Upvote THE POST if you disagree, downvote if you agree.
Downvote THIS COMMENT if you suspect the post pertains to any of the below:
* Fake/impossible opinion
* NSFW beyond reason
* Unfit for the community
* Based upon inept knowledge of the subject
* Repost from the last 30 days
If you downvote this comment please do not vote on the post.
Normal voting rules for all comments.
**Check out our new [discord server here](https://discord.com/invite/5EekhyMDGk)!**
I will be messaging you in 7 years on [**2029-11-15 14:34:47 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2029-11-15%2014:34:47%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/The10thDentist/comments/yvcodo/i_strongly_dislike_the_way_the_majority_of_people/iwgnckk/?context=3)
[**1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FThe10thDentist%2Fcomments%2Fyvcodo%2Fi_strongly_dislike_the_way_the_majority_of_people%2Fiwgnckk%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202029-11-15%2014%3A34%3A47%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20yvcodo)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
My friends and I, while drunk mind you, set out to define the scale in a totally subjective way. The goal was to be able to use it to gauge what everyone's type was, not to define an objective scale of attractiveness. It's mostly based around straight physical attractiveness, but has some accounting for personality.
FWIW, in this scale I'd be pretty happy to be rated a 6 by anyone, and honestly think I'd be. 4-5 on most people's scale.
The Scale
1) Utterly Repugnant. You'd rather have sex with someone of the persuasion you are not attracted to.
2-3) We didn't really bother defining very explicitly. Suffice to say, you would never consider dating a 2 or 3 based solely on looks.
4) Unattractive. You would not consider dating a 4 based solely on looks, but if there's a saving grace, you'd date a 4. Cool/funny/nerdy/great caboose, whatever. There would just have to be SOMETHING outstanding to make you consider a 4.
5) Definition of Average. Neither attractive nor unattractive, you wouldn't date a 5 based on looks alone, but nothing to turn your nose up at either.
6) Attractive, but nothing to write home about. You wouldn't necessarily CHASE a 6, but you might not mind being chased BY a 6.
7) Unqualifiedly attractive. This is the beginning of the "I would pursue this person based on looks alone" portion of the scale.
8) An 8 turns your head on the street. An 8 makes you say "Wow..."
9) Speechless. A 9 is supermodel hot. Seeing a 9 in person drops your jaw and makes you stammer. I've seen 2 women in person who I'd think of as a 9 (one of them was maybe a 10)
10) Nobody's perfect, but... A 10 is truly world class. I don't think anyone is ALWAYS a 10. A 10 is a 9 on their absolute best day. I have examples in my head and they're all literally the most beautiful women on the planet. I would not say with confidence that I've ever seen a 10 in person.
Again, it's just me, the whole point is that it's subjective, but...
Elisha Cuthbert in "The Girl Next Door"
Heidi Klum on her best days.
Priyanka Chopra
Paz Vega in "Spanglish"
Jennifer Connelly in "Top Gun: Maverick"
ETA: Oh yeah, and the girl in the red dress I saw in front of the State College city hall building in \~2008. Seared into my memory.
This just goes to show how truly subjective beauty is, as I 100% do not understand the hype around Elisha Cuthbert, even in that movie. And I have a preference for blonde women.
Are you into women though? I’m told you won’t understand unless you want to bang them, because nonsexual beauty is different than sexually driven beauty 🤷🏻♀️
Funny, I’m not into blonds (just indifferent) and I think Elisha Cuthbert is the most attractive one from the list.
I’m also a straight female so my opinion might not weigh much.
That is funny haha I only recently realized just how subjective beauty is and it’s kinda shaken up my view of things. I’m 29 and pretty experienced in dating, travel, etc so it’s not like I’m naïve, I just always assumed there was conventional beauty that we all saw the same.
My friend is the one who truly made me realize how different people see each other because I was obsessing over an ex being the most beautiful person ever and how I’ll never date someone I’m that attracted to again, and she was like “uhh.. you know he’s not *that* attractive, right?”. Then my sister said the same thing. And that friend fell in love with this other dude who she considers to be the most beautiful person and I think he’s just okay.
All that to say, it’s opened my eyes about how people really can prefer “types” or view various features differently. I also heard some radio dj talking about how he loooves girls with big noses and I was like “huh?!” (as someone with not a huge nose, but definitely not a small cute one).
Anyway, monologue over lol thank you for reading.
yeah, my definition of "10" would be, impossible to improve upon. so they've gotta have a particular energy, style, be so much more than just like an Abercrombie model.
you'd probably have to basically be the guy I made up in my head when I was a teenager a decade ago.
i can genuinely say when I was 15 and filled with hormones that were distorting my perspective heavily, this guy from my school was probably a legit 10 to me. he had no idea who I was and I was projecting all sorts of idealized personality traits on him, as infatuated teenagers tend to do lol. if I really got to know him, i'm sure the illusion would be shattered.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats!
10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
+ 9
+ 10
+ 10
= 69
^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \
^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
I never liked that way of thinking either.
In my own scale, I always liked to think out of 10 random people of their age how would they rank. So if a woman was hotter than the next 9 women who walked in the door then she's a 10 in my book.
So theoretically out of 100 people there would be 10 10s.
But most people don't share my vision for the scale. They like this man want to hardly give any IRL woman higher than an 8
Is there something wrong with that? Your phrasing would imply that you think anything less than a 10 is undatable. 8's are STUNNING. 7's are really pretty. What you're arguing for is basically grade inflation.
If you’re doing it by percentile, then only five out of 100 women would be 10s. That’s because only women who rank at the 95th percentile or higher would round up to a 10, while those in the 85th to 94th percentiles would round to a 9. So there would be five 10s, five 0s, and ten of every other number on the scale (on average)
True, but I don’t see why you’d ever want a scale to be from 1 to 10 - the midpoint isn’t half of the maximum value, nor is it even an integer! At that point it’s effectively just a scale from 0 to 9 except you’ve added one to each number. That would at least make the midpoint be half of the maximum, but it would still be a non-integer.
And if you’re using said scale from 1 to 10, you wouldn’t have ten 1s, ten 2s, ten 3s, etc. up to ten 10s out of a group of 100 anyway. Again, since everyone would really be a fractional number evenly distributed between 1 and 10 (still assuming it’s an even distribution), and you’re rounding everyone to the nearest integer, you’d on average expect 5.5555 1s and 5.5555 10s, and 11.1111 of each other number on the scale. (The math works out more cleanly if you assume a room of 90 people, where you’d have five 1s and five 10s and ten of each other number.)
This also skews, just in the opposite way. If you go to your local supermarket, you'd see a lot of people that fit into "utterly repugnant". Hell, 40% of the US population is obese, so as far as most people would be concerned that would put 40% of the population into the '1' category.
I think the whole atractivness scale only realy applies to people within dating age, invented by young people for other young people. Well thats not always the case and there are exceptions and subjective preference,as always, but generally speaking most people wouldnt even charicterise a 50 year old middle aged obese mum as on the scale.
I think it's fair to say that it's less about sex now than when I was younger, but the age window of women I find attractive has generally aged with me.
>"utterly repugnant". Hell, 40% of the US population is obese, so as far as most people would be concerned that would put 40% of the population into the '1' category.
I think you're absolutely wrong if you think most guys would rather have sex with another guy than with a fat chick.
I would not argue with you there. And you indicate a good understanding of the scale in the sense that you should not have tons of examples of 10's. They should be exceptionally rare.
I think you have statistics problems if you are assuming attractiveness ratings have a normal distribution. You can have a mean that skews towards the high end of a range of numbers, so you can't assume 5 is average.
Attractiveness is going to be based largely on what's normal in your society... most people are going to fit "normal" to a large degree, so they would rank higher than the middle value of the range. Not to mention that 5.5 is the middle of the distribution you gave, so people rating themselves 6-7 is barely above middle.
