Is it better to define average-looking by measuring how many people think you look cute vs. "scientifc set of physical traits"?

InjectAdrenochrome · 2023-07-26T00:08:26+00:00

I think there's merit to the r/truerateme approach to putting everybody on a bell curve, even if I think its too steep (60% of ppl are between a 4-6, I think its more like 30-40%) making it hard even for really attractive people to get a 6.5 or a 7. That sub is problematic in other ways but the approach is understandable.

However I do think average looking people will get a variety of reactions from different people. Some will think they are average, others will think they are cute, some will find them ugly. Attraction is more subjective than beauty imo. So I think looking at the way you've been treated by others is a good metric to see where you stand.

TheOrangeGhost · 2023-07-26T03:20:18+00:00

It's really hard to rate people because personal preferences on over 20 traits with a range of level's effect how attractive one person think another person is. For example a curvy women with red hair, glasses, and blue eyes is way more likely to be attractive to me then a super model thin women with black hair and brown eyes. Personal aesthetics matter more than societal standards.

Independent-Mail-227 · 2023-07-26T00:18:52+00:00

How are you going to explain 80% of men being labeled as bellow average with this approach?

raldabos · 2023-07-26T00:03:42+00:00

I've thought about this too. It's obvious that physical attractiveness isn't as subjective as people make it out to be; it's more of an unbalanced spectrum that tilts more to one side than the other. Unlike the one you shared, it would probably look more like this: https://blogs.sas.com/content/sastraining/files/2014/10/okc_rating_curve1.png

The best way to determine if you're good-looking is through dating apps. If we're considering a more scientific approach, you can try asking girls in bars.

For instance, if a guy who looks like Henry Cavill asks 100 girls out, he'll have a good percentage of women accepting. On the other hand, if you take a guy that looks like Zach Braff, you'll probably get a small number of women accepting. Finally, if you take a guy that looks like Michael Cera, the percentage of women who will accept will be low, maybe even 0. By comparing those results, you can obtain a pretty decent conclusion of what's average looking, attractive or unattractive.

wtknight · 2023-07-26T01:44:32+00:00

Yeah, for a man, I think that it's best to define it based upon who a man attracts before any communication with a woman.

However, I think that female hypergamy means that one isn't going to get an even distribution of women attracted to a given man. A guy who is a 5 may get a bell curve based upon the women who are 4s that he can attract, but he's hardly going to attract any 6s at all. He'll probably attract even more 3s. The same goes for an 8. He'll get a bell curve of the 7 women who are attracted to him, but most model-tier 9's aren't going to bother with him.

For women, it's more difficult to measure like this due to men's horniness. This is why men tend to use an actual "scientific set of physical traits" for women. Men could find a 3 attractive enough if they are horny enough, so they come up with a set of traits to instead to judge women.

However, women don't work like this when it comes to attraction, most of the time. No matter how horny a woman who is a 7 is, she's probably never going to bother with a guy who is a 4.

Note that I am talking about looks only. A guy who is a 5 could definitely attract a 6 or a 7 if he is charismatic enough or has high enough status. What I'm referring to is initial physical attraction, though.

neugalant · 2023-07-26T02:31:40+00:00

i would think the scientific "measurement" is based on what people think to begin with. generally speaking, i prefer real world experience over studies and numbers. observe your surroundings, draw your conclusions, challenge them, then redraw them. if youre not ret*rded, you should be on dot.

Sell-Chemical7413 · 2023-07-26T00:15:26+00:00

Almost all heritable traits follow normal distribution (also known as bell curve). This is not a surprise, as predicted by a fundamental theorem in statistics called central limit theorem. It's one of the key concepts in mathematics.

It applies to boob size, dick size, height, weight, atheltic ability, intelligence etc

If physical attractiveness follows normal distribution, we expect to see 8/10+ to be 2 std dev above the mean, which means roughly top 5% of the population for both men and women. It matches with my personal experience

Billsandasonom · 2023-07-26T02:26:38+00:00

To me, average people are not polarizing. They blend into the crowd, have very middle of the road features - but not in that perfect average type of way - and are instantly forgettable. One celebrity I find extremely average but somehow has female fans is Andrew Scott. His face might even seem a little scrunched and unpleasant to me, but overall I don't think I've seen a face that induces a more indifferent neutral reaction.

Sabrepill · 2023-07-26T02:47:41+00:00

This is dumb because general appeal isn’t everything. Sometimes niche appeal is more valuable. Say your general appeal is a 6 but to your ideal match you’re a 7. Let’s say some other guys general appeal is a 5 but to their ideal match they are a 9.

Who wins? I’d argue the person with higher niche appeal does because the person they value the most thinks they are hotter. General appeal isn’t all its cracked up to be.

You want to be over a 5 in general appeal and an 8+ in niche appeal rather than being like a 7 in general appeal and niche appeal.

Zabadoodude · 2023-07-26T02:50:12+00:00

I don't think "polarizing" is a better way to define average. If almost everyone agrees that you're average - you should be considered average even if theres nothing polarizing about your appearance.

How polarizing someone's appearance is will really change someone's experience though. If 90% of your preferred sex thinks you're ugly but 10% thinks your absolutely geogious, you will have a better time than someone who everyone agrees has unremarkable looks.

