Blackpill The Gaussian of inceldom

[careermax_aspiecel]

By considering the standard 5-mean, 1.5-StDev male attractiveness scale, I'd say that:

• The bottom 2.1% of men (0 to 2) are truecels: handicapped and/or deformed, they are rejected even by prostitutes and have no chance of ascending.
• From 2.1% to 15.7% (2 to 3.5) we find incels: extremely ugly, they are naturally repulsive to women. Their only options are prostitutes, even though the "luckiest" ones might end up betabuxxing some bottom-tier post-wall women.
• From 15.7% to 49.8% (3.5 to 5) we find failed normies: almost normal but with one or two flaws. I personally think this is the worst category: those people are just "off" to the point where people notice it but can't really figure out why. For this reason, they are usually accused of being "creepy", regardless of their actual behavior. Being a failed normie is a curse: you'll almost be integrated into our society, but will never manage to fully get in, forever doomed to have your desires just an inch out of your reach.
• From 49.8% to 83.9% (5 to 6.5) we find normies: the cucked backbone of our society. Normies are extremely naive and bluepilled, working shitty jobs and paying insanely high taxes that maintain the luxurious lifestyle of Chads and Stacies. They usually end up betabuxxing a post wall roastie that will mercilessly cheat on them. Should a normie break his conditioning and become redpilled/blackpilled, he will JBW in Asia or Eastern Europe (if white) or rope.
• From 83.9% to 97.5% (6.5 to 8) we find Chadlites and Chads, the alpha males of the group. They life a great life, fucking all the women and having all the fun. They usually manage to exploit their halo effect to secure prestigious, high-paying jobs. The dumb ones usually end up thugmaxxing.
• The top 2.5% (8 to 10) are gigachads, gods among us. They are famous, revered by the masses, and can fuck any woman by simply asking her. Women get naturally wet at their sight and would do anything for them.

Gaussian distribution for reference:

The model is still a work in progress and a bit rough: any suggestion is welcome

 

[sub8male]

High iq. Seems pretty accurate

 

[Involuntarily]

Where is your data from? What is the age range?
Thank you for your contribution. I don't think attractiveness is exactly the correct measurement, because it is cultural and also there are plenty of attractive men that do not have success with women due to mental incapacity.

The US is a good subject for study because we have data on young men that don't have sex in the last year.

 

[Stalin]

I'd personally ref to the failed normies as those who are av. in looks(~5/10) but failed with women(as betas) due to being mental/poor/lazy/aiming too high cels.

Nice analysis anyway.

 

[Simulacrasimulation]

By considering the standard 5-mean, 1.5-StDev male attractiveness scale, I'd say that:

• The bottom 2.1% of men (0 to 2) are truecels: handicapped and/or deformed, they are rejected even by prostitutes and have no chance of ascending.
• From 2.1% to 15.7% (2 to 3.5) we find incels: extremely ugly, they are naturally repulsive to women. Their only options are prostitutes, even though the "luckiest" ones might end up betabuxxing some bottom-tier post-wall women.
• From 15.7% to 49.8% (3.5 to 5) we find failed normies: almost normal but with one or two flaws. I personally think this is the worst category: those people are just "off" to the point where people notice it but can't really figure out why. For this reason, they are usually accused of being "creepy", regardless of their actual behavior. Being a failed normie is a curse: you'll almost be integrated into our society, but will never manage to fully get in, forever doomed to have your desires just an inch out of your reach.
• From 49.8% to 83.9% (5 to 6.5) we find normies: the cucked backbone of our society. Normies are extremely naive and bluepilled, working shitty jobs and paying insanely high taxes that maintain the luxurious lifestyle of Chads and Stacies. They usually end up betabuxxing a post wall roastie that will mercilessly cheat on them. Should a normie break his conditioning and become redpilled/blackpilled, he will JBW in Asia or Eastern Europe (if white) or rope.
• From 83.9% to 97.5% (6.5 to 8) we find Chadlites and Chads, the alpha males of the group. They life a great life, fucking all the women and having all the fun. They usually manage to exploit their halo effect to secure prestigious, high-paying jobs. The dumb ones usually end up thugmaxxing.
• The top 2.5% (8 to 10) are gigachads, gods among us. They are famous, revered by the masses, and can fuck any woman by simply asking her. Women get naturally wet at their sight and would do anything for them.