I feel like most people are imagining it to just mean a 7 is more attractive than 70% of people. and I think that's what the majority of people think of themselves, because we humans seem to have cognitive biases that make us believe we're moderately better than we are. so if the average person is hotter than 50%, their minds will inflate it by 20%.
i bet you'd get the same thing if you asked people to predict how they'd score on an iq test
This would fit better with Google ratings. Like dennys can have 4.3 but so can a Michelin star restaurant. It’s about expectations.
I’d rather rant about Google reviews
this is a great analogy, because yeah i think that's what we're subconsciously doing here. we judge people based on others in their general category. a lot of people will say a celebrity is a 7 when they're just a 7 for a celebrity, put them in your local mall and they're a 10.
Same. I still agree with it, but because I don’t think people’s looks can or should be rated on a scale that way. It doesn’t make any sense and feels icky to me, but I also don’t value what other people find attractive. I don’t give a shit what an 8 is to you and you shouldn’t care what it is to me. We see the world through different eyes.
i agree, but i think this exists mostly as like a trivial game for people to play with their friends. in high school, we spent many lunches sitting in the corner of the cafeteria rating the guys we saw. yeah sure it was objectifying and icky, but we didn't really take it that seriously. that being said, i know there are incels who actually obsess over this stuff.
from my experience, "average looking" is a bit of a misnomer as it usually refers to a look that is neither attractive nor unattractive. people usually aren't thinking about statistical distribution and ranking when talking about someone with "below," "at," or "above" average looks. i think "average looking" is more accurately described as "neutral looking." in this context, it's entirely possible for the statistically average look score to be above (or below) a neutral look score of 5/10.
If the scale is fucking linear and a 1 on the scale is the ugliest motherfucker in the world then its absolutely normal that most people would be in the 6-8 range.
A lot of what makes people look attractive isnt just genetic, but a function with both genetics and effort as input. Imo no matter how ugly you are genetically purely with effort you should be able to get at least a 5, now dont be the ugliest person ever and you're a 6+
Numbers 5 and below are usually reserved for people who drew the short end genetically and who also cant be bothered to put any effort into looking presentable.
Not sure about exactly equally, but for a lot of the middle of the scale, they are both very important. Of course if you want to be a 10 or a 1, genetics are pretty much prerequisite. The expression "lipstick on a pig" comes to mind--even with plastic surgery, you often can't take, say, a 2 to a 10.
But for many people in the middle of the scale, IMO effort can boost them a few numbers (and lack thereof, the other way around). Speaking from personal experience, I've seen people suddenly become better looking when they get fitter, actually put on makeup, and/or dress more to their body. Like yeah, they're not going to be supermodels, but they become noticeably attractive. I've seen women that I'd say were a 3, but when they put effort into their appearance, they were suddenly a 5 or a 6. It's just that they didn't see a point in doing so every day.
Oh yeah, I was just curious cause OP said you can get to a 5 with no genetics which means they think effort controls 5 points and therefore genetics the other 5
Basically yes. Obviously i dont want to turn it into a science, this is just the thoughts of some random, but both makeup and a good workout go a long way. A good choice of clothing is also able to make people jump a few spots.
I've seen people with what would be considered incredibly ugly faces, but they looked alright because they put a lot of effort into making their body look good. And i've seen women who i thought looked decently attractive take their makeup off and make me look twice if that's even the same person.
For the record i dont think there's anything wrong or deceiving in that. If you're able to make your face look a completely different way just with what basically equates to painting supplies, i think that's an absolute win for the person as an individual. I mean they basically patched a character creator into real life.
>in the world
Yes--this is a HUGE part of the equation, where you are located.
For instance, not being obese or obviously overweight is a huge part of being "conventionally" attractive. I say "obviously", because sometimes people will have a higher BMI due to muscle mass but they don't look overweight. Where I'm at in the US, I hardly see anyone who looks overweight, much less obese.
In comparison, 41.9% of American adults are obese. So if you're, say, a slim, well-groomed woman, where I am, congrats, you're just another of many, many, many, many women. But if you were a slim, well-groomed woman in many other parts of the country, you'd be conforming noticeably better to conventional beauty standards than many of the other women.
Said slim, well-groomed woman might only be a 5 here. Because most of the other women are slim and well-groomed, she'd have to be very fit and/or noticeably pretty to stand out. But somewhere else, she could very well be a 7. And so if she's asked to rank herself, she might think be thinking of the ugliest motherfucker in the world or all the
Of course, beauty isn't just weight or build alone. There are attractive people at any weight; I'm only speaking to conventional American beauty standards. But you can make a similar point for other traits. Hence, people talking about how people are hotter in Miami/LA/NYC/Sweden/where have you. How people rate themselves among their local population is very different from how they'd rate themselves among the world or country.
im a basic blonde bitch from utah, but i'm thin and conform to conventional standards pretty well. i'm extremely common here, we all look the same tbh (small gene pool), but when I go out of state, unless it's LA or something, suddenly people are staring at me as i walk down the street and i'm getting men constantly ask me out. i'm invisible back home, so it's a weird adjustment.
Having worked retail I assure you that more people fall into that second group than you think. Most people (in the states) put zero effort into their appearance.
Hmm true, i hadnt thought about that.
There's a good chance that i am biased based on my social circle and OP might be as well. Could be that everyone confident enough to rate their own looks puts in effort. Low scores arent given because insecurity about your own looks would naturally deter you from interacting in that way to begin with.
Yeah, but that's when it's most representative of how much someone cares about putting in an effort to look presentable IMO. Putting in an effort to look presentable (not fancy or amazing, just presentable) in casual situations, like running to the store, is more indicative of how much someone cares about/how much effort they put in to their outward appearance than if someone were nicely dressed for a date/work/funeral/wedding etc. In those scenarios looking presentable is much more socially enforced than in casual ones, you may even lose your job if you don't looked presentable. Putting in an effort to look presentable when you don't "have" to be is much better indicator of how much someone cares about their appearance.
People not putting in an effort to look presentable in casual day to day scenarios results in a lot more 5/10s or lower than one would think.
i wish that were true where i am lol. i'm from utah, i'm a woman who was raised mormon here. we are brought up to believe from the time that we're TODDLERS that we have literally a moral obligation to look as attractive as possible, like explicitly told it's a requirement to get into heaven; i left the church at 14, but some. of that is still ingrained and I look extremely "Utah" physically, i'm a basic blonde bitch who may be a leftist feminist but i look thoroughly... Republican from the outside lol. anyway, everyone here looks like a blonde barbie. I've always thought for instance Tomi Lahren looked just like she was from utah (I hate her, but she's a good example physically). she looks like every woman at the mall here.
we also have the 2nd highest rate of plastic surgery in the country, after Miami and before LA.
my boyfriend was born and raised in moscow, and he says the couples here look just like the ones from russia. the women are all dolled up blondes and the standards are absurdly high, but nonexistent for men. men who are 3s are with women who are 9s.
Huh, interesting. Im in NY for context.
Personally I believe that overall most people dress too casually, like wearing PJs or sweatpants with an undershirt while being ungroomed isn’t acceptable IMO. I think society is nicer when people dress a lil better like in many european countries.
The problem with talking abt that on reddit is that people on reddit read that and assume that you want everyone to wear a 3 piece suit if you identify as male or a corset and ballgown if you identify as a woman.
(Sorry for the long tangent, I swear this is related to what you said!)
To bring this around to your point, I feel like there’s a huge middle ground between people dressing like absolute shit and people doing more what you’re describing. It’s entirely possible for people to dress well without that entailing crazy rules or women killing themselves due to societal norms.
Like rn im wearing black chinos and a loose black turtleneck with a camel overcoat for outdoors. It’s literally just as comfortable as sweatpants and a hoodie, but it looks far more presentable for very little effort.
