Blackpill I think I have finally solved the face __ height equation

[11gaijin]

PS: Might seem like another of those face v height threads but I am posting this because for the first time I feel I am satisfied with the conclusion.

Before going to the result let us see what is the more popular opinion?

• If you ask a normie or many manlets they will say height
• If you ask a women even she might say height
• But most people on this site and other blackpilled sites would say face

===========================================================================================================

Q) What leads to people so easily saying height>face?

My conclusion: Height is an objective quantity which is the same to everyone while face is a subjective one. It is something that even kids can tell. A 5 year old will easily answer who is taller, but I am not sure if they can answer who has a better face. This causes height to be a more talked about topic in dating as everyone can easily recognize it. Even people who otherwise can't rate faces well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q) Why will women answer height?

My conclusion: I feel when women think about 6ft + guys they automatically think about Jason Momoa or Henry Cavill or Christiano Ronaldo. To them height comes with a good looking face and I feel this is also what most normies think.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now let us look at some stats.

Q) Where does a 5'2'' guy stand in USA heightwise? I am using this source with an average height of 5'10'' and standard deviation: 2.94.

A) This gives 0.325% that is bottom 0.325% which is equivalent to saying that if we take 307 random men the 5'2'' guy will be the shortest or if we take 30700 men they would be among the bottom 100.

That is not good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q) Where does a 5'6'' guy stand?
A) The answer comes to be 8.7% which is bottom 8.7%.

This was actually the result I was shocked with. I didn't expect that 5'6'' guy will be so low in the height distribution. I was expecting more short guys.

Now look at it this way.

• Guys who are 5'6'' are among bottom 10% men if lined up by height (in USA)
• At the same time a 6'2'' guy is 91.3% i.e among top 10% men if lined up by height.

Now consider the extremes i.e a guy with top 10% height but bottom 10% face. And a guy with top 10% face but bottom 10% height.

Who do you think women will chose?

For example: Al Pacino (5'6'' and I can say top 10% face, status halo excluded) or Jsanza (6'2" and may be bottom 10% face) [I am not even going for extremes. Some people might say, Pacino might be top 20 and not 10 and Jsanza might be bottom 20 and not 10 coz there are uglier males but that favors face even more]

How girls chose in this situation will only give the correct answer imo.

Some people will say 5'6'' is not that bad. What about 5'2''? Well then we also need to look at bottom 0.325% faces too. Will they get laid if they are 6'2''? Guys like eggman or other extreme ogre tier guys or ultra lanklets. In extreme cases both will be undesirable unless some fetish and money comes into play but if the cases are not extreme face is likely to top imo. In real life people are used to looking at tall decent/above average/or good looking guys with girls and they think that there manletism is the only issue. But the thing to realize is that height is just one part of the genetics equation with face being the other one. Hot guys are few but so are guys 6'2''+ and that is why they are both big factors. But if you are at an extreme end of one you will likely have it very hard, which explains so many tallcels here.

===========================================================================================================

TLDR/ My conlcusion: FACE>HEIGHT

 

[AR15]

High IQ thread.

 

[Evildoer]

FACE>HEIGHT

That's not something new at this point.

both will be undesirable unless some fetish

Femoids don't have any fetishes, they all want Chad.

 

[Jockcel]

Heightcopers BTFO

 

[Anger]

Heightcopers just got totally obliterared with this high IQ bread.

 

[11gaijin]

Femoids don't have any fetishes, they all want Chad.

 

[Existentialcel]

I agree face>height

 

[Angry_runt]

Obviously the answer depends on how short and how ugly. The question is moot anyway because in the current year girls don't have do compromise on either. They can have a tall guy with a good looking face whenever they want.

 

[Mickeyonacid]

Great thread, should be stickied in my opinion

 

[Deleted member 8]

This thread has better stats: https://incels.is/threads/scientifi...f-importance-is-race-height-face-money.59098/

Be honest bro. Do you think your thread would hold up in an academic enviroment? For example, you jumped to the girls' conclusion yourself. What's your sample size? Zero women?

 

[11gaijin]

This thread has better stats: https://incels.is/threads/scientifi...f-importance-is-race-height-face-money.59098/

Be honest bro. Do you think your thread would hold up in an academic enviroment? For example, you jumped to the girls' conclusion yourself. What's your sample size? Zero women?

This thread doesn't prove that height > face. In fact yesterday I disproved it.

See this: https://incels.is/threads/one-simple-fact-that-proves-face-height.63253/page-2#post-1179164

 

[chainsawcel]

You're only addressing the extremes and forgetting that white tallfags get away with less face.

Face>Height because face is rarer than height.
White manlets are more likely to be incel because manlets need a lot more face to compensate which is rare.

