Name it 3-6 and I’m sold
this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2026
578 points (95.3% liked)
Microblog Memes
10712 readers
2320 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Absolutely no NSFL content.
- Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sounds good except that literally 90% of people consider themselves to be in this category
7 is considered average while 5 is standing there.
What if I'm a 6 but I can run a mile?
I'm 6'2" and my check engine light has been on for over a year. How you doin?
193 cm here. I don't know if my EV has a check engine light.....
why do i keep seeing check engine lights being associated with dating? like girls seem to always use it to describe a guy who has acceptable flaws.
"Like a strong 7" is about as reliable as "6' 0" tall" as self-evaluation in the context of dating.
If 5 is average and 10 is "celebrity known for being beautiful, dressed up and wearing full makeup" then probably one in ten people is a 7 or higher. For the record, I'm 5' 11.5" and a 4 on a good day. My marketing pitch is "Below average but not so much so that people stare."
I love that you did your height down to the half inch lmfao
This is going way, waaay back... but basically...
For cishets at least:
Men tend to actually use pretty close to a standard normal distribution based around the actual midpoint, and actually use the entire scoring range.
Women tend to not do this, at all, and instead have a heavily biased or skewed way of using the scoring range.
(Where I mean bias and skew in their statistical definitions, primarily.)
Women only rate 19% of men as being average or better. Women also very often say they consider and talk to and date men who they view as not in their league.
And thats not like, a spurrious result from only one early dating app. There are many studies and published analyses that consistently show that women tend to be very picky or choosy or harsh or however you want to say it, tend to rate very few men as very attractive, compared to how men rate women as very attractive.
So, to apply this kind of data to your hypothetical on the 1-10 scale, doing a rough conversion for the 1-7 scale here:
Basically, if you are a man rating women, well you can see that 21% of women are rated 6/7 or 7/7...
... but if you are a woman rating men, the amount of men rated 6/7 or 7/7 is 2%.
That is to say, men find roughly 2 out of 10 women to score 7 or higher, whereas women find roughly 0 out of 10 men to score a 7 or higher, on a 1-10 scale.
This kind of data is also a literal foundational reason why all modern dating apps work the way they do.
This IS OKcupid users.
And on all dating apps there a survivorship bias where people who have dating difficulties stick around on dating platforms while people who do not have difficulties quickly leave.
The real problem here might be that
A) men overrate attractiveness.
Or
B) men's attractiveness is selected for on OKcupid but women's attractiveness is not. Thus there is a survivorship skew.
But with this explanation, you run into a chicken and egg problem.
To what extent is the male survivorship problem/effect merely exposed or reflected by the data from a dating app... vs ... intentionally caused by, exacerbated by the dating app?
The dating apps all know the answer to that question in extreme detail.
They don't let us know though.
And they also have precise data on the same kind of thing for women.
I was hanging out and my friend was swiping tinder swiping mostly left and annihilating and roasting guys that to me seemed in good shape, well dressed and either conventionally attractive or weird looking but in an interesting way. It actually killed me inside and put me off using dating apps.
I have been thinking about this, and I know when I was younger, most of the guys I knew were not physically attractive, more of the women made an effort and looked good. So it's not a ranking where you take ten people and line them up with 1 the ugliest and 10 the hottest, more like a percentage of possible good looks. Really there were no "10" guys around.
That doesn't mean none were acceptable, at all- I'm sure I have written about this before but I'm straight and my judgement of guys' physical attractiveness is binary - in or out. You look good enough? That is good enough, and everything else about you matters more. I am not going to like you better because you are hotter, and nobody is so good looking I can want them just based on looks. You don't look good enough? Nothing else you are can matter. That "good enough" bar is not all that high, but it's a hard line.
So the ranking of guys' looks like 1-10 or whatever is completely separate from how attractive I might find them, if that makes sense.