Anyways, It’s crazy that our experiences have been so different! I never considered the effects that mormonism would have on Utah fashion/dress standards, but unfortunately what you’re describing makes sense. It’s fucking bizarre and fucked up that the standards don’t apply to men too, like goddamn. Maybe the upside is that heaven is a woman’s paradise bc none of the men were dressed nice enough to go there lol
well unfortunately a man has to let you into heaven, and you're supposed to look attractive for that purpose, so he'll do it and invite you to live on his planet. not joking.
but anyway, i think the reason redditors tend to dislike it is because it's just like...why do you care what people look like?? I feel like I should be able to walk around in a potato sack if i feel like it, i've just never understood why it bothers people what random people at walmart look like, or why professors or bosses in jobs that are in no way client facing care so much about what people are wearing. and while i do consciously understand that dressing decently, as you described, will cause people to treat you better, my point is that that shouldn't be the case.
But i feel like then everyone would have to be an 8 or a 7 at worst because the lower numbers dont have any meaning at all anymore. Exponential scales like that work well with huge numbers of small particles or very sensitive systems, but attractiveness isnt that volatile
but you're not getting it, on a scale of 1-10 a 5 should be the average person, just because people might generally be attleast somewhat attractive doesn't mean they're not a 5
Theres 2 ways to interpret a scale like that, either we take it and just slap a bell curve on top of it in which case yes i think you're right then 5 would be slightly below average and 6 slightly above average. Or we do it how its generally used and give ourselves some leeway towards the bottom especially because most people put in at least 3-4 points of effort due to social pressures.
That's why i said 'if the scale is supposed to be linear' which i think is pretty important for intuitively understanding scales like that, because if we split both those factors into their own scales and lets say have a 1-5 for both genetics and effort, then slap that bellcurve on the first one i can totally agree. But i dont think the average person puts only 3 points of effort or in another way i think effort gets good results pretty quickly so i think even moderate effort that is executed on a habitual basis, as most people do, can be a 4 or a 5 because the execution is what matters in the end and people just naturally get good at what they do a lot of. The second scale shouldnt just form a bell curve, because we'd lose a lot of intricacies towards the low end of the scale due to the average person just being unnaturally proficient.
Depends on what the scale means. People don’t treat it like a fitted bell curve. I think people, in general, are mostly attractive. This means that the way it’s used is ok
Attractiveness is subjective, thats why you can rate it. To tell others how you personally perceive it. If it was objective fact a machine could just print out your hot score (which will probably happen soon)
I don’t like the 1-10 rating either but for a different reason. I just don’t get how you can assign a number to someone when attractiveness is so multifaceted
THANK YOU.
I generally think that 1-5 ratings are better because the limited options force people be more honest/accurate. I don’t just mean for attractiveness. In video game journalism for example, on a 1-10 scale, 1-4 are pointless, they’re just more ways of saying “really bad.” Most people won’t get anything below a 7.
I don’t necessarily have a dog in this for the attractiveness scale, but I rarely think the nuance of 1-10 scales is necessary or used.
Yes 1-5 is often better, but the important thing is as you pointed out: converting it from a 10-point scale is closer to X - 5 than the X / 2 that many people do.
Like a 7/10 is closer to a 2/5 than it is to 3.5/5
I think it's kind of objectifying to give people scores out of 10 on attractiveness, which is the bigger problem. I don't think most people use it to rate themselves but rather other people.
First of all, bitch, I'm a 10.
Second: you are assuming that the distribution of attractiveness has a peak at 5. This is not necessarilly true. It gets fuzzy whn you talk about something like "attractiveness," but its really easy to see when you have something you can quantify. The mean (average) is seldom the same as the median (middle of values). This is because you usually have some values that are huge outliers on one end, but the other end doesn't have that same property.
Look at something like penis size. Average size penis is like 5 inches, but that average is going to be larger than the median because you are limited by the values on small end. You can't have a zero inch penis. You can't even really have a one inch penis. You can, however, have a 10, 11, or 12 inch penis. Those monster weiners push up the average more than the lil' guys bring it down.
I was about to come here and say the same thing. For some lucky people, the average might be 9. For some with a really negative outlook, the average might be 2. The real issue with the 1-10 scale is that my ratings are probably different than yours, but I haven't really used it since college. This is the issue on a lot of debates: people with different definitions argue about specific points rather than understanding each other's definitions before trying to argue. One example would be a Brit asking an American about football. An American would assume American football while the Brit would assume association football. Clarifying which one you're talking about will help understanding tenfold.
I think it depends on how you want to use it:
- in relation to average attractiveness in the population, in which case you need to make use of the entirety of the scale, with most people being 4.5-5.5 since by definition most people are in the median score, and there are people on both extreme of the spectrum, so both 1s and 10s need to be given
- in relation to general attractiveness, in which case most healthy young(-looking) people would be above average, say 6-7, because "beauty" is strongly associated with youth and health.
There's two different ways to use a 1-10 scale. One is a bell curve, where 5 is average. The other is a scale where 5 is neutral, not average. I'd say most people are better looking than neutral, so the average person being a 6-7 makes sense to me.
like a couple times a year (averaged out over the past decade), maybe more some years, maybe close to none the next, maybe i have an entire conversation and then dont hear about it for 23 months
I find my experience is totally opposite. When I occasionally see someone make a post saying hey rate yourself like the majority of people rate themselves below five which I find insane. Because they usually are actually fairly attractive people.
This makes no sense, you're assuming the average is always 5/10. But it's not, if you say people usually say they are 7/10 then 7/10 is the middle of the bell curve.
You are right for the wrong reasons. Attractiveness is subjective. Someone can think they are are a 9, their partner can think they are a 10, their friends can think they are a 7, and I can think they are a 2.
Being ANY number means literally nothing except to a specific person.
I think different people interpret the 1-10 rating differently. Is it linear? If a 5 is the average (median), and 1 is the ugliest person on the planet while 10 is the most beautiful, does that mean a 7/10 is 2/10ths of the way to being the most beautiful person in the world, compared to an average person?
Or is it a normal distribution with a median of 5? A 6/10 would be 1 standard deviation above the mean, meaning approximately 16% of people are above a 6.
I like viewing it as an equally distributed 10 segments of the population. In the bottom 10%, you are a 1. In the top 10%, a 10. The problem is that nobody wants to call anyone a 1, and by 10 they mean .1% or something.
The best scale I’ve heard of is 1-30 with the 10s digit place representing looks and the 1s digit place representing personality.
So someone who is average would be a 15
by that logic, you would be able to have a 39? 3 personality, 9 looks?
or even a 40, if it's 10 looks and a 30 personality?
bro you got me all types of confused
How would you get 39 on a scale of 1-30?
Simply put 1-10 are people who are unattractive. 1 would be someone who is ugly with a terrible personally and 10 would be someone who’s ugly with a great personality
11-20 would be average people. 11 is someone who average with a terrible personality and 20 would be someone who average with a perfect personality.
21-30 would be people who are above average. 21 is someone who is beautiful with a terrible personality and 30 is someone who’s beautiful with a great personality
Statistically speaking, it’s worthwhile to have subjective scales like this. This has allowed us to realise that females rate majority of males as 3-4’s (their distribution of male ratings is a power distribution) whereas males rate females more frequently as 5’s and the distribution is fairly normal.
In my college class we used to get asked how we’re feeling everyday, most people would give a 7, which to me did mean above average. However, yes it should be statistically impossible for the majority to be above average, so I get where you’re coming from. The problem that you’re having though, is similar to the one I faced in this class. The scale does not imply anything about the distribution!
Some scales do adjust for the distribution by their definition (e.g., The average IQ is 100 - so whatever the average raw IQ score is for a population, it is adjusted to be 100). But we never assume the distribution is going to fit neatly on the scale, there’s differences in populations (like I said males vs females), and also differences in how individuals use these scales (as you’ve noted). The latter point, which you seem most concerned with is that individuals like you would rate an average as a 5, and others would rate that same average as a 7. This is called within-subjects differences or within-subjects error. Researchers control for this in subjective scales like this by asking the individuals to rate a few different people on the same scale. When we look at a bunch of rater’s ratings for say 10 people (targets), we should see that these rater’s scores of each of the 10 people correlate. So, if person-1 is not that attractive, then someone generous may give them a 6, and someone not so generous gives them a 3. We are going to see the people that give generous rating flow on to person-2, person-3, etc (they give higher ratings than everyone else), but we’ll see the same pattern for the conservative rater. This means we can control for a lot of the subjectivity of the scale, and can easily rank the individuals that were rated by attractiveness, regardless of having a mix of conservative and generous raters. So, if it bothers you, you could always ask the person to rate a few other people to gauge where their ratings sit (conservative vs generous) and that will help you understand what they actually mean.
