If appearance is objective, why are there so many categories for attractiveness?
There are 10.
10 is not necessary.
A range of 10 is what scam artists use to convince you that you need their opinion because rating someone's attractiveness is somehow complicated -- there are 10 categories after all.
Obviously the history of "1-10 rate me" was more influential for the pioneers of PSL, but its continued use is for tradition, familiarity, and for a common understanding (like nepotism); not a logically thought out methodology, especially considering the lack of refinement from its common usage. (more detail below).
IN THEORY:
IN PRACTICE:
THE LOGICAL ALTERNATIVE:
The Quintile Scale (1-5)
IN THEORY:
IN PRACTICE:
I have run out of thoughts here...
It should have been clear by the middle of my post that the Decile Scale is not logical.
The Quintile Scale is far superior in theory and is likely superior in practice.
The only obvious issue with the Quintile scale is that it does not placate the user's ego with bigger or smaller numbers and all the ensuing attention from people arguing over 1 point of SMV even when they have already categorically determined the individual to be Attractive, Average, or Unattractive.
There are 10.
10 is not necessary.
A range of 10 is what scam artists use to convince you that you need their opinion because rating someone's attractiveness is somehow complicated -- there are 10 categories after all.
Obviously the history of "1-10 rate me" was more influential for the pioneers of PSL, but its continued use is for tradition, familiarity, and for a common understanding (like nepotism); not a logically thought out methodology, especially considering the lack of refinement from its common usage. (more detail below).
IN THEORY:
- There are more categories for attractiveness than unattractiveness. 1-4 is 40% 5 is 10% and 6-10 is 50%. 4 Categories for unattractiveness, 1 for average, and 5 for attractive.
- 5 is "average" despite 5.5 being the actual average.
- There is one category (only 10% of total) for 'average' despite average comprising 68% of a Normal Distribution.
- There are too many quantitative categories compared to the total qualitative categories.
- 10 quantities, but 3 simple qualities (Attractive, Average, Unattractive)
- It is not clear how the 10 categories are plotted on a normal distribution.
- There are QOL (Quality of life) and associated social outcomes attached to attractiveness ratings, but there is no evidence or provided reasoning to explain the 10 categorically unique life-outcomes that are logically extended from that reasoning. It feels reasonable to defer to the default (Above Average, Average, Below Average) qualitative assessment of life-outcomes.
IN PRACTICE:
- There is much dispute over ratings, nobody ever receives a 1, 2, 9 or 10; even men who are 1/1000 in attractiveness are rarely appropriately rated (8-10).
- Ratings tend to agree qualitatively, but disagree quantitatively.
- Decision paralysis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis) the more options available, the more difficult decisions become despite there being a negligible difference in outcome. There is also less satisfaction with the decision made.
- Despite a majority of individuals being average, there is more concern with quantifying how attractive or unattractive someone is; in other words, average isn't viewed as a range, rather a thin line that is crossed by everyone.
THE LOGICAL ALTERNATIVE:
The Quintile Scale (1-5)
IN THEORY:
- There are fewer categories, reflecting the objectivity of attractiveness.
- There are an equal number of categories for Attractiveness and Unattractiveness.
- 3 is the average and solo-median.
- There are 5 quantities and 3 qualities with 2 extrema. The ratio of Qualities to Quantities is 1:1.
- It is very clear how 1-5 is plotted on a normal distribution. (Refer to the Normal distribution plot above - 99.74% of cases are included)
- The QOL and associated life outcomes are better represented by fewer categorical representations that reflect an intuitive understanding of the matter. (Above Average, Average, Below Average)
IN PRACTICE:
- I would expect ratings to be given more fairly and to be equally distributed. There should be more ratings at the top and bottom tiers.
- Ratings will agree both qualitatively and quantitatively.
- Average will be better understood as a RANGE and not a POINT.
I have run out of thoughts here...
It should have been clear by the middle of my post that the Decile Scale is not logical.
The Quintile Scale is far superior in theory and is likely superior in practice.
The only obvious issue with the Quintile scale is that it does not placate the user's ego with bigger or smaller numbers and all the ensuing attention from people arguing over 1 point of SMV even when they have already categorically determined the individual to be Attractive, Average, or Unattractive.
Last edited:
