Well, like any model, the accuracy of it's output is dependent on the quality of the data that is input. If people want accurate results, they need to do a test that will give them an accurate figure.
@@edheldude genius isn't mutually exclusive, you can still have autism, asbergers, and adhd with a genius iq, preventing you from achieving what you internally know you can accomplish. Being a genius masks the the conditions to the point where everyone thinks your just wasting potential and don't have a work ethic.
I was going to give my face a 4.5, but rounded down to 4 just so I didn't need a calculator for that part. There should probably be a 2pt penalty at the end for making choices like that :)
@@brentandrew2419 yeah he is constantly overstimasting himself, his face doesnt "tell a story" if u know what i mean, and his ginger hair make him a lil weird moreover he has no muscle, imo he is maximum a 6 considering all the variables
I think there are some small issues with your system: 1. Your ethnicity and location adjustments implies that Asian/Indian in non-college west can NEVER exceed 6, which means they can never break into the top 10%. I think this due to ethnicity adjustment improperly affecting all factors (for example, if I am a millionaire, my ethnicity won’t change its actual value), thus I think you should move ethnicity to be an adjustment for maybe just face (which is still a big factor). Location adjustment also implies that NO ONE in the non-college west can ever exceed 7.5, but you can have say a perfect 8 white male in SEA in college be a 10 out of a possible 8? In addition, rich mf on online dating apps completely negate all location adjustments because they can simply fly their women to their location. Thus I think location should be re-thought out for this system. 2. Factors that are difficult for women to measure publicly (p-length and IQ) shouldn’t be on this system. This system measures SMV. Unless you put your P-length (you weirdo) or IQ on your tinder profile or you walk around with that info on a badge, this will only be known after the fact and thus wouldn’t impact SMV. 3. I think your money weighting is too low. A lot of women are willing to leave a poor Chad making minimum wage for a rich, short, ugly mf. Since money is one of the few factors that can partially compensate enough to allow for a rich butt a$$ ugly guy to poach a poor Chad’s girl, it’s weighting should at least partially reflect that possibility. Overall a good idea, the adjustments above are just small improvements for an overall solid system.
As a black guy living in west for the past six years, I learned that ,average white guy has way better advantage that avarage non white guy on dating market. When it comes to Asian guy there is the common "small dick "stereotypes . How ever i don't get it why an Indian guy has to subtract from there SMV because of race? To be honest i fill like 90% of white girs are not open to date black guy.
@@wukirmaskal7419 as a black guy born in london i have to strongly disagree. I dont struggle to attract women at all. I have a south asian friend that thinks women prefer black guys because of how well i do with women. In reality he has no social skills and smell horribly all the time. What im saying is its likely your lacking in other areas and are misinterpreting it as a race. Even wheat only gave white guys a .5 plus.
@@pullupenyojer I think the tricky piece is that the weighting for money can’t be static for everyone. I think depending on how ugly, out of shape, etc. you are, the lower the weighting because If you are trying to use money to compensate for your weaker areas, then it should be related to how much the woman feels repulsed/disgusted/unimpressed/etc. by you due to how much variance there is between you and her ideal man.
@@santiagocandela354 I didn't had problem of attracting even 8s and 9s when i was in my country. All of a sudden every thing is changed when i come to Europe. I expected the same results with girls but the situation is shocking for me. I believe games are mostly international. There is of course a culture difference, however I'm smart enough to understand it. I even joined university in the west and I'm average in look and height. I used to date above average girls (you might know how beautiful are Ethiopian girls ) . When i struggled to date a 3 / 10 white girls, I interpreted it doe to my race. I even have success with some black girls since i come here. But never happened with the white one!
The problem with the body SMV calculation is that it doesn't factor in mostly genetic and skeletal aesthetic factors. Ie: broad shoulders, WSR, hip to shoulder ratio, chest to hip ratio, chest to hip ratio, and WHR. Which are THE MOST IMPORTANT factors of male attractiveness after only face, height, and bf%.
I think these factors vary less most people will fall within a normal/average range and won't be incel because of especially narrow shoulders or wide hips.
@@noway2835 You're not blackpilled if you think genetic factors like your frame are less important than ones you can change like bodyfat and muscle mass.
the most important factor of face rating is... the eyes of the beholder. Don't support scam and scammers making a living out of pseudo-science and lips movment. your rating = your dating success. I dare anyone to rate a face based on an objective text description. You all know you need to see the face first. I hope you got the idea. But I know that WW and Qoves have a rosy future.