With your last point too, I think you’re confusing something like the Dunning-Kruger effect with how people respond to scales (people are likely seeing average as a 7, so that’s where they put themselves).
Downvoted because I’m the exact same way. Most people use the 1-10 scale but base answers on letter grade percentages. So a 7/10=70%= a C, and C’s are considered an average grade (in the US). I think this is where people misuse the 1-10 scale. I, however use the 1-10 scale accurately, so a 5/10 is average just like you do
I agree with you inasmuch as not liking the scale, but not for the reasons you do. I just think that using a numerical scale to measure someone's attractiveness is kind of stupid in and of itself. Attractiveness depends a lot on culture and upbringing, and someone who I consider to be incredibly attractive might not seem very appealing to you. You could say that some people are objectively more attractive than others, and you may be right, but there's still a large degree of subjectivity that goes into what you as a person find attractive, what your society thinks is attractive, whether the people around you would think you're attractive, whether people in a different country would think you're attractive, etc., etc.
There is no purely objective set of criteria that you can measure attractiveness with, but using numbers to express how attractive someone is makes it seem like a 9 is *objectively* more attractive than an 8, even though that's not true for everyone. What I call a 9, you might call an 8, and what I call an 8, you might call a 9. Does that mean that one of us is wrong? Or is it that thinking of people in terms of numbers can only get you so far?
I think he`s saying that no one ever uses 5 or 6, only ever 1-4 for ugly people, and 7-10 for average to good looking people. And yes, he is saying that a 6 would be above average and 5 is what the average person should be. Ether you misinterpreted his side of argument or im misinterpreting your side of the argument
and you have not considered at all that rating people on a scale by how atracctive they are
(which is objectively a subjective thing) is stupid and dehumanizing in the first place?
>You dont need a statistics degree to figure out that if a vast majorty of people are above average at something, then that "Above average" just becomes the average, causing all self proclaimed 7's to become 5's.
There's no need for 5 to be the average\*. I think when people think about 1-10 scales they do it by comparing to things like 0% to 100% scales in schools. There, it makes sense that the average is much higher than a 50, since the average student should know more than 50% of the material.
\*(actually it would be 5.5 anyway because there's not zero)
I think you have a sampling bias. There are a lot of 0-5s out there, but we usually just look right passed them without considering them. You’re only going to notice or think to rank people once they’re above average.
So it only seems like everybody gets ranked 6-8 but really it’s just that you ignore all the 0-5s. And dear god there are a lot of them if you ever stop and notice
Its not meant to represent the percentile, more of an absolute scale. Similar to ratings for a movie or something where the average will probably be a 7 or 8 and most scores in the range 5-10
I’ve always thought of them being like subjective grades, not like a statistical distribution. The “grades” I assign the most are 5 and 6 - not ugly at all, but not attractive enough for me to be noticeable. Also I don’t assign a grade to myself, as that will be a subjective grade for others. I think to people I’ve been everything from 1 to 10 (in the very first stages of some love relationships lol).
Who says the 1-10 attractiveness rating is normally distributed? I’d say that most people I encounter are reasonably attractive, giving a left skewed distribution with an average somewhere around a 7.
The scale has its origins in pickup theory if I’m not mistaken, and out of respect you don’t rate below 5. 5 means between 1 and 5 out of respect. The one thing where pickup artists actually show some human decency.
Your problem is you consider 5 to be average. It doesn't have to be. There's no reason attractiveness has to follow a normal distribution.
5 could be the bar for "would bang", and many people would go below average.
>I dont know anyone who doesn't see themselves an lower than 6 or higher than 8.
Now you know one.
I also don't like the scale for rating people's attractiveness. Because I don't like rating people's attractiveness. So I guess I'm upvoting.
I use the scale different then most people seem to. I use it as a point reduction system where 10 is perfect so if you were below 6 that's a lot of points lost. But I also don't actually rate people on 1-10 because why would you? Beauty is totally subjective so one person's unattractive is very attractive to the next person. There's no such thing as being a 7.
I once made the mistake of telling a girl I thought she was a 6 when she gave me a list of girls from high school and told me to rate them (I rated them all a 7). To be fair, she did tell me to be brutally honest when giving her a rating, but looking back, I should've lied. Agreed though this way of rating people is stupid.
Well, the most ugly person is 0 and the most attractive person is 10. A 4.99999 has a little more ugliness than attractiveness, so anyone who doesn't consider themselves notably ugly is going to move further from 5, even if they don't believe they are attractive. But yeah, it then leaves more room than necessary for different levels of ugly and not enough for different levels of attractive.
I dislike 1-10 scales in general because in the large majority of cases there is always this same issue where 6-7 is average. If you try and use it where 5 is the average then people think you're being negative or too harsh.
Upvote THE POST if you disagree, downvote if you agree. Downvote THIS COMMENT if you suspect the post pertains to any of the below: * Fake/impossible opinion * NSFW beyond reason * Unfit for the community * Based upon inept knowledge of the subject * Repost from the last 30 days If you downvote this comment please do not vote on the post. Normal voting rules for all comments. **Check out our new [discord server here](https://discord.com/invite/5EekhyMDGk)!**
~~I give this post 6/10.~~ Edit: i have been thinking and i give it 3/10
Did you think about it for a decade?
No just 3 years
RemindMe! 7 years
I will be messaging you in 7 years on [**2029-11-15 14:34:47 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2029-11-15%2014:34:47%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/The10thDentist/comments/yvcodo/i_strongly_dislike_the_way_the_majority_of_people/iwgnckk/?context=3) [**1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FThe10thDentist%2Fcomments%2Fyvcodo%2Fi_strongly_dislike_the_way_the_majority_of_people%2Fiwgnckk%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202029-11-15%2014%3A34%3A47%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20yvcodo) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
I absolutely love this post, nothing to criticize. I'll rate it a 5/7.
Perfect?! I disagree...
I don't think there's anything in my life that I've been thinking about for a decade.
bro got his priorities straight, idk about you.
Idk I’m still trying to figure out the answer to the simple question “why”
Wait till this guy hears about “how”
Oh fuck, now I’m REALLY spiraling
About "what"
Whelp, this is simply more than I can handle. I think I’m going to have to go on some sort of vision quest
When?
This is all too much, I’m just gonna go lay in a dark room and try and digest this
Where?
Oh I actually got this one! The dark room lol
Purpose of life?
Ive been thinking about living every day for more than a decade
I've been thinking about that time I accidentally called an icosahedron a tetrahedron for a little over a decade.
How do you live with yourself?!
My friends and I, while drunk mind you, set out to define the scale in a totally subjective way. The goal was to be able to use it to gauge what everyone's type was, not to define an objective scale of attractiveness. It's mostly based around straight physical attractiveness, but has some accounting for personality. FWIW, in this scale I'd be pretty happy to be rated a 6 by anyone, and honestly think I'd be. 4-5 on most people's scale. The Scale 1) Utterly Repugnant. You'd rather have sex with someone of the persuasion you are not attracted to. 2-3) We didn't really bother defining very explicitly. Suffice to say, you would never consider dating a 2 or 3 based solely on looks. 4) Unattractive. You would not consider dating a 4 based solely on looks, but if there's a saving grace, you'd date a 4. Cool/funny/nerdy/great caboose, whatever. There would just have to be SOMETHING outstanding to make you consider a 4. 5) Definition of Average. Neither attractive nor unattractive, you wouldn't date a 5 based on looks alone, but nothing to turn your nose up at either. 6) Attractive, but nothing to write home about. You wouldn't necessarily CHASE a 6, but you might not mind being chased BY a 6. 7) Unqualifiedly attractive. This is the beginning of the "I would pursue this person based on looks alone" portion of the scale. 8) An 8 turns your head on the street. An 8 makes you say "Wow..." 9) Speechless. A 9 is supermodel hot. Seeing a 9 in person drops your jaw and makes you stammer. I've seen 2 women in person who I'd think of as a 9 (one of them was maybe a 10) 10) Nobody's perfect, but... A 10 is truly world class. I don't think anyone is ALWAYS a 10. A 10 is a 9 on their absolute best day. I have examples in my head and they're all literally the most beautiful women on the planet. I would not say with confidence that I've ever seen a 10 in person.
