Serious Understanding total looks, Face vs Height - Why both manlets and ugly tallfags can exist simultaneously

[Gymcelled]

This will probably be my most autistic post yet but i think it's seriously needed.

tl;dr this post will mathematically explain to you how hard it is to compensate for a singular atrocious flaw
It's possible for both manlets and ugly tallfags to exist simultaneously because being extremely bad at one of the two features (face or height) will induce a larger penalty on your looks score
Don't think in simple arithmetic averages

The point isn't to discuss which one is more important but rather how they interact with each other

• The manlet vs ugly tallfag conundrum

This is perhaps the biggest point of contention on this forum.

On one hand you have really short guys with decent faces looking at their life experiences and concluding that face is NOT more important than height, because it hasn't saved them. Ugly tallfags do the same with their height. Each member of the two camps is convinced that the other one is full of bullshit.

People often say that height is the "looks multiplier". I disagree, I think it's more complicated than that.

I will attempt to explain how EVEN IF face and height have the EXACT SAME worth, we can still prove with simple mathematics that it's possible to fail to compensate with the other feature.

Hypothesis 1: Face and height have the exact same worth (50/50).

(we're trying to simplify the calculations, if you disagree: keep in mind this equality only strengthens what i'm about to show)

Hypothesis 2: No other factor come into play when it comes to your looks score. (again we're doing this to simply the examples)

At the end I show you that this still works even if you attribute a different worth to face and height, and you're free to expand the model by adding in more variables.

First a quick analogy to explain what this post is about

• 20lbs smartphone analogy, why linear arithmetic thinking is wrong

Imagine there’s a smartphone that comes out and has to be rated. It’s amazing at everything: fast, great battery, amazing software, good camera, nice speakers, looks aesthetic … but it weighs 20lbs (or 10kg). Would anyone want that phone? Being so bad at that one singular thing ruins everything and makes it worthless as a phone. Yet if you were to rate all of its feature, add all the ratings up and average it, it would look like an amazing phone right?
Averaging things with a simple arithmetic mean is not always relevant.

If you're extremely short OR extremely ugly but you're amazing in every other area of life ... YOU'RE THE 20LBS PHONE, YOU'RE A FAILED PRODUCT THAT NO ONE WANTS

• Using other means to evaluate looks

The arithmetic mean doesn’t care about the variance (spread) of your data. It doesn’t take into account how a god awful feature might ruin everything.

The geometric and the harmonic mean are better suited for rating looks because they impose a penalty based on the spread of the face and height scores. If you’re really bad at either face or height it’ll take that into account and compensating with the other will be much harder.

The formulas for geometric and harmonic means are given below

By only taking into account face and height and by attributing the same worth (ie we assume that face and height are equally as important), the formulas simply become sqrt(f*h) and (2*f*h)/(f+h) for the geometric and the harmonic mean respectively (where f and h are the face and height scores, from 0 to 10).

As you can see below, I make face go from 0 to 5 and height from 10 to 5. This would be an ugly guy trying to compensate with height. If we simply apply the arithmetic mean we get 5/10 in looks regardless of the combination. As if being a 4 and 6/10 in face and height is the same as a 1 and 9/10.

Meanwhile, the geometric and harmonic mean will impose a penalty on the total looks score when either face or height gets very low. So a guy with a REALLY BAD face will still have a bad looks score, just like a turbomanlet would if he tried to compensate with face.

Personally I prefer the harmonic mean because it’s stricter than the geometric mean. As you can see, someone who scores a 2 and 8/10 in face and height (or the reverse case) will only be a 3/10 (3.2 to be exact).

This is how you mathematically explain both turbomanlets AND ugly tallfags being a thing. Even if face and height were equally as strong you wouldn’t be able to compensate perfectly with the other one simply because of the 20lbs smartphone effect. Your flaw is just too big to be ignored, it ruins everything.

With that we can generate curves for different height scores and make face vary.

So with H=2 for instance (turbomanlet) you can see that increases in face barely help the shortcel at all.

Same graph but with less curves and zoomed in to show.

One more example comparing arithmetic and harmonic mean with height = 7/10 and a varying face.

• What if face and height don't have the same worth? (Face > Height or Face < Height)

So let’s say you disagree with face and height being 50/50. You think one or the other is more important. Let’s say 60/40 or 30/70 for instance. This model still works, you just have to apply the formula below.