In my opinion you don't even have to go very far to know if women/girls find you attractive, just crack a bad joke and see how they react; If they genuinely laugh you're attractive, if they don't and the mood gets messed up then they don't find you attractive. Why do I know this? because I have cracked many bad jokes interacting with girls and for some ungodly reason previously behind my comprehension it still comes off as funny (even if I know deep within it's really not).
That's just a sign of many other signs. It alone confirms absolutely nothing. People laugh all the time over stupid people doing/saying stupid things, as Ryan said.
True. I have a good friend who makes extremely inappropriate jokes and women genuinely laugh at them. Another friends who jokes are just not that funny, and women laugh at them as well. Women find both dudes attractive so they work.
Just meet 10 women and see how they react to you. Huge smile, prolonged eye-to-eye contact and a full body hug = 10. Face scrunched up, quickly looked away and left = 1. But Wheat's method is SMV, not just face+body+height.
As one of the 14% high IQ subscribers, I need to highlight a fundamental flaw in your math. The final mean does not have the same percentile distribution as the input factors. In more mathematical terms, "the variance of an average is not the average of the variances". Here is the actual percentile chart for the final rating, for those who actually did the calculation: 8: 4.1 7: 3.7 6: 3.5 5: 3.2 4: 2.9 3: 2.7 2: 2.2 1: 1.8 I didn't bother to take into account the race/location at the end. Also, I assumed that input factors are not correlated, which is likely not the case. I didn't expect the numbers to be this low, but it makes sense: being an 8 on your scale requires being an 8 on all factors, each of which has a chance of 1%. That's a statistical impossibility. Throw in the geometric mean thing and I think it makes sense for the number to be very low.
Yes, I noticed the final number was a bit off. That is ok though, the real value for me was having an objective rating and seeing how it was weighted (IE face is important than P size) and what I could aim for in order to improve my individual "ratings". The final number, I could take or leave.
Hey, I know it's been a while, but are you saying that people with a calculated SMV of 4.1 are in the top 1%? Just making sure I'm interpreting you correctly
Once you pass 6'4, there should be no more additional points. Once you exceed 6'6 you should be deducting half a point. Btw, could refine the P score to take into account girth.
@@thetruthisright6750 no I meant take the mean, if you have a 8/10 girth, and a 6/10 length, you'd have a 7/10 P. WW doesn't account for girth, arguably more important than length. Just like length, you can have a girth chart. (Example: 4.5 inches girth = 3/10, 6 inch girth = 8/10)
I agree, I'm 6'4 and know a few basketball players that are 6'6 (we trained together as kids). I can assure you that starting from 6'3+ girls can be intimidated. I once read a study (based on a poll from a large sample of women) and the curve of attractiveness was continously increasing untill it reaches 6'2-6'3. From that point it decreases a bit (still high, but lower than the 6'2 landmark).
@@sofiane7161 points should max out when the measurement in that category gets to 2 standard deviations from the mean. For example IQ, if 2 standard deviations from mean is 136, then anything exceeding 136 does not confer any advantage SMV wise. I would argue that once you get to 145 and above, you are more likely to be a sperg that reduces your SMV.
One way you can tell if you're a 5 or below. Walk around a mall or where there are a lot of women, if they rarely ever make eye contact with you, or never smile at you, and you feel invisible to them its means you're simply not attactive to them
I was with my chad/chadlite friend last night and it was incredible seeing how girls reacted to him. It was like being with a celebrity. This was in China, we're both white guys but I get 0 random attention. I would say every third girl either said hello or pointed to her friend about how attractive he was.
@@kidkieran77 Similar situation with me. I live in south east asia. when i go out with my chad/chad-lite friend he gets tons of attention. like you said, celebrity like status attention.
Well for the height rating part of it has to be a bit off. Because in another video, you put a study for which height women prefer and said the most ideal is 6 ft- 6 ft 3. And guys who are over 6 ft 5 is equivalent to being 5 ft 10 or just considered too tall
It’s like this guy doesn’t realize that after a point, being taller makes you less attractive to women. I’m 6’0 but I feel like the perfect height is somewhere around 6’2.
yeah and it is not like the taller the better... I would say 6ft2 to 6ft4 is the perfect height. Everything above will be a small disadvantage. Everything below will be a significant disadvantage
@@goncalopereira8267 of which population? In my country (Germany) this is very average (slightly above average). And 6ft is a disadvantage relative to 6ft2-6ft4
@@hxndxrs0n815 His entire channel is for delusional incels who can't pull. It's easy for me to say on the internet that I'm 6'5 with hunter eyes, impeccable jawline and get matches every hour. His source is that he made it the f up.
