Don’t let this happen to you!
The Problem:
Since mankind has invented math, they have used numbers to judge the attractiveness of people, usually for blind dates or friends of friends showing up to parties or when scoping out an area full of drunk people. But as I have often encountered, many people’s ranking of 1-10 highly differ from each other, making a 6 fine for some, and totally undateable to another, a 7 average, a 10 fairly common, etc. Its one of the huge problems ruining this country.
So I totally wanted to do a huge study with a cute psych major girl to find a scientific solution to developing an accurate foolproof ranking system for everyone. But then we would fall in love and in her like dissertation she writes about how looks don’t matter and throws the whole thing out. Then they’d make a movie about us starring my celebrity crush Lacey Chabert (or more realistically my C-list celebrity crush Olivia Olson <3), and it would totally get played on Lifetime like twice a day. But that probably won’t happen, so I made a list of a basic explanation of the shit anyway.
The Basics:
Like everything in life, hotness follows a normal distribution. By far most people are 5′s, like 60% of people are between 4 and 6, and then like 95% of people are between 2 and 8. You got an extra five percent for those 1′s and 9′s, like the ugliest and hottest people that could exist, and I’m working on the theory that each person has a single 10 and a single 0 out there for them. My ten would be fine as fuck Melanie Iglesias, but that depends on personal objectivity which we’ll get into later. Pretty much everyone you meet is a 4, 5, or 6, with most of them being 5′s. You’ll be lucky to run into some 9′s that aren’t famous, and there are entirely different scales when you’re just talking about famous people.
Just unfair levels of hot.
What’s important to remember is that everything is different depending on what you are looking at. Country by country levels differ, state by state, different age groups, just celebrities, just Asian girls, etc. A 6 in Alabama may be an 8 in Uzbekistan, really it depends on what you into and what you’re used to. The one thing that I learned from economics is that if there are at least thirty people, you got a normal distribution, so any less than that and your scale becomes skewed. A factor which totally influences the cheerleader effect, nerdbating, and generally just drunk hook-ups in small bars. The less people you have, the hotter the hot ones seem, which can be used to an advantage or can just fuck with you.
Subjectivity:
One of the main points I wanted to research with a cute psych major before we would fall in love would be the subjectivity of attractiveness to different people. Working on a theory that breaks down beauty kind of like this:
I used the Victorious girls cause they had it down and I was watching that show while making this. They’re all like 20 btw.
Essentially, there is pretty, cute and hot. Pretty would encompass like solid faces, general good symmetric features; hot would be more emphasis on the body and sex appeal; and cute has to do with appearance, but also a little more to do with attitude and how someone acts rather than just looks. Together they influence what we see as attractive in different ways. Because I look for cute, then hot, then pretty, I would rank Ariana Grande highest, cause she’s off the charts cute. Someone with more emphasis on pretty would likely rate Victoria Justice pretty high. Different people will have different rankings for the same person, tho they should always be pretty close within the same range. I need to do a lot of research in this area, but this google search seems to indicate that I’m on to something:
Definitely a lot of differences there.
Also I think some cultural factors may be in play, most white girls are just pretty, more Asian girls are cute, etc. That could use some testing tho. And since cute returns a lot of young girls, there may be another factor (something like Elegance?) that men into older women look for instead, not sure on that either. I made up one for dudes too, but this is where having a female (or gay dude) partner would really come in handy:
Photoshopping Zyzz when my dad walked in the room is the gayest I have ever felt.
Basically the same, handsome is about the face and features like pretty; hot is just about them aesthetics; and smooth is about how you carry yourself, the secret to how old dudes still pulling young women (also money). But again, these probably need some like Harvard-level legit studies to be done before they’re taken too seriously.
Objectivity:
One last thing that keeps the scale working for everyone is to remain as objective as possible. When you judge someone 1-10 its just about their looks, and the better you know them the more skewed your rating of them will be. There is zero personality at play here, ranking people by how they are as a person is something you can never really fully do because you can’t know them well enough. You can only do superficial stuff like body image and looks. Its always best to go with your immediate first impression, which can by altered by day, what they’re wearing, your mood, their mood, lots of things.
