Small Pond wrote:



I hate scales like this so much. An 8? What does that make a top tier female actress? A 14? It just leaves no room for describing how much better highly attractive people look.



I prefer something that's more like: 2 = deformed, 3 = more or less ugly, noticably unattractive, 4 = below average, not ugly but clearly lower than average, 5 = average/plain, neither good looking nor bad, 6 = attractive, clearly a good looking guy/or girl, I'd say top 20% maybe fall here, 7 = downright hot, the kind of guy/gal you might see like 1 in 100, that one guy at the party every girl is eying up, 8 = actor/insta model stuff, strikingly good looking, rare to see people like this in everyday life, 9 = absolute top tier, think stuff like Gandy, young brad pitt, etc.



Obviously looks are not completely objective, but they are fairly objective/agreed on. Some people's 9's will be another person 8 or in rare cases 7.



If I had to guess, AOC would be around a 6.5 on my scale. Top 5-10% of looks.

Your scale is strange. You seem to want your own scale since you think it will be more useful. But then why even have a number for the lower tier?my scale is:0: bare minimum for me to consider attractive "enough" that I would be interested after a few drinks. About one eighth of people reach 0 or higher.1: same as above, but no drinks required2: pretty, girl next door type3 to 4: well above average, naturally good looking plus takes care of themself5 to 6: naturally very good looking plus taking very good care of themself7 to 9: serious beauty standards, the kind of person gracing magazine covers10: unimagineableThe majority of people just dont make the scale. Why would you waste your time ranking somebody you find irrelevant?I think about 1/8 people are a 0 or higher on my scale. Next time you are on an airplane, board last. Count how many people you find attractive enough to make the scale. Divide by the number of people on board, you might be surprised how few people in the general population are attractive. There is obviously some selection bias by only looking at people on an airplane, but it's a reasonable approximation for something non critical.