JFL How on earth do you know that many Chads and Stacies?

[Deleted member 43315]

Every post I see now is someone going on about their encounter with Chads and Stacies. How the hell do you know that many highly attractive people? As far as I'm concerned, Chads and Stacies are 8 out of 10 or higher on the attractiveness scale. That would put them on the 98th percentile of the world population (2% of all humans, that is).

Not to race bait, but I can't help noticing most users who commit that mistake are ethnics, because every slightly appealing White woman is a Gigastacy to them. That doesn't make any sense. You're probably confusing high-tier Beckies for Stacies.

That brings us to a cruel reality: average men have sex and we don't because we're ugly, not because Chad is just around the corner ready to steal your looksmatch.

 

[kretschmer]

I don't know a single one

 

[DryDick]

Even average men are struggling to get laid. Most women only only want chadlites and Chads. They'll stay single or date other women if they're unavailable.

 

[Liptusg]

8/10 and above would make them 20% of all humans. 5-7 would be 60%, the average plus somewhat above average, 2-4 would be roughly 15% or so, and 1-2 which means deformed would be 5% which is the reasonable rate of literally deformed and extremely freakish people out there.

 

[Ducky]

If I go down to Newport Beach it is Giga Stacy central. Thats why I dont go to there. I like my short and ethnic LA much better.

 

[Deleted member 43315]

8/10 and above would make them 20% of all humans. 5-7 would be 60%, the average plus somewhat above average, 2-4 would be roughly 15% or so, and 1-2 which means deformed would be 5% which is the reasonable rate of literally deformed and extremely freakish people out there.

Physical attractiveness is measured by a bell curve like almost all traits.

If you're a 5 out of 10, you're more attractive than about 50% of the population, but less attractive than the other half.

If you're a 6 out of 10, you're more attractive than 85% of the population.

If you're a 7 out of 10 or higher, you're more attractive than 98% of the population, which means you're placed on the top 2% of all humans.

See the graph below:

 

[Liptusg]

Physical attractiveness is measured by a bell curve like almost all traits.

If you're a 5 out of 10, you're more attractive than about 50% of the population, but less attractive than the other half.

If you're a 6 out of 10, you're more attractive than 85% of the population.

If you're a 7 out of 10 or higher, you're more attractive than 98% of the population, which means you're placed on the top 2% of all humans.

See the graph below:

View attachment 630469

>Physical attractiveness is measured by a bell curve like almost all traits.

Is it though? Is there an objective reason to do so or is it just an arbitrarily chosen preference? It doesn't make sense that a bump of '1' in the metaphorical numerical scale we invented as a social construct for perception based on consensus would make someone more attractive than 85% of men. In that case, a 6/10 might as well be a Chad for OP's purposes because Chads are *also* defined as the top 20% of men.

The problem here isn't with how bell curves work, but how those numbers which indicate relative attractiveness are interpreted and then forced into a bell curve to begin with.

 

[Deleted member 43315]

>Physical attractiveness is measured by a bell curve like almost all traits.

Is it though? Is there an objective reason to do so or is it just an arbitrarily chosen preference? It doesn't make sense that a bump of '1' in the metaphorical numerical scale we invented as a social construct for perception based on consensus would make someone more attractive than 85% of men. In that case, a 6/10 might as well be a Chad for OP's purposes because Chads are *also* defined as the top 20% of men.

The problem here isn't with how bell curves work, but how those numbers which indicate relative attractiveness are interpreted and then forced into a bell curve to begin with.

I see your point. A 6 out of 10 would be more attractive than 85% of the world population because most humans are far from attractive. He wouldn't be as attractive in a place where the average is 7, though. I believe the only countries which have an average that high are White countries, but even Whites are a minority within the world population.

 

[Ducky]

Physical attractiveness is measured by a bell curve like almost all traits.

If you're a 5 out of 10, you're more attractive than about 50% of the population, but less attractive than the other half.

If you're a 6 out of 10, you're more attractive than 85% of the population.

If you're a 7 out of 10 or higher, you're more attractive than 98% of the population, which means you're placed on the top 2% of all humans.

See the graph below:

View attachment 630469

Do you have a source for normal distribution of attractiveness?

 

[Deleted member 43315]

Do you have a source for normal distribution of attractiveness?

No, I just used the bell curve because intelligence and height and a series of other traits are measured that way, but maybe @Liptusg's approach is better than mine. Either way, I think we can all agree Chads and Stacies are nowhere near as common as some members of this forum make it seem. Curiously, most highly attractive people are women because attractive couples are more likely to have daughters.