Mr_Chad_Thunderpenis · 2023-07-26T08:20:55+00:00

I mean technically that's correct. The more people universally agree that you are attractive, the higher you rank in the physical attractiveness scale most likely. If 1 billion people find you hot, then you're hot. If 5 people in the whole world find you hot, then you're probably really ugly.

The guy you posted looks like a 4 to me, facially wise. Maybe a 4.5 at most.

obviousredflag · 2023-07-26T08:46:47+00:00

In the end they actually get ratings across the spectrum, but being average, their bell curve proably looks like this, where "NPC territory" is that distribtion in the middle they got voted most as.

That's not what's going to happen. A 5/10 is not going to get rated as "ew" or "hot!" by ~2% of the tail ends of the distribution. Why? Because we don't observe this in reality, where other factors in the people are equal or not relevant for the mate choice. Sure, we get super rich/famous/influential celebrities who are average looking but have hot partners, but that is besides the point. They don't rate the other partners as "hot!" looks wise, when they are average. There are other reasons for the mate choice.

So, where are the couples with the 5/10 and the 10/10, where the 10/10 thinks the 5/10 is super attractive looks wise.

But as you can see! This doesn't mean that people who net out at as average aren't found attractive (hot or cute or whatever) by people.

I can see that on the graph you made up, but not in any real life situation, so no, i don't see that at all.

But there are moments where I see the sex appeal for all of them. And I can see how some people always see the sex appeal in them. That to me is average. Polarizing!

Seeing the sex appeal is not equal to a judgement of attractiveness. There IS a science for human physical attractiveness. It can be measured. AI can generate random average human faces and random attractive human faces. We know what makes human faces attractive and unattractive.

GlasgaAccentfurYanks · 2023-07-26T10:57:52+00:00

Maybe I lack a certain criteria of intelligence but to be honest, I don't get it, this level of sociological analysis of who you wanna bang does nothing for me. Maybe that is my problem, I haven't academic appreciation of the complex nature of getting laid. Interesting and thought provoking science OP.

Busy_Ant_8160 · 2023-07-26T00:24:44+00:00

Average isn't polarizing. Average is average. Average guys fall into category 3 without much deviance. If they're lucky and meet the right girl, maybe they'll be in in category 2. But unlikely they will ever see themselves in category 1 on looks alone.

Polarization is a good thing though and more attractive men tend to have more polarizing faces. Sean O'Pry (the male model in T Swift's Blank Space music video for you ladies) has a very polarizing face, but most women say they don't find him very attractive. But the few that are attracted think he's pretty hot.

I think if even just 10% of women put a man at category 1, I think that qualifies him as a Chad. Pre-selection from that 10% can boost it even higher.

kt1a · 2023-07-26T00:37:11+00:00

The average you're talking about is one that is still a 5/10 but has a very large standard deviation. One which doesn't track with real life.

The issue is that from what we've seen overall when people rate looks - the standard deviations aren't that large. Someone who is a 5/10 is not getting a bunch of 2/10 and then a bunch of 8/10. Someone who is a 5/10 is not getting 10% of each 1/10 through 10/10. That would still give an average of 5/10 but that's not what happens. That is really a bluepill belief that "there's someone for everyone cause see the standard deviation is so big! You'll be hot to someone!"

Reality is much more grim. When someone is rated a 5/10 - they're usually getting 90% rated between 4-6/10 with some minor outliers that are probably little to do with how this person specifically looks and more to do with general things like race, hair color, etc.

Sabrepill · 2023-07-26T02:47:34+00:00

This is dumb because general appeal isn’t everything. Sometimes niche appeal is more valuable. Say your general appeal is a 6 but to your ideal match you’re a 7. Let’s say some other guys general appeal is a 5 but to their ideal match they are a 9.

Who wins? I’d argue the person with higher niche appeal does because the person they value the most thinks they are hotter. General appeal isn’t all its cracked up to be.

You want to be over a 5 in general appeal and an 8+ in niche appeal rather than being like a 7 in general appeal and niche appeal.

AutoModerator · 2023-07-25T23:52:13+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

MyUpSeemsDown · 2023-07-26T01:53:50+00:00

I think the bell curve observation also points to that there maybe variables such as relativity of attraction that causes those outliers within the "average" category. I'd also guess that most person's "average point of comparison" is in fact themselves, not that everyone rate themselves as a 5, but for example for a 7 would likely encounter and consider some ranges between 5 to 9,10 and so it can be a sliding scale based on the person. So really anyone with a solid gauge on how themselves are objectively viewed and perceived, also probably sees way more success of in dating market and finding someone who's attractive for them that are attractive to them.

Swordfromthecement · 2023-07-26T04:37:04+00:00

I look at the traits of an average person in a country where someone lives and compare them against that. What’s the height, weight, and race of these people? Probably the three biggest things that determine if your average, above average, or below average.

Then start to think a bit about the science behind attractiveness and physical traits.

Treacle-Flimsy · 2023-07-26T05:32:05+00:00

I think it's better to have rather 'scientific' because you might have a room full of sportsmen and your average guy will be a zero because hypergamy, but in another environment he will be 5 or 6

Also, that guy is either 4 or 5

Title	Is it better to define average-looking by measuring how many people think you look cute vs. "scientifc set of physical traits"?
Author	GridReXX
Upvotes	27
Comments	207
Date	July 25, 2023 11:52 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/159pfyq/is_it_better_to_define_averagelooking_by/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/is-it-better-to-define-average-looking-by.1226490 https://theredarchive.com/post/1226490

Comments