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

B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
8,405
Online
93d 6h 30m
Interesting idea. What led you to consider the harmonic mean as a more reflective measure of true SMV?

In the formula, face and height are given by x1=x2, but what is n here? Also, if we wanted to change our assumption where x1=/=x2 and we introduce hairline (given by h), body (b), age (a), and income (i), what would the formula look like. Would be the wi's?
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
8,405
Online
93d 6h 30m
Interesting idea. What led you to consider the harmonic mean as a more reflective measure of true SMV?

In the formula, face and height are given by x1=x2, but what is n here? Also, if we wanted to change our assumption where x1=/=x2 and we introduce hairline (given by h), body (b), age (a), and income (i), what would the formula look like. Would be the wi's?
@Gymcelled
 
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
10,290
Online
108d 22h 15m
Mt Rushmore IQ thread. Might incorporate elements from it in a future video tbh
:feelsmega::ha..feels:

Interesting idea. What led you to consider the harmonic mean as a more reflective measure of true SMV?
It was specifically the fact that the geometric and the harmonic mean will reduce the total score if there's a variance in your face and height scores. If they don't differ much (like a guy with 4 and 6/10 scores) the mean is very close to the arithmetic mean (little penalty).
But if you score really bad in one of the two, the total score gets significantly lower than your total score predicted by arithmetic mean. This is to model what I called the "20lbs phone" effect

The only reason i prefer the harmonic over the geometric mean is because the penalty is greater

In the formula, face and height are given by x1=x2, but what is n here? Also, if we wanted to change our assumption where x1=/=x2 and we introduce hairline (given by h), body (b), age (a), and income (i), what would the formula look like. Would be the wi's?
n is the total number of variables. So if you only have face and height it's n=2.

The weights are simply values that give greater relative importance to some characteristics. So if you want to do face 60 and height 40, you can do any variables with such ratios. So .6 and .4, or 6 and 4, or 60 and 40 etc

Let's say you wanna introduce body which is 4 times weaker than height (for instance), and you chose to go with weights of 6 and 4, the weight of body simply becomes a 1

If someone had a 3/10 face, 4/10 height and 5/10 body you'd get

Looks score = (3+4+5)/(3/6+4/4+5/1) = 1.846 ~1.85

Whereas with the same weights, an arithmetic mean in this case would give you a score of 3.55

If you think the penalty is too high use the geometric mean instead
 
Hyperwristcel

Hyperwristcel

The True Alpha Male
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Posts
1,007
Online
5d 22h 42m
This solves a lot of debate about Height vs Face

It's like if you need to be a 6/10 to get a date and being short takes off 5 points and being ugly takes off 5 points.

Ugly Tallfag = 5/10 Handsome Manlet = 5/10

they're both beneath the cut off but for different reasons.

Good thread OP

Also, you said this was going to be controversial, I don't see the controversy
That's a very simple, correct summary. I also agree with 6/10 (high-tier Normie) being the minimum to score a date based on your appearance rather than status or money.

It should not be controversial as it's very logical, rational, and relatively easy to understand once you get the concept.
 
Last edited:
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
8,405
Online
93d 6h 30m
:feelsmega::ha..feels:


It was specifically the fact that the geometric and the harmonic mean will reduce the total score if there's a variance in your face and height scores. If they don't differ much (like a guy with 4 and 6/10 scores) the mean is very close to the arithmetic mean (little penalty).
But if you score really bad in one of the two, the total score gets significantly lower than your total score predicted by arithmetic mean. This is to model what I called the "20lbs phone" effect

The only reason i prefer the harmonic over the geometric mean is because the penalty is greater


n is the total number of variables. So if you only have face and height it's n=2.

The weights are simply values that give greater relative importance to some characteristics. So if you want to do face 60 and height 40, you can do any variables with such ratios. So .6 and .4, or 6 and 4, or 60 and 40 etc

Let's say you wanna introduce body which is 4 times weaker than height (for instance), and you chose to go with weights of 6 and 4, the weight of body simply becomes a 1

If someone had a 3/10 face, 4/10 height and 5/10 body you'd get

Looks score = (3+4+5)/(3/6+4/4+5/1) = 1.846 ~1.85

Whereas with the same weights, an arithmetic mean in this case would give you a score of 3.55

If you think the penalty is too high use the geometric mean instead
I see. So the weights are what we arbitrarily decide to use then.
 
