Why “Rate by Analysis” Is a Massive Fallacy

[thecel]

For the purposes of this post, I use the term “objective rating” to mean “accurately represents the tastes, preferences, and perception of the population in general; not biased by a rater’s personal tastes, which may deviate from the norms”.

Though I think all ratings are objective from a semantics standpoint. In this thread I refer to “population ratings” as “objective” and “personal ratings” as “subjective.”

---

Some PSL copers think it’s “more objective” to rate people based on their measured ratios instead of just going by intuition.

Their overly simplistic brainlet logic goes: muh numbers with decimal points therefore muh objective.

But their rating method is no more scientific nor objective than just rating by feel is.

Why? Analysis-raters lack a comprehensive mathematical function that takes in measurements and spits out an accurate rating. Analysis-raters just take a few measurements and then “go by feel” to synthesize them into a rating.

Example:

• 1.1 midface ratio
• 0.48 ES ratio
• 2.75 chin-to-philtrum ratio
• 0.95 bigonial-to-bizygo ratio
• 1.05 cranium-to-bizygo ratio
• VERDICT = 8/10 Chad

Yeah well how the fook do you go from all those ratios to the final 8/10 rating? You go by feel. In order to not go by feel, you must have a formula or other deterministic system that converts the facial measurements into a rating, and the system needs to be demonstrably reflective of reality. Not a “judging rubric” because feelings are involved in that too.

The copers who “rate by analysis” still rely on rating by feel at the end of the day.

 

[emeraldglass]

For the purposes of this post, I use the term “objective rating” to mean “accurately represents the tastes, preferences, and perception of the population in general; not biased by a rater’s personal tastes, which may deviate from the norms”.

Though I think all ratings are objective from a semantics standpoint. In this thread I refer to “population ratings” as “objective” and “personal ratings” as “subjective.”

---

Some PSL copers think it’s “more objective” to rate people based on their measured ratios instead of just going by intuition.

Their overly simplistic brainlet logic goes: muh numbers with decimal points therefore muh objective.

But their rating method is no more scientific nor objective than just rating by feel is.

Why? Analysis-raters lack a comprehensive mathematical function that takes in measurements and spits out an accurate rating. Analysis-raters just take a few measurements and then “go by feel” to synthesize them into a rating.

Example:

• 1.1 midface ratio
• 0.48 ES ratio
• 2.75 chin-to-philtrum ratio
• 0.95 bigonial-to-bizygo ratio
• 1.05 cranium-to-bizygo ratio
• VERDICT = 8/10 Chad

Yeah well how the fook do you go from all those ratios to the final 8/10 rating? You go by feel. In order to not go by feel, you must have a formula or other deterministic system that converts the facial measurements into a rating. Not a “judging rubric” because feelings are involved in that too.

The copers who “rate by analysis” still rely on rating by feel at the end of the day.

A mix of both is perfect. But numbers alone or opinion alone is not enough.

 

[thecel]

A mix of both is perfect. But numbers alone or opinion alone is not enough.

My point is that using numbers still relies on opinions and thus doesn’t make analysis-based ratings any more “objective” than non-analysis-based ratings are.

 

[Deleted member 29167]

For the purposes of this post, I use the term “objective rating” to mean “accurately represents the tastes, preferences, and perception of the population in general; not biased by a rater’s personal tastes, which may deviate from the norms”.

Though I think all ratings are objective from a semantics standpoint. In this thread I refer to “population ratings” as “objective” and “personal ratings” as “subjective.”

---

Some PSL copers think it’s “more objective” to rate people based on their measured ratios instead of just going by intuition.

Their overly simplistic brainlet logic goes: muh numbers with decimal points therefore muh objective.

But their rating method is no more scientific nor objective than just rating by feel is.

Why? Analysis-raters lack a comprehensive mathematical function that takes in measurements and spits out an accurate rating. Analysis-raters just take a few measurements and then “go by feel” to synthesize them into a rating.

Example:

• 1.1 midface ratio
• 0.48 ES ratio
• 2.75 chin-to-philtrum ratio
• 0.95 bigonial-to-bizygo ratio
• 1.05 cranium-to-bizygo ratio
• VERDICT = 8/10 Chad

Yeah well how the fook do you go from all those ratios to the final 8/10 rating? You go by feel. In order to not go by feel, you must have a formula or other deterministic system that converts the facial measurements into a rating. Not a “judging rubric” because feelings are involved in that too.

The copers who “rate by analysis” still rely on rating by feel at the end of the day.

go by feel is retarded if you dont know female gaze (which is pretty much impossible)

look at how many guys overrate ryan renolds, they'd probably even say he's more attractive than models like chico and opry. you cant really ask women either, cause they'll just virtue signal and shit they dont even agree with

also faces are kinda subjective depending on hormones for example if a girl is on birth control they prefer feminine men, so basically its all cope

 

[emeraldglass]

My point is that using numbers still relies on opinions and thus doesn’t make analysis-based ratings any more “objective” than non-analysis-based ratings are.

I like you my friend, you a good user.

 

[thecel]

go by feel is retarded if you dont know female gaze (which is pretty much impossible)

You can learn to approximate the female gaze.

look at how many guys overrate ryan renolds, they'd probably even say he's more attractive than models like chico and opry. you cant really ask women either, cause they'll just virtue signal and shit they dont even agree with

also faces are kinda subjective depending on hormones for example if a girl is on birth control they prefer feminine men, so basically its all cope

The point of rating a man’s attractiveness is to estimate how the female population, on average, perceives his appearance. Different women’s tastes differ and change over time. But the average exists, and that’s all a rating is meant to quantify.

 

[Deleted member 29167]

You can learn to approximate the female gaze.

yeah u right, still hard to emulate something you dont feel, its like explaining color to a blind person (not really the same thing at all but still)

 

[User49]

some ppl will always weigh some features more than others so it's impossible to objectively rate

you can tell if something is unideal though through ratios / proportions / angles

 

[Foreverbrad]

My ratios are near perfect yet I’m subhuman.
Rate by tinder success.