Use Standard Deviations to easily estimate SMV score, rarity/percentile across variables and fairly compare face vs height .Slayers between 2-8SD ?

[Rotter]

First post and I'm used to redditor aversion to statistics and logic so I'll make a list of disclaimers. Yes these variables are not necessarily equally weighted. Yes they are not necessarily linear or independent. Doesn't matter it's an estimator and those diminishing returns often set in the outer percentiles, there can just be a fraction of error at times because 7ft horsecocked subhuman technically scores well, irrelevant as it's a small percentage of cases. I'm keen to point it's at least a rarity calculator as you can possibly find clashes on equal scores. This just serves to be a useful basis for variable comparison as then you have equal rarity. I'll try to hide dry neeky stuff about finding Zscores of combined Zscores in a spoiler section for those interested. And obviously style, charisma, class, status, social skills do still matter. We're also comparing numbers to young western standards. Face scores also based on appeal not gay alien autism.Ryan Gosling looks better than Jordan Barret, good looking human > trans cat. If you disagree you don't just need to go outside you need to get on Normie internet more. And obviously I'm only looking at physical stuff not status and wealth, you can probably add this in if you want as my method allows limitless variables.

Content/summary
1) explaining Standard deviations for manuallabourcells, allocating heights, faces, bodies and dick sizes to different scores so everyone's on the same page (no a chad isn't 1 in 2 billion, pointless scale and definition you don't measure distance the distance in between countries in light years ).

2) application, why people do unfair comparisons on face vs height and blackpillers often use Reddit level logic. ("Variable A means nothing because an extreme outlier in variable B is more significant" or "face is everything is as Tom cruise mogs my 6'1 LTN friend" a 6'1 LTN is roughly average in score and rarity, Tom cruise is +3 or 4 standard deviations. Why people combine variables wrong, it's not just multiplying as that only works out Mog Monopolies. For example a 5'10 MTN, isn't top 25% (0.5*0.5), 25% of guys are Taller and Better looking, but a 5'9.5 Chad wouldn't be included in that sum and you can also work down to say he has a Mognopoloy on 25% of guys. You also can't just average scores as that would imply being top 1% on 2 separate variables is as probable as being top 1% on 1 variable. How to work them out

3) Examples, how many SDs you need, I think 2-3 is enough to do very well in real life (this does not mean top 2% as you'll see in the math section) depending on the variable, GigaMoggers usually have 6,7,8,+. Average people obviously need personality, success or luck in finding love young.


Math guide

So here's a bell curve distribution. Most people are gonna be around the peak which is the average, with outliers becoming increasingly rare and every given Z score (how many SD) has a corresponding percentile. 2.33 standard deviations is top 1%, 1.33 is top 10%, etc etc. This will all be familiar to anyone interested in IQ.

I'm gonna keep it simple and put an an average and standard deviation in the table. I'm following TRM/youtube guides and doing every face number is 1 standard deviation, looking back at an unbiased sample such as a school population, it makes sense, 1 in 6 were pleasant to look at, 1 in 50 were very good looking and pulled etc. Please no autism about chads being 1 in a billion, this is a pointlessly limited definition, it's like using light years to measure all distances and standard deviations cover everything as the rarity is exponential, 6SD is already 1 in a billion. 5sd is 1 in 3 million. 4 in 30,000. I'm also just saying average dick is 6 inches with 1 inch standard deviation, 5 seems small and 7 seems commonly large. Asides from face and IQ these variables below will often diminish past 2 SD, not much point in being 6'7, having a 9 incher or roid physique , what you can gain in novelty appeal you probably lose among normal women

	Face. 5/10 (1)	Height. 5'10 (3 inches)	Body and frame	Dick. 6 (1 inch)	IQ for fun 100(15)
1SD. 1/6. "Fairly"	6/10 HTN. Jim from office?	6'1	Gym goer, can be bulky strong or lean athletic	7	115. Midwit, decent college/proffessional
2SD. 1/50 "very"	7/10 Chadlite. Logan Paul? Bieber? MBJ? Gosling?	6'4	Probably Ideal tbh, years in gym and lean.	8	130. Very smart. Estimated IQ of CEO's and ceiling for Top College averages.
3SD. 1/750 "extreme"	8/10 Chad. Cilian murphy, Ronaldo?	6'7	Insane, arguably negative returns/niche/malegaze . Roids	9	145. Genius, appraoching Nobel Prize/ Tech billionaire level.
4SD. 1/32000	9/10 GigaChad/PSL. Dicaprio, Meeks, Cavill etc	6'10	N/A	N/A	160. Certainly nobel prize level and Bill Gates estimate. Memory champion had 159.

