What does a top 20% man's profile look like?

Brainlet here, how am I supposed to interpret the bottom graph?

6 feet, 6 pack, 6 figures

it's an awful graph and fake, don't bother

>6 packs.
>Family is well off.
>6 inch dong.
>5'5.

>fake

The absolute state of brainlets

You're getting mad

Look at the vertical axis assuming you're a guy. Going up the axis is how attractive you are ("x/10").

The horizontal axis is for the population of women. Blue means you have an advantage with women below the corresponding value on the horizontal axis. Pink means women have the advantage. Example is a man who is a 6/10 would have the advantage only for women below 1.5/10. A woman who is a 3/10 or 5/10 would have an advantage over him due to the graph above and female-male dynamics.

Having said that the graph is garbage. I'm sure the "true" graph would be screwed (some fair situation would have symmetrical blue/pink triangles). To say a guy who is a 6/10 has no advantage over a 2/10 girl is ridiculous.

a 6/10 male will have a harder time getting casual sex than a 2/10 female. The problem here is that the 2/10 female still wants a 7+/10 male

Make your graph then and post it here.

Very true.

What the fuck is up with this retarded graph? A 9 man doesn't have advantage over a 4? A 9,5 doesn't have advantage over a 6? Top kek.

Been meaning to read that book for a while

Looking at it now

I'm 5'8", all I have is a decent face. I'm Well built, but I have a layer of fat yet. I get laid regularly and easily. I don't think I've ever failed approaching women except an engaged girl at a party
Your stats are bunk lol

>I have a decent face
hurr durr, of course when it's all about the FACE

You have 6 feet, what kinda mutations are you on?

Was the bottom graph made by 6ix9ine?

One of the creators of OkCupid

Hold on guys, give me five minutes and I'll make a new graph that fits with reality.

This is the graph updated to show what happens in real life, not on a shitty dating site.

I knew women were satan's children

>hypergamy doesn't exist

This accounts for that. The dating website graphs don't make any sense, nearly everyone would die alone if that were the case.

Women are more sexually selective than men, so the bottom 20% of men will always get passed up for someone better, even by the 20% women. Past 80% attraction, top tier women have to start choosing men that have other excellent qualities besides attractiveness. If you are 100 percentile woman in attractiveness, the 100% selection pool for men is so small that you are forced to date down.

>The dating website graphs don't make any sense, nearly everyone would die alone if that were the case.
the majority of people who are subject to the current dating market WILL die alone.
past generations operated in a different systems, which brought them high rates of success in terms of finding a marriage partner. current generations do not have that luxury, which results in dysfunctional or nonexistent families and an ever increasing rate of people staying single well into middle age and eventually old age - i.e. literally dying alone.

#1: Doesn't browse Veeky Forums

Not the majority of people, no. Demand for woman still greatly outweighs supply. Sexual selectivity has been over taking stable marriage and monogamy, but most people do still marry and even with a few divorces, nearly everyone past 40 years old still settles down with a long term partner.

Dating for young people is hard to explain. Mostly it's picky women who will date for a month or two before moving on to someone else within a short period of time, sometimes keeping fuck buddies on the side. For most men, they still pick up a short relationships, but there's a lot more time between them. It's hard to explain where the demand in this situation is coming from, as you would think the average woman would have to date the average guy at one point, but my guess is that older good looking men are also accessing the pool and replacing the average young men. That doesn't seem to effect the demand for older women though. My guess is that they start including the 20% or in lower attractiveness men into the pool, finally giving them a chance and the ugliest women start getting forced out of the dating pool to account for it.

I updated the graph for you, but I still think the curve is way too steep.

>Being such an autist you need society to construct institutions or marriage to have a shot at reproducing
lmao just get a personality

Do I believe

>Actual data from a dating site

or

>Some random user and something he's knocked up in paint

hmmmmmmmmmm

>i dont like that data
>lets replace it with an arbitrary graph i just made in MSPaint
>now it fits my personal opinions much better

lmao
cope of the century

>lets just have random fuckery like apes and niggers lmao surely that will work out good for us lmao fuck civilisation anyway

>Tinder and OkCupid are perfect representations of relationships in real life, which is why I never see a 5/10 woman dating a 5/10 men, and every person male who is less than 6/10 will die alone.

Go back to whatever incel hell hole you came from. You're coping that everyone is equally as pathetic as you, despite the objective fact that the vast majority of people, including below average men, will enter a long term relationship at one point.

this only covers visual attractiveness and doesn't take into account age, but otherwise seems believeable

is bottom graph derived mathematically from the top one?

