SpearOfOrion
Retired
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2019
- Posts
- 2,245
- Reputation
- 4,689
I think the main issue is that PSL bases looks on a bunch of things: Strong Jaw, 'hunter eyes', wide skull, slightly sloped forehead, not too big but wide... Which is fine and probably supported by evolutionary biology. HOWEVER, the ratings are very skewed, why?
The 1-10 scale should be a comparative scale, not an absolute one. For instance, I should define a guy that's a 10 as, for instance, someone in the top 1% of the population, not someone that meets all PSL criteria.
Example: If I define my scale of intellect to be 100 IQ-average, 160IQ-1/100000 there will always be plenty of people in the 160 IQ category. If I define it as "ability to calculate partial differential equations at 12 years old", the number of people that meet the criteria will vary from place to place.
Basically, PSL has way too high standards that aren't compatible with the human population as of right now (probably due to estrogens in the food, mouth breathers, plastic...) and such someone whos a regular 10 (aka 1 in 100 people) is not a PSL 10 (probably like 1 in 100 000, no kidding)
The 1-10 scale should be a comparative scale, not an absolute one. For instance, I should define a guy that's a 10 as, for instance, someone in the top 1% of the population, not someone that meets all PSL criteria.
Example: If I define my scale of intellect to be 100 IQ-average, 160IQ-1/100000 there will always be plenty of people in the 160 IQ category. If I define it as "ability to calculate partial differential equations at 12 years old", the number of people that meet the criteria will vary from place to place.
Basically, PSL has way too high standards that aren't compatible with the human population as of right now (probably due to estrogens in the food, mouth breathers, plastic...) and such someone whos a regular 10 (aka 1 in 100 people) is not a PSL 10 (probably like 1 in 100 000, no kidding)