For an SMV rarity score just add up Z scores ( how many SD's someone has).
For example Brad Pitt roughly= 4 face+ 2 body= 6 SD
Anthony joshua = 1 face+ 3 body, + 2.67 height=6.67 SD
this doesn't mean AJ mogs Pitt just that roughly they're equally rare given those numbers, which can be debated and if equal can be used to compared variables.

Blackpill austists make this mistake all the time, of course your 6'1 LTN friend (+1height -1Face = 0) gets mogged by by Depp, Cilian murphy, Tom cruise. They're all -0.67 Height + 3 or 4 Face and usually +1 body as well. You have to ask yourself things like "6'4 mtn vs 5'10 chadlite". "6'1 HTN with 1SD physique vs 5'10 Chad"

To work our rarity you must add Z scores and divide by the square root of amount of variables

A common mistake I see people make is they multiply the percentiles going up... But this just works out how many have a Mognopoly on you and inflates your score/rarity. I don't know how to tag but there was a profile called 6ft4 posting about wondering about this.

6ft. Chadlite. Top 25%* top 2* = top 0.5%? 1 in 200? for height and looks? Nope that is just how many are BOTH taller than 6ft and above 2nd percentile looks. You could just as easily work down and do 0.75*0.98 and get a score of top 27%. But that is just showing that 73% are both shorter and uglier. Neither accounts for 5'11 chads, 6ft4 subhumans, 6'3 HTNs etc. so you combine the Z scores 2+0.67=2.67 and divide by the square roof of 2= 1.41 to get +1.89, convert this into a percentile and you get top 3% for the combination of height and face

Spoiler: Mathcel explanation

Think of everyone getting their Z scores on every individual variable and summing them. Then forming a new distribution of everyones combined Z scores, the new mean is still 0, but the standard deviation has increased and for reasons I don't know the new standard deviation is the square root of amount of variables, so if someone had a score of 4SD across variables he would be +2sd or top 2% on a distribution of combined variables, the easiest way to think of it is that everyone else in the population is also getting extra Z scores to combine so there's more room for outliers, it wouldn't be accurate to sum SDs across multiple variables whilst everyone else doesn't

Examples of moggers and what scores do you need?
In personal experience most men who do well with women (regular sex or LTR with a top few percent woman) basically have 2 or 3 + standard deviation tally. sometimes even just 1 but then also personality

The 3 biggest foggers in my school LTR respectively a 5'11 Chadlite who looks like George Russel the F1 driver
a 5'8 Chadlite/HTN MMA fighter and a 5'10 HTN in decent shape and frame, alleged big dick.
Other successes include a 6'2 ogre with insane frame. A 6'2 MTN with a 7 incher- He obviously get's nothing online but in social circles a good amount of women have ended up trying to sleep with him, Autistic but he's very agreeable and feminismmaxes so he unintentionally has a social circle of lonely women around him. And 1 5'8 HTN with a big cock, declined as height became more important but did very well in school and LTRs well now. and 1 5'8 Gymmaxxed extroverted HTN/Chadlite. 6'2 Gymmamxed HTN and 6'3 Chad with small cock who's now a heartthrob actor

Rough Celebrity SMV score examples, it's hard to compare elite physiques and faces for appeal for example

Ronaldo = +3face +2body + 1height= 6
Cavill = 4face+2body +1 height = 7
Hemsworth = 3.5face + 2or3body + 1.67height = 7-8 minimum
Dolph Lundgren = 3+face 2or3body + 2.33height = 7.33-9.33
Chico,
luckyblue = 4 face +0 or 1 body + 2 height = 6-7
Di caprio = 4face +1 body =5
Brad pitt = 4 face + 2body = 6
Michael B jordan = 2 face + 2 body = 4 (stop coping he is good looking, soft features, appeal, harmony and frauds the jaw with facial hair just fine)
Cilian Murphy = 3face -0.67height + 1 body= 3.33

 

[asdvek]

cillian murphy 3.33 smv, good joke, shit thread

 

[Rotter]

cillian murphy 3.33 smv, good joke, shit thread

Roughly Estimated 3.33 physical score, not counting his status and charm and Tommy Shelby Halo. Can easily give him more points on face and body and can easily just say face is weighed more