Yeah, I do think women women on average put more effort into being physically attractive to men (certainly more time on average). I'm sure it's controversial to say but on a basic 1-10 scale my gay friends rank higher on average than do my straight buddies, and I think that's about effort, not nature.
I think hair, makeup,and clothes can change your base rank a lot but average women take advantage of this way more than average men while celebrity men and women both take full advantage so the 10 ranking is set just as high for both genders, but higher rankings are more attainable for "regular" women.
So maybe women aren't so much pickier as it is that neither gender exists as a perfect bell curve in our natural state compared to 10s and a lot of women's beauty is "unnatural" raising our ratings.
My husband and I are both pretty low key on attractiveness effort normally but the difference between me on an average Saturday and me attending a wedding is way bigger than his difference.
I'm sure it's controversial to say but on a basic 1-10 scale my gay friends rank higher on average than do my straight buddies, and I think that's about effort, not nature.
I am a bi guy, and this is the least controversial thing ever, imo, lol.
I don't find the ... basically lets call it 'grooming effort gap', to be a compelling explanation for the different scoring distributions.
Because... most men actually can tell when a woman is dressed to the nines and quite glammed up or what have you.
They'll often utterly lack the vocabularly to accurately (muchless politely) describe this, but they have a strong internal heuristic way of doing this.
And most of them account for that in the way they rank the attractiveness of a woman.
By that I mean... they recognize it as gesture that takes effort and signals that someone is trying to be appealing, and that is a good thing...
...but they also know that it acts as a +1 or +2 bonus to the underlying score, or maybe a 1.25x multiplier, something like that, and then you can work backward to the 'actual' attractiveness score, basically.
Yet! You still have ~20% of women being rated as pretty darn attractive. Because guys can generally mostly tell when a woman will look quite attractive whether or not they're in a photoshoot, or just finished running a marathon, or something like that.
This is why there is the whole weird mismatched female vs male social phenomenon of:
"I'm dressing up and doing make up for myself"
vs.
"Yeah, but what does she look like without makeup?"
Like uh... hopefully this isn't a reality imploding thing to say, but men who value a long term relationship lie all the time to women asking whether or not that dress makes them look fat.
... but all of that is basically just my semi informed opinion, I could not off the top of my head produce like, a cluster of studies that prove that.
I suspect that if I spent enough time doing a meta analysis, I probably could find such studies, but I am currently way too lazy (and not being paid) to do that right now, lol.
Yeah. I wouldn't call grooming unnatural, and the difference also had to do with staying in shape but yes - insofar as looks are something you do, and not just something you are, on average straight guys seem to do the least, and women generally do more to get looking how we want to look.
Like, I don't makeup or straighten my hair but do at least organize my hair, do so much skincare, care how my clothes fit, work out, I guess just sort of care about appearance.
As I get older this disparity increases, guys who could skate on youth and metabolism hit a wall and age faster than guys who did stuff to stay in shape and used sunscreen, some skincare.
So the ranking of guys' looks like 1-10 or whatever is completely separate from how attractive I might find them, if that makes sense.
It ... kind of does... but to me, its basically kind of like answering a different question than what was asked.
Like, this kind of data comes from asking women to rate men's attractiveness, on a scale of ... 1 to 10 or 1 to 7 or however its phrased... based on the information on their profiles.
To me, you're describing a ranking system of 1 to 10, and then there's a pass / fail filter, basically ... if x > 7, or maybe if x > 4, then pass, else fail, something like that.
This is now a system of 'rank attractivness' and also 'what are your personal standards'.
Not just 'rank attractiveness'.
Does that make sense, as to why I say its... kind of like answering a different question?
The direct reading of this data that I have is this:
Men actually do believe that there are a significant number of extremely attractive potential women partners.
Women basically don't believe hardly any men are extremely attractive partners.
Women thus not only have a different way of setting their bar of standards... they also have a different way of doing the calculation that happens before the bar can measure anything.