You can also add more variables (race, frame, whatever).

I did some quick curves with 60/40 and 70/30. You can investigate further if you're curious. If you think the spreading penalty is too big just use the geometric mean instead and apply weights to the formula.

• DISCLAIMER

Am I saying that looks are EXACTLY determined by the harmonic mean? No I’m just using that as an example to explain what happens when your face or height are really bad, it's for the sake of penalizing really bad scores in either face or height. Obviously I’m not autistic enough to believe that it works specifically with that mean. It’s more of a way to visualize and understand what is happening.

Lastly I think this penalty I talked about only starts kicking below 5/10 and only becomes significant below 4/10. If someone were to score above 5/10 in both face and height then forget the harmonic mean, the arithmetic mean should be more accurate because you don't have that big failo and "ew 20lbs phone" effect.

@Selinity @soymonkcel @ionlycopenow @Edmund_Kemper @your personality

@SergeantIncel @Master @mental_out

@ReturnOfSaddam How is that for autism?

 

[Selinity]

This solves a lot of debate about Height vs Face

It's like if you need to be a 6/10 to get a date and being short takes off 5 points and being ugly takes off 5 points.

Ugly Tallfag = 5/10 Handsome Manlet = 5/10

they're both beneath the cut off but for different reasons.

Good thread OP

Also, you said this was going to be controversial, I don't see the controversy

 

[Gymcelled]

Also, you said this was going to be controversial, I don't see the controversy

I'm expecting some ugly tallfags and manlets coming and saying "BUT THE OTHER CANT BE INCEL, BULLSHIT". It always happens

The point of the post is to try to bring people together to some extent. You do NOT have to believe that face and height are equally as strong to admit with this model that anyone can be inkwel if they score really bad at one or the other. Hopefully that helps people see things differently

I still have no sympathy for tallfags.

That's ok. Tbh neither do I because I've always wanted to be tall and I think it would save me if i suddenly became 6ft5+.

But I can still understand how it's possible for them to be lonely and get rejected

 

[Selinity]

I still have no sympathy for tallfags.

Manlet?

 

[ReturnOfSaddam]

A fucking masterpiece, galactic IQ.

The 20lbs smartphone thing is fucking perfect, sums it up perfectly

This needs to be pinned immediately

 

[Deleted member 28903]

The formula for looks is actually extremely simple. Looks = log2(height)

 

[Gymcelled]

A fucking masterpiece, galactic IQ.

The 20lbs smartphone thing is fucking perfect, sums it up perfectly

This needs to be pinned immediately

You could make up almost any other business/marketing example

I've also thought of a car that takes 3 hours to start and you can't program the start in advance or at distance. Imagine having to manually start it and then be like "ok so now i have to come back in 3 hours to go anywhere".

You wouldn't give a singular shit about how good any other feature is because that singular flaw is so bad it makes the car damn near useless.

Foids see the same thing when you have the face of Eggy or are 5ft2. Nothing you could ever do would make up for it.

 

[Deleted member 27161]

I still have no sympathy for tallfags.

This, high IQ thread nonetheless

 

[Gymcelled]

The formula for looks is actually extremely simple. Looks = log2(height)

@Selinity see?

 

[Gymcelled]

Yeas.

Isn't your height more like king of manlets in Algeria?

Either way even average is lame in the eyes of foids so king of manlets sucks a lot

 

[JestER]

did not read

I still have no sympathy for tallfags.

 

[Deleted member 28903]

@Selinity see?

The formula isn't tuned to match the decile scale with height in cm, but the formula for looks being generally a logarithm of height is fairly obvious. There may be extreme cases such as burn victims or people with severe deformities which this doesn't work for, but for anyone remotely normal looking face is not a major factor.

 

[Gymcelled]

Im below average for my generation, im borderline foid average.

That's the case for me but only when compared to the white native foids. That alone is so brutal tbh

One time i got height mogged in corridor by 3 foids. All 3 taller than me

 

[I want to believe]

In my opinion, if you're either a handsome manlet or an ugly tallfag, you will still have a chance to get a foid.
But if you're both ugly and short, you will have no chance to get a foid at all.

 

[Mainländer]

To put it simply, height is part of looks. Everything about your body and face is part of looks. The real discussion is, which parts are more relevant for looks? I say, a good eye are and facial bone structure in general matters WAY more than height.

