>What is the best place to meet women?
I'm a 7,5/10, 5'8,5''/175cm intermediate dyel 20 year old
>5'8"
Try kindergarten.
>>37797065
rekt
>>37797065
KEK
>>37797065
boom
>>37797065
Savage.
>>37797057
>too weak to get a fit girl
>too short to get a thin girl
>too poor to get a prostitute
just give up man, turn into a twink faggot
>>37797057
Dog Park; Make sure you have a small dog.
>>37797057
Go jihad and you will get 72 virgins insha allah brother
>>37797057
>7,5/10
You guys are pretty generous with your ratings. Considering you are just 2.5 points below the most attractive man in the world
>>37797065
I should have said 5'9'', should I?
>>37797057
>a 5'8" dyel who is 7,5/10
This is an oxymoron
>>37797057
>7,5/10
>5'8,5"
pick one
>>37797093
>Considering you are just 2.5 points below the 10% most attractive men in the world
Fixed that for you.
>>37797191
Are you fucking retarded? That's not how it works.
>>37797223
It is certainly not the case that a 10/10 is the most attractive man in the world. It is clear that 10/10 is extremely attractive, which applies to a large number of people and 7.5/10 is above average and generally considered handsome. Handsome being a title given to a fair amount of men.
>>37797120
Just a moron tho
>>37797333
I never said that 10/10 is the most attractive man in the world.
You clearly have no grasp of statistics. According to you, the smallest group of men (1/10 and 10/10) represents 10 % each of every man in the world. Just shut the fuck up.
If you're an alpha male, anywhere is the best place to meet them. Dating sites, bars, college, gas station.
Anywhere women are.
If you're a beta(asking dating advice on 4chan) then good luck finding anyone that doesn't have four children or 50 plus pounds over weight
>>37797333
I consider myself handsome, but only at the level were I have to work for it. My charisma sucks, so I'm screwed eitherway. But Tinder helps with that, which have allowed me to sleep with almost 50 women. Maybe I'm a 7 at most...
>>37797350
>I never said that 10/10 is the most attractive man in the world.
>>37797093
>2.5 points below the most attractive man in the world
You're an idiot and so is he. Even so, his point was that there are many 10/10s, not just one, and he's right.
>op asks about where to meet women
>thread is 100% faggots who only want to suck cock
>>37797191
You are retarded mate. Please delete this
>>37797372
This >>37797093 is not me you fucking mongloid. His ONLY point was that 10/10 represents 10 % of every man in the world. Which it doesn't. Far from it. Just shut the fuck up.
>>37797057
Through friends or at cafés/libraries/bookshops where you can find really feminine skinny qt grills with glasses and low self-esteem desu
>>37797404
>feminine skinny qt grills with glasses and low self-esteem desu
I seriously hope I fuck the qt I'm seeing tomorrow, dem glasses m8
>>37797065
fucking kek
>>37797446
You can do it bro
>>37797502
I believe she's a virgin, probably won't happen. Already touched her tits tho
>>37797526
>most people are more open minded than you think (...) Most girls are much more slutty and thirsty than you think.You just have to give their heads a little push and they will do pretty much anything you say.
~Fronk Yong
>>37797223
>>37797350
>>37797387
And your point is that the distribution of the number of men according to the attractiveness out of 10, forms a Gaussian distribution. Which it does, obviously.
If you know anything about math, you know a Gaussian distribution is not bounded. Given a large enough sample, you will find any number of individuals far above or below the median.
The consequence of this is that you can't have a linear grading system. (ie. every rank on the x apsis has the same width).
If you did, you would soon find someone who doesn't correspond to your grading system, someone who would have to be graded 11 or -1. This absurdity comes from the fact that you try to bound (from 0 to 10) something that is not bounded (the domain of definition of a Gaussian distribution).
An example of some grading system that also obeys the Gaussian distribution but didn't do this mistake is the IQ : there is no "highest possible IQ" because, given a large enough population, we would theoretically find someone that is smart enough to correspond to this IQ (same goes for lowest IQ).
The consequence of this is that, in order to have a lower and an upper limit to our grading system (0 to 10), we have to assign a grade as a function of "how many other individuals are equally attractive".
That is : 10/10 correspond to the top x% of people, 9/10 to the next y%, etc.
The bins don't have to have the same population filling them. it doesn't have to be 10% for every grade (or 9.09 if you want from 0/10 to 10/10), but the reasoning behind >>37797191 was more accurate than yours. The only point you have on >>37797093 is that you don't want all of the bins to include the same number of people.
Now that I went full autismo on you, please tell me again who's dumb?
