Choose wisely

>>39842530
what a stupid question, you could lower the second one to 5'5" and people will still choose it every time.

>>39842530
Ofc 6'3 10/10 body, what's the poing of having a good face if you are an hamplanet manlet and can't fix that?

>>39842550
agreed. there's a reason women will flock to manlets like zac effron and taylor lautner but they would never date hodor.

10/10 face is extremely rare, whereas a lot of people have near-perfect bodies (not to mention that past a certain "daaaaamn" point, maybe 7.5/10, improving body yields diminishing return in terms of attraction). 5'9" isn't freakishly short. The face is the first thing you see and in terms of attraction I'd say it's overall more important than a good body, which is purely a sexual attractant.
t. ugly face

>>39842576
4/10 body can also be an obese guy, good luck with that.

4/10 means one point below average.
An obese guy is 2/10 or 1/10.

>>39842620
5/10 is below average, 4/10 is already klinefelter tier

>>39842576
also, great bodies are in some situations barely beneficial to your overall attractiveness, for example during winter. great faces literally make your life easy in every possible situation that involves human interaction

>>39842598
In what world would you consider an obese person to have a 4/10 body?

>>39842550
>>39842557
never change

File: kvduKzy[1].jpg (435KB, 1336x1764px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 1336x1764px

>>39842575
>will flock to manlets like zac effron and taylor lautner
Until they realise they're manlets, fucknut.

>>39842620
the average body fat % is 18-24%. So add on 10% and you could be looking at 27% max for a 4/10.

27% is pretty bad

File: fupalord is disappointed.jpg (68KB, 620x435px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 620x435px

>>39842635
>5/10 is below average
>average is below average
Idiot.

>>39842635
5/10 is average you stupid fucking idiot, kill yourself. Next you'll tell me 10/10 doesn't exist. Fuck all you retards and your stupid fucking rating rules. The 1-10 scale is so simple and you all fuck it up so hard.

>>39843306
>thinks midpoint is average
>calls others idiot

Fucking strawberries you faggot.

>>39843340
Assuming there is no 0 (using your definition of 1-10) then 5.5 would be average

>>39843382
0-10
There fixed
Stop being such a massive faggot.

File: pepe jackhammer.jpg (107KB, 726x982px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 726x982px

>>39843360
>thinks midpoint is average
Seriously?
If the midpoint isn't average, then why is it the midpoint?
Are you seriously that fucking retarded?
>tfw I have to share a board with mouthbreathers like you

>>39843286
I'd eat Lautner's butt like groceries.

Hell yes homo if Lautner's on the menu.

>>39843382
>>39843340
Look, more morons who can't into frequency distributions.

File: Screen-Shot-2016-04-04-at-3.33.57-PM[1].png (362KB, 716x386px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 716x386px

>>39843411
Have you seen some of his recent pics?

>>39843398
>being this stupid

kys

>>39843414
>frequency distributions
>implying that's even the point of our discussion
You tried to sound smart but missed the point completely, it's got nothing to do with frequency distributions.
The most frequently occurring woman is a 5/10, because a 5/10 is average.

>>39843414
You are so dumb. I'm serious, end your life.

>>39842530
That really is not even a decision. 6'3 and 10/10 body of course.

>>39843442
>The most frequently occurring woman is a 5/10, because a 5/10 is average.
>missing the point this hard

Top kek. Good luck bagging groceries dumbfuck.

File: 1470824853443.jpg (10KB, 236x199px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 236x199px

>>39843427
>no explanation for why the midpoint is the midpoint if it isn't the average
>calls me stupid
>yfw

>>39843451
You're either seriously retarded and pulled that "frequency distribution" out of your ass because you thought it sounded smart, or your autistic.
Or both.
I don't know you well enough to pick for you, so I'll let you decide which one(s) is/are true.

>>39843452
>thinks every class has average grade of 5 cause 'muh midpoint is average'

Someone this stupid doesn't need explanations, they need a frontal lobotomy.

>>39843461
Protip you uneducated moron, 'the most frequently occurring' is not the same as 'the average'.

>>39843466
>implying we're talking about test-scores
That's such a fucking retarded example holy shit.

>>39843482
That's true, however are you now trying to imply there are more 9/10's than 2/10's?
What a rose-colored world you must live in.

>>39843510
>too stupid for the concept, demands explanations
>calls explanations stupid

The irony is delicious. Good luck with that mediocre brain anon.

>>39843482
It is in this case. Stop being so autistic because you dropped out of a stats class 7 years ago and think you know things.

>>39843558
>explanation
>comparing debating a system with it's practical applications
If we were debating in my native language I would be schooling you so fucking hard right now.

>>39842550
Tbh 5'5 is pushing it.

>>39842530
At that height with a perfect body your 4/10 face would be elevated to at least a 6.