There's a niche for puny pretty boys. Just see phenomenons such as K-Pop, see how many foids express desire for small, weak, even feminine pretty boys. Of course not all do, maybe not even the majority (most probably prefer masculine AND gl Chads), but some do, without a doubt. There's no niche for disgustingly ugly face.

 

[Gymcelled]

In my opinion, if you're either a handsome manlet or an ugly tallfag, you will still have a chance to get a foid.
But if you're both ugly and short, you will have no chance to get a foid at all.

Of course there IS such a thing as compensation, definitely. But I don't think the compensation is done in a linear fashion. If you're a 3/10 in one of the two areas, you need more than 2 points to compensate imo, more like 3 points

Obviously failing at both is the absolute worst possible scenario

imo compensation is much easier and less strict when your worst area is only like a 4ish/10

 

[NothinButAComedy]

Water is wey

 

[Gymcelled]

To put it simply, height is part of looks. Everything about your body and face is part of looks. The real discussion is, which parts are more relevant for looks? I say, a good eye are and facial bone structure in general matters WAY more than height.

There's a niche for puny pretty boys. Just see phenomenons such as K-Pop, see how many foids express desire for small, weak, even feminine pretty boys. Of course not all do, maybe not even the majority (most probably prefer masculine AND gl Chads), but some do, without a doubt. There's no niche for disgustingly ugly face.

Even if you go with the idea that face mogs height, you have to admit that eventually you reach a point where the height fucks you over. You can't pull the pretty boy card when you're 5ft2 for instance

The k pop guys aren't even short iirc

 

[Mainländer]

Even if you go with the idea that face mogs height, you have to admit that eventually you reach a point where the height fucks you over. You can't pull the pretty boy card when you're 5ft2 for instance

I agree, but having anything on your looks that's massively bad would fuck you equally. For instance, having a deformed mouth/jaw.

The k pop guys aren't even short iirc

The actual guys from the bands are likely above the average of Korea, but many other east asians coast on that trend to get with foids from that niche.

 

[Gymcelled]

I agree, but having anything on your looks that's massively bad would fuck you equally. For instance, having a deformed mouth/jaw.

That was the whole point of the thread tbh. Anything that's exceptionally bad will fuck you over.

I can believe that some 6ft4 dude isn't getting anything if he's disfigured or Eggy tier ugly or worse

 

[Boiiboii69]

super autistic but true and based

 

[Deleted member 22572]

I don't understand any of it but I agree

 

[Gymcelled]

super autistic but true and based

lmao thanks, honestly it was a bit much but went whatever and posted nonetheless

I don't understand any of it but I agree

All you need to understand is the 20lbs phone analogy and this graph and table. The rest is just more examples tbh

Assuming face and height contribute 50/50 to looks, with all the combinations in that table you'd be rated as 5/10 by a normal arithmetic mean. Which is nonsense because someone with a 1/10 face or a 1/10 height would be a freak no matter how good the other feature is

So i autistically showed other means that impose a penalty on such extremes

 

[ionlycopenow]

If I had a better hairline, lower third, and face I wouldn't even know what an incel was, jfl.

 

[doomed2failio]

I don't understand your formulas just looking at the graphs I think you can improve it. Your X/Y axis needs to have a negative values! At a certain low point it isn't neutral, instead it is negative and detracts from SMV as a failio. Halo if it makes your other values "quirky".

I believe there is a notable threshold for many of the axis but height (frame) and face have the most weighted-value since they score a person's inate health.

a physical halo/falio I believe is most used instinctively by women is frame. Tallness is a subset of it. It's the dimorphic nature of man and woman and shows heavy expression testosterone and other manly growth hormones. As opposed to face which can mostly be gene expression (bone growth, skin healthy, and symmetries).

I think if this is projected correctly you don't have to assume the values. You can find out how much each of the tall score and face score is a halo for men in getting above the threshold for women to believe you are top 20% and more importantly for us is incels how many falios we can overcome with surgery of the face to compensate for height and possible frame-failio neutralizing surgeries such as spine straitening/bracing of forward bent upper back S curves.

I really like the comparison of the 20lb phone. Which would only be useful if a phone is absolutely needed and no other phone is around. It would be a life saver at that point. Basically these are the emergency phones that are cemented into place every few hundred feet on bridges that are there for extreme emergency situations. No one is going to use them, but genetically they are a back up option in case of an end of world survival situation and are a backup pool of human genes.