Yeah, for white men aged betwee 20 - 30 it's 5 ft 10.1 or 178 cm. This does depend on the country, but in the UK where I live, it's no more than 178 cm or 5 ft 10. Im a legitimate 6 ft tall guy and feel tallish / tall even amongst the younger generation, and nobody can convince me otherwise unless if it was in the netherlands or Sweden.
@@jakephilips123 I stand 6'2" and was experimenting with an online height percentile chart yesterday. I live in North American and am taller than about 97 per cent of men in either the U.S. or Canada. I starting entering other countries and when I entered either Netherlands or Sweden, that number dropped to 84 per cent!
Your height distribution at 3:10 is way off… 40% of men are not 6’+. It’s roughly 14.5% in the US and 10% globally. On your scale someone could literally be an 8 in every other category and just because they are 5’8” they would be below a 6.
Yeah the height scale is far too harsh. It’s like a 2 inch difference from average height will not throw you down 2 whole points automatically. Thats ridiculous. Also I don’t know where he got 5’11 from
@@РоссийскаяФедерация-б4я maybe the data was taken in some eastern or northern european country where the average height is actually 5'11 (Norway or Serbia, for example). or the data was taken from a usa state like wyoming or utah that is 5'11 bc they have a lot of north european ancestry. more likely though, he is citing self-reported height data.
I took a mensa IQ test a while back and came back with 142. I'm telling you right now, IQ will make you LESS attractive, not more. You end up not being able to relate to people, and don't find most things regular people find interesting of any interest to you. No one wants to talk about investing, the housing market, books, world events or anything in that area unless you find friends significantly older than yourself. I am 24 and my best friend is 45, that's how different you are and it sucks. Edit: Also you have to hide how easily you can learn things and pass tests or people will covet and hate you for it. I remember passing a certification test in a week that most people need to study months for, and instead of people congradulating me, I was getting picked on for it, and people talked behind my back that I was narcissistic somehow. Not like I rubbed in their face, they asked and I told.
Yup for sure. I think that ~130 is the sweet spot where you're sharp and insightful, but can still connect with people. Much past there (getting into the 140s), you begin to have trouble connecting with people because you're interested in deeper topics and more intellectually stimulating conversation. A lot of the factors in his formula do have an upper limit where they begin to work against you in terms of SMV. Though there are some "niche" women who do like guys who are ridiculously tall/smart/muscular etc.
I wouldn't say IQ itself makes one less attractive, but at most the traits that might come with it. I myself have an IQ of ~135 and like to talk about music, travel, feeling, motivations, ... . So my entire life isn't about math/logic related stuff.
hey wheat waffles im a very very tall person i struggle a lot w girls. ive never given a kiss to a girl and im 30+. i think you overestimated height just like tails. ive never goten a compliment for my height its like face halos everything face = smv
@@MakinItHappenn i really dont now what to do. im in that elongated face section. ww gave me a 4.5/10 (closer to 5) and nero a 5.25/10. he said i needed muscle but ive been going to the gym for over 5 years and i still look almost the same. its very frustrating. since people say i should be getting girls but girls dont even think i exist. its like im invisible to them. id rather be 5.5 then my current height if it would give me even a point in face
Not many would have the guts to do this. Very logical and probably fairly accurate. The only thing more objective would be to get 1000 women to look you over naked, interview you and review your finances. I like your "just look at women's faces when they see you for the first time" method of face rating. Just like men, women can size up your physical attractiveness in 1 millisecond.
Yes, but while she might be initially attracted to you, she can reject you if you aren't well off in other areas. My female friends tell about Chad's they reject all the time, even ugly women reject a Chad if he doesn't pass through later filters.
I honestly don't understand why it's -1 smv for "asians". There's a huge difference between East Asians and Southeast Asians. The East Asian guys at my high school are heavily benefiting from just being average East asian zoomers surrounded by many zoomer girls who would see a halo on them for being having the "korean looking" pheno. Totally out of touch with my generation is this generalizing -1 smv
@@yeuuuiuup7714 I have a friend who is from afghanistan, he is muslim. He is/was in love with a white, blonde very attractive german girl. Even thought they loved each other, because my friend is a good looking guy, but the parents of the girls does not accept the ethnic/religion tax of my friend. They forced the daughter out of the relationship and did not allowed her to see him again. They cutted the connection and force the girl to be with a white german guy. My friend's SMV was killed by his ethnic/religion tax, not by his girlfriend, but by the parents of ex-girlfriend.