Because they rate more than half of men as below average... well then of course many of them very often feel like they are 'settling' or 'compromising' in a partner choice.
The kind of pass / fail filter behavior you describe, thats also well known in these kinds of studies.
Its well documented that women consistently date men who they think are beneath them, less attractive than they are, while at the same time, the man believes they are roughly proportionally attractive, in the same league.
And of course, I'm speaking in generalities here; there will always be people who break from the general paradigm.
This is kind of an aside, not sure if its directly relevant or not
I will also note that I am bi guy, so... I tend to judge both men and women by what at least think is much closer to a standard disribution kind of 1 to 10 scoring metric, where an actually commkn, average guy or gal is a 5... and then I am also honest enough to say that where I draw the cutoff, the 'bar', basically directly correlates with self-esteem levels, and then I try to temper that with trying to realistically gauge my own attractiveness, the same way I judge other men's attractiveness.
And that of course is all just the very basic kind of surface level analysis.
What I also look for are things that would indicate actual potential viability of a long term relationship between me and another, which I can basically summarize as: Are we two people who can probably actually deal with each other's bullshit for more than 6 months, or not?
So that would be a seperate scoring metric with a seperate bar/cutoff, so to speak.
I think my standards may not be standard (maybe nobody's are) and I think of that 1-10 as a more universal ranking, like something a committee would set standards for.
Not whatever scale my husband is using that puts me at "smoking hot 10/10" when objectively that is not true, either, when I love someone they do not get better looking to me.
So maybe. But it doesn't feel to me like it has much to do with how objectively good looking a guy is, it's more like whether I can look at him comfortably. Which might exclude extremely good looking guys actually.
Both my long term guys I would put around the same good lookingness as me, so maybe buried in there is a ranking and it's not conscious. Maybe the filter is 49.
Both my long term guys I would put around the same good lookingness as me, so maybe buried in there is a ranking and it's not conscious. Maybe the filter is 49.
Thats basically what I'm saying.
There are still those 2 steps, the ranking/scoring, and then the 'what range of those are acceptable to me' part... its just that it seems to be harder for women generally to think of these explicitly as two distinct systems or steps.
Also:
I think my standards may not be standard (maybe nobody's are) and I think of that 1-10 as a more universal ranking, like something a committee would set standards for.
Of course, everyone has a personally different measuring rubric by which they actually place people on the 1 to 10 scale.
Maybe somebody thinks chubby cheeks are really really cute, maybe somebody really prefers a specific kind of nose.... tons of people just have outright racial preferences in dating... maybe you like square faces.more than round faces, etc...
But... above that, or encompassing that... men vs women seem to approach the entire concept of just assigning people by their own personal preferences along a 1 to 10 scale ... completely differently.
Like yes, its dehumanizing and objectifying to reduce someone to a number... but that is the question that was asked in that survey,.or rather, gathered from the existing data.
And the amount of metrics and existing data has now grown by, I dunno, a factor of a million, a billion, since that chart was produced like 15 years ago?
All social media and dating apps work based off of much more complex and precise mathematical modelling such as this, with much more complex layers of conditionality and logic... thats what 'the algorithm' is.
They're basically quantitatively reverse engineering the actual logic of the heuristics by which human brains operate, the heuristics that most people cannot actually explicitly articulate or define.
This all makes sense, But do guys even have the yes/no? Most who I talk to about this (both straight and gay) say it's more points for more beauty, that the prettier (for lack of a less gendered word) someone is, the more other stuff they might overlook, and that if someone is freaking awesome as a person, they can start to literally look more attractive to them. I don't experience either of those.
Like they weight beauty in their evaluation, it's a factor to set on there with everything else.
Oh boy do I agree it's dehumanizing, it reminds me of dog shows and how they have "conformation" as a quality. Racists make me think of dog breeders too, it's dehumanizing in a similar way. People aren't breeds and beauty isn't conformity.