 

[Deleted member 24770]

First post and I'm used to redditor aversion to statistics and logic so I'll make a list of disclaimers. Yes these variables are not necessarily equally weighted. Yes they are not necessarily linear or independent. Doesn't matter it's an estimator and those diminishing returns often set in the outer percentiles, there can just be a fraction of error at times because 7ft horsecocked subhuman technically scores well, irrelevant as it's a small percentage of cases. I'm keen to point it's at least a rarity calculator as you can possibly find clashes on equal scores. This just serves to be a useful basis for variable comparison as then you have equal rarity. I'll try to hide dry neeky stuff about finding Zscores of combined Zscores in a spoiler section for those interested. And obviously style, charisma, class, status, social skills do still matter. We're also comparing numbers to young western standards. Face scores also based on appeal not gay alien autism.Ryan Gosling looks better than Jordan Barret, good looking human > trans cat. If you disagree you don't just need to go outside you need to get on Normie internet more. And obviously I'm only looking at physical stuff not status and wealth, you can probably add this in if you want as my method allows limitless variables.

Content/summary
1) explaining Standard deviations for manuallabourcells, allocating heights, faces, bodies and dick sizes to different scores so everyone's on the same page (no a chad isn't 1 in 2 billion, pointless scale and definition you don't measure distance the distance in between countries in light years ).

2) application, why people do unfair comparisons on face vs height and blackpillers often use Reddit level logic. ("Variable A means nothing because an extreme outlier in variable B is more significant" or "face is everything is as Tom cruise mogs my 6'1 LTN friend" a 6'1 LTN is roughly average in score and rarity, Tom cruise is +3 or 4 standard deviations. Why people combine variables wrong, it's not just multiplying as that only works out Mog Monopolies. For example a 5'10 MTN, isn't top 25% (0.5*0.5), 25% of guys are Taller and Better looking, but a 5'9.5 Chad wouldn't be included in that sum and you can also work down to say he has a Mognopoloy on 25% of guys. You also can't just average scores as that would imply being top 1% on 2 separate variables is as probable as being top 1% on 1 variable. How to work them out

3) Examples, how many SDs you need, I think 2-3 is enough to do very well in real life (this does not mean top 2% as you'll see in the math section) depending on the variable, GigaMoggers usually have 6,7,8,+. Average people obviously need personality, success or luck in finding love young.


Math guide

View attachment 2837395

So here's a bell curve distribution. Most people are gonna be around the peak which is the average, with outliers becoming increasingly rare and every given Z score (how many SD) has a corresponding percentile. 2.33 standard deviations is top 1%, 1.33 is top 10%, etc etc. This will all be familiar to anyone interested in IQ.

I'm gonna keep it simple and put an an average and standard deviation in the table. I'm following TRM/youtube guides and doing every face number is 1 standard deviation, looking back at an unbiased sample such as a school population, it makes sense, 1 in 6 were pleasant to look at, 1 in 50 were very good looking and pulled etc. Please no autism about chads being 1 in a billion, this is a pointlessly limited definition, it's like using light years to measure all distances and standard deviations cover everything as the rarity is exponential, 6SD is already 1 in a billion. 5sd is 1 in 3 million. 4 in 30,000. I'm also just saying average dick is 6 inches with 1 inch standard deviation, 5 seems small and 7 seems commonly large. Asides from face and IQ these variables below will often diminish past 2 SD, not much point in being 6'7, having a 9 incher or roid physique , what you can gain in novelty appeal you probably lose among normal women

	Face. 5/10 (1)	Height. 5'10 (3 inches)	Body and frame	Dick. 6 (1 inch)	IQ for fun 100(15)
1SD. 1/6. "Fairly"	6/10 HTN. Jim from office?	6'1	Gym goer, can be bulky strong or lean athletic	7	115. Midwit, decent college/proffessional
2SD. 1/50 "very"	7/10 Chadlite. Logan Paul? Bieber? MBJ? Gosling?	6'4	Probably Ideal tbh, years in gym and lean.	8	130. Very smart. Estimated IQ of CEO's and ceiling for Top College averages.
3SD. 1/750 "extreme"	8/10 Chad. Cilian murphy, Ronaldo?	6'7	Insane, arguably negative returns/niche/malegaze . Roids	9	145. Genius, appraoching Nobel Prize/ Tech billionaire level.
4SD. 1/32000	9/10 GigaChad/PSL. Dicaprio, Meeks, Cavill etc	6'10	N/A	N/A	160. Certainly nobel prize level and Bill Gates estimate. Memory champion had 159.