@@Pedant_Patrol This problem isnt necessarily exclusive to men. I suppose this could just be a human tendency, and I used to be this way as well (and I still am, just to a lesser extent now, I am who I am and I dont give a shit how others perceive me now) but women also suffer tremendously from this (how they dress may effect how men treat them, aspects of the beauty industry + it capitalizing off the insecurities of women, etc)
You made a huge mistake in reasoning at 12:39. Once you take geometric average, percentiles do not work the same. For example: You can only get 8 IF all scores are 8 across the board. And that is much more rare than top 1%, more like top 0.01%. A 7 across the board is also much more rare than top 10%.
@@WheatWaffles RIght, but then it is not top 1% if it is impossible, is it? :) I think this part of your video needs a bit more perfecting. 1st man made this exact same point - If you are 6 across the board, then you are an 8.
@@WheatWaffles Also, you forgot to include game / social skills. It is very important, rate it at least with a weight of 3 or 4. I am painfully shy and this is why I never get laid.
**Brief summary of the current sexual market according to the man physical attractiveness** Chads (Very atractive): They are besieged by women on a regular basis, no more to say. Chadlites (Atractive): They have to put more effort than the previous ones but they had some success attracting females in discos, clubs or night bars, approaching girls on the street, on dating applications and social circles. High tier normie (Not so atractive): He got girlfriends or friends with benefits by maximizing his social circle. Some have even had some success attracting women in late-night bars if they're tall. Normies (Average): They have to provide a large amount of money to get girlfriends or partners. Some even get them through status, talents or fetishes, mostly they are the submissive part of the relationship. And with some "luck" they can get low quality friends with benefits (married, single mothers, ladies who are over 30 years old...). Low tier normie (Unatractive): Normally they are involuntary celibate or get laid through escorts/h**s. With enough money/status they can "aspire" to be beta providers and start a family. Truecels (Very unattractive): The same as the above except that even a large number of h**s do not accept them with all money they have, nor for beta providers.
Agree! using this system, I hope you know your rating and in which category you fall, based solely on your dating success. No need to pay WW or Qoves or any other scammer to give you a subjective number based on pseudo-science.
But we can make it even simplier utilising Face Rating system: 9-10/10 - Yes 8/10 - Yes, but No if Short 7/10 - Yes, but No if Short or Broke 6/10 - No, but Yes if Tall 5/10 - No, but Yes if Tall and Rich 4/10 - No, but Yes if Miracle 1-3/10 - No
@@RefalaStas you really think an 8/10 guy if short is not slaying? an 8/10 guy even if he is 5 foot 6 is gonna basically be a chad lite more or less is gonna be a 6.5, aand thats more than enough to have a good life in the sexual market
wafffles, you have fleshed out the formula what me and a group of friends were commiserating about in a run down chinese restaurant in nyc back in 1999! We knew the variables, in fact id argue there’s two key variables missing ( “status/clout“ and neurotypical , attractive prosocial behavior “sociability” ) but we couldn’t figure out the weighting. It’s not perfect, but goddamn this is REALLY close, and good enough for use. Thanks for releasing this dissertation
It's an Accurate rating system for western countries Only. And its the same criticism i would give for your Channel overall. Everything you say 100% accurate for western countries but there are large cultural and economic conditions in other countries that would give higher value to wealth. In Latin America for example there are no social programs and living wages for low status jobs. The degrees of wealth are definitely more visible you have extream wealth and poverty. In West countries women can remain single and chace Chads and still live a retively comfortable life. I would rate Wealth on par with face looks in Latin America
@Kyler M Looks better. the height of the body and so on does not matter at all. I get fucked up because of my face. The nose is a big minus. The face plays a role.
This is a pretty solid calculation. I still feel you should factor in personality and status into the equation though- even though I realise these aren’t easy to measure. If you’re fun to be around and are socially normal, you still get a boost compared to if you’re autistic and annoying to be around for example! Still a very logical way of looking at it all though! 👍.
