Discussion The new "perspective of attractiveness" (11 Viewers)

[Synapzyzz]

As my guide about the PSL scale, sparked a lot of mixed opinions about ratings systems and the flaws and inconsistencies that each one have, i wanted to ask the general opinion of the forum of what the new consensus about "ratings" and "attractiveness" be, or if there should even be such a things as "ratings" to begin with, as a 2022cel i know there are probably several more experienced and well versed users here about this topic so i would like to ask for their opinion on the subject as I'm trying to improve my guide and actually provide valuable content for this forum and a new perspective into attractiveness that isn't the same bs that we all have heard from years on and on of "he is htn shes is stacy she is this and bla bla " .

 

[FoidSlayer]

Mirin dedication

 

[TrenaboloneCel]

As a person that are blackpilled and a normie
They rate someone differently

 

[Synapzyzz]

tmpll
VelocityAnt¹
nineteen
XvideosDemon
FoidSlayer
hoodsickle
Jeffrey Epstein
Cheat
Amygdala
Ascension
holy_aesthetics
sneakyalex7
RafaelfromtheO
@NoBONESNoBONES
LifeEnjoyer
GatorBait
@6zrir6

 

[stress_]

As a person that are blackpilled and a normie
They rate someone differently

obviously

 

[XvideosDemon]

As my guide about the PSL scale, sparked a lot of mixed opinions about ratings systems and the flaws and inconsistencies that each one have, i wanted to ask the general opinion of the forum of what the new consensus about "ratings" and "attractiveness" be, or if there should even be such a things as "ratings" to begin with, as a 2022cel i know there are probably several more experienced and well versed users here about this topic so i would like to ask for their opinion on the subject as I'm trying to improve my guide and actually provide valuable content for this forum and a new perspective into attractiveness that isn't the same bs that we all have heard from years on and on of "he is htn shes is stacy she is this and bla bla " .

mirin ts bbg

 

[Cheat]

I believe we know all the mathematical calculation behind looks in general, normies don't but their minds analyse it automatically when looking at someone, beauty is subjective to a certain extent, yes you do get some weirdos who like big noses, big ears etc. and its not something which can just be ignored. But a sub5 is a sub5 for EVERYBODY, once you reach a certain level of attractiveness however, it begins to become a subjective game rather than mathematical calculations.

 

[Synapzyzz]

I believe we know all the mathematical calculation behind looks in general, normies don't but their minds analyse it automatically when looking at someone, beauty is subjective to a certain extent, yes you do get some weirdos who like big noses, big ears etc. and its not something which can just be ignored. But a sub5 is a sub5 for EVERYBODY, once you reach a certain level of attractiveness however, it begins to become a subjective game rather than mathematical calculations.

my idea and i think a lot of people would agree is that attractiveness should be seen as a spectrum, not a linear scale

 

[dior]

As my guide about the PSL scale, sparked a lot of mixed opinions about ratings systems and the flaws and inconsistencies that each one have, i wanted to ask the general opinion of the forum of what the new consensus about "ratings" and "attractiveness" be, or if there should even be such a things as "ratings" to begin with, as a 2022cel i know there are probably several more experienced and well versed users here about this topic so i would like to ask for their opinion on the subject as I'm trying to improve my guide and actually provide valuable content for this forum and a new perspective into attractiveness that isn't the same bs that we all have heard from years on and on of "he is htn shes is stacy she is this and bla bla " .

