• Stop coping, and start posting. Register an account in order to gain full access to Lookism's features.

Attention aspies: "ratings" aren't a thing

BlueBalls

Machine
Joined
Sep 9, 2015
Messages
5,873
Reputation
15
There are no ratings. Prove me wrong.

Legit measurements are defined and follow a system but these "looks ratings" are just random numbers based on completely subjective opinions. To make it worse those opinions are based on low-res pics that vary greatly in lighting, angle, lens size etc etc. and they mean absolutely nothing. Attraction isn't nearly understood, facial attractiveness isn't understood and I sure as hell don't understand these "ratings" because there is no consistency, one persons 8 is another persons 4 and so on.

Oh, and I don't mind people PM'ing me to ask about surgeries or whatever but don't ask me to rate you because, although statistically unlikely as a Lookism poster, I'm not aspie. The next persons that asks "what's my looks rating?" I'm just gonna tell him: "it's i" as in imaginary number because that's where it really is -in your head!
 

uglydeathcel

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
1,480
Reputation
1
Beauty is subjective 
I knew some women who liked men who I'd consider a 6
But the girl would consider them an 8+
Although most women have kinda similar idea of ideal man there are some exceptions
 

uglydeathcel

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
1,480
Reputation
1
Graal said:
uglydeathcel said:
Beauty is subjective 
I knew some women who liked men who I'd consider a 6
But the girl would consider them an 8+
Although most women have kinda similar idea of ideal man there are some exceptions

cope
 

etTuBrute

Joke
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Messages
227
Reputation
0
"there are no ratings". obviously ratings are subjective, but they still exist you idiot

numerical ratings are a valid way to evaluate something. this method is used by universities, engineers, etc. BUT each number needs a criteria or checklist to reduce the subjectivity. thats the problem with lookism rating; there is no standard criteria for each rating

example:
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
719
Reputation
0
BlueBalls said:
There are no ratings. Prove me wrong.

Legit measurements are defined and follow a system but these "looks ratings" are just random numbers based on completely subjective opinions. To make it worse those opinions are based on low-res pics that vary greatly in lighting, angle, lens size etc etc. and they mean absolutely nothing. Attraction isn't nearly understood, facial attractiveness isn't understood and I sure as hell don't understand these "ratings" because there is no consistency, one persons 8 is another persons 4 and so on.

Oh, and I don't mind people PM'ing me to ask about surgeries or whatever but don't ask me to rate you because, although statistically unlikely as a Lookism poster, I'm not aspie. The next persons that asks "what's my looks rating?" I'm just gonna tell him: "it's i" as in imaginary number because that's where it really is -in your head!

COPE

It is almost impossible to imagine a world without an order of rank of looks. Individual ratings are subjective, but the principle of heterophenomenology can be applied to subjective ratings to deduce which order a person belongs to.

i.e. That individual ratings are subjective does not imply that many ratings don't converge on an objective looks scale.
 

Brutus

I can't breathe
Birds
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
17,705
Reputation
5,389
Ratings can vary about 2 points between women.  For guys with a combination of very good and very bad features, the variations would be higher but it's usually limited to a range of 2 points almost exactly. Girls rate guys so much that it's disgusting


An average guy will be seen as slightly above by many girls, and slightly below by many girls.

The issue with ratings on this site is the fact that most users project their own insecurities into overrating or underrating certain guys. The eyecels rate Orb highly, but the chincels don't rate him nearly as well.



I would argue though that it's VERY difficult to rate some people accurately from just seeing a picture. A person with a good eye area and upper third in general will likely be highly photogenic, even if they look like shit in real life and have a weak chin and long midface (like me). Likewise, some bug-eyed jock will likely look terrible in most pictures, but will still get 10x as many girls as the twink due to the way his facial bone structure looks in motion.
 

uglydeathcel

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
1,480
Reputation
1
Brutus said:
Ratings can vary about 2 points between women.  For guys with a combination of very good and very bad features, the variations would be higher but it's usually limited to a range of 2 points almost exactly. Girls rate guys so much that it's disgusting


An average guy will be seen as slightly above by many girls, and slightly below by many girls.

The issue with ratings on this site is the fact that most users project their own insecurities into overrating or underrating certain guys. The eyecels rate Orb highly, but the chincels don't rate him nearly as well.



I would argue though that it's VERY difficult to rate some people accurately from just seeing a picture. A person with a good eye area and upper third in general will likely be highly photogenic, even if they look like shit in real life and have a weak chin and long midface (like me). Likewise, some bug-eyed jock will likely look terrible in most pictures, but will still get 10x as many girls as the twink due to the way his facial bone structure looks in motion.
legit fuaark
 

paulus

Banned
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Messages
11,176
Reputation
28
Rating system for attractivness is binary: you either attractive or not. Thats it.

/thread
 

Veuve

Rotter
Joined
Oct 4, 2015
Messages
2,943
Reputation
2
paulus said:
Rating system for attractivness is binary: you either attractive or not. Thats it.

/thread

Why do so many people on this site engage in almost exclusively binary thinking
Is it an aspiring trait

Anyway, you can't really say ratings just "don't exist", that doesn't even make sense, obviously they do since people here rate people and it doesn't go against the definition of the word
 

Languish

Joke
Joined
Dec 30, 2015
Messages
229
Reputation
1
So what is your opinion on most sociological research? Granted, social sciences are not fantastic, but it's a 'thing' at the very least.
 

etTuBrute

Joke
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Messages
227
Reputation
0
paulus said:
Rating system for attractivness is binary: you either attractive or not. Thats it.

/thread
there are varying degrees of attractiveness and some people can find one person ugly whole others will find that same person attractive. also rating someone in binary isnt descriptive enough. just lol at thinking your comment warrants a "/thread"
Veuve said:
Anyway, you can't really say ratings just "don't exist", that doesn't even make sense, obviously they do since people here rate people and it doesn't go against the definition of the word
this. OP is dumb
 

BlueBalls

Machine
Joined
Sep 9, 2015
Messages
5,873
Reputation
15
etTuBrute said:
paulus said:
Rating system for attractivness is binary: you either attractive or not. Thats it.

/thread
there are varying degrees of attractiveness and some people can find one person ugly whole others will find that same person attractive. also rating someone in binary isnt descriptive enough. just lol at thinking your comment warrants a "/thread"
Veuve said:
Anyway, you can't really say ratings just "don't exist", that doesn't even make sense, obviously they do since people here rate people and it doesn't go against the definition of the word
this. OP is dumb

No you are the dumb ones, skilled at nitpicking but not much else.

The idea of rating a persons looks on a numerical scale exist in the heads of teenagers and deluded aspies, but it has hardly any real world application and it's not helpful either.

At most it can provide a vague idea of how others (incel aspies in this case) percieve your relative attractivness but I ignored that fact in favour of typical hyperbole that I thought forum users would be at least somewhat familiar with by now.

But nope there are always those that need to hypercriticize based on the most irrellevant flaw.
 
Top