They pretty much are a good representation though

Also I'm not an incel pulling girls isn't fucking difficult lmao

why do all these faggoty graphs never have a source on them

christian_rudder-dataclysm-2014

thanks

>They pretty much are a good representation though

You are really fucking stupid. I'm not just saying that to offend you, I honestly think you should stop posting here. Did you even read the graphs or did you shit yourself and decided to shitpost? The edited ones are specified for dating, not hook ups. Even for hooks ups only, the original doesn't make sense and isn't even close to the reality of relationships.

If the original graph carried over into real life, practically any male that wasn't a 8/10 would never have a one night stand, and the 8/10s would only ever get a one night stand with 2/10 or under. You not only believe that, but think that stands for relationships too...

S
E
E
T
H
I
N
G

>Tinder is a good representation of relationship dynamics, yo! Quit coping!

What low IQ subhuman did your whore mother fuck in a one night stand in order to create someone this dumb?

Considering only physical attractiveness is missing a rather large part of the story, especially from a woman's perspective. A rich doctor who might be a 5/10 in physical attractiveness is probably in a better position for long term dating prospects than a 8/10 street sweeper.

yeah
5/10 doctor gets to enjoy some 35 yr old used up slag who has been busy getting boned by 8/10 chads for the past 20 years while the good little virgin was busy with med school lmao

>He wants society to hold his hand and provide him with a woman because he's completely unable to do it on his own
>He thinks getting himself laid is best for all of civilization
lmao

if you're losing your women to niggers, that just makes them better than you

>Being such an autist you need society to construct institutions or marriage to have a shot at reproducing
Yes that's literally 80% of men. That's how humans are biologically programmed.

people are more than capable of getting laid on their own and outside of societal structures, but the way they do it comes with very bad long-term side effects for society as a whole
>broken homes
>unstable families
>single mothers
>kids growing up without father figures
>more and more people growing old alone and, as a result of that, impoverished
>ever increasing expansion of the welfare state as a band-aid fix for these problems
>ever increasing numbers of people opting out of society entirely

keep in mind that the system as it is today has only gradually been developed over the past ~50 years, and thus isnt even in full effect today. but as long as it continues, things will get infinitely worse.

>Autists comfort themselves by telling themselves all humans are biologically programmed to be autists

You don't know what autism means but yes that's how it works. Not surprising that feminists are completely incapable of comprehending reality even when the facts are laid out before them.

Feels good to be in the 20% though.

>long term dating prospects
Lmao spot the beta

Your autism graph based on how you feel the world works isn't comparable from a graph from an actual scientific study with a large sample size dumbass. Kill yourself.

Not him, but it is when online dating is the primary driver for relationships in the modern youth.

>at one point

That's the key part. The bottom 80% of men will occasionally land casual sex and get into LTRs but it will be in between long dry spells. Meanwhile chad gets to fuck a new girl every week because women flock to him. Meanwhile women get free access to 9/10 chad dick whenever they want because men are willing to fuck up to 4 points down.

required reading

Every girl is on tinder. It affects IRL interactions too. They feel more confident to reject guys in real life because they have dozens of more attractive matches on tinder that they can hit up at any time. Tinder has destroyed the dating game and given women too much power.

Anyone have any guesses what percentage western, middle-class, white that are currently in the 18-24 range will never reproduce?

They've determine based on our DNA that we have 4 times as many female ancestors as male ancestors. This means that in a natural state the top 20% of men will impregnate all of the women. This is just human nature.

men? ~80% will end up as genetic dead ends, because they are unable to find a mate.
women? lower than that, but still a substantial amount. not because they are unable to find a mate, but because they are unwilling to settle for the mates available to them.

AHAHAHAHA OH MY GOD THIS GUY ACTUALLY GOT SO MAD AT SCIENTIFIC, PROVEN STUDIES THAT HE MADE UP A GRAPH BASED ON HIS FEELINGS

You can't just take a graph from a so called "scientific study", and pretend it represents something that wasn't even close to being implied. That graph is simply the amount of likes received on a site. To carry that over into actual dates, is stupid. To carry it over into relationships is even stupider and that stupidity goes far beyond what my attempt to show what reality looks like through another chart. It would be statistically impossible for the original graph to work with the current relationship rates.

No, they are not. The primary driver for relationships are outside these hook up apps in which practically no one gets laid. Youth are still more likely to meet their partner though real life.

None of that is shown in the graph and what you said is much more similar to my point than the person you are responding to... If they fuck 4 points down, they settle for 2 points down. 8/10 men don't date 2/10 women on average.