In any case, smv isn't about whether you get your one itis like some here might believe. Rather it is how much of the current dating pool is available to you and if given a reasonable set of attempts per year you can land at least a successful normie level sexual pairing. Successful meaning both are attracted to each other. Knowing blackpill, we want this to be caused by tingles/lust rather than external financial factors that enter the equation too. Because if a 20lb phone starts printing money, the phone will be extremely popular.
"But phones that print money doesn't happen". Back in the 90s and early 00s pay phones used to sometimes break or get hacked in a way that if you hit the hang up button a certain way it would just dump the quarters out. It was a good way for kids and other nefarious people to get drug money.

Your autistic post got me a follow. High IQ. Keep the posts coming!

 

[cvh1991]

This will probably be my most autistic post yet but i think it's seriously needed.

tl;dr this post will mathematically explain to you how hard it is to compensate for a singular atrocious flaw
It's possible for both manlets and ugly tallfags to exist simultaneously because being extremely bad at one of the two features (face or height) will induce a larger penalty on your looks score
Don't think in simple arithmetic averages

The point isn't to discuss which one is more important but rather how they interact with each other

• The manlet vs ugly tallfag conundrum

This is perhaps the biggest point of contention on this forum.

On one hand you have really short guys with decent faces looking at their life experiences and concluding that face is NOT more important than height, because it hasn't saved them. Ugly tallfags do the same with their height. Each member of the two camps is convinced that the other one is full of bullshit.

People often say that height is the "looks multiplier". I disagree, I think it's more complicated than that.

I will attempt to explain how EVEN IF face and height have the EXACT SAME worth, we can still prove with simple mathematics that it's possible to fail to compensate with the other feature.

Hypothesis 1: Face and height have the exact same worth (50/50).

(we're trying to simplify the calculations, if you disagree: keep in mind this equality only strengthens what i'm about to show)

Hypothesis 2: No other factor come into play when it comes to your looks score. (again we're doing this to simply the examples)

At the end I show you that this still works even if you attribute a different worth to face and height, and you're free to expand the model by adding in more variables.

First a quick analogy to explain what this post is about

• 20lbs smartphone analogy, why linear arithmetic thinking is wrong

Imagine there’s a smartphone that comes out and has to be rated. It’s amazing at everything: fast, great battery, amazing software, good camera, nice speakers, looks aesthetic … but it weighs 20lbs (or 10kg). Would anyone want that phone? Being so bad at that one singular thing ruins everything and makes it worthless as a phone. Yet if you were to rate all of its feature, add all the ratings up and average it, it would look like an amazing phone right?
Averaging things with a simple arithmetic mean is not always relevant.

If you're extremely short OR extremely ugly but you're amazing in every other area of life ... YOU'RE THE 20LBS PHONE, YOU'RE A FAILED PRODUCT THAT NO ONE WANTS

• Using other means to evaluate looks

The arithmetic mean doesn’t care about the variance (spread) of your data. It doesn’t take into account how a god awful feature might ruin everything.

The geometric and the harmonic mean are better suited for rating looks because they impose a penalty based on the spread of the face and height scores. If you’re really bad at either face or height it’ll take that into account and compensating with the other will be much harder.

The formulas for geometric and harmonic means are given below

View attachment 410126

View attachment 410127

By only taking into account face and height and by attributing the same worth (ie we assume that face and height are equally as important), the formulas simply become sqrt(f*h) and (2*f*h)/(f+h) for the geometric and the harmonic mean respectively (where f and h are the face and height scores, from 0 to 10).

As you can see below, I make face go from 0 to 5 and height from 10 to 5. This would be an ugly guy trying to compensate with height. If we simply apply the arithmetic mean we get 5/10 in looks regardless of the combination. As if being a 4 and 6/10 in face and height is the same as a 1 and 9/10.

Meanwhile, the geometric and harmonic mean will impose a penalty on the total looks score when either face or height gets very low. So a guy with a REALLY BAD face will still have a bad looks score, just like a turbomanlet would if he tried to compensate with face.

Personally I prefer the harmonic mean because it’s stricter than the geometric mean. As you can see, someone who scores a 2 and 8/10 in face and height (or the reverse case) will only be a 3/10 (3.2 to be exact).

View attachment 410128
View attachment 410129

This is how you mathematically explain both turbomanlets AND ugly tallfags being a thing. Even if face and height were equally as strong you wouldn’t be able to compensate perfectly with the other one simply because of the 20lbs smartphone effect. Your flaw is just too big to be ignored, it ruins everything.