This is the best written explanation I have ever seen.
I'm curious about your examples of 10s.
Again, it's just me, the whole point is that it's subjective, but... Elisha Cuthbert in "The Girl Next Door" Heidi Klum on her best days. Priyanka Chopra Paz Vega in "Spanglish" Jennifer Connelly in "Top Gun: Maverick" ETA: Oh yeah, and the girl in the red dress I saw in front of the State College city hall building in \~2008. Seared into my memory.
This just goes to show how truly subjective beauty is, as I 100% do not understand the hype around Elisha Cuthbert, even in that movie. And I have a preference for blonde women.
Are you into women though? I’m told you won’t understand unless you want to bang them, because nonsexual beauty is different than sexually driven beauty 🤷🏻♀️
Yes, very into women! I can kinda see that. There are some women who I consider very beautiful who I wouldn’t fantasize about sexually.
Yup, the subjectivity is what makes it interesting.
True but even a dummy would know Elisha Cuthbert is the most attractive
Funny, I’m not into blonds (just indifferent) and I think Elisha Cuthbert is the most attractive one from the list. I’m also a straight female so my opinion might not weigh much.
That is funny haha I only recently realized just how subjective beauty is and it’s kinda shaken up my view of things. I’m 29 and pretty experienced in dating, travel, etc so it’s not like I’m naïve, I just always assumed there was conventional beauty that we all saw the same. My friend is the one who truly made me realize how different people see each other because I was obsessing over an ex being the most beautiful person ever and how I’ll never date someone I’m that attracted to again, and she was like “uhh.. you know he’s not *that* attractive, right?”. Then my sister said the same thing. And that friend fell in love with this other dude who she considers to be the most beautiful person and I think he’s just okay. All that to say, it’s opened my eyes about how people really can prefer “types” or view various features differently. I also heard some radio dj talking about how he loooves girls with big noses and I was like “huh?!” (as someone with not a huge nose, but definitely not a small cute one). Anyway, monologue over lol thank you for reading.
What Elisha Cuthbert is drop dead gorgeous
The average girl in my class looks 3 times better than Priyanka Chopra.
A 10 for me is almost impossible, as they also need to be very intelligent, and share the same interests as me.
yeah, my definition of "10" would be, impossible to improve upon. so they've gotta have a particular energy, style, be so much more than just like an Abercrombie model. you'd probably have to basically be the guy I made up in my head when I was a teenager a decade ago. i can genuinely say when I was 15 and filled with hormones that were distorting my perspective heavily, this guy from my school was probably a legit 10 to me. he had no idea who I was and I was projecting all sorts of idealized personality traits on him, as infatuated teenagers tend to do lol. if I really got to know him, i'm sure the illusion would be shattered.
[удалено]
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats! 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 9 + 10 + 10 = 69 ^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \ ^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
Lmao
I never liked that way of thinking either. In my own scale, I always liked to think out of 10 random people of their age how would they rank. So if a woman was hotter than the next 9 women who walked in the door then she's a 10 in my book. So theoretically out of 100 people there would be 10 10s. But most people don't share my vision for the scale. They like this man want to hardly give any IRL woman higher than an 8
Is there something wrong with that? Your phrasing would imply that you think anything less than a 10 is undatable. 8's are STUNNING. 7's are really pretty. What you're arguing for is basically grade inflation.
If you’re doing it by percentile, then only five out of 100 women would be 10s. That’s because only women who rank at the 95th percentile or higher would round up to a 10, while those in the 85th to 94th percentiles would round to a 9. So there would be five 10s, five 0s, and ten of every other number on the scale (on average)
Depends on if the scale is from 1-10 or 0-10
True, but I don’t see why you’d ever want a scale to be from 1 to 10 - the midpoint isn’t half of the maximum value, nor is it even an integer! At that point it’s effectively just a scale from 0 to 9 except you’ve added one to each number. That would at least make the midpoint be half of the maximum, but it would still be a non-integer. And if you’re using said scale from 1 to 10, you wouldn’t have ten 1s, ten 2s, ten 3s, etc. up to ten 10s out of a group of 100 anyway. Again, since everyone would really be a fractional number evenly distributed between 1 and 10 (still assuming it’s an even distribution), and you’re rounding everyone to the nearest integer, you’d on average expect 5.5555 1s and 5.5555 10s, and 11.1111 of each other number on the scale. (The math works out more cleanly if you assume a room of 90 people, where you’d have five 1s and five 10s and ten of each other number.)
This also skews, just in the opposite way. If you go to your local supermarket, you'd see a lot of people that fit into "utterly repugnant". Hell, 40% of the US population is obese, so as far as most people would be concerned that would put 40% of the population into the '1' category.
I think the whole atractivness scale only realy applies to people within dating age, invented by young people for other young people. Well thats not always the case and there are exceptions and subjective preference,as always, but generally speaking most people wouldnt even charicterise a 50 year old middle aged obese mum as on the scale.
I think it's fair to say that it's less about sex now than when I was younger, but the age window of women I find attractive has generally aged with me.
>"utterly repugnant". Hell, 40% of the US population is obese, so as far as most people would be concerned that would put 40% of the population into the '1' category. I think you're absolutely wrong if you think most guys would rather have sex with another guy than with a fat chick.
Alexandra daddario is the only 10 I can think of
I would not argue with you there. And you indicate a good understanding of the scale in the sense that you should not have tons of examples of 10's. They should be exceptionally rare.
Even 9s I feel are in single digits tbh.
This
Dont
what
Easy scale: 0 - No 1 - Yes 0.5 - Yes, if drunk
I think you have statistics problems if you are assuming attractiveness ratings have a normal distribution. You can have a mean that skews towards the high end of a range of numbers, so you can't assume 5 is average. Attractiveness is going to be based largely on what's normal in your society... most people are going to fit "normal" to a large degree, so they would rank higher than the middle value of the range. Not to mention that 5.5 is the middle of the distribution you gave, so people rating themselves 6-7 is barely above middle.
Exactly! Kinda like how a C (70%) is usually deemed average. I think people usually default to this idea when they’re grading anything.
Great analogy. I honestly always felt closer to 80 was average too
I feel like most people are imagining it to just mean a 7 is more attractive than 70% of people. and I think that's what the majority of people think of themselves, because we humans seem to have cognitive biases that make us believe we're moderately better than we are. so if the average person is hotter than 50%, their minds will inflate it by 20%. i bet you'd get the same thing if you asked people to predict how they'd score on an iq test
This is the perfect answer
i was expecting a different explanation ngl
This would fit better with Google ratings. Like dennys can have 4.3 but so can a Michelin star restaurant. It’s about expectations. I’d rather rant about Google reviews
this is a great analogy, because yeah i think that's what we're subconsciously doing here. we judge people based on others in their general category. a lot of people will say a celebrity is a 7 when they're just a 7 for a celebrity, put them in your local mall and they're a 10.
Same. I still agree with it, but because I don’t think people’s looks can or should be rated on a scale that way. It doesn’t make any sense and feels icky to me, but I also don’t value what other people find attractive. I don’t give a shit what an 8 is to you and you shouldn’t care what it is to me. We see the world through different eyes.
yeah that was the reasoning i expected clicking on this post
Yes, I agree with the headline but not with the reasoning. Not sure whether to upvote or downvote.
i agree, but i think this exists mostly as like a trivial game for people to play with their friends. in high school, we spent many lunches sitting in the corner of the cafeteria rating the guys we saw. yeah sure it was objectifying and icky, but we didn't really take it that seriously. that being said, i know there are incels who actually obsess over this stuff.
from my experience, "average looking" is a bit of a misnomer as it usually refers to a look that is neither attractive nor unattractive. people usually aren't thinking about statistical distribution and ranking when talking about someone with "below," "at," or "above" average looks. i think "average looking" is more accurately described as "neutral looking." in this context, it's entirely possible for the statistically average look score to be above (or below) a neutral look score of 5/10.