For an SMV rarity score just add up Z scores ( how many SD's someone has).
For example Brad Pitt roughly= 4 face+ 2 body= 6 SD
Anthony joshua = 1 face+ 3 body, + 2.67 height=6.67 SD
this doesn't mean AJ mogs Pitt just that roughly they're equally rare given those numbers, which can be debated and if equal can be used to compared variables.

Blackpill austists make this mistake all the time, of course your 6'1 LTN friend (+1height -1Face = 0) gets mogged by by Depp, Cilian murphy, Tom cruise. They're all -0.67 Height + 3 or 4 Face and usually +1 body as well. You have to ask yourself things like "6'4 mtn vs 5'10 chadlite". "6'1 HTN with 1SD physique vs 5'10 Chad"

To work our rarity you must add Z scores and divide by the square root of amount of variables

A common mistake I see people make is they multiply the percentiles going up... But this just works out how many have a Mognopoly on you and inflates your score/rarity. I don't know how to tag but there was a profile called 6ft4 posting about wondering about this.

6ft. Chadlite. Top 25%* top 2* = top 0.5%? 1 in 200? for height and looks? Nope that is just how many are BOTH taller than 6ft and above 2nd percentile looks. You could just as easily work down and do 0.75*0.98 and get a score of top 27%. But that is just showing that 73% are both shorter and uglier. Neither accounts for 5'11 chads, 6ft4 subhumans, 6'3 HTNs etc. so you combine the Z scores 2+0.67=2.67 and divide by the square roof of 2= 1.41 to get +1.89, convert this into a percentile and you get top 3% for the combination of height and face

Spoiler: Mathcel explanation

Think of everyone getting their Z scores on every individual variable and summing them. Then forming a new distribution of everyones combined Z scores, the new mean is still 0, but the standard deviation has increased and for reasons I don't know the new standard deviation is the square root of amount of variables, so if someone had a score of 4SD across variables he would be +2sd or top 2% on a distribution of combined variables, the easiest way to think of it is that everyone else in the population is also getting extra Z scores to combine so there's more room for outliers, it wouldn't be accurate to sum SDs across multiple variables whilst everyone else doesn't

Examples of moggers and what scores do you need?
In personal experience most men who do well with women (regular sex or LTR with a top few percent woman) basically have 2 or 3 + standard deviation tally. sometimes even just 1 but then also personality

The 3 biggest foggers in my school LTR respectively a 5'11 Chadlite who looks like George Russel the F1 driver
a 5'8 Chadlite/HTN MMA fighter and a 5'10 HTN in decent shape and frame, alleged big dick.
Other successes include a 6'2 ogre with insane frame. A 6'2 MTN with a 7 incher- He obviously get's nothing online but in social circles a good amount of women have ended up trying to sleep with him, Autistic but he's very agreeable and feminismmaxes so he unintentionally has a social circle of lonely women around him. And 1 5'8 HTN with a big cock, declined as height became more important but did very well in school and LTRs well now. and 1 5'8 Gymmaxxed extroverted HTN/Chadlite. 6'2 Gymmamxed HTN and 6'3 Chad with small cock who's now a heartthrob actor

Rough Celebrity SMV score examples, it's hard to compare elite physiques and faces for appeal for example

Ronaldo = +3face +2body + 1height= 6
Cavill = 4face+2body +1 height = 7
Hemsworth = 3.5face + 2or3body + 1.67height = 7-8 minimum
Dolph Lundgren = 3+face 2or3body + 2.33height = 7.33-9.33
Chico,
luckyblue = 4 face +0 or 1 body + 2 height = 6-7
Di caprio = 4face +1 body =5
Brad pitt = 4 face + 2body = 6
Michael B jordan = 2 face + 2 body = 4 (stop coping he is good looking, soft features, appeal, harmony and frauds the jaw with facial hair just fine)
Cilian Murphy = 3face -0.67height + 1 body= 3.33

I like the idea but your perception of it is kind of shitty. If there could be a PSL incorporated version of this it would be better JFL

 

[Rotter]

I like the idea but your perception of it is kind of shitty. If there could be a PSL incorporated version of this it would be better JFL

What aspect is shitty? how would you incorporate PSL? face ratings are already factored in

 

[IMOGYOU]

Chadlite. Logan Paul

 

[MoggsWithBoness]

There are some things that women prioritize less so you cant give everything equal value. Total SMV score is dependant on 6 main factors and is of 2 types

Raw SMV

Modified SMV

Raw SMV comes from the urge of a woman to fuck and modified SMV means who they are gonna fuck. Raw SMV consists of (Descending order of importance) Height, Dick size, Frame, Face, Physique. Whilst modified Smv, as the name suggests is location depandant. If ur in asia then the biggest thing will be "WHITENESS" and JBW will prevail, which wont matter as much in the west.