With that we can generate curves for different height scores and make face vary.

So with H=2 for instance (turbomanlet) you can see that increases in face barely help the shortcel at all.

View attachment 410130

Same graph but with less curves and zoomed in to show.

View attachment 410131

One more example comparing arithmetic and harmonic mean with height = 7/10 and a varying face.

View attachment 410133

• What if face and height don't have the same worth? (Face > Height or Face < Height)

So let’s say you disagree with face and height being 50/50. You think one or the other is more important. Let’s say 60/40 or 30/70 for instance. This model still works, you just have to apply the formula below.

You can also add more variables (race, frame, whatever).

View attachment 410136

I did some quick curves with 60/40 and 70/30. You can investigate further if you're curious. If you think the spreading penalty is too big just use the geometric mean instead and apply weights to the formula.

View attachment 410137

• DISCLAIMER

Am I saying that looks are EXACTLY determined by the harmonic mean? No I’m just using that as an example to explain what happens when your face or height are really bad, it's for the sake of penalizing really bad scores in either face or height. Obviously I’m not autistic enough to believe that it works specifically with that mean. It’s more of a way to visualize and understand what is happening.

Lastly I think this penalty I talked about only starts kicking below 5/10 and only becomes significant below 4/10. If someone were to score above 5/10 in both face and height then forget the harmonic mean, the arithmetic mean should be more accurate because you don't have that big failo and "ew 20lbs phone" effect.

@Selinity @soymonkcel @ionlycopenow @Edmund_Kemper @your personality

@SergeantIncel @Master @mental_out

@ReturnOfSaddam How is that for autism?

Good post mate good post

I'm expecting some ugly tallfags and manlets coming and saying "BUT THE OTHER CANT BE INCEL, BULLSHIT". It always happens

The point of the post is to try to bring people together to some extent. You do NOT have to believe that face and height are equally as strong to admit with this model that anyone can be inkwel if they score really bad at one or the other. Hopefully that helps people see things differently


That's ok. Tbh neither do I because I've always wanted to be tall and I think it would save me if i suddenly became 6ft5+.

But I can still understand how it's possible for them to be lonely and get rejected

It does always happen lol

 

[doomed2failio]

I think I'm wrong on the graph fix comment after reading your post a couple more times. Definitely doesn't need negative values using your scoring method. I would think a proper chart would have a steeper curve from failio to neutral and then another steep curve from neutral to halo. Not sure if a harsher penalty could be found based on standard deviation of looks. If you pass the first std dev of looks it becomes a halo and bottom is a failio, causing harsher curves from stronger weighting at the extremes. Anything approaching 2nd dev from normie looks would be where ultimate chad or where life supported handicapped truecels exist. Where ultimate chad only has access purely stacies since women would fight off any competition below Stacy level. And truecel would only have access to mother theresa who would sit next to them and watch the deformed ethnic painfully die (she was a bitch foid water is wet who withheld pain killers for those dying ethnics so she can feel god's presence in their pain. All Foids get god level sexual tingles from seeing incels in pain)

 

[Gymcelled]

I think I'm wrong on the graph fix comment after reading your post a couple more times. Definitely doesn't need negative values using your scoring method. I would think a proper chart would have a steeper curve from failio to neutral and then another steep curve from neutral to halo. Not sure if a harsher penalty could be found based on standard deviation of looks. If you pass the first std dev of looks it becomes a halo and bottom is a failio, causing harsher curves from stronger weighting at the extremes. Anything approaching 2nd dev from normie looks would be where ultimate chad or where life supported handicapped truecels exist. Where ultimate chad only has access purely stacies since women would fight off any competition below Stacy level. And truecel would only have access to mother theresa who would sit next to them and watch the deformed ethnic painfully die (she was a bitch foid water is wet who withheld pain killers for those dying ethnics so she can feel god's presence in their pain. All Foids get god level sexual tingles from seeing incels in pain)

I agree that a more accurate model would be based around the standard deviations of face and height just like you said. 2nd standard of deviation is definitely pure hell. On the decile scale it would be somewhere between a 1 and a 2/10 maybe? I think around 3/10 is roughly 1 SD.