Also, never tell someone what your number for them is either, it just leads to problems. If forced, just give them an eight no matter what to keep them happy. And of course looks aren’t everything, I think we’ve all seen enough TV to know that good looks won’t lead to happiness, its like charity and being a good person I think. So yeah, don’t read too much into this, if you’re self-conscious there are tons of ways to improve how you look, you just gotta put the work in. And even then, no matter how you look there’s gonna be someone who’ll be feelin you, especially if you can like you know, talk to people. The world’s fattest man has been married twice, both to some pretty fine Latinas, I saw it on Discovery Channel I think, he lives in Mexico and seems like a pretty chill dude. I’mma embed a feel-good Recess episode on this subject to close it out.
Everything’s better with your friends!
We eventually just started breaking people up in to “woulds” and “wouldn’ts” to avoid that whole “OMIGAWD YOU THINK SHES ONLY A 5 SHES DEFINITELY A 8.59!!1!1!” that inevitably breaks out when drunk dudes talk about good looking ladies.
Solid alternative. Don’t undermine all my research pls.
I go to a all-engineering school, and the female pickings are rather minuscule, both in number and quality. As a result, we (that being my friends, myself, and probably many others) to adopt a binary system of objectivizing potential suitors around us.
“HER?! groce, she’s 110/1010 at best!”
bool would_bang = false;
Backed. I can’t get into the whole rating thing, it’s too subjective. Boners only run on binary, bros.
Yep also go by a 1 or 0 rating scale. At the end of the day all that matters is whether you would hit it with the hammer or not.
Complications arrive when you have to decide between two or more would’s. Sometimes you need a more detailed system, sometimes you don’t.
So basically, ratings are only relevant to certified alphas who have a choice of who they can bang?
I maintain that rating chicks is only really used when discussing chicks looks with other dudes. Due to the subjectivity of ratings, it is hard to get a good picture of what the chick looks like. In discussion with each other, dudes only really use the numbering system to describe chicks they have banged, chicks they want to bang, or celebrities. In the first two cases, numbers will be exaggerated to impress others. Rating famous chicks reeks of nerd posturing. You most likely wont get the chance to bang them, and if you do, regardless of looks you would do it for bragging rights. A binary system does put more emphasis on the user rather than the subject that is being rated. You don’t know how low in their 1-10 system someone would dip to bang, but in 1 or 0 you know what they say they would bang and not. At the end of the day the systems have similar uses, but different methodologies.
I first encountered this method from the band Creatures. We then elaborated it to be more subtle, like when you are all around a chick and you want to know what they think, you ask:
“What did you guys think of Star Wars Episode ONE?”
“It was pretty good.” (She’s a 1)
“Didn’t like it.” (Not a 1)
“IDK, I’ve never seen the whole thing.” (Didn’t get a good enough look)
I use the same system with the bros at work
it’s this WOOD/WOOD NOT mentality that makes me feel the DOUBLE HUMP distribution might be closer than the normal (SINGLE HUMP) one, at least for a particular individual’s ratings. anything over a 5 = WOOD, but i’m not so sure how often people are really on the fence about dishing out a PASS or FAIL; instead they’re probably more likely to dish out ratings peaking at, say, 3.5 and 6.5 (hence why “normal girls” are usually considered in the 6-7 range; because they’re “normal” relative to those one WOOD). under this view a ratings distribution for looks would end up looking more like the grading distribution for certain classes where the students tend to be divided into two types (the good and bad, each with their own normal distribution).
possibly another factor to consider here is that, also like in school classes, there are those who try and those who just don’t bother. since so many girls can help their ratings by putting in some effort to look good, or really hurt it by not even trying, it’s possible that this could also lead to a double hump.
i don’t know, the normal distribution is very appealing, so i can def see why you went with it doe
good point– the gaussian distribution’s familiarity and simplicity can be a tempting siren song that lures many researchers to their doom! I believe you are correct that a double hump (lol) distribution is a more accurate model, or perhaps a pareto distribution (a few obscenely hot bishes at the top with a ton of blah ones in the long, long tail)
put long in tail
The normal distribution fits in most cases and provides enough detail without getting too complicated to be understood. There are tons of other methods that would also be accurate, I just like normal’s a lot and they give a pretty clear picture that is pretty easy to understand.
But this is why research needs to be done!
brb writing doctoral thesis based on this page
Raffed hard at the Zyzz/gay dad comment.
I know this is kind of controversial, but I would NOT do Zyzz
Yup same here….
I’m more of a handsome face type guy
http://visionrockcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Chuck-Schuldiner.jpg
no homo btw…. not that there’s anything wrong w/ dat =P
This is great! I like how detailed and well researched it is. Really looking forward to reading the full article in the American Journal of Sociology in the near future.