So generally, in a normal western country, it is:

Face, height, Dick, Frame, Physique, Status (Can instantly rise to no.1 if a celeb due to overshadowing)

Also there is overshadowing here, that means one thing might be so good or bad that it can disqualify you entirely. For example youre 6'1 wide framed muscular white Nick Bateman but have a 3 inch dick. That will disqualify you instantly. Atleast 5 inches ATLEAST 5 is needed to not be disqualified entirely. Things like an amazing face can disqualify short height (Tom cruise/cillian murphy). Things like physique and frame cannot overshadow any other feature.

 

[AverageCurryEnjoyer]

We passing our AP Stats with this one

 

[Rotter]

There are some things that women prioritize less so you cant give everything equal value. Total SMV score is dependant on 6 main factors and is of 2 types

Raw SMV

Modified SMV

Raw SMV comes from the urge of a woman to fuck and modified SMV means who they are gonna fuck. Raw SMV consists of (Descending order of importance) Height, Dick size, Frame, Face, Physique. Whilst modified Smv, as the name suggests is location depandant. If ur in asia then the biggest thing will be "WHITENESS" and JBW will prevail, which wont matter as much in the west.

So generally, in a normal western country, it is:

Face, height, Dick, Frame, Physique, Status (Can instantly rise to no.1 if a celeb due to overshadowing)

Also there is overshadowing here, that means one thing might be so good or bad that it can disqualify you entirely. For example youre 6'1 wide framed muscular white Nick Bateman but have a 3 inch dick. That will disqualify you instantly. Atleast 5 inches ATLEAST 5 is needed to not be disqualified entirely. Things like an amazing face can disqualify short height (Tom cruise/cillian murphy). Things like physique and frame cannot overshadow any other feature.

I agree that nuance is certainly necessary, but it's good to have an idea of equal rarity of outcomes in certain variables when comparing them. And I do think it's generally accurate within normal ranges, a better face probably equals a 3 inch height and corresponding size mog, as far as I know studies suggest women are more attracted to body for hookups (Think its retarded for blackpillers to fret over an eyebrow being 2mm too high due to evolutionary psychology then neglect the importance of lean muscles) , culture and women themselves glorifies height and blackpillers glorify face so I'm fairly comfortable holding them relatively equal,

As I said in the post most successes I know are + 2 standard deviations net on these features whether that's a short gymmaxxed good looking guy or a an ugly 6'2 frame mogging ogre (someone like pete davidson is explained as well, +4 or 5 standard deviations on height, face and dick explains how he's physically good enough, then his personality probably appeals as well). Where it would be more contentious is for example if someone is arguing if Tyson fury is equally *rare* to Tom cruise, then you can compare how Ogre size compares to good looks.

 

[MoggsWithBoness]

I agree that nuance is certainly necessary, but it's good to have an idea of equal rarity of outcomes in certain variables when comparing them. And I do think it's generally accurate within normal ranges, a better face probably equals a 3 inch height and corresponding size mog, as far as I know studies suggest women are more attracted to body for hookups (Think its retarded for blackpillers to fret over an eyebrow being 2mm too high due to evolutionary psychology then neglect the importance of lean muscles) , culture and women themselves glorifies height and blackpillers glorify face so I'm fairly comfortable holding them relatively equal,

As I said in the post most successes I know are + 2 standard deviations net on these features whether that's a short gymmaxxed good looking guy or a an ugly 6'2 frame mogging ogre (someone like pete davidson is explained as well, +4 or 5 standard deviations on height, face and dick explains how he's physically good enough, then his personality probably appeals as well). Where it would be more contentious is for example if someone is arguing if Tyson fury is equally *rare* to Tom cruise, then you can compare how Ogre size compares to good looks.