These means i'm using apply a penalty as soon as the data points aren't exactly all the same (non zero variance). Which also means that good looking dudes would get a penalty, which is why i said in the disclaimer that i think if you score at 5/10 or above in both face and height, there shouldn't be any penalty (no failo). So the looks of a good looking person are averaged in a more natural and simple arithmetic way

So a guy with 5/10 face and 9/10 height is 7/10 for instance, assuming a 50/50 worth of both features. (whereas the 2 means would project more like a 6/10 due to the penalty, which in this case doesn't make sense)

My model isn't really meant to be super accurate, it's more trying to showcase the 20lbs phone phenomenon. It does sort of work for people who score bad at face or height because the penalties are much bigger when the gap in your 2 features is huge. A guy scoring 4 and 6/10 is better off irl than someone with a 2 and 8/10 because the latter person is either freakishly small or freakishly ugly. The first person is much more normal looking and comes out as ~average irl, which is predicted by the model.

The main takeaway from the post is getting people to understand that a total looks score works differently when you're extremely bad at face or height. And that phenomenon explains why people at both extremities can exist simultaneously (the manlet and the tall ogre faced dude). Because if both face and height where worth 50/50 this couldn't be possible. And if one of the 2 was much stronger than the other AND things worked with an arithmetic mean then only one of the 2 extremities would exist, not both.

I really like the comparison of the 20lb phone. Which would only be useful if a phone is absolutely needed and no other phone is around. It would be a life saver at that point. Basically these are the emergency phones that are cemented into place every few hundred feet on bridges that are there for extreme emergency situations. No one is going to use them, but genetically they are a back up option in case of an end of world survival situation and are a backup pool of human genes.

Lmao. Sadly we aren't threatened like that anymore

Good post mate good post

Thanks for always being supportive mate

 

[Honeypot]

In my opinion, if you're either a handsome manlet or an ugly tallfag, you will still have a chance to get a foid.
But if you're both ugly and short, you will have no chance to get a foid at all.

Barely truth but true, but in real life most people are manlet and average face and ogre tallfag if they are a manletcel/tallcel.

 

[doomed2failio]

So a guy with 5/10 face and 9/10 height is 7/10 for instance, assuming a 50/50 worth of both features. (whereas the 2 means would project more like a 6/10 due to the penalty, which in this case doesn't make sense)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Good approximation model tbh and I agree with it. Youre definitely math logic maxxed. I hope you get paid to use your brain power

 

[dirtykombatcel]

Another one of co's greatest posts by @Gymcelled . I actually took the time to understand and what you said here makes a lot of sense, even though its not 100% IRL accurate (since that's completely impossible, there's many other variables to consider).

 

[Gymcelled]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Good approximation model tbh and I agree with it. Youre definitely math logic maxxed. I hope you get paid to use your brain power

I'm in stem so kinda, the pay is not great tho

Another one of co's greatest posts by @Gymcelled . I actually took the time to understand and what you said here makes a lot of sense, even though its not 100% IRL accurate (since that's completely impossible, there's many other variables to consider).

Yup, by definition a model is never 100% accurate, it's just our attempt at representing reality. I wanted to make people think differently about the whole looks equation, especially at the bad extremes

Thanks for the support btw

 

[Deleted member 32502]

I know this is not .me but I noticed there is lots of talk about prettyboys here. Aren't prettyboys just handsome but have more feminine facial features and at least average height? I don't think prettyboy means short and ugly.

 

[grondilu]

Lol at putting math to support a theory about inceldom

Basically though, women select by elimination. Just one flaw can strike you out.

 

[Gymcelled]

I know this is not .me but I noticed there is lots of talk about prettyboys here. Aren't prettyboys just handsome but have more feminine facial features and at least average height? I don't think prettyboy means short and ugly.

Pretty boy = really good face but mediocre height/frame.

But even then, the pretty boys are never super short. At worst they're just below average in height and run face game

 

[Gymcelled]

I don't really care tbh, I've seen it happen with my own eyes way too much for any thread to change my mind. Ugly tall guys get girlfriends all the time and I witness and know of them. Tallfag=fakecel.

I've seen somewhat ugly tall guys with girls, even babyfaced tall guys. But never guys who had the face of eggy or jsanza (jsanza is 6ft4 btw), never guys with a strongly recessed chin etc

 

[Deleted member 32800]

That's very well done, and very informative, thank you for creating it and sharing it.

