Essentially, each successive magnitude is 33 times larger than the last. That means a magnitude-8.0 earthquake is 33 times stronger than a 7.0, and a magnitude-9.0 earthquake is 1,089 (33 x 33) times more powerful than a 7.0 —
Serious more and more i believe the 0-10 beauty scale is similar to the Richter Scale
in terms of halo effect i guess
Yes, because the more you go up the scale, the rarer the perfect characteristics get (very tall, nice jawline, good facial width-height ratio, good eye area).
Nah man, I think it's either exponential or logarithmic.
Certainly not linear
Certainly not linear
S
yep exponential but not extremely exponential like the richter scale, i agree, the halo effect is extremely stong at 8 and 9 on the looks scale, think los angelas where the cover of the book is the whole fucking book like everywhere else except the cover of the book is the whole fucking book thing is emphasized in LA, Google "goodlookingloser". You CANNOT overemphasize the halo effect on chads(tall ,muscle,handsome white guy for you cucks if you lurking here)
High IQ, there's also the fact that the more SMV you have, the more halo you produce. For ex. gymceiling works better for Chad because it already complements his looks meanwhile it means jackshit for a curry manlet.
High IQ observation. Well met, friend.
I agree that it's definitely not linear. Cud explain y there so many disagreements when rating looks here.
High IQ
For men the graph would be logarithmic until about 8/10 when it goes parabolic.
The diffrence between a 3 out 10 man and a 7 out of 10 man isnt much. SMV is pretty flat through that range. And the difference in SMV between a 9 out of 10 man compared to a 6 out of 10 man is several orders of magnitude.
The graph for women would be very different. It would be almost linear, starting fairly high and going up linearly with their SMV.
The diffrence between a 3 out 10 man and a 7 out of 10 man isnt much. SMV is pretty flat through that range. And the difference in SMV between a 9 out of 10 man compared to a 6 out of 10 man is several orders of magnitude.
The graph for women would be very different. It would be almost linear, starting fairly high and going up linearly with their SMV.
and just consider physique and height alone, not counting any facial bone, how hard and unattainable it is to reach a 9 or 10 for perfect physique, especially if you have inferior muscle structure and bone to start with.
waist circumference should be 42% and under of height .
Wilt Chamberlain ration is 32"/85" 37.6% at 275 lbs
leg to height ratio
2D sihloutte shoulder line to 2d waist ratio should be the golden ratio 1.618
and given both have perfect body proportion ratio, a 6 foot tall guy would be closer to 10 bodyscale than a 5"6" guy
because the 6 foot tall guy is closer to the ideal height etc...
waist circumference should be 42% and under of height .
Wilt Chamberlain ration is 32"/85" 37.6% at 275 lbs
leg to height ratio
2D sihloutte shoulder line to 2d waist ratio should be the golden ratio 1.618
and given both have perfect body proportion ratio, a 6 foot tall guy would be closer to 10 bodyscale than a 5"6" guy
because the 6 foot tall guy is closer to the ideal height etc...
Yes that's a good analogy. I have thought the same way but didn't think of the Richter scale analogy.
However I don't think it's linear. I don't think a 6 is x1000 times more powerful than a 4. If you're sub 8 in looks, you don't cause much sexual interest in women regardless of your rating. A 9 being x1000 times more powerful than a 7 I agree with. The 9 causes very legit interest in a woman.
Anything sub 8 is a very good catch at best (assuming he's NT, good job, etc).
However I don't think it's linear. I don't think a 6 is x1000 times more powerful than a 4. If you're sub 8 in looks, you don't cause much sexual interest in women regardless of your rating. A 9 being x1000 times more powerful than a 7 I agree with. The 9 causes very legit interest in a woman.
Anything sub 8 is a very good catch at best (assuming he's NT, good job, etc).
Last edited:
SMV is function of three variables, i think:
H - Height
F - Face
P - Personality
SMV is proportional to these three variables,
SMV = H ∝ F ∝ P
SMV range is 0 to 100
But proportionlity is not linear, and each variable has got growth extremaly different
But all variables have got have something in common: All have got a threshold. Below that threshold, all functions are 0
SMV on Incel is characterized because they are below those thresholds
SMV Growth for height:
SMV for face
SMV Growth for peronality
This last graph means that if you have a simply normal personality, increasing your sympathy will not increase your attractiveness and for personality to be influential in attractiveness, you must be a highly developed personality
H - Height
F - Face
P - Personality
SMV is proportional to these three variables,
SMV = H ∝ F ∝ P
SMV range is 0 to 100
But proportionlity is not linear, and each variable has got growth extremaly different
But all variables have got have something in common: All have got a threshold. Below that threshold, all functions are 0
SMV on Incel is characterized because they are below those thresholds
SMV Growth for height:
SMV for face
SMV Growth for peronality
This last graph means that if you have a simply normal personality, increasing your sympathy will not increase your attractiveness and for personality to be influential in attractiveness, you must be a highly developed personality
Last edited:
P
I agree
SMV is simply 5 + the z-score of your worst trait.
Let's say you have a great face and wide frame, but you're a manlet (5'7")
5'7" is about 1.5 stdevs under the mean, so your rating is 3.5/10
Let's say you have a great face and wide frame, but you're a manlet (5'7")
5'7" is about 1.5 stdevs under the mean, so your rating is 3.5/10
Last edited:
Similar threads
SuicideFuel
The more I think about the lesbianpill and to some extent chadsexuality, the more depressed I get.
- caineturbat2003
- Inceldom Discussion
Cybersex is our hope
Blackpill
‘Attractive’ and ‘unattractive’ men more likely to harbour hostility towards women, study shows
- Shaktiman
- Inceldom Discussion
Adolf Kitler
Users who are viewing this thread