Status is largely taken into account through your Net worth more than your salary; personality however is hard to measure, maybe a reliable source would be The Big 5 but I would not feel comfortable using a psychological theory to calculate overall SMV
what you're talking about applies if you're normy tier in terms of this rating System. If you're a sub-five or a chad you don't need social skills to change the outcome. Me personally, I got a 7.19 but my game is so trash, that I don't even come close to getting any girls.
Personality has no value to women for sexual market value. It comes after reaching the treshhold needed for dating. Status is already calculated in his money part
Personality/social skills only matter if you cross a certain threshold of attractiveness. You need your foot in the door first. However, if your personality and especially social skills are complete trash, you should subtract points from your score. Doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things tho.
I think its a pretty good calculation although I dont think the height section is accurate, I think after 6'2-6'3 height you start to get diminishing returns for height, I dont think someone who is 6'6 really has that big of an advantage over someone who is 6'2, other than that everything else seems pretty solid
@@yousef3375 bro not exactly true have you ever been with a girl with over a foot height difference, it is not ideal everything is slightly awkward, 6’2 is the height that appeals to the largest demographic of girls because 5’2 girls wont be too awkward and 6ft girls are still comfortable too, a 6’5 guy girls that are 5’2 and below are just a bit awkward for couple shit like holding hands, kissing, etc, it is still doable of corse but what im saying is there is no real advantage a 6’5-6 guy has over a 6’2-3 guy when it comes to the broad spectrum of dating options, of corse they have an advantage over 6ft+ women but that is such a small percentage of the entire population of woman. In general terms which is what is video is about its about averages and statistics, there wouldn’t be much if any advantage to purely dating past 6’2-3
Face 6 Height 5 Body 7 Money 6 P-length 7 IQ 4 I constantly deal with 4/10 and 5/10 and, sometimes, 6/10. Rarely 7/10. Never with 8 and 9. I think this rating it's accurate.
Brutally honest with I.Q. Wheat Waffles is actually wrong about I.Q. Due to sample bias (women who go to university) lower I.Q. scores are actually advantageous.
This was a good system because face and height really did skew the results but still other factors could give you a boost. My face is a 5 and on height I hit a 3, so despite me doing well in the other areas it was close to impossible to get over a 5 overall, which is pretty reflective of how I'm perceived in the west. But I'm a white guy in East Asia and I am walking these streets like I'm a 6.5 and can get some girls. The only contention I have is being black has its advantages in SOME places. Low tier black guys are more likely to get a girl than a low tier white guy. That's just from what I've experienced growing up in London.
Even if I maxed out the variable factors (body, money, IQ?) I would only go from a 4.8 to a 5.5. That really makes gym maxxing not seem worth it as the opportunity cost for the added value is too large. An average face and poor height are really difficult to overcome. Again, that is why it's a good system because that is reflective of reality.
@chris37211 That is true to an extent but it would be hard to push from a 5 to a 6. I'm saying the time it would take to completely max out the body just wouldn't give someone in my situation much of a significant difference. I still gym often by the way (4/5 times a week) but if you're someone like me you shouldn't expect gym maxxing to change your fortunes.
And the ethnic adjustment gets skewed with the baseline chad attribute. A South Asian chad (someone like Hamza or Prabhas or Hrithik Roshan) is probably getting a far lower ethnic judgment as compared to some overweight 5'6 Tamil dude working tech support with a heavy accent. Also, the Ethnic adjustment will probably vary with where you are as well. Indian guys arent getting penalized in India, but Black people are gonna get heavily penalized, while white dudes are gonna have the time of their life (at least with the 0.5% of girls who are actually in the open dating scene). Similarly, black and Latino guys are probably going to be heavily penalized in Eastern Europe, a famously racist place)
I see face is 1a and everything else is 1B because there’s a lot of things maybe your face is average but you’re really tall and you have a good body maybe you play basketball maybe you have a nice face got some money but everything else is average maybe you’re 70 but you got a lot of money but honestly if nothing else just get your money up I know that goes against black pill but if there’s one guaranteed money
People who are worried about their SMV, are probably already lost of all hope. Just go outside and talk to women, get some experience. Unless you're looking to date women far above average levels of attractiveness, mostly what matters is your personality anyway. I know that's not popular to say on the internet because of a bunch of incels who has been rejected and can't admit that their personalities suck, but that's the truth in my experience.