Yes they are attracted to lean mass but there are issues here. 1, you cannot assume more muscle = better body. There is a happy medium. 2) it is very variable. Bad insertions cannot be measured and the body is a whole score in and of itself. So isolating the body and analysing the whole thing is more stressful, so I consider physique as lean mass to bodyweight ratio and bodyfat percentage is a part of the face rating. Everything else like bideltoid and waist width is segregated into. "Frame" Even here bigger != better. I aim to create a perfect SMV formula soon

 

[Rotter]

Yes they are attracted to lean mass but there are issues here. 1, you cannot assume more muscle = better body. There is a happy medium. 2) it is very variable. Bad insertions cannot be measured and the body is a whole score in and of itself. So isolating the body and analysing the whole thing is more stressful, so I consider physique as lean mass to bodyweight ratio and bodyfat percentage is a part of the face rating. Everything else like bideltoid and waist width is segregated into. "Frame" Even here bigger != better. I aim to create a perfect SMV formula soon

The issue for me is that face and body aren't independent as both correlate with leanness which throws the accuracy of the predictor off a little bit. The insertion point isn't that relevent as my valuation is qualitative anyway not just an FFMI number, so someone with a statue of david physique can go "yh i'm about top x % body because I'm aesthetic". The muscle mass factor I touched on in my graph, and introduction. Because "too much muscle " is over 2 standard deviations away the innacuracy is very limited.

Even if you did base it on muscle the error is limited. For example say someone has a 2sd face. He's top 2% for face alone. Let's say he has an excellent physique at 2sd ( 1 in 50). On face an body combined he would be about 1 in 400 top 0.25%. The innacuracy here is that the method technically equates him with a MTN with a 4sd physique or a subhuman with a mr olympia body, who if we're doing it on muscle would be a roidy freak and obviously not the same in appeal ( I just do physique on appeal anyway and wouldn't differentiate much between the +2 or 3sd phsyique and the absolute peak in appeal as they're basically the same). BUT the amount of miscounts is miniscule to the amount of accurate counts, as we're now counting the huge bulk of the population with worse bodys than the 2sd guy, so now he's overtaken the +2.1 sd face with an average body. Adding the variables has ranked the guy more accurately despite a small amount of error at the extremes

 

[MoggsWithBoness]

The issue for me is that face and body aren't independent as both correlate with leanness which throws the accuracy of the predictor off a little bit. The insertion point isn't that relevent as my valuation is qualitative anyway not just an FFMI number, so someone with a statue of david physique can go "yh i'm about top x % body because I'm aesthetic". The muscle mass factor I touched on in my graph, and introduction. Because "too much muscle " is over 2 standard deviations away the innacuracy is very limited.

Even if you did base it on muscle the error is limited. For example say someone has a 2sd face. He's top 2% for face alone. Let's say he has an excellent physique at 2sd ( 1 in 50). On face an body combined he would be about 1 in 400 top 0.25%. The innacuracy here is that the method technically equates him with a MTN with a 4sd physique or a subhuman with a mr olympia body, who if we're doing it on muscle would be a roidy freak and obviously not the same in appeal ( I just do physique on appeal anyway and wouldn't differentiate much between the +2 or 3sd phsyique and the absolute peak in appeal as they're basically the same). BUT the amount of miscounts is miniscule to the amount of accurate counts, as we're now counting the huge bulk of the population with worse bodys than the 2sd guy, so now he's overtaken the +2.1 sd face with an average body. Adding the variables has ranked the guy more accurately despite a small amount of error at the extremes

Dont argue just say "Its subjective" and move on JFL

 

[einzigartig]

First post and I'm used to redditor aversion to statistics and logic so I'll make a list of disclaimers. Yes these variables are not necessarily equally weighted. Yes they are not necessarily linear or independent. Doesn't matter it's an estimator and those diminishing returns often set in the outer percentiles, there can just be a fraction of error at times because 7ft horsecocked subhuman technically scores well, irrelevant as it's a small percentage of cases. I'm keen to point it's at least a rarity calculator as you can possibly find clashes on equal scores. This just serves to be a useful basis for variable comparison as then you have equal rarity. I'll try to hide dry neeky stuff about finding Zscores of combined Zscores in a spoiler section for those interested. And obviously style, charisma, class, status, social skills do still matter. We're also comparing numbers to young western standards. Face scores also based on appeal not gay alien autism.Ryan Gosling looks better than Jordan Barret, good looking human > trans cat. If you disagree you don't just need to go outside you need to get on Normie internet more. And obviously I'm only looking at physical stuff not status and wealth, you can probably add this in if you want as my method allows limitless variables.