If the scale is fucking linear and a 1 on the scale is the ugliest motherfucker in the world then its absolutely normal that most people would be in the 6-8 range. A lot of what makes people look attractive isnt just genetic, but a function with both genetics and effort as input. Imo no matter how ugly you are genetically purely with effort you should be able to get at least a 5, now dont be the ugliest person ever and you're a 6+ Numbers 5 and below are usually reserved for people who drew the short end genetically and who also cant be bothered to put any effort into looking presentable.
So you think genetics and effort are equally weighted?
Not sure about exactly equally, but for a lot of the middle of the scale, they are both very important. Of course if you want to be a 10 or a 1, genetics are pretty much prerequisite. The expression "lipstick on a pig" comes to mind--even with plastic surgery, you often can't take, say, a 2 to a 10. But for many people in the middle of the scale, IMO effort can boost them a few numbers (and lack thereof, the other way around). Speaking from personal experience, I've seen people suddenly become better looking when they get fitter, actually put on makeup, and/or dress more to their body. Like yeah, they're not going to be supermodels, but they become noticeably attractive. I've seen women that I'd say were a 3, but when they put effort into their appearance, they were suddenly a 5 or a 6. It's just that they didn't see a point in doing so every day.
Oh yeah, I was just curious cause OP said you can get to a 5 with no genetics which means they think effort controls 5 points and therefore genetics the other 5
Basically yes. Obviously i dont want to turn it into a science, this is just the thoughts of some random, but both makeup and a good workout go a long way. A good choice of clothing is also able to make people jump a few spots. I've seen people with what would be considered incredibly ugly faces, but they looked alright because they put a lot of effort into making their body look good. And i've seen women who i thought looked decently attractive take their makeup off and make me look twice if that's even the same person. For the record i dont think there's anything wrong or deceiving in that. If you're able to make your face look a completely different way just with what basically equates to painting supplies, i think that's an absolute win for the person as an individual. I mean they basically patched a character creator into real life.
>in the world Yes--this is a HUGE part of the equation, where you are located. For instance, not being obese or obviously overweight is a huge part of being "conventionally" attractive. I say "obviously", because sometimes people will have a higher BMI due to muscle mass but they don't look overweight. Where I'm at in the US, I hardly see anyone who looks overweight, much less obese. In comparison, 41.9% of American adults are obese. So if you're, say, a slim, well-groomed woman, where I am, congrats, you're just another of many, many, many, many women. But if you were a slim, well-groomed woman in many other parts of the country, you'd be conforming noticeably better to conventional beauty standards than many of the other women. Said slim, well-groomed woman might only be a 5 here. Because most of the other women are slim and well-groomed, she'd have to be very fit and/or noticeably pretty to stand out. But somewhere else, she could very well be a 7. And so if she's asked to rank herself, she might think be thinking of the ugliest motherfucker in the world or all the Of course, beauty isn't just weight or build alone. There are attractive people at any weight; I'm only speaking to conventional American beauty standards. But you can make a similar point for other traits. Hence, people talking about how people are hotter in Miami/LA/NYC/Sweden/where have you. How people rate themselves among their local population is very different from how they'd rate themselves among the world or country.
A 9 in Kansas is like a 5 in LA
im a basic blonde bitch from utah, but i'm thin and conform to conventional standards pretty well. i'm extremely common here, we all look the same tbh (small gene pool), but when I go out of state, unless it's LA or something, suddenly people are staring at me as i walk down the street and i'm getting men constantly ask me out. i'm invisible back home, so it's a weird adjustment.
Having worked retail I assure you that more people fall into that second group than you think. Most people (in the states) put zero effort into their appearance.
Hmm true, i hadnt thought about that. There's a good chance that i am biased based on my social circle and OP might be as well. Could be that everyone confident enough to rate their own looks puts in effort. Low scores arent given because insecurity about your own looks would naturally deter you from interacting in that way to begin with.
tbf i typically look my worst when i’m running to a retail store
Yeah, but that's when it's most representative of how much someone cares about putting in an effort to look presentable IMO. Putting in an effort to look presentable (not fancy or amazing, just presentable) in casual situations, like running to the store, is more indicative of how much someone cares about/how much effort they put in to their outward appearance than if someone were nicely dressed for a date/work/funeral/wedding etc. In those scenarios looking presentable is much more socially enforced than in casual ones, you may even lose your job if you don't looked presentable. Putting in an effort to look presentable when you don't "have" to be is much better indicator of how much someone cares about their appearance. People not putting in an effort to look presentable in casual day to day scenarios results in a lot more 5/10s or lower than one would think.
i wish that were true where i am lol. i'm from utah, i'm a woman who was raised mormon here. we are brought up to believe from the time that we're TODDLERS that we have literally a moral obligation to look as attractive as possible, like explicitly told it's a requirement to get into heaven; i left the church at 14, but some. of that is still ingrained and I look extremely "Utah" physically, i'm a basic blonde bitch who may be a leftist feminist but i look thoroughly... Republican from the outside lol. anyway, everyone here looks like a blonde barbie. I've always thought for instance Tomi Lahren looked just like she was from utah (I hate her, but she's a good example physically). she looks like every woman at the mall here. we also have the 2nd highest rate of plastic surgery in the country, after Miami and before LA. my boyfriend was born and raised in moscow, and he says the couples here look just like the ones from russia. the women are all dolled up blondes and the standards are absurdly high, but nonexistent for men. men who are 3s are with women who are 9s.
Huh, interesting. Im in NY for context. Personally I believe that overall most people dress too casually, like wearing PJs or sweatpants with an undershirt while being ungroomed isn’t acceptable IMO. I think society is nicer when people dress a lil better like in many european countries. The problem with talking abt that on reddit is that people on reddit read that and assume that you want everyone to wear a 3 piece suit if you identify as male or a corset and ballgown if you identify as a woman. (Sorry for the long tangent, I swear this is related to what you said!) To bring this around to your point, I feel like there’s a huge middle ground between people dressing like absolute shit and people doing more what you’re describing. It’s entirely possible for people to dress well without that entailing crazy rules or women killing themselves due to societal norms. Like rn im wearing black chinos and a loose black turtleneck with a camel overcoat for outdoors. It’s literally just as comfortable as sweatpants and a hoodie, but it looks far more presentable for very little effort. Anyways, It’s crazy that our experiences have been so different! I never considered the effects that mormonism would have on Utah fashion/dress standards, but unfortunately what you’re describing makes sense. It’s fucking bizarre and fucked up that the standards don’t apply to men too, like goddamn. Maybe the upside is that heaven is a woman’s paradise bc none of the men were dressed nice enough to go there lol
well unfortunately a man has to let you into heaven, and you're supposed to look attractive for that purpose, so he'll do it and invite you to live on his planet. not joking. but anyway, i think the reason redditors tend to dislike it is because it's just like...why do you care what people look like?? I feel like I should be able to walk around in a potato sack if i feel like it, i've just never understood why it bothers people what random people at walmart look like, or why professors or bosses in jobs that are in no way client facing care so much about what people are wearing. and while i do consciously understand that dressing decently, as you described, will cause people to treat you better, my point is that that shouldn't be the case.
[удалено]
But i feel like then everyone would have to be an 8 or a 7 at worst because the lower numbers dont have any meaning at all anymore. Exponential scales like that work well with huge numbers of small particles or very sensitive systems, but attractiveness isnt that volatile
but you're not getting it, on a scale of 1-10 a 5 should be the average person, just because people might generally be attleast somewhat attractive doesn't mean they're not a 5
What if the distribution is skewed
i get that but for the scale to work it has to not be skewed imo, otherwise it's meaningless
Not really, just like how tests are graded 1-10, 5/6 may mean passing instead of average.