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
10,290
Online
108d 22h 15m
I see. So the weights are what we arbitrarily decide to use then.
They represent the value you chose to attribute to the different features, it's how important you think they are. If you think height is more important then it should have the highest weight for instance.

It's all in relative terms so always keep in mind it's always comparative

But with these means i can show that even if you attribute the exact same worth to face and height, you still can't compensate for an abysmal face/height even if the other feature is really good (which is what happens with turbomanlets and really ugly ogres)

It allows us to make a model that takes into account one feature being so bad it ruins everything
 
BPJ

BPJ

Greycel
Joined
Jan 30, 2021
Posts
67
Online
1d 21h 29m
height is a looks multiplier, given a certain baseline facial attractiveness..
 
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
10,290
Online
108d 22h 15m
height is a looks multiplier, given a certain baseline facial attractiveness..
That's actually how it works in geometric mean i mentioned. The formula is sqrt(f*h). Height acts like a multiplier.

But if you say that height is a multiplier then can't you say that face is the multiplier? What's the difference between f*h and h*f? :feelshehe:

I think the issue I have with the multiplier idea is that some people imply that height is a multiplier that doesn't drop very low.

For instance if you say that a turbomanlet height (like 5ft2) is like a 0.2 or 0.3 multiplier (so it destroys your looks) then i agree. If someone argues it's like a 0.9 or 0.8 (as if being 5ft2 only drops your looks by a little) then it's bullshit
 
TaiLung

TaiLung

Officer
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Posts
537
Online
1d 14h 6m
If you are 6'3 and can't get laid then you are simply retarded. LITERALLY just go to the gym, your ugly face will become a lot more attractive if you become jacked. I have NEVER seen anyone that is tall and jacked that had a really ugly face. Most that somewhat had an ugly face were all of ethnics like indians. So if you are white and 6'3 then your only excuse is if you had a really small dick. Even if you are tall and attractive, if you have a small dick its still useless sadly.
 
Youngcel_Oldcel

Youngcel_Oldcel

The Brotherpill
★★
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Posts
171
Online
19h 38m
If you are 6'3 and can't get laid then you are simply retarded. LITERALLY just go to the gym, your ugly face will become a lot more attractive if you become jacked. I have NEVER seen anyone that is tall and jacked that had a really ugly face. Most that somewhat had an ugly face were all of ethnics like indians. So if you are white and 6'3 then your only excuse is if you had a really small dick. Even if you are tall and attractive, if you have a small dick its still useless sadly.
white and tall is volcel 95% of the time
 
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
10,290
Online
108d 22h 15m
If you are 6'3 and can't get laid then you are simply retarded. LITERALLY just go to the gym, your ugly face will become a lot more attractive if you become jacked. I have NEVER seen anyone that is tall and jacked that had a really ugly face. Most that somewhat had an ugly face were all of ethnics like indians. So if you are white and 6'3 then your only excuse is if you had a really small dick. Even if you are tall and attractive, if you have a small dick its still useless sadly.
Gym game definitely works way better when you're tall with a big frame, it's like 10 times more effective for these people because it reinforces what they already have genetically: the size advantage and intimidation factor
 
ScornedStoic

ScornedStoic

Sevconian
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Posts
20,972
Online
121d 16m
If you are 6'3 and can't get laid then you are simply retarded. LITERALLY just go to the gym, your ugly face will become a lot more attractive if you become jacked. I have NEVER seen anyone that is tall and jacked that had a really ugly face. Most that somewhat had an ugly face were all of ethnics like indians. So if you are white and 6'3 then your only excuse is if you had a really small dick. Even if you are tall and attractive, if you have a small dick its still useless sadly.
Fucking this.
 
watcher

watcher

Life passing by as I watch
★★★★
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Posts
2,870
Online
40d 13h 22m
All manlets in this forum also have a subpar face but are coping hard trying to blame their height
 
kampman

kampman

Irrelevant
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Posts
2,906
Online
91d 8h 38m
Face > Height
 
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
10,290
Online
108d 22h 15m
All manlets in this forum also have a subpar face but are coping hard trying to blame their height
Good looking faces aren't that common to begin win, so very short + good looking face is even less common.
 