 

[Ducky]

No, I just used the bell curve because intelligence and height and a series of other traits are measured that way, but maybe @Liptusg's approach is better than mine. Either way, I think we can all agree Chads and Stacies are nowhere near as common as some members of this forum make it seem. Curiously, most highly attractive people are women because attractive couples are more likely to have daughters.

Hmm well that one Tinder study that gets cited a lot to support hypergamy suggests that attractiveness actually skews left, with 70% of men being seen as unattractive. So if you are making a distribution from least attractive to most attractive, you will not have a normal distribution.

Attractiveness on a distribution might look more like this.

 

[Deleted member 43315]

Hmm well that one Tinder study that gets cited a lot to support hypergamy suggests that attractiveness actually skews left, with 70% of men being seen as unattractive. So if you are making a distribution from least attractive to most attractive, you will not have a normal distribution.

View attachment 630479

Attractiveness on a distribution might look more like this.

It's hard to figure out what on earth women want. My head is on the verge of exploding. Dating apps were a mistake.

 

[Liptusg]

I see your point. A 6 out of 10 would be more attractive than 85% of the world population because most humans are far from attractive. He wouldn't be as attractive in a place where the average is 7, though. I believe the only countries which have an average that high are White countries, but even Whites are a minority within the world population.

Yes, now that I think about it, I see that one of the conundrums here is that applying the ratings to the bell curve entails a flawless normalized distribution - that the population average is averagely attractive. Aside from differences in localization though, we run into the problem of first needing to ask ourselves - "Attractive for whom?", because even putting so-called subjective 'tastes' asides which are not major when it comes to determining the ugly from the pretty, what IS major are the subjective differences in male distribution vs the female one.

We know from the famous OkCupid attractiveness rating study that women's distribution are in fact completely skewed, rating an enormous percentage of men as unattractive, while men's ratings were more normalized. And when it comes to the term 'Chad', we definitely use it in the connotation of which men do WOMEN think are attractive enough to warrant their proactive sexual interest, and we know women's consensus is skewed, but at the same time in the study I also believe it was more 20% rather than 0.1%, which is where the figure usually comes from.

 

[Deleted member 43315]

Yes, now that I think about it, I see that one of the conundrums here is that applying the ratings to the bell curve entails a flawless normalized distribution - that the population average is averagely attractive. Aside from differences in localization though, we run into the problem of first needing to ask ourselves - "Attractive for whom?", because even putting so-called subjective 'tastes' asides which are not major when it comes to determining the ugly from the pretty, what IS major are the subjective differences in male distribution vs the female one.

We know from the famous OkCupid attractiveness rating study that women's distribution are in fact completely skewed, rating an enormous percentage of men as unattractive, while men's ratings were more normalized. And when it comes to the term 'Chad', we definitely use it in the connotation of which men do WOMEN think are attractive enough to warrant their proactive sexual interest, and we know women's consensus is skewed, but at the same time in the study I also believe it was more 20% rather than 0.1%, which is where the figure usually comes from.

Damn, that was a nice presentation. High IQ. I think women's ratings being skewed is one more reason they shouldn't be given endless options. Women rating 70% of all men as below average is absurd, they only have eyes for the genetic elite. Which is why women should be encouraged to settle for their looksmatches and avoid dating apps for the sake of society.

 

[Internalizzz]

Lmao the average man in most urban western cities is something like a 5. What happens is ppl here can't distinguish a high tier normie from a chad. True 8/10+ guys are incredibly rare. i'd say less than 1%. Only ever seen one in my life and it was on vacation in las vegas, summer 2019

To think that the reason you can't get laid is cause of some mystical ultra rare gigachad is cope. Truth is most of us here have other underlying issues besides not looking like vinnie hacker.

 

[mistersinister]

Lmao the average man in most urban western cities is something like a 5. What happens is ppl here can't distinguish a high tier normie from a chad. True 8/10+ guys are incredibly rare. i'd say less than 1%. Only ever seen one in my life and it was on vacation in las vegas, summer 2019

To think that the reason you can't get laid is cause of some mystical ultra rare gigachad is cope. Truth is most of us here have other underlying issues besides not looking like vinnie hacker.

Yeah how on Earth lol

 

[Mecoja]

average men have sex and we don't because we're ugly, not because Chad is just around the corner ready to steal your looksmatch.

True. I would say slightly above average in everything in that place.

 

[Internalizzz]

Yeah how on Earth lol

Even a 6/10 guy like me stretches the commodity bar a bit when it comes to ranking people in accordance to the average man

 

[Internalizzz]

If I go down to Newport Beach it is Giga Stacy central. Thats why I dont go to there. I like my short and ethnic LA much better.

LA is Chad central in general man, everytime I go I see attractive men

 

[e4rp33l]

for me every women is a stacy - Saint hamudi