We have to assume some kind of serious deformity to be a true 4/10 under those conditions.

>>39843523
Another example then.

The median dick size is lower than the average. So more than half the guys have smaller than average dicks. This is because the distribution is skewed. Similarly the most frequently occurring dick size is lower than the average.

The same is true for women rating men's looks, where most are below average, and chads make up the difference. Dunno about men rating women, but probably something similar.

>>39843582
>perfect body
At that point you'd still get fucked if you didn't have lips.

>>39843286
>posting that pic with text added in ms paint again

Oh you jelly lanklets

>>39843572
>If we were debating in my native language I would be schooling you so fucking hard right now

Sure. You are only stupid when using English, I believe you...

>>39843592e
>explaining basic statistics
Why? I'd already said:
>are you now trying to imply there are more 9/10's than 2/10's?

>>39843609
If I wasn't typing in English right now I would be better able to convey my arguments to you.
Saying test scores averages aren't 5/10 means nothing.
Sometimes the average is 4/10, at other times it's 8/10.
With this I assume you wanted to say that saying that 5/10 is average is stupid because that's not the case when taking tests.
However, in this case we're not talking about test scores, so your argument has no value whatsoever.
We're talking about how attractive people are.
With values ranging from 0-10 the middle is the average, otherwise the model makes no fucking sense.

>39843613
>explaining basic statistics
>Why?

Because itt (1) ppl. confuse mode and mean, (2) ppl. confuse midpoint of range with average (3) using the words 'frequency distribution' is considered trying to be smart.

Statistics doesn't get any more basic, so excuse me for having low expectations.

>>39843677

>>39843677
>With this I assume you wanted to say that saying that 5/10 is average is stupid because that's not the case when taking tests.

No, I was illustrating, by using grades as example, that the midpoint of the range does not equate to the average of the grades/scores/measurements/your sample/the population.

>With values ranging from 0-10 the middle is the average

No.

>otherwise the model makes no fucking sense.

No shit.

>>39843682
>using the words 'frequency distribution' is considered trying to be smart
No, all I was saying that if you use a word you don't know the meaning of, you're probably trying to sound smart.

>>39843398
Average is 6/10, fucktard

>>39843743
Also 5/10 is MEDIOCRE=BELOW AVERAGE

>>39843713
Let's take 8/10 as the global average then
Now around 66% of people are a 8/10
17% is divided between 0/10-8/10 and 17% is divided between 8/10-10/10
This makes just as much sense as having the average be 6/10

>>39843764
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mediocre
>Of only average quality

>>39843764
Mediocre means of average quality.

File: _________.jpg (9KB, 211x367px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 211x367px

>>39843764
>mediocre=/=average
>these are the people I'm debating with

>>39843779
Mediocre is a pejorative, average is average

>>39843795
Sure let's disregard the actual meaning of the word.

>>39843795
In all fairness, average is an insult too.

Consider:
>dyel

>>39843825
You are a mediocre person

The words mediocrity and mediocre always suggest disappointment. A mediocre play is one you wish you hadn't wasted an evening on, and the mediocre actor in it should probably find another profession. A person can even be called a mediocrity, though it isn't very nice and you'd never do it to his face.

>>39843849
>>39843779
>not average

>>39843768
>Let's take 8/10 as the global average then

Weird, but ok, let's.

>Now around 66% of people are a 8/10

Wut? Does not follow, but ok, sure.

>17% is divided between 0/10-8/10 and 17% is divided between 8/10-10/10

Possible, if unlikely.

To me it seems you are somehow under the impression that all distributions are symmetrical.

>This makes just as much sense as having the average be 6/10

Dear anon, the average is determined by the population and measured in a sample. It is not set in advance by you.

>>39843833
lol, you are an average /fit/ user.

>>39843885
Thanks

>>39843874
>Dear anon, the average is determined by the population and measured in a sample. It is not set in advance by you.
That's exactly my point, cutey.

>>39843682
The problem here is that you're forcing stats where it doesn't belong. On a individual subjective scale the individual defines what mode and mean are. It makes the most sense to define both as 5 because it give you 5 points of varying enjoyment on one side, and 5 points of distaste on the other.
Now if you had multiple peoples "scores," of others, then you could use stats to analyze the results. But statistics doesn't belong on the individual scale itself. We're defining the scale, not analyzing it.

>>39842530
IT'S GONNA BURST, DAMMIT

File: ezboyz.png (133KB, 1117x315px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1117x315px

>>39843963
This. You fucking imbeciles.

>>39843910

You're kind of a retard then if you think the 80th percentile is the average.

>>39842530
Tall with 4/10 face and it's not even close.

I'm an ugly fuck with an unimpressive physique and I've had more than my share of attention from women just by being 6'4.

>>39843360
>thinks mean=average in all cases