This all makes sense, But do guys even have the yes/no?
Generally speaking, I think yes, they do.
It is just that the way they do the prior scoring is different than the way women do it, as you go through in the rest of your paragraph.
It could also be the case that the way they do the 'how/where do i set the bar/range' is also substantially different from women... I'm not sure if you can specifically conclude that with confidence just from the one graph I posted though.
But yes as a guy, I can say that if a women (or guy) is extremely physically appealing, that would influence at least a younger stupider me to score them higher by way of overlooking things I would normally consider a detriment to their 'overall attractiveness score'...
...and I can also confirm that I genuienly have and still do also view some women who have just a stellar combination of other personality traits, where we have a history of good experiences together... yeah that does actually make them 'seem' more just purely physically/superficially attractive to me as well.
Maybe thats like... partner imprinting, or... regular association with oxytocin = more beautiful.
But yeah most guys I know and have known can, if pressed a bit, break down a partner into a 'physical attractiveness' score and a 'personality/behavioral attractiveness' score, as long as they're not in full on limmerence or a toxic codependent relationship.
They can then tell you how those two scores can be put together to make an overall score, and then they can do their pass/fail range. Or, sometimes, both of those scores stay seperate, and each get a pass/fail range.
Its complicated and varies from person to person, but most guys I've known can do this explictly.
Whereas most gals I know and have known ... basically recoil at the idea that this is a thing you can do, find it innately ... impossible, or dehumanizing, as you do. Its difficult and basically icky to ... try to disentangle the web, to try and talk about it explicitly.
Oh boy do I agree it's dehumanizing, it reminds me of dog shows and how they have "conformation" as a quality.
I mean... when you lay it out explicitly, yeah, it does seem that way.
But the thing is... everyone does this, men and women.
Thats what a heuristic is. Its a complex and kind of 'fuzzy' calculation that people's brains make, in the background... its just that most people don't actually know, aren't conscious of the actual specific calculation itself.
And they will often deny, or awkardly and inconsistently attempt to justify the inner workings of their own brain that they aren't fully aware of.
Like uh... I'm autistic. I would say that a major way I am different from most neurotypicals, and even other kinds of neurodivergents... is that I am highly analytical of all things, including my own mind; for me its fun and entertaining to try and reverse engineer my own heuristics. I tend to be hyper-aware of most of the facets of my own thought processes, compared to most neurotypicals.
But for most neurotypicals... they are made uncomfortable by that level of introspection, they think its rude to be asked to do that, to think in that way, to have other people try and think in that way about them.
Everybody has different ways they 'do' their internal heuristics. That is basically equivalent to saying 'people have different personalties and value sets and characteristics'.
... But everybody does have a system of unconscious heuristics they use to interpret and act in the world.
Yeah, some people's are much more... extreme or off putting or reprehensible than others... but everyone is judging everyone most of the time, that's what brains do. Its just that a lot of people aren't conscious of the extent to, or ways in which they do it.
Racists make me think of dog breeders too, it's dehumanizing in a similar way. People aren't breeds and beauty isn't conformity.
Well see even here things get... awkward to talk about.
It is extremely common for people to have racial preferences in dating. Way, way more common than the amount of people who will just outright admit to agreeing with a statement like "I believe some races are inherently superior to others".
Which I think at one point was a question OKCupid asked its users, or gave them the ability to answer or not answer, not sure if they still do.
Everybody has their own 'scoring system' for others, whether they are fully conscious of it or not, and different people do their personal scoring system differently, they weigh or value different factors to different extents.
But at the end of the day, everyone still has some kind of a scoring system, and then you take the results of all of those, add them together, and you get something like the original graph I posted.
Thus there is no universal, perfectly applies to everyone, 'attractiveness rubric'.
But there is instead a general concept of scoring, and there are broad trends that most people who belong to some certain group (ex: male vs female), that those group members place more or less emphasis on, or do the calculation in a different way.
