You must be in the top 4% to attract an average female
It's been proven that the top 80% of females are sexually attracted to the top 20% of males.
But our wise mother nature loves fractals, and this pattern repeats itself further, so the top 80% of those 80% are sexually attracted to the top 20% of those 20%.
Let's do the math.
The 80% of 80% is 0.8 * 0.8 = 0.64, i. e., 64%. Mind you, a top 64% female roughly means a 4+, not even necessarily a 5! But let's be generous and call that "average".
The 20% of 20% is 0.2 * 0.2 = 0.04, i. e., 4%. Which roughly means that we are fuck out of luck here.
Numbers don't lie. You must be in the top 4% to attract an average female.
14 comments
Two levels of stupid pop out immediately. One is that the distribution of people from 1-10 are considered to equal at every rank, despite the fact that virtually none of these kinds of morons ever ranks anyone 1 or 10. It's much more likely to be a bell curve (if one buys into all their other flawed premises, of course).
The second level of stupid: Let me grab my calculator for this.
The 80% of the 80%: the lowest 64%
If we assume that distribution is equal, and the lowest rank is 1 and not 0 (which affects the math as the mean value becomes 5.5 rather than 5), then the average person's "looksrank" at each tier is as follows:
The lowest 64%: 3.88
(yeah, the apparently identical but differently ordered digits on the last two aren't an error; I triple checked to be sure.)
So incelin fails badly at both statistics and math.
What's the point of ranking people's appearances? Different people and different cultures have different ideas of what a 10 and a 1 are. In scientific terms, its unquantifiable. Instead, you might want to anonymously interview different people on what they find attractive and look for motifs in the responses-- but then you'd have to consider your questions carefully to avoid biasing people.
Its just so pointless unless you're a sociologist studying human perceptions of beauty, which I obviously doubt this incel is.
It doesn't matter how many people are "attracted" to the best-looking people. What matters is that for the most part, people don't have huge harems in the civilized world. Who cares if you're not her first choice ...as long as you treat her well enough that you're her LAST choice.
Huge numbers of teenagers find they're "falling in love" with movie stars or popular entertainers. So what? That's fantasy, and it'll never get to be a reality. It's just an exercise of the hormones.
Good grief! You lot really are bad at math! Let me break it down for you.
1. Women want to get laid.
And you fuckers like to say women can't do math.
Wait one damn minute here. First of all, the whole idea of rating people's looks is freakin' stupid, (like Salami was saying) because it's so subjective, but even putting that aside, since when are someone's own looks related to who they find attractive? In other words, wouldn't the supposed 'bottom 20%' of women be attracted to the 'top 20%' of men too?
But that just goes back to it being subjective, though. Who says women agree on what the top 20% is, anyway?
Gotta agree with what KoR is saying; attraction is subjective. As much as I hate using that numbered rating system that shallow people use, one man's 8 may be another's 5.
The woman I'm currently in a FWB relationships with is the sexiest woman in the world to me and I enjoy spending time with her both in and out of the bedroom. But, I'm sure that "incels" would dismiss me as being a "beta orbiter" because she's over 30 and full-figured.
All I can to say to that is whatev's manbabies; I'm still enjoying regular naked fun time with an amazing person.
Wait!!! I completely forgot to account for something in my math above! The fact that 20% of men get 80% of women!!!!1!! I was assuming that the distribution of men-to-women was equal across all tiers, my bad.
60% of men get nobody.
With this in mind, the math failure is in removing the first 20% via multiplication (0.8 × 0.8 = 0.64) as they would get more meaningful results via subtraction (0.8 - 0.2 = 0.6).
This results in:
So... even taking that into account, ignoring the fact that their premises are stupid, their math is oversimplified, and their grasp of statistics is poor, you still don't need to be in the top 4% to "get an average female".
It's been proven that the top 80% of females are sexually attracted to the top 20% of males.
Prove it. Where is the source for this? Who actually did the research?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