What does it say about me when I like cute over pretty and hot?
It says you’re probably on a register in a federal filing cabinet somewhere
filth of gay/10
Good read. Would read again.
sweet I wood land in smooth just cuz I look like a lil bit like Antonio banderas…plus bishez luv when I teach em spanish ;-D if only I had dat immigrant accent doe….
NEwayz, good post… since Ima lead dept chair in Latin American studies @ SYWH University, I will put this bulletin of this kickass sociological study up on my hallway 4 students to participate 4 EC. just to take it down two to three weeks later w/ permission of the dept comittee of course… now back to me watching PBS w/ my blazer full of elbow patches.
Jake Gyllenhaal is easy on the eyes #nohomo. Fuck, he’s prettier than his sister #againnohomo
But yeah, the most important part of the ratings system is the fact that it’s image-only. Most guys would settle for a 5 or 4 if the chick has an 8/10 personality nocliche
Shouts for using a pic of mai waifu Liz Gillies in a bikini for Hawt. bby gurl u look so perf on TV <3 y u get paired wit dat curry muncher?
Maggie Gyllenhaal’s face looks like a monkey’s :/
There was some TV show that I’ll never remember the name of that was on when I was like ten on Fox or something, and I clearly remember a plot that involved a hot/smart cliche girl going out with this totally interesting, really smooth, rich, charity-organizer dude that was pretty much the perfect guy except he was disgustingly ugly (they never showed his face). They made a great point that personality is definitely more important, but you gotta have some physical attraction.
At the end of the episode the ugly dude banged the really hot girl some other guy was trying to bang in the episode’s other plot.
My dick only works on the 0-1 scale, but girls have given me a 6-7.
I know I’m not hot or great looking, but I can literally make chicks laugh for hours. Am I doing this whole thing right? Should I start “choosing”? Pls respond
With confidence you can do anything.
With confidence you can do anything.
SSS alert!
I was genuinely interested in all of this and then saw that recess video. Wood bro down with tj detweiler/10. What was this post about?
Yeah, the article was solid, but that episode of Recess was excellent.
I honestly thought I was the only person who put girls into those 3 categories. I’ve been explaining to my friends that girls attractiveness comes in those 3 different ways, and now they can believe me haha.
The “attractive dude” trifecta = Mr. Save Parker, Sr. chugging a “Mardi Gras” sized bottle of Homocil.
Good post doe I especially liked the google search for “hot”
You shoulda seen it before I went to safe search.
I know Brah I did the same search.
…….tits!
Gosling is more handsome than Gyllenhaal.
Actually the trifecta for dudes should just be Gosling x3.
Obsessed Gosling dick-rider alert
i woulda actually put 90s val kilmer in there doe for handsome n cliche antonio banderas from desperado for smooth hehe butt gosling wood be there for hott….
don’t worry guise I’M the one who gives the stinky left pinky in my relaysh w/ my novia brahs ;-D
I think you’re just mad you overlooked The Gos.
Strong Username!
I’ve always liked this guide
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJRzG0ehg6Y
ya…i would put “cute” on the guy one instead of “smooth”….handsome can be for older George Clooney look for girls with daddy issues and there has to be a spot for girls who like the JT/Ryan Phillipe/Beiber type (gross they look like 6 year old girls). Otherwise, solid.
older George Clooney look for girls with daddy issues
boom
the whole thing about suroundings is so true,the high school i went to had like…no hot chicks,but the few pretty/cute girls just became increasingly hotter.Now that i’m not there and they just seem kinda average.Also the whole rating system is just bs,that or i have really insonsistent standards.
and bad grammar lol
where do water balloons come into this?
Low pretty rating leads to low self-esteem, low to mid hot rating lead to easiness and showing off what they got, medium to high cute ratings leads to high doability in certain individuals.
Another level 10 attractive people: Megan Fox. :)
-3 for toe thumbs
Not sheriff the 2/10 at the beginning is sarcastic but she’s fucking gorgeous and all the rest a putrid dogs
While all of your posts are excellent, this may be your best post yet.
Would read again/10
<3 <3 <3
8/10 compliment
you’re so wrong about sophie howard. i would spend DAYS eating miles of shit for a chance with her!
http://www.nudecelebrityz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/full-nude-eva-wyrwal-leah-francis-emma-frain-lindsey-strutt-and-sophie-howard-at-naughty-nudes-nuts-magazine-x11-hq2.jpg
My friend has a great rating system for the ladies.
