I wrote a reply to an intelligent comment by Lex Corvus on the CH post “Just How Many Beautiful Women Are There In The World?” dated 3 August 2016. We know how comment space is at a premium there. I decided to post it here instead after it grew quite large, just over 400 words.
One is free to use whichever scale one chooses, of course, but the idea that there are only 1000 10s in the entire world seems ridiculously restrictive.
Luckily, there’s already a standard mapping of a numerical scale to the normal distribution. So-called stanines (for “standard nines”) sets the mean to 5 with a standard deviation of 2 (rather than 1 as proposed by Wrecked `Em).
The resulting numbers correspond more closely to the colloquial use of the ten-point scale. A 7 (1SD) is top 32%, a 9 (2SDs) top 2%, and a 10 (2.5SDs) top 0.5%. In a random sample of 1000 fertile-age women, we would then expect approximately the following breakdown: 191 6s, 150 7s, 92 8s, 17 9s, and 5 10s.
I’m being technical here, but that is the way to mental strength and purposeful action. Jealous men afraid of constructive intelligence (too beta) say sperg; you so tuff. Here’s preemptive FU. The idea of only 1000 10s in the world may or may not be true, hard to say, but it is not ridiculous, technically. Since the beauty tail of the distribution is more or less exponential decay, it is quite possible globally. Global communication and transportation have changed our social environment. To fit the 1-10 scale one must cover the data points, and if there are 1000 beauty outliers in the world, they must be included, regardless, if we are being globalists (hint).
However, few men see that top 1 percentile, even in free porn. lol If you pragmatically fit to the scale of what you actually can see, then yes, it’s ridiculous. Thus the Spinal Tap 11 is a viable or even correct cheat. I think what is ridiculous, to be precise, is not the limit on 10s per the world but the limit men put on their own worlds of sexual beauty and pleasure. Keyboard jockeys like to say how they don’t consider below 8 a HB and WnotB. I don’t believe it. Remove makeup and photo airbrushing, and the instincts attached to ye penis don’t lie. Only alien emotions living rent free in emasculated men lie about such things within the man.
I think that scale with 2=SD works great, Lex! It gibes with my observations and interpretation and has practical value. A guy that won’t touch an HB6, top 265-455 of 1000 viable baby factories (I think excluding unnatural fructose queens), is screwed up mentally or actually has a hotter chick at hand and sexually willing. Evo psych says men will hit an HB6 if instincts are the determinant. A wild alpha of yore might have seen, just seen, 40 potential baby momas in his adult lifetime. He’s not there to win the gene evolution? He didn’t have to wife up the 5 he banged, and he banged her b/c the other women were pregnant, breast feeding, menstruating, bitchy, accommodating a beta load (beta behavior has successful evolutionary basis), etc. Sperm comes easy, heh. I think the revulsion at 6s comes from culture a la commitment, the economics of debt slavery, prevailing female social standards with virtue signaling, and alternative porn and mass interwebz reality. I recommend RSDTyler’s Meditation video. Turn off to turn on. Control the function of your mind.
—‘Reality’ Doug, 03 August 2016
P.S. I added a comment to the comment by Lex (still the 3rd, 11:00pm):
Lex, How can your breakdown in 1000 have 7s in top 32%?
You have 7s at top 32%, 10s at top 0.5%. Also have “191 6s, 150 7s, 92 8s, 17 9s, and 5 10s”.
At least a 10: 5/1000 = 0.5% ok
At least an 8: (5+17+92)/1000 = 114/1000 = 11.4%
At least a 7: (5+17+92+150)/1000 = 264/1000 = 26.4%
If I take linear average of 7s tier: (26.4% + 11.4%) / 2 = 18.9%
At least a 6: 45.5%
Linear average of 6s tier: 35.95%
If you skew for median in 6s tier, the percentage must drop a bit (~38%?).
Top 32% seems to be a 6 in breakdown.