@@ultra.based.27 They do to some degree for everyone. But charm, intelligence, wits, will outweigh the importance of your looks drastically for the vast majority of women.
i disagree with the height part like if you're an 8 but 6 foot (5.5) the overall score will go lower even if its only one point or less its still make a different, again being 6 ft 8 or even 7 ft is putting you in a nich market and again you will have less appeal to a lot of girls so yeah i think being 6 ft 2 is 8 and not 6.5 and adding few inches to that put you in a niche market and make you lose points
@@MakinItHappenn i don't really care about wheat heigh or even his face rating if someone is teaching you a message look at the message not the messenger and i really agree with you about the short girl stuff
Personally I simply live my life, try to become the best version of myself and if one day I meet a quality woman based on all the standards that I have to protect myself, then I will have a relationship. And if I die alone at least I’m not with the wrong person which is worse IMO.
I heard there was a study that 6’2” is the perfect height according to girls, so shouldn’t that be given the 8 score? And as the man gets taller he actually loses slight SMV points in height
My rejection rate has always been 100%. I'm like a 2 on the face at best. $ an 8 easy, body 5, hardware 7 maybe and height right in the middle. Shows how important having a good mug is.
I hate to admit it, but everything he says tracks from my experience. In my 20s (mid-fifties now) I was a solid 6.5-7.0 (but I thought I was an 8). My past dating experiences confirm this rating. Fascinating!
@@-whackd I was referring to his overall rating system. I was 6’1” tall, 200 lbs, fairly athletic, and was working on a physics degree. Based on Wheat Waffles rating system and my own dating experience at the time, I was a 6.5-7.0 in those days.
You already got this wrong on the very first metric. It’s been shown in studies women start to think guys are less attractive after 6’ 2” - 6’ 3” it doesn’t continue to linearly go up in score equivalent to total height. Otherwise Boban would be an 8 in height and chicks aren’t trying to date a guy that’s 7’ 5”
This is so disgusting, I am literally losing brain cells watching this pseudo science BS but it still fascinates me how people come up with stuff like this and convince an audience of thousands
@@ifechimichael6006 I agree with the general premise, but I do think that the drop off is too severe. I think that part of the calculation needs to be reworked a bit.
I believe the drop off is that severe, I spent a bit of time thinking this through before outlining in the video. Trust me being in college is wayyy easier than not being, it is the only place I consistently see low tier normies in with a chance. In all other places, low tier normies are invisible
@@WheatWaffles hey shouldn't you go even with your way? When you are a white dude in a college in the west because: white +0.5 college +0.5 the west -1 and i would definitely debate the math behind S. America and the west. The west in my opinion would only nock of 0.5 points and S. America adds nothing.
@@WheatWaffles yeah but you’re rating system penalises everyone for not currently being in uni (in the western world) but 1.5 points, even chads? I don’t believe this is at all accurate
I personally think it would be reasonable to add "voice" as a part of smv score. Cause in my opinion voice is a physical trait that can add up to your attractiveness. Tenor voice - no points added to your final smv, bariton voice +0.25, bass voice +0.5.
I don't think the final calculations / score are helpful, but I do think the breakdown of each of these and the percentiles out there are a useful thing to know. Also, one could split this into "superficial" characteristics (face, height, body) which are helpful in finding dates, and the "hidden" characteristics (money, IQ) that help you retain female attention. And, as always, the BEST marker of your SMV is how the opposite sex treats you in your daily interactions.
There are two market values. Sexual Market Value solely has to do with your physical looks so only height, face, and body have an impact on there. Social Market Value is where money, status, and social aspects have a role. Sexual: *relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals.* Social: *relating to society or its organization. relating to rank and status in society.*
but how tf your IQ determines anything. I have high IQ too but this doesnt change literally ANYTHING. People can't see inside your brain. What matters is money and that kind of stuff, but IQ doesn't really changes that tbh. What matters is the effort of each person
I think there are two more crucial factors to be considered in that rating - emotional intelligence and social intelligence. I believe these things are also significant for women when evaluating a man. For instance, if a chad lacks even basic game and is too logical in his behaviour, he would be cosidered too boring and emotionally numb to start a long term relationship with him, whereas an average guy with good game and decent self-awareness would be seen as a suitable life partner. At least from the perspective of really high quality women.
I'm sorry but I do have to disagree with the average height of a young male being 5'11. Sure it's on the upper threshold of average but I do think the average is 5'10 for young men. Also I don't think this is merely accurate because if your 6'6 your proportions are going to be fucked due to elongation, which essentially will lower ones smv.
