Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

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

Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
11,024
Online
120d 15h 54m
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 @Selinity soymonkcel @soymonkcel ionlycopenow @ionlycopenow Edmund_Kemper @Edmund_Kemper your personality @your personality

SergeantIncel @SergeantIncel Master @Master mental_out @mental_out

ReturnOfSaddam @ReturnOfSaddam How is that for autism? :lul:
 
Last edited:
Selinity

Selinity

banned
-
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Posts
3,585
Online
20d 21h 56m
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
 
Diocel

Diocel

A Soup for one, please.
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Posts
51,203
Online
275d 1h 37m
I still have no sympathy for tallfags.
 
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
11,024
Online
120d 15h 54m
Selinity said:
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

Diocel said:
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
 
ReturnOfSaddam

ReturnOfSaddam

Eternal President of Iraq
★★★★
Joined
May 23, 2020
Posts
2,367
Online
40d 2h 39m

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

Deleted member 28903

Banned
-
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Posts
13,378
Online
89d 10h 6m
The formula for looks is actually extremely simple. Looks = log2(height)
 
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
11,024
Online
120d 15h 54m
ReturnOfSaddam said:

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.
 
Snowstormhigh

Snowstormhigh

Death Awaits
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 24, 2020
Posts
6,998
Online
66d 12h 41m
Diocel said:
I still have no sympathy for tallfags.
This, high IQ thread nonetheless
 
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
11,024
Online
120d 15h 54m
foidologist said:
The formula for looks is actually extremely simple. Looks = log2(height)
Selinity @Selinity see? :feelsLightsaber:
 
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
11,024
Online
120d 15h 54m
Diocel said:
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
 
ERadicator

ERadicator

Exalted Clowncel
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Posts
10,842
Online
165d 21h 29m
Diocel

Diocel

A Soup for one, please.
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Posts
51,203
Online
275d 1h 37m
Gymcelled said:
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
Im below average for my generation, im borderline foid average.
 
Deleted member 28903

Deleted member 28903

Banned
-
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Posts
13,378
Online
89d 10h 6m
Gymcelled said:
Selinity @Selinity see? :feelsLightsaber:
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

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
11,024
Online
120d 15h 54m
Diocel said:
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

I want to believe

I enjoy self-destruction.
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Posts
7,201
Online
32d 20h 55m
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

Mainländer

Songwritercel
★★★★★
Joined
May 2, 2018
Posts
34,483
Online
122d 17h 49m
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

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
11,024
Online
120d 15h 54m
I want to believe said:
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

NothinButAComedy

I don't hate minorities.. just Females
★★★★
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Posts
1,312
Online
14d 18h 56m
Water is wey
 
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
11,024
Online
120d 15h 54m
Mainländer said:
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

Mainländer

Songwritercel
★★★★★
Joined
May 2, 2018
Posts
34,483
Online
122d 17h 49m
Gymcelled said:
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.

Gymcelled said:
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

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
11,024
Online
120d 15h 54m
Mainländer said:
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

Boiiboii69

Recruit
★★★
Joined
May 15, 2018
Posts
212
Online
14h 34m
super autistic but true and based
 
FastBananaCEO

FastBananaCEO

Banned
-
Joined
Nov 12, 2019
Posts
24,805
Online
168d 6h 56m
I don't understand any of it but I agree
 
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
11,024
Online
120d 15h 54m
Boiiboii69 said:
super autistic but true and based
lmao thanks, honestly it was a bit much but went whatever and posted nonetheless :feelsmage:

FastBananaCEO said:
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

ionlycopenow

Not incel
-
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Posts
14,084
Online
95d 7h 55m
If I had a better hairline, lower third, and face I wouldn't even know what an incel was, jfl.
 
doomed2failio

doomed2failio

Automatic 6ft radius pre-coof
Joined
Feb 5, 2021
Posts
595
Online
7d 9h 31m
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!
 