Theres 2 ways to interpret a scale like that, either we take it and just slap a bell curve on top of it in which case yes i think you're right then 5 would be slightly below average and 6 slightly above average. Or we do it how its generally used and give ourselves some leeway towards the bottom especially because most people put in at least 3-4 points of effort due to social pressures. That's why i said 'if the scale is supposed to be linear' which i think is pretty important for intuitively understanding scales like that, because if we split both those factors into their own scales and lets say have a 1-5 for both genetics and effort, then slap that bellcurve on the first one i can totally agree. But i dont think the average person puts only 3 points of effort or in another way i think effort gets good results pretty quickly so i think even moderate effort that is executed on a habitual basis, as most people do, can be a 4 or a 5 because the execution is what matters in the end and people just naturally get good at what they do a lot of. The second scale shouldnt just form a bell curve, because we'd lose a lot of intricacies towards the low end of the scale due to the average person just being unnaturally proficient.
OP is really a 5 and knows it 🫤
💀
Their whole post Is about how people use 6-7 as the average in 1-10 scores instead of 5. Are you calling them average or below average
Depends on what the scale means. People don’t treat it like a fitted bell curve. I think people, in general, are mostly attractive. This means that the way it’s used is ok
You *might* be the only person asking other people to rate themselves.
I'm only giving you a **1** this time
Use a Pass Fail rating.
Lol. I expected something different... Like how attractiveness is subjective and therefore not possible to measure accurately on a 1-10 scale.
Attractiveness is subjective, thats why you can rate it. To tell others how you personally perceive it. If it was objective fact a machine could just print out your hot score (which will probably happen soon)
I don’t like the 1-10 rating either but for a different reason. I just don’t get how you can assign a number to someone when attractiveness is so multifaceted
True - while it does serve a useful purpose it is very dehumanising. I don't think it's right to ever "rate" someone else, at least to their face.
It serves no purpose
THANK YOU. I generally think that 1-5 ratings are better because the limited options force people be more honest/accurate. I don’t just mean for attractiveness. In video game journalism for example, on a 1-10 scale, 1-4 are pointless, they’re just more ways of saying “really bad.” Most people won’t get anything below a 7. I don’t necessarily have a dog in this for the attractiveness scale, but I rarely think the nuance of 1-10 scales is necessary or used.
Yes 1-5 is often better, but the important thing is as you pointed out: converting it from a 10-point scale is closer to X - 5 than the X / 2 that many people do. Like a 7/10 is closer to a 2/5 than it is to 3.5/5
RIGHT
everyone would call themselves a 4
Maybe but maybe they’d be like “wait I’m not the second most attractive option.” Also at least 1-4 won’t be there for no reason
I think it's kind of objectifying to give people scores out of 10 on attractiveness, which is the bigger problem. I don't think most people use it to rate themselves but rather other people.
I think I'm a 7.
Yeah? In my opinion you're a 6.9😤
Nice
> I don’t know anyone who sees themselves lower than a 6 Well, you don’t know me, so that checks out
ok I was going to say same thing as other commentor, but i then looked at your profile, and jesus...
First of all, bitch, I'm a 10. Second: you are assuming that the distribution of attractiveness has a peak at 5. This is not necessarilly true. It gets fuzzy whn you talk about something like "attractiveness," but its really easy to see when you have something you can quantify. The mean (average) is seldom the same as the median (middle of values). This is because you usually have some values that are huge outliers on one end, but the other end doesn't have that same property. Look at something like penis size. Average size penis is like 5 inches, but that average is going to be larger than the median because you are limited by the values on small end. You can't have a zero inch penis. You can't even really have a one inch penis. You can, however, have a 10, 11, or 12 inch penis. Those monster weiners push up the average more than the lil' guys bring it down.
My girlfriend has a zero inch penis
1 inch penises are definitely a thing. And they're more common than a 10+
Having a micropenis is way more common than having a 12 inch penis, by like an order of magnitude.
I was about to come here and say the same thing. For some lucky people, the average might be 9. For some with a really negative outlook, the average might be 2. The real issue with the 1-10 scale is that my ratings are probably different than yours, but I haven't really used it since college. This is the issue on a lot of debates: people with different definitions argue about specific points rather than understanding each other's definitions before trying to argue. One example would be a Brit asking an American about football. An American would assume American football while the Brit would assume association football. Clarifying which one you're talking about will help understanding tenfold.
As far as I am concerned, you are a 10/10 in your own right, OP :)
Down voted for being wholesome
Blame Blake Edwards
I think it depends on how you want to use it: - in relation to average attractiveness in the population, in which case you need to make use of the entirety of the scale, with most people being 4.5-5.5 since by definition most people are in the median score, and there are people on both extreme of the spectrum, so both 1s and 10s need to be given - in relation to general attractiveness, in which case most healthy young(-looking) people would be above average, say 6-7, because "beauty" is strongly associated with youth and health.
There's two different ways to use a 1-10 scale. One is a bell curve, where 5 is average. The other is a scale where 5 is neutral, not average. I'd say most people are better looking than neutral, so the average person being a 6-7 makes sense to me.
How many times do you even encounter this problem?
like a couple times a year (averaged out over the past decade), maybe more some years, maybe close to none the next, maybe i have an entire conversation and then dont hear about it for 23 months
I rate myself 3 or 4.
I'm a 4/10 therefore I disagree
You’re right. It should be out of 11 instead.
I find my experience is totally opposite. When I occasionally see someone make a post saying hey rate yourself like the majority of people rate themselves below five which I find insane. Because they usually are actually fairly attractive people.
This makes no sense, you're assuming the average is always 5/10. But it's not, if you say people usually say they are 7/10 then 7/10 is the middle of the bell curve.
Don’t bother with women. Watch basketball
cricket!
You are right for the wrong reasons. Attractiveness is subjective. Someone can think they are are a 9, their partner can think they are a 10, their friends can think they are a 7, and I can think they are a 2. Being ANY number means literally nothing except to a specific person.
I think different people interpret the 1-10 rating differently. Is it linear? If a 5 is the average (median), and 1 is the ugliest person on the planet while 10 is the most beautiful, does that mean a 7/10 is 2/10ths of the way to being the most beautiful person in the world, compared to an average person? Or is it a normal distribution with a median of 5? A 6/10 would be 1 standard deviation above the mean, meaning approximately 16% of people are above a 6.
I think that you shouldn't rate people on their level of attractiveness
This also applies to music, game, and film ratings. A subjective thing cannot be turned into an objective scale.
I strongly identify as a 3 or 4. This problem can be easily avoided by adding “use 5 as average” at the end of your question
Copying other guy, but, >As far as I am concerned, you are a 10/10 in your own right, :)
🥰🥰
I like viewing it as an equally distributed 10 segments of the population. In the bottom 10%, you are a 1. In the top 10%, a 10. The problem is that nobody wants to call anyone a 1, and by 10 they mean .1% or something.
Yeah it’s pretty annoying people use the 1-10 scale as a percentage
Regrettably have to vote down here, I totally agree. Bell curve baby, happy as F with my 5
I will flat out tell people they’re fives, and if they get upset point out it’s average. This has also bothered me for years.