There isn't even 25 million female Tinder users world wide.
>They feel more confident to reject guys in real life because they have dozens of more attractive matches on tinder that they can hit up at any time.
I agree, but it doesn't mean they still don't have to pick someone at one point. They may delay it longer and be more fussy about it, but most women will end up with someone that is around their level of attractiveness, give or take a few points. It's only Incels and other rejects that want to believe otherwise because everyone else must be as miserable as them.

>ITS ALL THE CHADS WHO HAVE SEX. THAT EXPLAINS WHY I AM A VIRGIN

Recent work done by sociologist Paula England at Stanford University shows that men, on average have had about 10 hookups by senior year, whereas women have had about 7 hookups by senior year. About 60-80% of college students in North America have had a hookup experience.
One study shows that on average, women and men have about 5-7 hookups in their college career.

Survey of EHarmony users:

Number of relationships - Women 7; Men 8

Disaster dates - Women 4; Men 4

Blind dates - Women 2; Men 3

Stood up on a date - Women 1; Men 2

Online dates - Women 2; Men 3

Number of kisses - Women 15; Men 16

Sexual partners - Women 7; Men 10

One-night stands - Women 4; Men 6

Partners lived with - Women 1; Men 1

Falling in love - Women 2; Men 2

Stop Incel coping, faggot.

FPBP

>Every girl is on tinder
Tinder has 45 million global users. 1/3 of those are female. There are around 27 million women in America who are in their twenties.
American makes up around 10% of Tinder's user base, and young adults make up over 70% of tinder users. This means that around 3.8% of young women in the US are tinder users, assuming that there are zero bot accounts on tinder (which is bullshit, there are tons). Something tells me thats its not Tinder's fault you can't land a date with the other 96.2%+

those stats are heavily influenced by chads and gays

according to OP's graph, being in the 80th percentile only puts you at an advantage over the bottom 20% of women

No, not really. There are general average but they also ask questions like "have you had a sexual parter or a relationship" and people either answer yes or no. They then show the percentage of the answers.

"That discrepancy in perception may explain the conflicting beliefs about whether college kids are really hooking up more than they used to — or not. The current study did find — based on reports by the students of their own sexual relationships — some evidence that recent generations of college students are having slightly more casual sex and so-called friends-with-benefits relationships. About 44% of students in the 2000s reported having had sex with a “casual date or pickup,” compared with 35% in the 1980s and ’90s — and 68% reported having had sex with a “friend” in the previous year, compared with 56% in the earlier group."

"When it comes to real life, most of today's young adults report some casual sexual experience. The most recent data suggest that between 60 percent and 80 percent of North American college students have had some sort of hook-up experience. This is consistent with the view of emerging adulthood (typical college age) as a period of developmental transition (Arnett, 2000), exploring and internalizing sexuality and romantic intimacy, now including hookups (Stinson, 2010).

Although much of the current research has been done on college campuses, among younger adolescents, 70 percent of sexually active 12- to 21-year-olds reported having had uncommitted sex within the last year (Grello et al., 2003). Similarly, in a sample of seventh, ninth and 11th graders, 32 percent of participants had experienced sexual intercourse and 61 percent of sexually experienced teenagers reported a sexual encounter outside a dating relationship; this represents approximately one-fifth of the entire sample (Manning et al., 2006)."

Top 20% for someone 22-25 THRESHOLD:

>6'0"
>Degree from a decent uni
>Not working as a pleb. Working in a non-manual labor position with some level of executive processing and thought required
>Reasonable facial aesthetics. Not overweight. Minimal to no acne
>Does something "fun" on occasion

That's kind of it. Yeah it's just the threshold. But you'll no longer be invisible at that point.

This is pathetic. Men are the visual ones and women are got by personality, everyone knows this. Attractive men usually have good personalities btw from a lifetime of positive reinforcement and confidence.

Study of Your Post:

Faggots- 1

That doesn't make any sense statistically. Only 14% of men are above six feet. Of those, about half would have went to college, a fraction of them would have good jobs, maybe around half wouldn't be overweight with reasonable facial aesthetics. I'd say only 3% or less men would fit your description.

Men always under rate other men, similar to women rating men. Models receive 8/10 ratings half the time despite the fact that there would be 20 more attractive men in a room of 100, if it made sense.

>You: Wah you are making stuff up, post actual evidence
>I post actual evidence
>You: Wah, you're a fag and I'm going to ignore your argument because of my feelings

You are so pathetic that you believe most men must be as insufferable to women as you are.

