“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.”
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.
That was pretty much my thoughts on reading it. Then I realized, that sort of described the plenty of fish site, unsure if still around, went on a few dates from that (guess that shows my range and age) and had fun. Well more fun than not.
… please score ‘Hungry Hungry Hippo’ hungry on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being absolutely famished and actively starving to death, 1 being so full that you already fell asleep from a food coma.
“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 propose a new dating website:
“5 and below”
Everyone caps at 5, and if you’re over, you get banned :}
Just make the scale logarithmic, but it starts at 7 in the middle, like the PH scale.
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.
I was 5’11.5" but after a motorcycle accident and leg surgery, I’m 6’ on my right leg.
That was pretty much my thoughts on reading it. Then I realized, that sort of described the plenty of fish site, unsure if still around, went on a few dates from that (guess that shows my range and age) and had fun. Well more fun than not.
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
Look take that 6’0" comment back. I am 6’
In shoes
Do you like kids?
Depends how hungry I am.
… please score ‘Hungry Hungry Hippo’ hungry on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being absolutely famished and actively starving to death, 1 being so full that you already fell asleep from a food coma.