when a true chad pulls up they gotta change their scale and rate them an 11. this is how retarded foids are btw)

i hope this makes sense. the drawing is a lil shit so i can explain it but in essence

normie rating to org rating to true scale conversion

5 = subhuman = 1-2 (deformity)
6 = ltn = 3-4 (ehh kinda ugly)
7 = mtn = 4-5~ (alright standard)
8 = htn = 6-7! (handsome)
9 = cl = 7-8 (very attractive)
10+ = chad = 8-10 (close to perfection)

these are very approximate i just want to make it for the sake of understanding.

the thing to consider here is that no scale is true. its not accurate to say that the normie rating scale is bad cause it works, at the end of the day it gets the point across even if it isnt scaled perfectly but its honestly idiotic to say 1 scale is wrong and the other is right unless you are making a real distribution curve but that would be useless because as i mentioned women cant see men that are ugly therefore the "average" doesnt matter and is stupid to care about in this context. if we did it based on average then a most attractive people would be 9.9 since being in the top 1% is easy asf

high iq post