That's why manlet deathniks are the true incels because for example as a curry you go -3 PSL face by default, and you can never reach 7/10 face because 10/10 doesn't exist.

 

[11gaijin]

You're only addressing the extremes and forgetting that white tallfags get away with less face.

Face>Height because face is rarer than height.
White manlets are more likely to be incel because manlets need a lot more face to compensate which is rare.

That's why manlet deathniks are the true incels because for example as a curry you go -3 PSL face by default, and you can never reach 7/10 face because 10/10 doesn't exist.

I just showed you that 6'2" is top 8-9% height. It isn't a common thing. In Eastern countries it is top 1% height. To think 6'2'' is a common height is a misconception.

 

[Deleted member 8]

This thread doesn't prove that height > face. In fact yesterday I disproved it.

See this: https://incels.is/threads/one-simple-fact-that-proves-face-height.63253/page-2#post-1179164

I thought you agreed with this post that face and height are so close, that if doesn't matter which is more important: https://incels.is/threads/one-simple-fact-that-proves-face-height.63253/post-1179200

I think that post is the best conclusion.

 

[11gaijin]

I thought you agreed with this post that face and height are so close, that if doesn't matter which is more important: https://incels.is/threads/one-simple-fact-that-proves-face-height.63253/post-1179200

I think that post is the best conclusion.

Yeah I agreed to that. And I see that it is a fair enough conclusion according to that study. But I am just providing a different way to look at it. I think desirability is a much complex word and can't be replaced by US dollars. I feel that study is more about whom people settle with rather than raw sexual attraction. Anyways I am not saying that is wrong or what I wrote is write. Just sharing my thoughts that people can agree with or argue against.

 

[Deleted member 8]

Yeah I agreed to that. And I see that it is a fair enough conclusion according to that study. But I am just providing a different way to look at it. I think desirability is a much complex word and can't be replaced by US dollars. I feel that study is more about whom people settle with rather than raw sexual attraction. Anyways I am not saying that is wrong or what I wrote is write. Just sharing my thoughts that people can agree with or argue against.

I personally think money is a good enough quantifier, as most incels agree that the less desirable a man is, the more he needs to betabux. There aren't too many other things we can use to easily measure this stuff.

 

[11gaijin]

I personally think money is a good enough quantifier, as most incels agree that the less desirable a man is, the more he needs to betabux. There aren't too many other things we can use to easily measure this stuff.

Betabuxxing is ultimately just being a provider which Incels don't want to be. The fundamental equation of blackpill is that looks>everything. That everything like money etc can get you girls but that doesn't make you more attractive unless you really think that ugly old billionaires with young hot wives really make the girl's pussy wet.

 

[Deleted member 8]

Betabuxxing is ultimately just being a provider which Incels don't want to be. The fundamental equation of blackpill is that looks>everything. That everything like money etc can get you girls but that doesn't make you more attractive unless you really think that ugly old billionaires with young hot wives really make the girl's pussy wet.

I agree. But the amount of money a man needs to be a betabux indicates his subhumanity. You would have to pay women a lot more cash for them to sleep with 5'2 ugly Indian, than 5'9 average face white guy. That means our Indian friend is on average more subhuman to the female eye.

 

[11gaijin]

I agree. But the amount of money a man needs to be a betabux indicates his subhumanity. You would have to pay women a lot more cash for them to sleep with 5'2 ugly Indian, than 5'9 average face white guy. That means our Indian friend is on average more subhuman to the female eye.

But paying that extra money won't result in the same treatment. Will the guy get as much sex as the other guy? Will the relationship dynamic be now the same? Again what you are talking about might be true of marriages and even relationships sometimes. But imo that doesn't equate to desirability.

Btw, are you a richcel?

 

[Deleted member 8]

But paying that extra money won't result in the same treatment. Will the guy get as much sex as the other guy? Will the relationship dynamic be now the same? Again what you are talking about might be true of marriages and even relationships sometimes. But imo that doesn't equate to desirability.

Btw, are you a richcel?

No I am poorcel.

I agree that there are other factors. For example, social validation. I've seen women say they'll sleep with a hung turbomanlet, but they'll never be caught dead dating him in public. So the turbomanlet would have to pay for dates/marriage, but he gets sex for free.

There is just not much else we can use aside from money. Some studies use the amount of female orgasms, but normies just cope by saying attractive men are more confident or whatever, so women cum more. A lot of studies use self-reported partner count, but those are flawed for obvious reasons like lying. Until something better comes along, I still think Rage's thread is the most academic conclusion. Everything else is conjecture, or uses some Tinder experiment with a sample size of a few women/bots.