speedtypingincel
height > x
-
- Joined
- May 17, 2019
- Posts
- 3,775
For this experiment Germany will be the representative of height percentages.
Source of height percentiles.
Table of percentages:
147.5cm is 0.011% = 0.001/10 or 0/10 (since 145cm is undefined)
150cm is 0.038% = 0.003/10
152.5cm is 0.101% = 0.01/10
155cm is 0.299% = 0.03/10
157.5cm is 0.792% = 0.08/10
160cm is 1.9% = 0.19 or 0.2/10
162.5cm is 4.1% = 0.4/10
165cm is 8.1% = 0.8/10
166cm is 10% = 1/10
167.5cm is 14.4% = 1.4/10
170cm is 25% = 2.5/10
171cm is 27.2% = 2.7/10
171.2cm is 28.1% = 2.8/10
172.5cm is 36.8% = 3.7/10
175cm is 50% = 5/10
177.5cm is 63.2% = 6.3/10
179cm is 68.1% = 6.8/10
180cm is 75% = 7.5/10
182.5cm is 84.4% = 8.4/10
185cm is 91.1% = 9.1/10
187.5cm is 95.4% = 9.5/10
190cm is 97.8% = 9.8/10
192.5cm is 99.083% = 9.91/10
195cm is 99.648% = 9.96/10
197.5cm is 99.879% = 9.99/10
200cm is 99.962% = 10/10
On the shorter range: You can see that in order to lose 1.4 SMV points you need to go from 167.5cm to 147.5cm which is 20cm shorter. On the other hand, in order to gain 1.4 SMV points from 167.5cm you need to become only 3.8cm taller (171.2cm).
Now, on the taller range: in order to gain 1.4 SMV points from 179cm you need to become only 3.5cm taller (182.5cm). On the other hand, in order to gain another 1.4 SMV points from 182.5cm you need to become 17.5cm taller. This explains why IT or tallfags on this forum say "I know a 5'5" (1,65m) guy who has had many lays". This could explain why 5'3" (160cm) guys with very nice faces MIGHT be able to get laid. Remember that a short guy's best bet are jailbaits, but it's not guaranteed that he will bed them.
You can clearly see that the biggest fluctuation of sexual market value based on height alone is between 171-185cm. Above and below that there are diminishing returns. How does this theory apply to this picture? Even if we did reduce the taller man's height by 15cm, the difference in sexual market value still wouldn't be that big. So it proves height>face.
Source of height percentiles.
Table of percentages:
147.5cm is 0.011% = 0.001/10 or 0/10 (since 145cm is undefined)
150cm is 0.038% = 0.003/10
152.5cm is 0.101% = 0.01/10
155cm is 0.299% = 0.03/10
157.5cm is 0.792% = 0.08/10
160cm is 1.9% = 0.19 or 0.2/10
162.5cm is 4.1% = 0.4/10
165cm is 8.1% = 0.8/10
166cm is 10% = 1/10
167.5cm is 14.4% = 1.4/10
170cm is 25% = 2.5/10
171cm is 27.2% = 2.7/10
171.2cm is 28.1% = 2.8/10
172.5cm is 36.8% = 3.7/10
175cm is 50% = 5/10
177.5cm is 63.2% = 6.3/10
179cm is 68.1% = 6.8/10
180cm is 75% = 7.5/10
182.5cm is 84.4% = 8.4/10
185cm is 91.1% = 9.1/10
187.5cm is 95.4% = 9.5/10
190cm is 97.8% = 9.8/10
192.5cm is 99.083% = 9.91/10
195cm is 99.648% = 9.96/10
197.5cm is 99.879% = 9.99/10
200cm is 99.962% = 10/10
On the shorter range: You can see that in order to lose 1.4 SMV points you need to go from 167.5cm to 147.5cm which is 20cm shorter. On the other hand, in order to gain 1.4 SMV points from 167.5cm you need to become only 3.8cm taller (171.2cm).
Now, on the taller range: in order to gain 1.4 SMV points from 179cm you need to become only 3.5cm taller (182.5cm). On the other hand, in order to gain another 1.4 SMV points from 182.5cm you need to become 17.5cm taller. This explains why IT or tallfags on this forum say "I know a 5'5" (1,65m) guy who has had many lays". This could explain why 5'3" (160cm) guys with very nice faces MIGHT be able to get laid. Remember that a short guy's best bet are jailbaits, but it's not guaranteed that he will bed them.
You can clearly see that the biggest fluctuation of sexual market value based on height alone is between 171-185cm. Above and below that there are diminishing returns. How does this theory apply to this picture? Even if we did reduce the taller man's height by 15cm, the difference in sexual market value still wouldn't be that big. So it proves height>face.