@@andreymudik2905 Yes, but being 6'6, it's going to be quite difficult to have a well proportioned body. Even then it's not ideal because of the complications that arise. Also, I'm legit 6'0.5 and taller than a lot of men in my college.
this is me. I wish i was short but my face holds me back from anything in life. also true, me being so tall my height is barely seen like ive never seen anybody taller then me in my 30+ years of existence. 6.6 is more like top .001%
@@andreymudik2905 ur WRONG, ur not 6.6, measure yourself in centimeters, most people say there 6.6 and are like 180cm. im 202cm barefoot and never see anyone taller then me ever
@@RealChuckNorris I'm legit 6'0.5 and in my college, I feel rather tallish. Sure I'm not the tallest guy but I'm definitely not mediocre like the internet tries to portray 6ft as being. At 6'6, it's no surprise you are going to feel like the tallest guy wherever you go. Even at legit 6'4, you'd feel that way.
Funny, my score matched your final result perfectly. Just shows you can have a lot of good things going for your but if your face isn’t above average and you’re in the west, not good 😂
This is the first video I don't agree with you. The table you used is 2 dimentional which the reality is 3 dimentional when compared to reality. That kind of deep research also requires a mathematical model with 3d plot graph in Matlab program.
@@thetruthisright6750 ..yeah, and lie about IQ, like WW said. I know my social skills and game sucks horribly--I'm probably a 1 in both, but having a decent face and being 6'1" tall helped me a lot.
Face: 4 Height: 6 Body: 5 Money: 3 P-size: 4 IQ: 5 = 3,87 SMV It's accurate. I always rated myself as a 4-5/10. 27 right now, had only 1 girlfriend in my life and never had casual sex. I'm like invisible. Very rare there are 3/10 women interested in me.
I must say, your formula (while not perfect) is quite comprehensive and probably the best objective estimate that a guy can make of their own SMV. Very nice!
Sorry Bro, but i don't think your body score is 6.5 as you lack muscle, your body is very boyish, and having an intimidating physique is very important in all aspects of life, as it will command respect instantly. You may be a 5 (average)
Dude. You’re making the mistake I made in my twenties. You’re assuming women care as much about looks as men do. Read the book ‘What Women Want’. Women basically look for three things: will he be a good provider, will he be a good parent, will he be a good partner. Height and income matter much more than looks to them. And everyone, please don’t forget that all of this stuff is physical and material. It gets you in the door and helps you get the type of partner you’re looking for, But things like listening, kindness, conflict resolution skills, emotional intelligence, integrity, morals, harmonious values, character, and self awareness ( as well as choosing some one with these things) are much more important factors in the QUALITY of your relationship and your overall happiness.
It is estimated that 15% of the female population are size queens, and for that particular demographic, P-lenth may rank higher than all the rest. I have known few girls who had dumped their giga chad guy after the first night just for having 5.5 inches (average!) PS - Size Queens are after 7+ inches. P length also allows a man to seek out nieche market. See Ron*Jermey, 5’5”, fat & ugly but with 9inches.
That's a good point. I think this scale is for general attractiveness (The most attractive to the most women). There is definitely something to be said for "niche markets" though. Most women don't like genius or bodybuilder-like men, but there is a niche for that too. And as you said, a true size queen is going to look at P-size above all else, while much past 7 or 8 could be too much for most women.
So I bought wheat waffles face rating and I’m 4 added to the fact that I’m over 300 pounds at 5’11 made Gave me a 4 after all calcs. Harsh but definitely helpful since my money Iq and p length was decently rated. This lets me know what I’ve always known. Soon as I lose weight I’ll be where I need to be. Cheers to black pill for the reality check
The height chart made this whole video lose its credibility because the taller you are doesnt make you more attractive especially when above 6'4". In an ideal world women prefer 6-6'4 as the peak (8 points) then you should reduce the points the further away you get from that peak range from both ends.
Am I the only one who doesnt understand why he is ending with 8 instead of 10? Is this some masochist incel shit where they just want to rate themselves as low as possibe?
Try a result based rating to check your math based rating Little/No matches on dating apps = sub 5 Some matches little convo little to no dates = 5-6 Decent matches decent convo rate and some dates = 6-7 Good amount of matches and convo and perhaps 2 or more dates every week = 7-8 As many dates as you can handle off of the apps = 8
That’s sad that you have to censor sexual especially on a video where you no doubt said that it’s not for kids. Susan’s policies are an embarrassment to the human species.
No one should assume what their own IQ is. Many people who care about their IQ usually have frail egos and will overestimate their intelligence. Go to a neurologist and take an official IQ test.
