5 Reasons I Hate the 1-10 Looks Scale **As a Blackpiller**

5 detailed reasons I don't like the 1-10 looks scale and why I think the '3-tier Scale' is a MUCH better alternative

▬ Contents of this video ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

00:00 - 1) Differences in Numbers
01:53 - 2) Virtue Signalling
04:23 - 3) Missing Context
07:03 - 4) Subjectivity
08:53 - 5) Ratings don't Reflect Chances
09:35 - Alternative: 3-Tier Scale

[Dertro]

"Confidence perceived as arrogance"
I felt that.
My oneitis said that I was arrogant when I asked her out.
It never began for me.

[dudu]

"Women break rules for chad" damn my third eye has opened

[SirAuron]

Yeah, I’ve noticed most women will say you’re a 7 when rating guys to avoid backlash. 7 is like the happy medium

[OsmioIridio-ogcn]

Since I became red pilled I thought it all depended on confidence. The more I watch your videos, the more I understand the reality of the game. Thanks

[TheMelvinWei]

I would say you're spot on for 1-4. 5 males are still invisible to women; with 10 numbers 5s cannot be the majority of men. 6s get positive reactions just based on looks. 6s are high-tier normies, probably in the hardest spot because they need more to seal the deal. I would say most people are unattractive. It's easier for faces to go wrong in a million possible ways than it is for everything to go right, featurewise. 6s are rare and 7s yet rarer. Women have said on online forums that they can go a whole day without seeing a really attractive guy, meaning the 8-10s are super rare.

[usamashahbaz]

So, I have noticed one thing that is all the blackpill channels on youtube shows the professional photos taken of good-looking men and then selfies of average to below-average men. You know very well that selfies do slightly elongate your face right? Also, selfies cameras don't show the actual facial proportions. Why don't you include selfies of good-looking men then it will be a fair competition. Many men I see( not all) clearly drop in scale when we see their professional photos and then when we see their selfies or pictures taken by them or by some non-experienced person. A professional experienced photographer with good angles can make or break your face aesthetics.

[Prescotmills]

I think your three tier rating should be 4 tiers tbh. high tier normies/chadlites should have their own category. A 5/10 man lives in a vastly different world than a 7/10 man. 5/10 men will mostly match with landwhales on dating apps and will have to jestermax/simp to get laid; Whereas, 7/10 men will not experience any of that. The reality is that 8/10+ men are actually very scarce IRL and often taken; so Chadlites are more common frat boy slayers. Also, most women are smart enough to know that Chad will not settle with them and will make them insecure in a relationship so they prefer high tier normies or Chadlites for more security. Only 7+ women go for strictly chads. The rest will go for chadlites instead. Let me know what you think.

[kevin]

If this guy applied his analysis skills to the stock market, he'd be a millionaire.

[bossgd]

your powerpoint is top level, you should have a lot of experience in cubicle . Very good analysis as always !

[jjsan]

You should do a topic on aging and how some men's peak reside in different areas of their life depending on their cheek fat/wrinkles or even race. Many men give up young when really they are just babyfacecel while some dudes look like grown men in HS, college though later they are bald and past their primes.

[markhansen]

I agree, sub 5 is the same as zero. You are going to be rejected at that level. The only difference is how you are treated. Both a four and one are going to get rejected, but the one will be treated as a literal Shrek goblin animal.

[nemonemo]

All of those 1-3 guys mog me into oblivion, what the heck am I then sub zero? it´s over for subzerocels...

[voxpathfinderr]

I remember being a new hire at Raytheon back in the 90s and we had these classes on sexual harassment in the workplace given by HR. I remember we were hanging out at the coffee station, all the guys were discussing all these different scenarios that were sexually harassing. So this other guy who had worked there for a couple of years outside of college came by and said……Guys, guys - you only have to remember one thing, women only consider it sexual harassment if she thinks you’re unattractive. Of course some of the nerds spoke up to disagree. But he was right, he was like this loner engineer not fitting with any group, and he was already black pilled back in the 90s.