1 = would bang
0 = would not bang
When it comes down to it, either you would bang the chick or you wouldn’t.
Yo Parker, I think this is my favorite article by you so far.
Bustin’ out the homocil for a moment:
It’s clear that in the center of the dude diagram is a big chair with Don Draper written on it, just saiyan.
Also, Melanie Iglesias’ face looks like a canoe.
I had Jon Hamm on the handsome side, but then I thought he was too smooth as well, so I swapped him out for whoever is in there now. Jon Hamm is at a ridiculous level of attractiveness, I really can’t begin to understand it with science by myself.
And I fucking love canoes.
I guess i fall in the handsome category via having good facial features and dressing well. Also I lack aesthetics so i guess im not too hot, and im as subtle as a brick to the face so im def. not smooth. And my girlfriend srsly thinks that Zyzz is gross too.
Your girl is either a. lying and wants that body, b. not into ‘hot’ dudes, which would explain while she’s with a handsome bro like yourself, or c. and this is only another theory I’m working on, Zyzz is so hot that he has a reached a level that her (and many other’s) brain understands as unobtainable, and instinctively react to in a strong dislike.
Probably B since she has discouraged me from lifting too much and mirin zyzz
B makes the most sense, also think A and C play a factor. Complex answers always make more sense.
Cmon sarge, its basic statistics. Between 4 and 6 is 68% of people and between 2 and 8 is 99.7% of people. But you were close
Nah, there are more 1′s and 9′s than .03%, you should check your standard deviations and who wrote the thing.
I’m a Psych Major, with a career in Psychometry in mind, so I designed a system that may be of use. My scale includes a touch on personality, so a boring/stupid chick can’t be a 10, but whatevs. There are 3 scales I use: Hotness, Craziness, and BAC to want to hook up.
Hotness
Weight
0 – Too Skinny / Too Fat
1 – Skinny / Fat, but doable
2 – Perfect
Height
0 – Too Short / Too Tall
1 – Short / Tall, but doable
2 – Perfect
Face
0 – Bag-worthy/Eyes closed
1 – Lights off or dimmed
2 – Perfect
Intelligence / Personality
0 – Too Stupid / Too Boring
1 – Dumb and Fun / Smart and Boring
2 – Perfect
Tits/Ass
0 – Both Too Big / Too Small
1 – One Perfect, Other Too Big / Too Small
2 – Both Perfect
Craziness
Fetishes
0 – Perfect
1 – Exploratory / Vanilla, but doable
2 – Too Kinky / Too Vanilla
Status
0 – Single / Open-relationship / Divorced
1 – Leaving Relationship / Widowed
2 – Married / Cheating
Body Mods
0 – Perfect
1 – Too many, few or extreme mods, but doable
2 – Too many, few or extreme mods
Promiscuity
0 – Perfect
1 – Prudent / Slutty, but doable
2 – Too Prudent / Too Slutty
Clinginess/Distance
0 – Perfect
1 – Calls too often / Never calls
2 – Calls every day / Never returns calls
BAC to want to hook-up
Sober, 0.00 to 0.04% = No Drinks needed
0.05 to 0.15% = Need to be drunk
0.16 to 0.25% = Need to be hammered
0.26 to 0.30% = Not going to happen
Age is not a factor in the Hotness/Craziness Scales, but is a factor in my greater scheme
I use the following Age Equations
Her Age, Minimum = Your Age / 2 + 7
Her Age, Maximum, Non-Cougar = Your Age – 7 x 2
Her Age, Maximum, Cougar = Your Mom’s Age + Your Dad’s Age / 2 (use the Age of known parent if only one is known)
These equations are for male usage, but I might work on a version for the ladies to use as well.
For a simple test, if her Hotness > Craziness, go for it, dude. If her Hotness = Craziness, go for it, but be careful. This is the Mendoza Diagonal, a touchy area. If her Hotness < Craziness, RUN MAN! The basis of the Hot/Crazy Scale is pulled from "How I Met Your Mother", but the actual criteria are my own. The Mendoza Diagonal is also from HIMYM.
^ This is some srs brociology, very impressed, however its way too complicated to use on the fly, esp. if drunk. If you’re with bros having some drinks and rating bishes, then yes, but would melt your brain in an actual situation
A+ science though
This is some serious detailed shit bro, I acknowledge your effort and applaud your accuracy. Only complications would be given from sheer complexities involved int eh calculations, but if you had enough time this would def be a good system.