So, there's another old OKCupid blog post that I found to be very interesting.
When looking at people who get rated as attractive or unnatractive by others...
There are basically two kinds of patterns.
One is a kind of person whom everyone else broadly agrees os either ... average, or very attractive, or very unattractive.
But then there is another kind of person.
This second kind of person will tend to have a fairly uncommon set of proportions to their facial features.
And what happens is that instead of 90% of people giving them roughly the same score... you get about 40% of people rating them very attractive, and 40% of people rating them very unattractive, and only around 20% rating them in the middle.
For lack of a better term, I call these people 'striking', or 'controversially beautiful'.
Some people are thus... generally beautiful, to just most people... and then some people are... well if you just averaged their scores from others, they'd just be average, but whats really going on is that they're very appealing to some, very unappealing to others.
I bring this all up to try to show that... just having a 1 to 10 or 1 to 7 attractiveness score as concept does not inherently enforce a broad conformity mandate of beauty.
If you look at the data in detail, it can and has revealed that actually yes, people do disagree on what constitutes physical beauty, it actually proves or shows that in many cases, there is not a universal scoring rubric for perceived beauty.
interesting thanks for sharing
why all modern dating apps don't work the way they do.
FTFY
I just woke up and may not be reading this right, but if you mean to say that they are dysfunctional on purpose and work to exploit this mismatch for profit, as opposed to bridge the gap, then yes, 100%.
They're designed to keep producing pairs of people that the app knows are likely short term compatible but not long term compatible.
Its functionally mass scale social engineering, for profit, of course.
I would assume that this is an IGN-style scale where it's functionally 5-10, not 1-10. 7 is average, 5 is terrible
anything below 5 is cringe but 3 or below and its abject horror
load more comments
(1 replies)
I propose a new dating website:
"5 and below"
Everyone caps at 5, and if you're over, you get banned :}
Is the 5 the picture or the real life representation?
Just make the scale logarithmic, but it starts at 7 in the middle, like the PH scale.
So a 10 is a thousand times hotter than a 7? And a 1 is a million times less hot?
logarithmic doesn't necessarily mean using a base of 10:
Examples of equally spaced values are 10, 100, 1000, 10000, and 100000 (i.e., 10^1, 10^2, 10^3, 10^4, 10^5) and 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 (i.e., 2^1, 2^2, 2^3, 2^4, 2^5).
(Wikipedia)
load more comments
(7 replies)
Somehow I’m both too good and not good enough to meet the criteria to join.
Yeah, like I’m maybe a 5, but my car works fine, so…hmmm
categorizing everyone into a pseudo-objective 1-10 attractiveness scale and saying "depressed is good!....but only fun depressed [whatever tf that means]" ... is a red fucking flag
yea i know it's a joke.
but is it really?
Everyone knows the correct scale is 0-1.
You're either interested or not.
Why are you Boolean him? He's right
load more comments
(3 replies)
saying “depressed is good!..but only fun depressed [whatever tf that means]”
I think it has something to do with the saying "the clown is often the saddest person in the room." So they want someone who is just sad enough to always be making jokes or trying to be funny. I recognize myself in that at least. I tend to always be looking to make people laugh even if I'm kinda miserable inside every day.
load more comments
(2 replies)
fediverse partner finder when?
“Older, can afford to see why the check engine light is on”
It's^free^at^autozooooone
$80 to buy the scanner yourself and never have to drive a mile down the road to have another undertrained cashier tell you your O2 sensor died again.
If I never see another P0134 I'll die happy.
Ha! My dad has two because he couldn't find the first one until immediately after buying the second one. I have one because he couldn't find either of them when I asked to borrow one.
And the circle of life continues.
Hi
Edit: nvm
There's one already called Tinder. It's exactly what you said.
Shit I already convinced some poor girl to marry before smart phones but I'll keep it in mind
view more: next ›