|
1-10 scale revisisted
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Orbax |
I think that the 1-10 scale needs to be understood better. Too many people think its merely a linear scale where a 5 is as different from a 6 as a 1 is from a 2.
This obviously cannot be the case. There is no way you can make a span of that nuture in using whole numbers only if it is indeed linear.
Therefor we must deduce the following:
It is a bell curve! As you can see, there exists an exponential relationship on the ends, but the middle is a level mini-linear bar.
a "1" is the worst. Imagine the ugliest person you have ever seen, ever. Thats a 1. Now what is a two? Can you really put them next to that THING that you have in your mind? No, it must be placed higher for the sake of sanity. so a two is "hey zeus, what the hell happened to you" but not the gibbering terror that a 1 throws you into.
a "3" then must be someone who is so ugly you just feel sorry for them.
a "4" is now getting into the realms of normal people. Normal people who just turned themselves into . This is where the lineation occures. 4-8 are basically normal people who have either gone to the extreme low end of self maintenance or to the high end of quality self-care.
then it raises exponentially as you get into the arenas of the super beautiful. People who were born perfect and did something with it. a beautiful girl who didnt maintain...probably gonna drop to an 8 and just be a perfect normal person...ie, attainable in many senses. |
|
|
| Ian^ |
| So How is this still different from like a simple scale line of 1-10 which as I look at it still has the same differences, if you're a 5 on the curve, ur still a 5 on the line, each bit is still a step up or down surely :conf: |
|
|
| Orbax |
how to put this...
ok lets talk quantum levels in electron orbitals
____
____
____
____
____
____
as you can see, yes there are still technically "steps" but the distance between them increases rather dramatically as you get close to the nucleus or, as we are using it, the archetype of beauty or ugly. So what we have is a diametric nuclear pair with the orbitals squished between . So the ground levels closest to the archetype are still the farthest away from everything else. and as you get closer to the middle or "shared" area. the similarities become more striking and it is almost the hardest part of the scale in which to judge due to the blurring of boundaries.
so here is our completed "step" system
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____ |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| On a scale from 1-10, this thread is a 4. Muahaha. |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| Orbax, i think you've been spending too much time @ hotornot. ;) |
|
|
| Orbax |
| also akin to a spectrum analysis of...well. whatever has that signature. |
|
|
| Ian^ |
so you're looking at in with the gaps slightly bigger in some cases, in which case I can understand the drawing, but how I (not sure on others) look at it it'd be like
1 Fugly
2 Ugly
3 Bargepole Material
4 Below Average
5 Slightly Better
6 Average
7 Average to Cute
8 Above Average
9 Extremely Pretty
10 Stunningly I want your ing babies beautiful
on the hot or not scale of course :o
Edit - where each gap to me is identical, just how I personally look anyway |
|
|
| subuddha |
| orbax, you are such a wanker. |
|
|
| Orbax |
I just think of thresholds. As in there is some specific amount of beauty to break out of each level. To get out of the 1s (and likewise be placed into it) some serious s gotta be happening.
compare that to being placed in a 6. its kind of like :meh, she could be a 7 too I guess:
but when it comes to 1s...no ing doubt. ever. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by subuddha
orbax, you are such a wanker. |
its ok. |
|
|
| Ian^ |
| quote: | Originally posted by subuddha
orbax, you are such a wanker. |
on a scale of 1-10 how stupid do you think you look here :tongue2 :stongue: |
|
|
| whiskers |
| [IMG]insert the "how smart i was today until i read this post" picture[/IMG] |
|
|
|
|