There is no new consensus, but as far as I can tell ive spent the past 6 years on forum's & communities involving myself within aesthetics oriented spaces, Ive found it to be that almost every rater had one small difference in formula from another rater b/c of said raters specific bias's, there is no full proof accurate method of quantifying beauty on a numerical scale because of how little our dataset of averageness is. There is 2 much information to compile to gather a unanimous answer, however this does not refute the simple yet brutal fact that their is an objective when it comes to attractiveness and we can use this orthadontic pseudoscience to establish a general outline of what beauty is. In the modern context most raters use an out of 10 scale with the formula being;

A(P)=(0.45xH)+(0.2xD)+(0.2xBF)+(0.15xM)

 

[sensitive sapphire]

u forgot to tag me agiangn bhais❤

 

[dior]

u forgot to tag me agiangn bhais❤

they didnt tag me either were in the same boat

 

[Synapzyzz]

u forgot to tag me agiangn bhais❤

dumbass me sorry bhai

 

[Synapzyzz]

There is no new consensus, but as ive spent the past 6 years on forum's & communities involving myself within measuring facial features Ive found it to be that almost every rater had one small difference in formula from another rater b/c of their specific bias's, ive found it to be that there is no full proof accurate method of quantifying beauty on a numerical scale because of how little our dataset of averageness is. There is 2 much information to compile to gather a consensus, however this does not refute the simple yet brutal fact that their is an objective when it comes to attractiveness and we can use this orthadontic pseudoscience to establish a general outline of what beauty is. In the modern context most raters use an out of 10 scale with the formula being;

A(P)=(0.45xH)+(0.2xD)+(0.2xBF)+(0.15xM)

would u think it would make more sense for attractiveness to be seen as an spectrum rather than just categorizing and ranking?; as it would theoretically fix incosistencies? dior

 

[dior]

would u think it would make more sense for attractiveness to be seen as an spectrum rather than just categorizing and ranking?; as it would theoretically fix incosistencias?

What do you mean spectrum, I view the most rational way of quantifying beauty is through pure numerical calculation with the measurers own personal bias sprinkled in, i personally just take everything with a grain of salt. There are foundations of beauty which are universal across peoples but its impossible to accurately define each feature other than the core ones, I believe arguing over the little things that make someone ADAM is extremely idiotic

 

[Circadex]

"Yeah i like medium ugly guys lol"

 

[Circadex]

There is no new consensus, but as ive spent the past 6 years on forum's & communities involving myself within measuring facial features Ive found it to be that almost every rater had one small difference in formula from another rater b/c of their specific bias's, ive found it to be that there is no full proof accurate method of quantifying beauty on a numerical scale because of how little our dataset of averageness is. There is 2 much information to compile to gather a consensus, however this does not refute the simple yet brutal fact that their is an objective when it comes to attractiveness and we can use this orthadontic pseudoscience to establish a general outline of what beauty is. In the modern context most raters use an out of 10 scale with the formula being;

A(P)=(0.45xH)+(0.2xD)+(0.2xBF)+(0.15xM)

Admin of .gg helping out with the communitys questions. What a great example

 

[Cheat]

"Yeah i like medium ugly guys lol"

such cope loool idk why they say that

 

[Circadex]

We all saw that

 

[Circadex]

such cope loool idk why they say that

Just normie

 

[Razi]

Mirin the need of improvement but dnr ts

 

[Synapzyzz]

s

What do you mean spectrum, I view the most rational way of quantifying beauty is through pure numerical calculation with the measurers own personal bias sprinkled in, i personally just take everything with a grain of salt. There are foundations of beauty which are universal across peoples but its impossible to accurately define each feature other than the core ones, I believe arguing over the little things that make someone ADAM is extremely idiotic

i was thinking of seeing attractiveness differently from the linear scale which goes from 1-10 or any other scale to view it more as multi dimensional space, Instead of ranking and categorizing by one universal ranking axis like a linear scale or any scale used by well-known "raters" ("hotter ------> less hot"), to think of it as positions in a multi-axis "face space", ik it is kinda stupid, but i thought it could work or provide a different perspective/approach dior

 

[dior]

We all saw that

 

[Razi]

Also fuck you for not tagging me

 

[Synapzyzz]

Also fuck you for not tagging me

my bad bhai i completely forgot, u will be tagged next time i swear

 

[Razi]

my bad bhai i completely forgot, u will be tagged nex time i swear

I better be boy or the consequences will be bad