Last edited:
cvh1991

cvh1991

Officer
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Posts
983
Online
4d 14h 45m
Gymcelled said:
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 @Selinity soymonkcel @soymonkcel ionlycopenow @ionlycopenow Edmund_Kemper @Edmund_Kemper your personality @your personality

SergeantIncel @SergeantIncel Master @Master mental_out @mental_out

ReturnOfSaddam @ReturnOfSaddam How is that for autism? :lul:
Good post mate good post
Gymcelled said:
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

doomed2failio

Automatic 6ft radius pre-coof
Joined
Feb 5, 2021
Posts
595
Online
7d 9h 31m
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

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
11,024
Online
120d 15h 54m
doomed2failio said:
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.

doomed2failio said:
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

cvh1991 said:
Good post mate good post
Thanks for always being supportive mate :feelsmage:
 
Honeypot

Honeypot

Wizard
★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Posts
4,193
Online
20d 12h 47m
I want to believe said:
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

doomed2failio

Automatic 6ft radius pre-coof
Joined
Feb 5, 2021
Posts
595
Online
7d 9h 31m
Gymcelled said:
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

dirtykombatcel

dropkicks for equality
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Posts
7,276
Online
28d 20h 56m
Another one of co's greatest posts by Gymcelled @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

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
11,024
Online
120d 15h 54m
doomed2failio said:
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 :feelsmage:

dirtykombatcel said:
Another one of co's greatest posts by Gymcelled @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 :feelsautistic:
 
Deleted member 32502

Deleted member 32502

Self-banned
-
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Posts
880
Online
15d 6h 49m
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

grondilu

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Posts
6,770
Online
159d 9h 20m
Lol at putting math to support a theory about inceldom



Basically though, women select by elimination. Just one flaw can strike you out.
 
Last edited:
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
11,024
Online
120d 15h 54m
Autismaxxed said:
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
 
ScornedStoic

ScornedStoic

St. Dancecel
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Posts
21,736
Online
151d 22h 14m
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.

Diocel said:
I still have no sympathy for tallfags.
 
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
11,024
Online
120d 15h 54m
ScornedStoic said:
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

Deleted member 32800

Self-banned
-
Joined
Feb 7, 2021
Posts
91
Online
2d 5h 54m
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.
ScornedStoic said:
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.
 
Last edited:
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
11,024
Online
120d 15h 54m
TinyWhiteJanitor said:
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
 
ScornedStoic

ScornedStoic

St. Dancecel
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Posts
21,736
Online
151d 22h 14m
Gymcelled said:
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
But that's no different than pointing at Tom Cruise and saying short people can get laid. It's cherrypicking. Height is all important, end of story. If you're short you're doomed. If you're tall you have to be in the 0.000001% to be incel, so tall people don't belong here. It's like saying people who got blowjobs can be incel too, you never know, they could be totally fucked up and it was a fluke right? It's special pleading and as someone literally treated as less than human and that lives in a society where it's completely acceptable to write "under 6' don't bother" on their bio, I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing tall faggots bitch and whine that they're not the absolute richest person alive when they're in the top one percent, so to speak.
 
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
11,024
Online
120d 15h 54m
ScornedStoic said:
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

doomed2failio

Automatic 6ft radius pre-coof
Joined
Feb 5, 2021
Posts
595
Online
7d 9h 31m
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.
 
ScornedStoic

ScornedStoic

St. Dancecel
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Posts
21,736
Online
151d 22h 14m
Gymcelled said:
You really believe this? So you think Jsanza and bo2cel have a good much better smv because they're tall?
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.
 
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
11,024
Online
120d 15h 54m
ScornedStoic said:
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

LOLI BREEDING

when your life is not your own
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 4, 2019
Posts
5,762
Online
155d 4h 41m
BPJ

BPJ

Recruit
★★★★
Joined
Jan 30, 2021
Posts
357
Online
6d 21h 45m
Mt Rushmore IQ thread. Might incorporate elements from it in a future video tbh
 
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top