Gaussian distribution for reference:

View attachment 237555
The model is still a work in progress and a bit rough: any suggestion is welcome

statistical GOD TIER POST
simultaneous GOD LIKE use of statistics coupled with the ROASTING OF NORMIES AND THEIR PATHETIC VIEW OF LIFE

 

[Stalin]

working shitty jobs and paying insanely high taxes that maintain the luxurious lifestyle of Chads and Stacies

Basically maintaining degenerative upper class, yes. Why history always repeats itself.

 

[Deleted member 22907]

coucou

Diocel

 

[kikecel]

Why are greycels so fucking high iq ffs
Stop mogging me

 

[AlexanderTheGreat11]

Very interesting

 

[Joelossus]

Good job op. This seems to be a pretty accurate representation of the looks hierarchy. Personally i believe myself to be a failed normie, aka. The worst category to be in.

 

[Deleted member 25707]

Good job. Daddy Gauss would be proud.

On a completely unrelated sidenote : I fucking hate Numerical Analysis and Statistics. The most incel topics in mathematics.

 

[Ap0calypse]

Good job. Daddy Gauss would be proud.

On a completely unrelated sidenote : I fucking hate Numerical Analysis and Statistics. The most incel topics in mathematics.

at first i was confused cause i thought he was talking about Gauss's law or gaussian surfaces

 

[Involuntarily]

Good job. Daddy Gauss would be proud.

On a completely unrelated sidenote : I fucking hate Numerical Analysis and Statistics. The most incel topics in mathematics.

at first i was confused cause i thought he was talking about Gauss's law or gaussian surfaces

Until he actually posts the data he made the inferences from, its just a random bell curve which I'm starting to suspect it is. Anyone can make a random bell chart.

 

[Deleted member 25707]

Until he actually posts the data he made the inferences from, its just a random bell curve which I'm starting to suspect it is. Anyone can make a random bell chart.

Ofc you are correct, data is infact a prerequisite.
But still, this looks very realistic.

 

[Involuntarily]

Ofc you are correct, data is infact a prerequisite.
But still, this looks very realistic.

Looks realistic doesn't mean its accurate. I would be interested to see extraordinary data. For instance we have proof that 17 women reproduced for every man. https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
That doesn't look realistic, but it happened. If we just torture data or fit it into any models, of course it will look realistic.

 

[Deleted member 25707]

Looks realistic doesn't mean its accurate. I would be interested to see extraordinary data. For instance we have proof that 17 women reproduced for every man. https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
That doesn't look realistic, but it happened. If we just torture data or fit it into any models, of course it will look realistic.

No, this looks realistic based on MY experiences and worldview. Ofcourse that doesn't mean it's universally true.

 

[Involuntarily]

No, this looks realistic based on MY experiences and worldview. Ofcourse that doesn't mean it's universally true.

Well, in reality we know it's not true from marriage rates and even the sexual charts. Fuck the OP. He made up everything.

 

[Deleted member 23682]

I thought Chad was an 8/10. According to this Chart you can be a Chad in the 7s?

GigaChad should be moved to 9 to 10. And since the scale is 1 to 10, not 0 to 10, truecel should be 1 to 2.

The model is still a work in progress and a bit rough: any suggestion is welcome

The new scale should be this:
The bottom 2.1% of men (1 to 2) are truecels
From 2.1% to 15.7% (2 to 4) we find incels
From 15.7% to 49.8% (4 to 5.5) we find failed normies
From 49.8% to 83.9% (5.5 to 7) we find normies
From 83.9% to 97.5% (7 to 9) we find Chadlites and Chads
The top 2.5% (9 to 10) are gigachads

 

[Deleted member 22999]

This kinda thing was the only unit in Algebra 2 I was good at. Useful too. High IQ post as said by others