Psycho

Psycho

KHV INCEL
★★
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
Posts
121
Online
2d 6h 37m
an actual fucking legit piece of knowledge , well done.
 
Villain

Villain

Captain
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Posts
1,921
Online
31d 1h 30m
That's ok. Tbh neither do I because I've always wanted to be tall and I think it would save me if i suddenly became 6ft5+.

But I can still understand how it's possible for them to be lonely and get rejected
Its normal to get rejected but we are talking about getting rejected all the time cause this is what inceldom all about
tall incels exists but they are extremely rare, maybe like 0.00002 % of the population or rarer than that
 
Last edited:
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
10,290
Online
108d 22h 15m
Now do hair
It's part of face to me. Lower third, eye area and hair are the 3 pillars of face

Also I made a post on celebs getting hair transplants and what celebs look like with no hair

 
dreadtheblackpill

dreadtheblackpill

Chicken nuggets for one, please
Joined
Jul 31, 2020
Posts
5,005
Online
36d 2h 13m
So if I have a 3-4/10 face and 6'0 in height, what would that make me and would my height significantly help me ascend?
 
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
10,290
Online
108d 22h 15m
So if I have a 3-4/10 face and 6'0 in height, what would that make me and would my height significantly help me ascend?
With the harmonic mean you'd be a 4 or a 4.8/10 with the harmonic mean (for 3 and 4/10 in face respectively, since you're not sure about your face rating).
With the geometric mean it's 4.24 and 4.9

You'll notice this is lower than the 4.5 and 5 that would be predicted with an arithmetic mean
 
dreadtheblackpill

dreadtheblackpill

Chicken nuggets for one, please
Joined
Jul 31, 2020
Posts
5,005
Online
36d 2h 13m
With the harmonic mean you'd be a 4 or a 4.8/10 with the harmonic mean (for 3 and 4/10 in face respectively, since you're not sure about your face rating).
With the geometric mean it's 4.24 and 4.9

You'll notice this is lower than the 4.5 and 5 that would be predicted with an arithmetic mean
Interesting. Still being sub5 means it's over though :feelsrope:
 
Honeypot

Honeypot

Legend
★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Posts
3,889
Online
13d 14h 27m
5/10 Height 5/10 Face > 2,5/10 Height and 7,5/10 Face
5/10 Height 5/10 Face > 7,5/10 Height 2,5/10 Face

But

7,5/10 Height 5/10 Face >? 5/10 Height 7,5/10 Face
(Woman on social media say yes most of the time, barely any attractive shortmale sympatizer)
 
Tenshi

Tenshi

もういいよ
★★★★★
Joined
May 21, 2020
Posts
7,022
Online
58d 17h 25m
mirin high iq

being short and ethnic is such a failo for me, I genuinely believe I'd be decent look if wasn't for my pheno and height.
 
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
10,290
Online
108d 22h 15m
mirin high iq

being short and ethnic is such a failo for me, I genuinely believe I'd be decent look if wasn't for my pheno and height.
Are your a ricecel?
 
Reddit_is_for_cucks

Reddit_is_for_cucks

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Posts
7,337
Online
40d 5h 9m
What’s the bottom line. I am too low iq
 
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
10,290
Online
108d 22h 15m
What’s the bottom line. I am too low iq
Basically you can't simply average things arithmetically if one of your scores (height or face) is very bad, you get a 20lbs phone effect that fucks you over and drags you down.
 
Reddit_is_for_cucks

Reddit_is_for_cucks

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Posts
7,337
Online
40d 5h 9m
Basically you can't simply average things arithmetically if one of your scores (height or face) is very bad, you get a 20lbs phone effect that fucks you over and drags you down.
So better to be average than a tall cell or chad manlet (5’4)
 
Arthas93

Arthas93

Always remember that we all will die.
★★★★
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Posts
3,358
Online
21d 3h 52m
High IQ and good thread.