Scale of Attraction: Weighted or no?

[Kwesi]

So my friend and I were talking about how we rate how attractive people are. What we agreed on:

- Positive integers only (1-10)
- The scale only rates physical attractiveness
- The scale must allow for degrees/subtlety (None of that 1/0 stuff )

What we didn't agree on is how most people use the scale. I say that most people use it like an academic grading scale where 7 is the average. She says that most people consider 5 to be the average. I like her way better because it makes a lot of sense but I don't think most people think the same way. Your thoughts?

[Bloodhammer]

I never ****ed a ten, but one night I ****ed five twos!

-Carlin

[MJ5150]

On a scale of 1-10, five is average for me, with 10 being perfect.

-Mike

[mellowinman]

I would never do this. Either they are attractive enough, or they are not. No number scale can apply. I often find myself highly attracted to someone that many other men might not find attractive, and conversely, often find myself NOT attracted to to someone that other men are crazy over.

Women have a lot of levels, and if you look, you can find some very attractive qualities where you don't expect to.

And I'm not being "deep" here.

We're talking PHYSICAL attraction.

Don't get me started on all that other stuff.

Never mind that I married a skinny, long legged blonde with big breasts.

That is just ONE look I happen to like.

[Smurf-o-Deth]

Well,, 'round these parts, I'd peg it somewhere in the following realm:

10 - Cheat-on-your-wife-and-ruin-your-life hot.
9 - Serious bragging-rights material. All your friends want to bang her, and probably tell you so often.
8 - Very nice. Worth showing off, without the headaches of a 9 or 10.
7 - Approachably attractive. With preparation, can probably punch above her weight.
6 - Doable, but that's about as far as it goes. No shame, but no fanfare.
5 - You wouldn't rule it out, but you'd rather your friends not know about it.
4 or less - Requires copious social lubrication, low moral standing, and/or poor eyesight, all in exponentially greater amounts as you drop lower on the scale.

[Kwesi]

Originally Posted by mellowinman

I would never do this. Either they are attractive enough, or they are not. No number scale can apply. I often find myself highly attracted to someone that many other men might not find attractive, and conversely, often find myself NOT attracted to to someone that other men are crazy over.

Women have a lot of levels, and if you look, you can find some very attractive qualities where you don't expect to.

And I'm not being "deep" here.

We're talking PHYSICAL attraction.

Don't get me started on all that other stuff.

Never mind that I married a skinny, long legged blonde with big breasts.

That is just ONE look I happen to like.

The only difference between you and me in this regard our view on the idea of a scale. I'm attracted A LOT of different faces and body types. My idea of what is cute, sexy, and/or beautiful can be pretty different from most of the guys that I know. That said, I think a scale has it's merits. It's not some universally objective measurement of how good a person looks but rather subjective measurement depending on who is using it and made so that other people can interpret what you see as attractive or unattractive. For example, to me, a 10 is not perfect because I don't have an idea of what would be perfect to me. A 10 would just be a person that looks REALLY damn good.

[jmattbassplaya]

The best scale, in my opinion, is the one I use. It's either 0 or 1. One means you'd tap it, and zero means you wouldn't. I like all kinds of girls, so this system works best at getting my point across.

[MJ5150]

When you're young and desperate, that is a common scale guys use.



-Mike

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by MJ5150

When you're young and desperate, that is a common scale guys use.



-Mike

lol

It let's me get away with a lot of stupid mistakes that I make after having a beer or two too many

[afzoomie67]

Subscribed.

[LiquidMidnight]

Sounds like it's time to get a decent sample size and test for inter-related reliability. May I suggest a Cohen's kappa?

[Passinwind]

I grade on a curve.

[agent77]

Some of my friends use the 1-10 system, but a girl that would rate as a 10 is really ugly. The numbers represent how many beers you need before you would sleep with her.

[tplyons]

Originally Posted by agent77

Some of my friends use the 1-10 system, but a girl that would rate as a 10 is really ugly. The numbers represent how many beers you need before you would sleep with her.

Funny.

A 5 is average for me. None of that 7 being average garbage. I tend to stick around 7-8 because any higher and they know it. I can't stand the conceited 9's and 10's.

[Brad Johnson]

Looks like I wandered into the interweb Adonis forum by accident. sry.

[Fretless1!]

Originally Posted by mellowinman

I would never do this. Either they are attractive enough, or they are not. No number scale can apply.

I think, then, that you'd be using a binary scale where 1 and 0(substitute "yes" and "no") are the only digits. You could probably argue semantics in that you didn't use a number but the math works out the same.

But, getting back to Kwesi's question, I think many people use the academic scale in theory. At least that's the impression I get from reading comments about people's appearance in internet forums. We know how accurate that can be.

Put into practice, though, I'd think most folks would consider a 5 to be average. That's a given, don't you think?

[bongomania]

There's "average attractiveness", with the presumption that the person is somewhere in the range of possibly attractive; and then there's "middle of the range of all possible perceptions". In the first model, anything above 5 is a passing grade, and 7.5 is "average". In the second, you have to rate at least a 7 to pass, because so much of the bottom end of the range (below the average of 5) is completely outside the realm of possibly attractive.

[jmattbassplaya]

If we're using the larger scale, I'd think a 5 should be considered the most average a girl can get. One trouble I've come across with my friends is defining who exactly best represents a 5. We can think of plenty of 7's, 8's, and 9's, as well as 1's, 2's, and 3's, but 4's, 5's, 6's, and 10's seem to be pretty difficult to nail down.

[MatticusMania]

If we're talking only tapping potential, a 5 or above will do. If someone rates below that, there better be some incentives.
If we're talking relationship material, a minumum of 7 is acceptable.

Originally Posted by jmattbassplaya

If we're using the larger scale, I'd think a 5 should be considered the most average a girl can get. One trouble I've come across with my friends is defining who exactly best represents a 5. We can think of plenty of 7's, 8's, and 9's, as well as 1's, 2's, and 3's, but 4's, 5's, 6's, and 10's seem to be pretty difficult to nail down.

Its hard to find an example of a 5 because theyre usually the unseen ones. No definable or rememberable traits, thus the reason they fit into "the most average a girl can get" category.
Youve probably encountered many of them, just cant recall what they looked like.

[stratovani]

Originally Posted by Smurf-o-Deth

Well,, 'round these parts, I'd peg it somewhere in the following realm:

10 - Cheat-on-your-wife-and-ruin-your-life hot.
9 - Serious bragging-rights material. All your friends want to bang her, and probably tell you so often.
8 - Very nice. Worth showing off, without the headaches of a 9 or 10.
7 - Approachably attractive. With preparation, can probably punch above her weight.
6 - Doable, but that's about as far as it goes. No shame, but no fanfare.
5 - You wouldn't rule it out, but you'd rather your friends not know about it.
4 or less - Requires copious social lubrication, low moral standing, and/or poor eyesight, all in exponentially greater amounts as you drop lower on the scale.

As I started reading this thread I was thinking along these lines. I think a description along with a number works well.