>tfw /soc/ gives rates you as 2/10
>going to soc in the first place
>>27687781
post your face lets see it
>>27687781
I feel sorry for you, Anon. I couldn't bear something like that.
>>27687897
>implying he will post it
>got 3.5 the first time
>5-7 every time after
I don't know what to believe anymore.
>>27687781
>visiting /soc/
kek I bet you go to /r9k/
>>27688011
>kek I bet you go to /r9k/
Originally this.
I get mixed ratings. Lots of 6's mixed with some 8's and 9's. Then you have the spiteful spergs that rate you 3's. /soc/ is just a giant circlejerk
I tried that once when I was drunk. I didn't do very well but what I assume was a trap gave me a 10
Reminder that the /soc/ average is 7, not 5.
>>27689747
as it should be
people arent attractive on a normalized scale, its probably more close to a weighted average around 6.5 in my professional opinion
the fact of the matter is there arent that many super ugly people that would rank around 2 or 3, they are extremely few compared to pretty ok attractive people that would be 7s or 8s
>>27687781
post it you fucking kike
...I don't go on /soc/.
>tfw once got a 3/10 on /soc/
i mean, it was only once, and i've also gotten multiple 7-8s, but it still stung
I used to get 6-8/10.
Now I'm fat ;_;
if you have the fucking gall to post your face on this website, or anywhere online for that matter, you arent a robot. just a failed faggot normie that needs to get the fuck out.
>>27689785
>people arent attractive on a normalized scale
What do you even mean by this..
Depends on who you ask either way.
>he's posting it again
Yeah, posting it again.
>>27689914
this guy is def really fat
/SOC/ is brain cancer incarnate.
that board is just a bunch of attention whoring unintelligent sluts who have nothing else to bring to the table except there looks, so they post pics of there genitals and buttocks etc and don't reply to jackshit
it essentially a validation platform for sex fetishists and roastie whores
>>27687781
>get rated 3/10 by girls
>get 7/10 from a big fit nigger
What does it means
>>27690004
you tell em anon!
>>27689933
i mean, do you think for every attractive person there is one equally ugly person?
no, that is ridiculous, life doesnt work that way
time for a quick stats lesson
the graphs you posted are skewed normal distributions, a normal distribution is one in which many data points fall around an average normally
in real life the average is skewed towards the right imo - imagine if the normal distribution was a jello and was pulled with a string towards the right, that is what i think the average attractiveness would be
because there are more 7's than there are 3's, 3 is terminally ugly while 7 is basically a little better than average
>>27690079
OH SHIT ITS QTPIE
HOLA HOLA WEDEM BOYZ
play zed pls
>post in /soc/ rate threads while clean-shaven
>get 5s and even a 3 once
>post again with facial hair
>get 6s, 7s, and even an 8
>>27690080
>there are more 7's than there are 3's, 3 is terminally ugly while 7 is basically a little better than average
Conceptually, there should be an equal amount of 3s and 7s.
>>27689933
Also on this topic..
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-mathematics-of-beauty/
"Take whatever you think some guys don't like and play it up."
God damn it no. Please don't I like super plain.
>>27690080
Ok so you're saying the graph I posted (okcupid stats) aren't representative of the real world? All I said was really that girls are positively skewed. And men, by that graph, don't exhibit much of anything you'd consider a skew.
The question I asked was about "normalized" in this context. I'm not all that familiar with the statistics use but my understanding is it has to do with how you decide to label the Y axis (in our example). It can be constraining the data to the range 0-1 for instance (my most familiar use) while retaining all representable information.
Doesn't really make much sense to me here. And I don't see how it could mean Skew.
>>27690139
Yes assuming a normal skew. He's saying people rate more 7's than 3's, but the "real" ranking would mean there's the same number of 7's and 3's. Basically if we ordered them all according to average score and assigned them values 1-10 based on their position. More 7's would fall than 3's would climb.
This shit is interesting as fuck (oops, rank 9-250). I should look more at this.
>>27690250
>Yes assuming a normal skew. He's saying people rate more 7's than 3's, but the "real" ranking would mean there's the same number of 7's and 3's. Basically if we ordered them all according to average score and assigned them values 1-10 based on their position. More 7's would fall than 3's would climb.
Yeah, that's why I said 'conceptually'. The variance would be accounted for by things like politeness or civility.
If It were an all neckberad polling group though, there would prob be more 3s than 7s.
>>27690300
>LONDON
LONDON
I never understood the meme was so real.
>>27690079
Being completely objective, my opinion of that board is in no way influenced by my looks
>think you're 10/10 based on what friends and family say
>get rated 6/10
/soc/ killed my ego
>>27687822
This
Kill yourself faggot bitch asshole coward rancid swine OP.
>>27690449
>posting your face on 4chan
>coward
man black people really love throwing this word around as if it being an insult automatically makes it apply
>>27690503
Posting your face on 4chan is a bold move, I'm to pussy to do it
>>27690080
A skewed distribution is not the same thing as a skewed normal distribution. You are retarded.