I thing I have noticed a LOT ( since having it brought to my attention in an old post ), are the looks on the faces and the mannerisms of foids when out on a " date " with a say 5/10 manlet vs. a 5/10 tallfag.

When you see an ugly foid with a tallfag, they still have that glassy-eyed, head lifted-up to speak, girlish and submissive sort of look. The look that tells you they are having sex with this guy because he can trigger her subservient nature. They will lean into him more, signal to other foids that they got a tall one, etc...I mean they just look happy.

Contrast this to every time you see an ugly foid with a good looking manlet. Sure they are out on a " date, " sitting down in a cafe or something she can still enjoy talking to a guy with good facial / cranial bone structure. Walking or standing up though, I just never see the body language or sweet facial expressions that they would have with a tallfag. Appears to me that these manlets are so-so ok to date here and there, but they are not getting sex from these foids.

By taking into account foid satisfaction, I would say a 5/10 tallfag has a significantly higher SMV than a 5/10 manlet.

* I'm talking regular couples on the street, very young foids may " like " really good looking manlets on the screen but irl these short celebrities would still be seen as a joke.

I don't really care tbh, I've seen it happen with my own eyes way too much for any thread to change my mind. Ugly tall guys get girlfriends all the time and I witness and know of them. Tallfag=fakecel.

Yes, my experience as well, see it every day.

 

[Gymcelled]

That's very well done, and very informative, thank you for creating it and sharing it.

I thing I have noticed a LOT ( since having it brought to my attention in an old post ), is the looks on the faces and the mannerisms of foids when out on a " date " with a say 5/10 manlet vs. a 5/10 tallfag.

When you see an ugly foid with a tallfag, they still have that glassy-eyed, head lifted-up to speak, girlish and submissive sort of look. The look that tells you they are having sex with this guy because he can trigger her subservient nature. They will lean into him more, signal to other foids that they got a tall one, etc...I mean they just look happy.

Contrast this to every time you see an ugly foid with a good looking manlet. Sure they are out on a " date, " sitting down in a cafe or something she can still enjoy talking to a guy with good facial / cranial bone structure. Walking or standing up though, I just never see the body language or sweet facial expressions that they would have with a tallfag. Appears to me that these manlets are so-so ok to date here and there, but they are not getting sex from these foids.

By taking into account foid satisfaction, I would say a 5/10 tallfag has a significantly higher SMV than a 5/10 manlet.

* I'm talking regular couples on the street, very young foids may " like " really good manlets on the screen but irl these short celebrities would still be seen as a joke.

Height is really powerful, especially once your face is at least ~normalish looking.

Plus height even gets you respect and intimidation from other males. It's so useful for your day to day life

 

[BigMorons]

I still have no sympathy for tallfags.

 

[Gymcelled]

If you're tall you have to be in the 0.000001% to be incel.

You really believe this? So you think Jsanza and bo2cel have a good smv because they're tall?

 

[doomed2failio]

Yeah tall (frame size) is very important. It signals who is the natural dominant male and that a guy has male growth hormone expression. Face is just health (skin, bone growth, and symmetries) with only brow ridge and jaw showing signaling strong male dimorphism which pretty boys don't have.
CEOs of public companies are more likely to be tall in the USA. They are more often chosen for promotion into management. It's a natural leadership look.
Bo2cel doesn't like being an incel saint. He's supposedly had a gf and isn't a virgin according to him.

 

[Gymcelled]

Yes, height endows a baseline SMV. They will, at a bare minimum, be treated with a respect that manlets could only dream of.
I don't know anything about Jsanza, but choosing BO2cel is a clear cherrypick-it says something about your argument that you have to pick someone that was so severely memed for his ugliness that he became the symbol for inceldom. 99% of the tall faggots here aren't even an eighth as bad as him, and could get laid by using Tinder for fuck's sake.

How am I cherry picking when you said "If you're tall you have to be in the 0.000001% to be incel. "

I did the opposite of cherry picking, unless you think bo2cel is in the 0.000001%. That's my whole point. Do you think he's in the top 0.000001%? Or what about Jsanza?

 

[LOLI BREEDING]

stemcels me

 

[BPJ]

Mt Rushmore IQ thread. Might incorporate elements from it in a future video tbh

 

[based_meme]

Interesting idea. What led you to consider the harmonic mean as a more reflective measure of true SMV?