[xaviermika]

Photo feeler is a bunch of bullshit, they basically judge how good your picture is instead of how good looking you are. I have gotten a 9.1/10 and a 9.4/10 on two pictures which were voted only by girls under 24 (im 21) and each picture had around 70 votes (so quite accurate). My other pictures had ratings like 8.5, 8.0.
I am not ugly but no near those 9/10 scores. More like a 6-6.5/10.
So do NOT trust photo feeler.
Otherwise interesting video.

[rpphoenix]

Dude as a man that has RP knowledge for a long time now your analysis and brake down of things are impressive and more accurate than what you would find in any RP channel.
Is like a polished version of general RP information. Great F.... job, I find your information updating my existing RP software because your facts are 100% on point.

[chuppachups]

Proportions are only a small part of what we've broadly termed "looks." I propose that physical attractiveness can be further divided and represented as distinct components, each having completely independent sets of effects and degrees of significance.

- Proportionality, and symmetry as a subset of proportionality
- Approachability: A default (resting) expression that is between neutral and inviting
- Health markers: Luster of skin and hair, limbal rings, white sclera, white teeth, defined cheek hollows, visible muscle definition, taut skin, etc.
- Dimorphism: Supraorbital ridge and chin as indicators of biological sex
- Composite average: Scientific papers have demonstrated that faces that are a composite average are the most attractive. Others have demonstrated that faces most like one's own are found to be more attractive by that person than those that aren't.
- Phenotype and similarity to self: I hypothesize that disproportionate exposure to, for example, faces of a given phenotype "primes" that person to favor traits of that phenotype. I suspect that such "priming" occurs during a specific developmental window (e.g. possibly during which the Westermarck effect occurs) and possibly to a far less extent throughout the remainder of life.

I think that we frequently neglect to acknowledge that the elements of a person's physical appearance affect attractiveness extremely disproportionately to one another. For example, eyebrows typically have the same thickness along their length to the arch, while the tail is tapered. Some eyebrows feature an increasing thickness, forming a peak at the arch. (Cartoon characters that are demonic or are otherwise representative of evil typically have their eyebrows drawn in this manner.) This seemingly imperceptible feature is a very strong expression of hostility, regardless of the character, personality, or mood of that individual. *It's disproportionately more likely to lead to rejection than a comparatively similar degree of imperfection in other areas.*

Another feature is the corners of the lips. Closed lips generally meet in such a way that they have a slightly negative tilt on both sides, and the tilt may become more neutral approaching the corners. Some are increasingly angled downward at the corners, which contributes to what is commonly known as "bitchy resting face." Quite obviously, an individual who has this trait may be completely unaware of the degree to which it is affecting their everyday social interaction.

I think that we must be more meticulous in conclusively identifying the root causes of repeated rejection, especially given that many of them may be problems as easily solvable as the aforementioned. Doing so would provide a great deal of value to the community, as well as compete against the misleading infotainment more effectively for market share of attention.

[droppenheimer]

My man's IQ is off charts we are witnessing the biggest saint atm. Keep going on your works, big appreciated.

[Kongo_mark_]

Dude the fact that you just start explaining without talking about the title and about the topic in general made you instantly a better person

[thelonercoder]

This goes to show how subjective looks can be sometimes. Alot of the dudes you rated as below 5 aren't even bad looking to me. IN fact, they look more like normies than ugly. For example, the top two guys on the number 4 at 01:00 look like normies. And the top guy has good hollow cheekbones, which can push him up to a HTN or atleast a 5.5/10, based on that alone. Same with the guy in the middle at 2. He has attractive hollow cheekbones, which gives him that model appeal, despite his other features being unattractive. If you have these exotic features, you can actually be saved.

[angry]

I wholly agree with your first point: I've noticed that incels rate looks in resemblance to an iq bell curve, (where 50 percent of people fall between 4 and 6), instead of just distributing the scale evenly according to percentile.

Secondly, I think we should have a more holistic SMV rating system. Face should account for about 50% of total looks, height accounting for 30%, and physique accounting for 20%. A 6'1 male with a 5/10 face and an ideal physique equates to a 7 imo. It goes without saying that a 5'2 male would pay a penalty in the height category and receive negative points, just like a facial subhuman would.