SMV should include social proof. I've noticed, when I'm alone I'm pretty much invisible. But when I'm with a girl suddenly other girls start checking me out. Company of a pretty woman gives at least couple of extra SMV point. This is why women often chase married men.
I’m 5’9 I have a great face and very muscular, I’ve been turned down once by a female off of a dating app because of my height, funny thing she was short and kinda fat, with a nice face, I’ve never been turned down or told I got a boyfriend, I’ve taken out almost every female I’ve approached ! Height is not the be all end all! Complete nonsense! If your face is good and you’re taller than who you approach, there won’t be any issues at all!
@@dae1925 exactly! I was literally 1 time, and honestly I think she knew the second she saw me there was no way I would take her seriously, she knew her value compared to mine, in fact most women I’ve been with threw themselves at me! I even had a situation where my tall lanky blonde haired friend probably about 6’2” did modeling for a jeans company, had women choose me in the friend group! So height may be important to some females, but it’s definitely no a deciding factor when the 5’9 guy 5’10 in shoes has a good face and body! Sorry just not buying it! I’ve lived it
@@jsav4269 yes as long as you have average height / it change not so much your rating between 5'10 and 6'2 because a 6'2 average face will be less succesful than a 5'10 with good face
Super interesting metholodogy for calcualting the SMV. Do you think it would make sense to add another parameter for soft-skills or social skills? When establishing any kind of relationships or just building rapport in the early stages of meeting someone I believe it's crucial, even if it's just basic things. I agree to some extent that it's not that important if you're a chad, but a chad with great social skills will clearly outmatch a chad with poor social skills. We would need to see how to measure having good soft skills. Probably all the things that fall under the "maturity" umbrella, such as emotional intelligince, situational awareness, leadership, etc... This parameter could be weighted the same as Money (2).
Most girls dont find very tall guy attractive. The best height of attractivness is around 185cm to 193cm i think. If you are 6ft6 and above, most girls are scared of you. You look like a monster to them unless you have a very attractive face. I dont understand the notation in this one.
I think the ethnic tax is a little sharp. I could be biased being Asian, but most women don't like Asian men because they are very short and have low face scores- not because they dislike all Asian men- it just so happens most Asians are short and have bad faces. So if an Asian is taking this survey and is already being evaluated on the perceived shortcomings of their race (height/face) subtracting another point for their ethnicity is double dipping. this of course is based on my theory that women do like Asian men that score well in height or face.
Now that this video has been made it would be great to see a WW video on how to rate a womans SMV taking into account everything. Such as, age, fitness, body count, kids, ect.
Good idea, accept many men are poor. In the West, that means some Men will take just about any Woman they can get their hands on for sex and maybe even keep her if she has an average amount of resources and is good in bed, completely negating her actual SMV. This sounds drastic but I literally see it everyday.
Some of those factors are heavily influenced by the region where you live in - average height varies (compare Netherlands for example to the Asian ones) and, of course, yearly income - in Eastern Europe where I come from, the average yearly salary is about 15 - 20 000 Euros per year, while in the Western Europe or the U.S., it is 3-times higher. Edit - corrected a mistake - 15 - 20 000 Euros per year
I was gonna comment this exact same thing. I'm south american and here you can barely earn over US$10K annually and still be one on the top 20% of population haha.
I think the physical attributes you use are mostly good, though style and grooming are also important too. I also wouldn't rate height as more important than body. And penis length isn't really important in practice bc by the time someone knows it, it no longer matters. Money and iq don't really matter for smv imo. Lifestyle, status, and personality/game are much more important. But you can't easily quantify those of course
P-length one threw me off too, and I think IQ should be weighted more (considering that having a high IQ helps you "jester-maxx", earn more, dominate other males intellectually, etc..), but you are wrong on the height thing--height is SUPER important. Ask any short guy. I'm 6'1" tall and I know it mostly due to my height that I was able to get laid on occasion in my 20s.
@@redpillsatori3020 It's not true I'm a 6'3.6 ft (192cm) face better. I would like to be lower but have a face. 180 cm is the ideal height above the bust it is not needed. Women always say they don't like the face and see you later.
Interesting content as usual, but the height component is a bit off. The difference between 5'11 and 6'2 is not the same as the difference between 5'11 and 5'8. Also, I don't think being average height affects SMV. But according to this system a chad or chadlite would have their scored lowered for being 5'11. I don't agree.
