Theory PSL Tards, your ratings suck.

[Man]

Is the scale PSL fags use (The Imperial version of PSL)
>5 is 'average'
>Isn't even the middle number
>Average is the middle ~60% of people

Average should be at least 3-7​

7 is near PSL God according to any rating ever given​

3 is a literal dog/man hybrid​

>4 kinds of ugly, 5 kinds of attractive, only 1 average
>Nobody is ever rated 1-2 or 9-10

1, 2, 9, & 10 Still there for some reason​

>10 Numerical Categories for 3 Descriptive categories (Average, Attractive, Unattractive).
>Feeds or destroys ego, literally the only reason this scale exists is to cope with an exaggerated sense of attractiveness or sub-humanity.

The Measurement anyone with a 3 digit IQ uses (The Metric version of PSL)
>3 is average

The middle ~60% fall into this category​

>Perfectly balanced, middle number
>2 kinds of ugly, 2 kinds of attractive, 1 kind of average.
>Every rating is used, exceptional cases are given exceptional ratings.
>5 Numerical categories for 3 Descriptive categories with only 2 extrema (not 7 jfl)
>Is dedicated to a more objective rating where ego is not a factor

The pioneers of PSL were braindead, the decile scale is used like a gloryhole by Autistic Capybara looksmaxx-tards who think "5.5" means anything objective or useful for anyone. The real reason anyone uses 1-10 is because of nepotism, a lack of creativity and critical thinking, and a failure to learn from the mistakes of yourself and others.

Yes everyone agrees that you're average looking but here are 32 different ratings that describe """exactly""" what you are.
Literally the horoscope of the manosphere.

I am embarrassed every time one of you cretins pretend to represent anything objective or meaningful about someones appearance with your ratings.

 

[VitaminS]

Why would anyone need to rate themselves? If you are ugly, you are ugly.

 

[Govid_Dorious]

Why would anyone need to rate themselves? If you are ugly, you are ugly.

 

[subhuman]

Is the scale PSL fags use (The Imperial version of PSL)
>5 is 'average'
>Isn't even the middle number
>Average is the middle ~68% of people
Average should be at least 3-77 is near PSL God according to any rating ever given3 is a literal dog/man hybrid>4 kinds of ugly, 5 kinds of attractive, only 1 average
>Nobody is ever rated 1 or 9-10
1, 9, & 10 Still there for some reason>10 Numerical Categories for 3 Descriptive categories (Average, Attractive, Unattractive).
>Feeds or destroys ego, literally the only reason this scale exists is to cope with an exaggerated sense of attractiveness or sub-humanity.

i thought psl was on a scale of 1 to 8

 

[Diddy]

I just use the r/TrueRateMe scale.

 

[Man]

i thought psl was on a scale of 1 to 8

1-8 is a half measure to the 1-5 scale, plus everyone still uses the 1-10 scale (at least in name) but never actually go above 8 or below 3.
W.W. uses 1-10 but only uses 3-8 despite keeping 1-10 on all of his scales. He would still call a 4/10 "below average" and a 6 "chadlite".

 

[Man]

I just use the r/TrueRateMe scale.

what's that

 

[Diddy]

what's that

View: https://i.imgur.com/IP2LiZ6.png


View: https://i.imgur.com/56dJoqz.jpg


View: https://i.imgur.com/jtQQ29H.png


View: https://i.imgur.com/vA5AUfp.jpg

 

[subhuman]

Is the scale PSL fags use (The Imperial version of PSL)
>5 is 'average'
>Isn't even the middle number
>Average is the middle ~68% of people

Average should be at least 3-7​

7 is near PSL God according to any rating ever given​

3 is a literal dog/man hybrid​

>4 kinds of ugly, 5 kinds of attractive, only 1 average
>Nobody is ever rated 1-2 or 9-10

1, 2, 9, & 10 Still there for some reason​

>10 Numerical Categories for 3 Descriptive categories (Average, Attractive, Unattractive).
>Feeds or destroys ego, literally the only reason this scale exists is to cope with an exaggerated sense of attractiveness or sub-humanity.

View attachment 710663
The Measurement anyone with a 3 digit IQ uses (The Metric version of PSL)
>3 is average

The middle ~68% fall into this category​

>Perfectly balanced, middle number
>2 kinds of ugly, 2 kinds of attractive, 1 kind of average.
>Every rating is used, exceptional cases are given exceptional ratings.
>5 Numerical categories for 3 Descriptive categories with only 2 extrema (not 7 jfl)
>Is dedicated to a more objective rating where ego is not a factor

The pioneers of PSL were braindead, the decile scale is used like a gloryhole by Autistic Capybara looksmaxx-tards who think "5.5" means anything objective or useful for anyone. The real reason anyone uses 1-10 is because of nepotism, a lack of creativity and critical thinking, and a failure to learn from the mistakes of yourself and others.

Yes everyone agrees that you're average looking but here are 32 different ratings that describe """exactly""" what you are.
Literally the horoscope of the manosphere.

I am embarrassed every time one of you cretins pretend to represent anything objective or meaningful about someones appearance with your ratings.

good post, this needed to be said. i agree honestly. it seems like there's no standardization in the psl/looksmax ratings system. it's literally meaningless when everyone has their own ratings system and their own criteria. you said perfectly that it's the horoscope of the manosphere jfl. idk why people care about this shit

 

[PLA1092]

Just use the 1-8 scale, then. Honestly you could say the decile scale is actually just 1-9 with 5 being in the middle because basically no one is actually a 0 or 10, human perfection is impossible. 4-6 are all in the range of "average", you just get more attractive and less average as you go up or down.

 

[PersonalityChad]

The only real rating that matters is:
-Hot (Chad)
-Not hot (Normie)
-Disgusting (Incel)

 

[Man]

View: https://i.imgur.com/IP2LiZ6.png


View: https://i.imgur.com/56dJoqz.jpg


View: https://i.imgur.com/jtQQ29H.png


View: https://i.imgur.com/vA5AUfp.jpg

That's pretty good and in-depth, my only complaint is that there are too many categories.

Attractive and unattractive people could be split into two major categories and nobody would notice.
Same for the unattractive. + Extend average out both ways a little bit and it would be perfect.

If people actually stick to that scale it's significantly more competent than the non-sense I regularly see online. Esepcially people using decimal places (like 5.3) as if ratings are somehow that complex.

 

[Man]

The only real rating that matters is:
-Hot (Chad)
-Not hot (Normie)
-Disgusting (Incel)

It truly is that simple

>10 Numerical Categories for 3 Descriptive categories (Average, Attractive, Unattractive).

 

[Man]

It’s obvious when someone is average, attractive or unattractive.

Making 20 categories for attractiveness is ridiculous because we don’t mentally categorize like this.

We intuitively see people in 1 of 3 categories Attractive, Average, and Unattractive.

Less commonly, we find people with deformities and people with unusually attractive faces. The extrema of attractive and unattractive.

5 categories makes the most sense.

The current method is overcomplicated by design to make face rating a sport or pastime like “where’s Waldo” of the face, or to get gullible insecure men to pay for a “professional face rating”
or maybe is just NEET autism, either way it’s useless.

 

[Man]

you can know how much ugly you are.

There is no “how ugly you are” you’re either ugly or you aren’t.

Nobody even cares to know the non-existent difference but you, because of your ego, not for any rational reason.

 

[Mayocel]

The only rating that objectively matters is the standard deviation. If you are in the top 10% in looks, you can easily imagine what that means.

When there is a 1-10 rating there is an assumption that a 1 and a 10 is something easily describable.

On the other hand, bottom 1% means that in a room of hundred people, you will likely be the ugliest.