- Reaction score
- 3,149
Track him down. Reverse image search his pictures and find him on Facebook. Ask him yourself. £100 says he's incel. Archetype beta orbiter.
Haha I tried already, can't find sh*t.
Track him down. Reverse image search his pictures and find him on Facebook. Ask him yourself. £100 says he's incel. Archetype beta orbiter.
The main point was that average is something that changes from time to time.
With males being born with constant looks distribution they will have same median.
But "average looks" is something that depends not only how males look but it is almost detached from actual male looks distribution.
"Average looks" is a function from:
– females desires
– social media looks obsession
– accessibility of sex for females as main "consumer" of males look
– etc.
The most coefficient has 3-rd variable.
The less effort women put into getting sex with hot guy the more "average" cut off will be. They do not calculate Gauss distribution as incels do. They are primal creatures. They see a clique of hot guys from 7/10 to 9/10 (usually GL guys flocks together) and their "average" will be the average from this clique.
No Big Data computing skill required here.
You don't understand what 'average' means.
to me 'average' look just means plain not ugly
I'm not averaging the number of people to get an 'average' like a census.
average just means ordinary boring.
not ugly but not hot.
unnoticeable, unremarkable.
if you guys are using it as a math equation of some kind i am NOT doing that when i use the word.
But David is sure that above average means 5.5/10.
5.5/10 is NOTHING. Literally nothing. Empty space.
these scales are boring
its should be fuckabe, unfuckable and possibly fuckable.
The 7 and belows on this chart are all disfigured. Seriously. Some of those so called '5s' are literally the stuff of nightmares.
Interestingly, I would say that this guy is above average looking (barring the hair). With a sharply shorn fullhead he'd be a 6.2 easy.
what is this absolute creature doing in with the 9s?
these scales are boring
its should be fuckabe, unfuckable and possibly fuckable.
That's why I invented that two-point-scale
0/2
1/2
2/2
Fair enough. Like I've said, attractiveness quite honesty tends to be binary. You're either 6+ or 4 and below. The 'average', plain 5 doesn't really exist. Like yourself, when many people (esp women ) say 'average', they actually mean RELATIVELY good looking. Like I've said time and time, the scale is skewed. What women (esp) think of as 'average' is actually, numerically speaking, above average. This has been shown time and time again. Men tend to be more lenient judging women. I rate like a female though, hence my (what appear to the Ahabian harpooners like David and others) 'unrealistic' standards.