Content/summary
1) explaining Standard deviations for manuallabourcells, allocating heights, faces, bodies and dick sizes to different scores so everyone's on the same page (no a chad isn't 1 in 2 billion, pointless scale and definition you don't measure distance the distance in between countries in light years ).

2) application, why people do unfair comparisons on face vs height and blackpillers often use Reddit level logic. ("Variable A means nothing because an extreme outlier in variable B is more significant" or "face is everything is as Tom cruise mogs my 6'1 LTN friend" a 6'1 LTN is roughly average in score and rarity, Tom cruise is +3 or 4 standard deviations. Why people combine variables wrong, it's not just multiplying as that only works out Mog Monopolies. For example a 5'10 MTN, isn't top 25% (0.5*0.5), 25% of guys are Taller and Better looking, but a 5'9.5 Chad wouldn't be included in that sum and you can also work down to say he has a Mognopoloy on 25% of guys. You also can't just average scores as that would imply being top 1% on 2 separate variables is as probable as being top 1% on 1 variable. How to work them out

3) Examples, how many SDs you need, I think 2-3 is enough to do very well in real life (this does not mean top 2% as you'll see in the math section) depending on the variable, GigaMoggers usually have 6,7,8,+. Average people obviously need personality, success or luck in finding love young.


Math guide

View attachment 2837395

So here's a bell curve distribution. Most people are gonna be around the peak which is the average, with outliers becoming increasingly rare and every given Z score (how many SD) has a corresponding percentile. 2.33 standard deviations is top 1%, 1.33 is top 10%, etc etc. This will all be familiar to anyone interested in IQ.

I'm gonna keep it simple and put an an average and standard deviation in the table. I'm following TRM/youtube guides and doing every face number is 1 standard deviation, looking back at an unbiased sample such as a school population, it makes sense, 1 in 6 were pleasant to look at, 1 in 50 were very good looking and pulled etc. Please no autism about chads being 1 in a billion, this is a pointlessly limited definition, it's like using light years to measure all distances and standard deviations cover everything as the rarity is exponential, 6SD is already 1 in a billion. 5sd is 1 in 3 million. 4 in 30,000. I'm also just saying average dick is 6 inches with 1 inch standard deviation, 5 seems small and 7 seems commonly large. Asides from face and IQ these variables below will often diminish past 2 SD, not much point in being 6'7, having a 9 incher or roid physique , what you can gain in novelty appeal you probably lose among normal women

	Face. 5/10 (1)	Height. 5'10 (3 inches)	Body and frame	Dick. 6 (1 inch)	IQ for fun 100(15)
1SD. 1/6. "Fairly"	6/10 HTN. Jim from office?	6'1	Gym goer, can be bulky strong or lean athletic	7	115. Midwit, decent college/proffessional
2SD. 1/50 "very"	7/10 Chadlite. Logan Paul? Bieber? MBJ? Gosling?	6'4	Probably Ideal tbh, years in gym and lean.	8	130. Very smart. Estimated IQ of CEO's and ceiling for Top College averages.
3SD. 1/750 "extreme"	8/10 Chad. Cilian murphy, Ronaldo?	6'7	Insane, arguably negative returns/niche/malegaze . Roids	9	145. Genius, appraoching Nobel Prize/ Tech billionaire level.
4SD. 1/32000	9/10 GigaChad/PSL. Dicaprio, Meeks, Cavill etc	6'10	N/A	N/A	160. Certainly nobel prize level and Bill Gates estimate. Memory champion had 159.

For an SMV rarity score just add up Z scores ( how many SD's someone has).
For example Brad Pitt roughly= 4 face+ 2 body= 6 SD
Anthony joshua = 1 face+ 3 body, + 2.67 height=6.67 SD
this doesn't mean AJ mogs Pitt just that roughly they're equally rare given those numbers, which can be debated and if equal can be used to compared variables.

Blackpill austists make this mistake all the time, of course your 6'1 LTN friend (+1height -1Face = 0) gets mogged by by Depp, Cilian murphy, Tom cruise. They're all -0.67 Height + 3 or 4 Face and usually +1 body as well. You have to ask yourself things like "6'4 mtn vs 5'10 chadlite". "6'1 HTN with 1SD physique vs 5'10 Chad"

To work our rarity you must add Z scores and divide by the square root of amount of variables

A common mistake I see people make is they multiply the percentiles going up... But this just works out how many have a Mognopoly on you and inflates your score/rarity. I don't know how to tag but there was a profile called 6ft4 posting about wondering about this.