>average
>average
>average

no shit sherlock
>1 chad fucks 20 women
>9 virgins fuck 0 women
>men have 2 average sex partners

average says nothing about how the distribution looks

See
Most surveys break it down to the percentage of people who have had a hook up and a relationship in a age bracket. If you read them, you can also see the gender differences. The fact stands that the majority of male college students do get laid and many of them get into a relationship. That amount of people doesn't fit the data of the graph at all nor the incel screams that 'ITS ONLY CHAD THAT GETS LAID REEE'. Stop with the bullshit averages strawman, it's been disproved.

>Models receive 8/10 ratings half the time despite the fact that there would be 20 more attractive men in a room of 100, if it made sense.
That's not how ratings work.

scales don't work like that, it's rather a bell curve. 10/10 is something like 99.999th percentile, and 9/10 something like 99th percentile

The best post I’ve seen in a long time.

Yes it is... Men rate women in even percentiles with the average woman being in the 50th percentile. 5/10. Men and women rate men with a completely absurd system where only a handful of people are 9/10s. The question was what does it take to be an 8/10 on Tinder and showed a graph where the 80th percentile was the point where women for interested. It's safe to say that that percentile is what he means, not your terrible bullshit system.

you don't even need 6 figures, people start jizzing at 5 figures in the bank because most people don't even have 4

The question was "What does a top 20% man's profile look like?" It's safe to assume that we are using a fair ranking system to make the percentiles easier to understand, not your bullshit unspecified system. 8/10 is the 80th percent in the context of the topic. The same system works outside this topic for general attractiveness ratings, for people who are not retarded.

Look at this image:You can see that the males rated women out of five almost perfectly even.

>ITT

are u niggas retarded or something

according to that pic men rate like 1% of girls as 4.5 or better

It's still a smooth curve. A 5/5 would be the 100th percentile. A 4.5/5 would 90th, but the ranking system doesn't allow for decimals so men would rank either 4 or a 5, which explains why the system isn't a perfect match at the ends.

Regardless, stop moving the goal post. The context of the thread implied that a 8/10 would be the 80th percentile. You haven't yet specified how you even weight your made up rankings.

men rate roughly half of women as above average, and half as below average

women rate less than 1/5 of men as above average, and more than 4/5 of men as below average

Your two statements contradict each other.

When you say fair you're describing a uniform distribution. The picture in OP clearly shows a unimodal distribution. Even the men rating women is skewed with the peak occurring at 3.0/5.0.

The 8/10 thing would be better described on some sort of A/B/C/D/F scale to avoid the confusion.

I take back the bit about the skewness of the men rating women distribution since the scale starts at 1 and not 0.

>The context of the thread implied that a 8/10 would be the 80th percentile.
The post that started this discussion talked about Veeky Forums rating men on a 1-10 scale and didn't mention the OP study at all.

What a legend

When normal people rank anything it is usually about this way.

2/10 Very unattractive
4/10 Unattractive
6/10 Meh
8/10 Attractive
10/10 Very attractive

And since most men obviously are not very attractive the graph in OP looks like that. In the same way most movies are shit and 20% of movies don't get a four star rating even if some nerd thinks that ratings are supposed to work like that. They don't.

It's practically an even curve for the small sample size and the 0-5 or 1-5 system. I don't know if they had the 0 option or if it wasn't included in the chart because no one used it, but people largely would rank out of five anyways, as that what we understand. The 3/5 would be the middle of that system, not 2.5, which wasn't even an option.

I don't understand how you are going to be so passive aggressive and ignore context for nitpicking a mostly even graph.

You have near zero reading retention. Op said:
"What does a top 20% man's profile look like?". I was the person. You responded with:
"Top 20% for someone 22-25 THRESHOLD"

I then refuted your arguments using /10 as an easy way to understand percentiles and said it was impossible for 20% of men to fit that group. I started the scale in the first place, so I should fucking understand what I meant.

>When normal people rank anything it is usually about this way.

No they don't. You just pulled that out of the air and there's no solid definition on the Normie bullshit scale. How people rank things is all over the place and different from item to item. Secondly, I was the person who brought up the scale in the first place, and the context clearly referred to 8/10 being the 80th percentile because that is what I was refuting.

>And since most men obviously are not very attractive the graph

The majority of women are overweight and are still ranked evenly, so attractiveness is not an excuse for the stupidity because most women would be 4/10 on it, similar to the men's scale.

Was to: I'm also going to mention that men don't think other men are attractive for reasons beyond actual attractiveness. They tend to overrate themselves in most qualities while underrating everyone else. Women rate men poorly because they are more sexually selective.