|
|
#21
07-07-2006, 06:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The official attractiveness ranking system
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] First, an average girl is, well, average, a 5. If you take a random girl from the street in your age range, she will be a 5. I think most people center their scale wrong, but the most logical answer should be the correct one. [/ QUOTE ] Nice post... However, I tend to disagree. Maybe it's just me, but I dislike thinking that the average girl is a 5. It just seems so... I don't know... Mean? I'd probably subscribe myself to more of a lognormal scale or something whereby the average rating would be a 6 and most girls fall in the 5-7 range, few are 8's, even fewer are 9's and there are hardly any 10's. Let's be honest, the average 2+2'ers girlfriend is probably a 5 on your scale... Personally, I dislike that thought... I prefer my own scale where the average is 6. [/ QUOTE ] I'm the exact opposite! I think the avg girl is a 4. We're not thinking about how many fat/ugly women there are in the world b/c we just don't look twice in thier direction. Truth is, they're there! Note: the hottest girl I've ever dated/[censored] was a 6, maybe 6.5 in her prime (when I got her). So . . . 
|
|
#22
07-07-2006, 06:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The official attractiveness ranking system
[ QUOTE ]
you owe me 45 seconds of my life [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#23
07-07-2006, 07:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The official attractiveness ranking system
[ QUOTE ]
0.1%, or rougly one in a thousand girls, is a 9. I think this needs to be set. You can't walk into a bar and every 5th girl is a 9. This doesn't happen unless you are in Southern California. [/ QUOTE ] Sam's FYP quoted for correct-ness. Seriously, Yobz, where do you live? Sad For You, -Al
|
|
#24
07-07-2006, 07:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The official attractiveness ranking system
[ QUOTE ]
Next I think there is a normal distribution (you might not agree with this) of hotness. Most girls are 4's, 5's, and 6's. 68% of girls fall in this range. 27% of girls fall in the 3 and 7 range. 2.1% of the population is an 8 (same for a 2, but you would naturally block them out of your vision, so you wouldnt' see them). 0.1%, or rougly one in a thousand girls, is a 9. I think this needs to be set. You can't walk into a bar and every 5th girl is a 9. This doesn't happen unless you are in a movie. Now we have to talk about 10s. A lot of guys use this term loosely. We really can't. I have seen at most two 10's in my entire life. They are the kind of girl that you freeze up when you see them. They are other people's 9s. There is nothing physically different between a solid 9 and a 10 -- just a physical reaction that you have to her. Something special about her that makes you want to drop everything you are doing and jump her. These are the rarest and if you aren't sure you have seen a 10, you haven't. Pictures, therefore, cannot convey a 10. There is no way to tell but to be there and know that she is a 10. [/ QUOTE ] i agree 100%. i also have seen only two 10s in my life. every guy on the planet shoud read this so we are all finally on the same page.
|
|
#25
07-07-2006, 07:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The official attractiveness ranking system
[ QUOTE ]
the three point scale is kind of used in jest, but not really... 1 - wouldn't hit it 2 - hit it drunk 3 - I'd hit it [/ QUOTE ] obviously not the most detailled, but this system works so well. why woudl you need anything different?
|
|
#26
07-07-2006, 08:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The official attractiveness ranking system
Let me guess. You just recently learned about the normal curve (normal distribution.) Now you intend to apply it to the "rating" of women. I say go [censored] yourself. The "bad" rating system we have now is fine. Why? Because if it really were so bad, people would switch to another system.
Perhaps more can be said about what is required in a rating system used to objectively describe the attractiveness of women. Perhaps, (and I mean this strongly,) the current rating system used does not intend to be accurate about the attractiveness of the one it rates. This is why there are alot more 8s, 9s, and 10s than one normally affords on a more accurate scale (read: a normally distributed scale.); it is simply to increase self-esteem, not only for the women but for the men they are with as well. Furthermore, I have noticed in my own personal life, that people do not even use scales such as "1-10"; they may use scales such as "fugly, ugly, decent, good, hot, really hot, smoking hot"; or scales such as "not fuckable, fuckable", etc. - I think people are already good at being able to describe the attractiveness of a woman with the current vocabulary they have been using. In conclusion, I don't think that people, as a whole, need to confront this "issue" of a inferior (wrt. accuracy) rating scale, and I think that it is silly for you to have brought it up, (especially without proper foresight to have considered all the potential issues and be able to firmly say why your option is clearly superior) in this fine forum known as OOT. Best, AW
|
|
#27
07-07-2006, 08:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The official attractiveness ranking system
i have long been a proponent of a gaussian scale, but i think intuitively we think about it with a standard deviation greater than 1. my personal system feels a bit like a 1.5 standard deviation.
when designing a grading scale it's important that both high grades are meaningful, but also that it's descriptive enough to describe and differentiate between the average and mediocre. a stdev of 1 just seems like it lumps too many girls together with the same grades. it takes a lot to jump from a 6 to a 7 in your system
|
|
#29
07-07-2006, 08:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The official attractiveness ranking system
[ QUOTE ]
i have long been a proponent of a gaussian scale, but i think intuitively we think about it with a standard deviation greater than 1. my personal system feels a bit like a 1.5 standard deviation. when designing a grading scale it's important that both high grades are meaningful, but also that it's descriptive enough to describe and differentiate between the average and mediocre. a stdev of 1 just seems like it lumps too many girls together with the same grades. it takes a lot to jump from a 6 to a 7 in your system [/ QUOTE ] this is how i feel
|
|
#30
07-07-2006, 08:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The official attractiveness ranking system
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] First, an average girl is, well, average, a 5. If you take a random girl from the street in your age range, she will be a 5. I think most people center their scale wrong, but the most logical answer should be the correct one. [/ QUOTE ] Nice post... However, I tend to disagree. Maybe it's just me, but I dislike thinking that the average girl is a 5. It just seems so... I don't know... Mean? I'd probably subscribe myself to more of a lognormal scale or something whereby the average rating would be a 6 and most girls fall in the 5-7 range, few are 8's, even fewer are 9's and there are hardly any 10's. Let's be honest, the average 2+2'ers girlfriend is probably a 5 on your scale... Personally, I dislike that thought... I prefer my own scale where the average is 6. [/ QUOTE ] I'm the exact opposite! I think the avg girl is a 4. We're not thinking about how many fat/ugly women there are in the world b/c we just don't look twice in thier direction. Truth is, they're there! Note: the hottest girl I've ever dated/[censored] was a 6, maybe 6.5 in her prime (when I got her). So . . . [/ QUOTE ] LOL, that's awesome! To each his own I guess. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