6ft. Chadlite. Top 25%* top 2* = top 0.5%? 1 in 200? for height and looks? Nope that is just how many are BOTH taller than 6ft and above 2nd percentile looks. You could just as easily work down and do 0.75*0.98 and get a score of top 27%. But that is just showing that 73% are both shorter and uglier. Neither accounts for 5'11 chads, 6ft4 subhumans, 6'3 HTNs etc. so you combine the Z scores 2+0.67=2.67 and divide by the square roof of 2= 1.41 to get +1.89, convert this into a percentile and you get top 3% for the combination of height and face

Spoiler: Mathcel explanation

Think of everyone getting their Z scores on every individual variable and summing them. Then forming a new distribution of everyones combined Z scores, the new mean is still 0, but the standard deviation has increased and for reasons I don't know the new standard deviation is the square root of amount of variables, so if someone had a score of 4SD across variables he would be +2sd or top 2% on a distribution of combined variables, the easiest way to think of it is that everyone else in the population is also getting extra Z scores to combine so there's more room for outliers, it wouldn't be accurate to sum SDs across multiple variables whilst everyone else doesn't

Examples of moggers and what scores do you need?
In personal experience most men who do well with women (regular sex or LTR with a top few percent woman) basically have 2 or 3 + standard deviation tally. sometimes even just 1 but then also personality

The 3 biggest foggers in my school LTR respectively a 5'11 Chadlite who looks like George Russel the F1 driver
a 5'8 Chadlite/HTN MMA fighter and a 5'10 HTN in decent shape and frame, alleged big dick.
Other successes include a 6'2 ogre with insane frame. A 6'2 MTN with a 7 incher- He obviously get's nothing online but in social circles a good amount of women have ended up trying to sleep with him, Autistic but he's very agreeable and feminismmaxes so he unintentionally has a social circle of lonely women around him. And 1 5'8 HTN with a big cock, declined as height became more important but did very well in school and LTRs well now. and 1 5'8 Gymmaxxed extroverted HTN/Chadlite. 6'2 Gymmamxed HTN and 6'3 Chad with small cock who's now a heartthrob actor

Rough Celebrity SMV score examples, it's hard to compare elite physiques and faces for appeal for example

Ronaldo = +3face +2body + 1height= 6
Cavill = 4face+2body +1 height = 7
Hemsworth = 3.5face + 2or3body + 1.67height = 7-8 minimum
Dolph Lundgren = 3+face 2or3body + 2.33height = 7.33-9.33
Chico,
luckyblue = 4 face +0 or 1 body + 2 height = 6-7
Di caprio = 4face +1 body =5
Brad pitt = 4 face + 2body = 6
Michael B jordan = 2 face + 2 body = 4 (stop coping he is good looking, soft features, appeal, harmony and frauds the jaw with facial hair just fine)
Cilian Murphy = 3face -0.67height + 1 body= 3.33

moron putting dicaprio in chad category and logan paul in chadlite
and ronaldo in chad JFL

 

[einzigartig]

There are some things that women prioritize less so you cant give everything equal value. Total SMV score is dependant on 6 main factors and is of 2 types

Raw SMV

Modified SMV

Raw SMV comes from the urge of a woman to fuck and modified SMV means who they are gonna fuck. Raw SMV consists of (Descending order of importance) Height, Dick size, Frame, Face, Physique. Whilst modified Smv, as the name suggests is location depandant. If ur in asia then the biggest thing will be "WHITENESS" and JBW will prevail, which wont matter as much in the west.

So generally, in a normal western country, it is:

Face, height, Dick, Frame, Physique, Status (Can instantly rise to no.1 if a celeb due to overshadowing)

Also there is overshadowing here, that means one thing might be so good or bad that it can disqualify you entirely. For example youre 6'1 wide framed muscular white Nick Bateman but have a 3 inch dick. That will disqualify you instantly. Atleast 5 inches ATLEAST 5 is needed to not be disqualified entirely. Things like an amazing face can disqualify short height (Tom cruise/cillian murphy). Things like physique and frame cannot overshadow any other feature.

yeah sure face is 4. most important in terms of raw smw? or am i getting it wrong

 

[eduardkoopman]

Roughly Estimated 3.33 physical score, not counting his status and charm and Tommy Shelby Halo. Can easily give him more points on face and body and can easily just say face is weighed more

Face is weighted double of body.