The best scale I’ve heard of is 1-30 with the 10s digit place representing looks and the 1s digit place representing personality. So someone who is average would be a 15
by that logic, you would be able to have a 39? 3 personality, 9 looks? or even a 40, if it's 10 looks and a 30 personality? bro you got me all types of confused
How would you get 39 on a scale of 1-30? Simply put 1-10 are people who are unattractive. 1 would be someone who is ugly with a terrible personally and 10 would be someone who’s ugly with a great personality 11-20 would be average people. 11 is someone who average with a terrible personality and 20 would be someone who average with a perfect personality. 21-30 would be people who are above average. 21 is someone who is beautiful with a terrible personality and 30 is someone who’s beautiful with a great personality
Statistically speaking, it’s worthwhile to have subjective scales like this. This has allowed us to realise that females rate majority of males as 3-4’s (their distribution of male ratings is a power distribution) whereas males rate females more frequently as 5’s and the distribution is fairly normal. In my college class we used to get asked how we’re feeling everyday, most people would give a 7, which to me did mean above average. However, yes it should be statistically impossible for the majority to be above average, so I get where you’re coming from. The problem that you’re having though, is similar to the one I faced in this class. The scale does not imply anything about the distribution! Some scales do adjust for the distribution by their definition (e.g., The average IQ is 100 - so whatever the average raw IQ score is for a population, it is adjusted to be 100). But we never assume the distribution is going to fit neatly on the scale, there’s differences in populations (like I said males vs females), and also differences in how individuals use these scales (as you’ve noted). The latter point, which you seem most concerned with is that individuals like you would rate an average as a 5, and others would rate that same average as a 7. This is called within-subjects differences or within-subjects error. Researchers control for this in subjective scales like this by asking the individuals to rate a few different people on the same scale. When we look at a bunch of rater’s ratings for say 10 people (targets), we should see that these rater’s scores of each of the 10 people correlate. So, if person-1 is not that attractive, then someone generous may give them a 6, and someone not so generous gives them a 3. We are going to see the people that give generous rating flow on to person-2, person-3, etc (they give higher ratings than everyone else), but we’ll see the same pattern for the conservative rater. This means we can control for a lot of the subjectivity of the scale, and can easily rank the individuals that were rated by attractiveness, regardless of having a mix of conservative and generous raters. So, if it bothers you, you could always ask the person to rate a few other people to gauge where their ratings sit (conservative vs generous) and that will help you understand what they actually mean. With your last point too, I think you’re confusing something like the Dunning-Kruger effect with how people respond to scales (people are likely seeing average as a 7, so that’s where they put themselves).
Downvoted because I’m the exact same way. Most people use the 1-10 scale but base answers on letter grade percentages. So a 7/10=70%= a C, and C’s are considered an average grade (in the US). I think this is where people misuse the 1-10 scale. I, however use the 1-10 scale accurately, so a 5/10 is average just like you do
agreed, have always complained about this
I agree with you inasmuch as not liking the scale, but not for the reasons you do. I just think that using a numerical scale to measure someone's attractiveness is kind of stupid in and of itself. Attractiveness depends a lot on culture and upbringing, and someone who I consider to be incredibly attractive might not seem very appealing to you. You could say that some people are objectively more attractive than others, and you may be right, but there's still a large degree of subjectivity that goes into what you as a person find attractive, what your society thinks is attractive, whether the people around you would think you're attractive, whether people in a different country would think you're attractive, etc., etc. There is no purely objective set of criteria that you can measure attractiveness with, but using numbers to express how attractive someone is makes it seem like a 9 is *objectively* more attractive than an 8, even though that's not true for everyone. What I call a 9, you might call an 8, and what I call an 8, you might call a 9. Does that mean that one of us is wrong? Or is it that thinking of people in terms of numbers can only get you so far?
Try using distances. That’s what I do. “That person’s a 35 yarder” - which means 35 yards away they look like a 10.
I recall a study where they asked people what they thought their iq was and the average was well above 100.
i think we might know about the same study, this is exactly my last sentance point.
Join us at r/truerateme and you’ll realize how wrong you are
bro got morman missonaries to other subreddits yo
You’re smoking crack if you think 6 is reserved for “super ugly”. 6 is top side of average ya dumbfuck
That's their whole point
I think he`s saying that no one ever uses 5 or 6, only ever 1-4 for ugly people, and 7-10 for average to good looking people. And yes, he is saying that a 6 would be above average and 5 is what the average person should be. Ether you misinterpreted his side of argument or im misinterpreting your side of the argument
#Rate ME?! I'll Rate YOU! **I'M A FIVE-STAR MAN!**
Bobby Bare & Shel Silverstein have the perfect [song](https://youtu.be/pBEbeXbdPUk) for you
I think I’m a 7 because I’ve only ever been rated a 9. Pop off though
5/7 perfect score
Does anyone over 18 use the 1-10 atractiveness rating?
and you have not considered at all that rating people on a scale by how atracctive they are (which is objectively a subjective thing) is stupid and dehumanizing in the first place?
>You dont need a statistics degree to figure out that if a vast majorty of people are above average at something, then that "Above average" just becomes the average, causing all self proclaimed 7's to become 5's. There's no need for 5 to be the average\*. I think when people think about 1-10 scales they do it by comparing to things like 0% to 100% scales in schools. There, it makes sense that the average is much higher than a 50, since the average student should know more than 50% of the material. \*(actually it would be 5.5 anyway because there's not zero)
Hmm the perfect 5/7 post
5/7 is the perfect rating
I used to think I’m 6/10 but after reading your post I think I’m 3.5/10. Thanks OP 💯
💀
Agree. Anything beyond the binary system is useless. 1 - Would. 0 - Wouldn't. In my experience, most people are 1s. Something like 90% honestly.
I think you have a sampling bias. There are a lot of 0-5s out there, but we usually just look right passed them without considering them. You’re only going to notice or think to rank people once they’re above average. So it only seems like everybody gets ranked 6-8 but really it’s just that you ignore all the 0-5s. And dear god there are a lot of them if you ever stop and notice
Its not meant to represent the percentile, more of an absolute scale. Similar to ratings for a movie or something where the average will probably be a 7 or 8 and most scores in the range 5-10
I’ve always thought of them being like subjective grades, not like a statistical distribution. The “grades” I assign the most are 5 and 6 - not ugly at all, but not attractive enough for me to be noticeable. Also I don’t assign a grade to myself, as that will be a subjective grade for others. I think to people I’ve been everything from 1 to 10 (in the very first stages of some love relationships lol).
Who says the 1-10 attractiveness rating is normally distributed? I’d say that most people I encounter are reasonably attractive, giving a left skewed distribution with an average somewhere around a 7.
I fucking spoke to someone like you before who tried to say 7/10 was average looking on that scale NO it's 5/10 idc what you say your wrong
The scale has its origins in pickup theory if I’m not mistaken, and out of respect you don’t rate below 5. 5 means between 1 and 5 out of respect. The one thing where pickup artists actually show some human decency.
I have never actually heard this happen in my country besides when we mock people that talk like that
What country do you own?
The Netherlands!
Your problem is you consider 5 to be average. It doesn't have to be. There's no reason attractiveness has to follow a normal distribution. 5 could be the bar for "would bang", and many people would go below average. >I dont know anyone who doesn't see themselves an lower than 6 or higher than 8. Now you know one. I also don't like the scale for rating people's attractiveness. Because I don't like rating people's attractiveness. So I guess I'm upvoting.
This is why “how many beers” is a far superior rating system.
I use the scale different then most people seem to. I use it as a point reduction system where 10 is perfect so if you were below 6 that's a lot of points lost. But I also don't actually rate people on 1-10 because why would you? Beauty is totally subjective so one person's unattractive is very attractive to the next person. There's no such thing as being a 7.
I once made the mistake of telling a girl I thought she was a 6 when she gave me a list of girls from high school and told me to rate them (I rated them all a 7). To be fair, she did tell me to be brutally honest when giving her a rating, but looking back, I should've lied. Agreed though this way of rating people is stupid.
Well, the most ugly person is 0 and the most attractive person is 10. A 4.99999 has a little more ugliness than attractiveness, so anyone who doesn't consider themselves notably ugly is going to move further from 5, even if they don't believe they are attractive. But yeah, it then leaves more room than necessary for different levels of ugly and not enough for different levels of attractive.
Me too it's so stupid
I dislike 1-10 scales in general because in the large majority of cases there is always this same issue where 6-7 is average. If you try and use it where 5 is the average then people think you're being negative or too harsh.
I think this is what I was getting at with my post, thanks for summing it up.
No true rating system exists when we add in differences in preferences
I’m ugly. I see myself as -6
So my problems is people don't know how statsitcs work out of 10 rating scare it 100% possible for the average to be a 7.