In the formula, face and height are given by x1=x2, but what is n here? Also, if we wanted to change our assumption where x1=/=x2 and we introduce hairline (given by h), body (b), age (a), and income (i), what would the formula look like. Would be the wi's?

 

[based_meme]

Interesting idea. What led you to consider the harmonic mean as a more reflective measure of true SMV?

In the formula, face and height are given by x1=x2, but what is n here? Also, if we wanted to change our assumption where x1=/=x2 and we introduce hairline (given by h), body (b), age (a), and income (i), what would the formula look like. Would be the wi's?

@Gymcelled

 

[Gymcelled]

Mt Rushmore IQ thread. Might incorporate elements from it in a future video tbh

Interesting idea. What led you to consider the harmonic mean as a more reflective measure of true SMV?

It was specifically the fact that the geometric and the harmonic mean will reduce the total score if there's a variance in your face and height scores. If they don't differ much (like a guy with 4 and 6/10 scores) the mean is very close to the arithmetic mean (little penalty).
But if you score really bad in one of the two, the total score gets significantly lower than your total score predicted by arithmetic mean. This is to model what I called the "20lbs phone" effect

The only reason i prefer the harmonic over the geometric mean is because the penalty is greater

In the formula, face and height are given by x1=x2, but what is n here? Also, if we wanted to change our assumption where x1=/=x2 and we introduce hairline (given by h), body (b), age (a), and income (i), what would the formula look like. Would be the wi's?

n is the total number of variables. So if you only have face and height it's n=2.

The weights are simply values that give greater relative importance to some characteristics. So if you want to do face 60 and height 40, you can do any variables with such ratios. So .6 and .4, or 6 and 4, or 60 and 40 etc

Let's say you wanna introduce body which is 4 times weaker than height (for instance), and you chose to go with weights of 6 and 4, the weight of body simply becomes a 1

If someone had a 3/10 face, 4/10 height and 5/10 body you'd get

Looks score = (3+4+5)/(3/6+4/4+5/1) = 1.846 ~1.85

Whereas with the same weights, an arithmetic mean in this case would give you a score of 3.55

If you think the penalty is too high use the geometric mean instead

 

[Hyperwristcel]

This solves a lot of debate about Height vs Face

It's like if you need to be a 6/10 to get a date and being short takes off 5 points and being ugly takes off 5 points.

Ugly Tallfag = 5/10 Handsome Manlet = 5/10

they're both beneath the cut off but for different reasons.

Good thread OP

Also, you said this was going to be controversial, I don't see the controversy

That's a very simple, correct summary. I also agree with 6/10 (high-tier Normie) being the minimum to score a date based on your appearance rather than status or money.

It should not be controversial as it's very logical, rational, and relatively easy to understand once you get the concept.

 

[based_meme]

It was specifically the fact that the geometric and the harmonic mean will reduce the total score if there's a variance in your face and height scores. If they don't differ much (like a guy with 4 and 6/10 scores) the mean is very close to the arithmetic mean (little penalty).
But if you score really bad in one of the two, the total score gets significantly lower than your total score predicted by arithmetic mean. This is to model what I called the "20lbs phone" effect

The only reason i prefer the harmonic over the geometric mean is because the penalty is greater


n is the total number of variables. So if you only have face and height it's n=2.

The weights are simply values that give greater relative importance to some characteristics. So if you want to do face 60 and height 40, you can do any variables with such ratios. So .6 and .4, or 6 and 4, or 60 and 40 etc

Let's say you wanna introduce body which is 4 times weaker than height (for instance), and you chose to go with weights of 6 and 4, the weight of body simply becomes a 1

If someone had a 3/10 face, 4/10 height and 5/10 body you'd get

Looks score = (3+4+5)/(3/6+4/4+5/1) = 1.846 ~1.85

Whereas with the same weights, an arithmetic mean in this case would give you a score of 3.55

If you think the penalty is too high use the geometric mean instead

I see. So the weights are what we arbitrarily decide to use then.

 

[Gymcelled]

I see. So the weights are what we arbitrarily decide to use then.

They represent the value you chose to attribute to the different features, it's how important you think they are. If you think height is more important then it should have the highest weight for instance.

It's all in relative terms so always keep in mind it's always comparative

But with these means i can show that even if you attribute the exact same worth to face and height, you still can't compensate for an abysmal face/height even if the other feature is really good (which is what happens with turbomanlets and really ugly ogres)

It allows us to make a model that takes into account one feature being so bad it ruins everything