Cupid: "BOOM! Headshot!"
The following is a preview from the upcoming book: The Rating Scale - Feminine Attractiveness in the 21st Century, written by M.G.R. Bate and Z. Lane Raftery. To give you guys a bit of a taste of what's in store, here’s a sample of my latest variation of the popular Mach Rating Scale – The Party Phenomenon, and how to correct for it in your rating. Be sure to stick out for the full rating scale, and the fully bound book, available very soon.
The Mach Rating Scale of Feminine Attractiveness 1.0 Summary
This is designed as a quick summary of the MRS, which will be outlined in greater detail in the near future. You will need to read and understand the policies and procedures associated with MRS to comprehend the solution to the Party Phenomenon.
The Mach Rating Scale of Feminine Attractiveness 1.0 was conceptualised after years of research by Matthew Graeme Richard Bate and Z. Layne Raftery. Since then it has been adopted by many researchers as the key method for defining the attractiveness levels of females (Lee, Murphy & Reutas, 2009).
The scale can be seen in figure 1.
Figure 1. The Rating Scale
Examples of famous females that would fit onto the scale (in their respective positions).
1. Rosie O’Donnel
2. Barbara Streisand
3. Dolly Parton
4. Fran Drescher
5. Michelle Obama
6. Paris Hilton
7. Heather Graham
8. Anne Hathaway
9. Jessica Alba
10. Scarlett Johansson
Any female can be placed onto the scale because it is all-encompassing. However, typically a females is not actively placed on the scale unless she meets the Mach Threshold of Six (MTS) which is a female just above average on the scale. Usually a female who doesn’t meet this threshold would not be checked out in a public setting.
A woman is admitted to the scale via direct analysis (Raftery & Bate, 2007). This method includes a woman being evaluated by two or more males in conference. Often heated debate will ensue. However, even though all males have different opinions, there is only one universal truth. There is only one location for each female on the scale. Though imperfect male minds may disagree, the truth cannot falter.
There are many correlations and points to take into account when placing females on the scale, such as body shape, make up, etc. However, these will be explained in greater detail in the completed article and aren’t needed to understand the party phenomenon.
Finally, The Mach Rating Scale has generated negative feedback from several RATECISTS who argue that does not allow for personality factors when influencing attraction (Dickins, 2009). Though this may be true, the Mach Rating scale is designed only with first impression in mind, and therefore, upon befriending the female in question, their rating is nullified due to biases related to personality and friendship.
The Party Phenomenon
Often there comes a time in a man’s life where he will attend a party with every intention of getting laid. The alcohol is cheaper, the music is generally better, and meeting people does not require any fancy footwork on the dance floor. Yes, the party is the most ideal scenario for meeting that one special lady. However, due to factors not entirely under your control, you may attend parties with a group of 10-15 females who aren’t regarded, in most societies, as beings who possess attractiveness. This may be due to the fact that your party host may hang around with a lot of butt ugly chicks, or you live in a suburb where most females are just naturally unattractive (i.e. Inala). Despite all this however, there is always one female, at every party in existence, who is perceived better looking than their god awful, horrid counterparts. This can be described as The Party Phenomenon and has become one of man’s greatest unspoken dilemmas. Herein lies a grave problem when this girl is placed on The Mach Rating Scale of Feminine Attractiveness 1.0. Is she in fact deserving of her position, or has she been rated significantly higher because of comparison? Would you actively seek this female for a relationship in a clubbing scenario, or are you just aching for sexual intercourse because she is just the most attractive girl in the room? Nevertheless we call this strange entity, the Cream of the Crop (COC).
Though the Mach Rating Scale of Feminine Attractiveness 1.0 is in fact based on comparing female attractiveness, it is possible for ratings to be inflated upon direct comparison (i.e. seeing two females walking down the street and comparing them both immediately) especially in the case of females under a rating of five. There is no empirical evidence to suggest or deny that being at a party with several ugly females directly inflates the rating of the COC. However, because the Mach Rating Scale of Feminine Attractiveness 1.0 is based on the method of comparing the attractiveness of females, it becomes necessary to make a mathematical adjustment to ratings to account for this error. This method of error correction is known as the Cream of the Crop Rating (COCR), and takes into account the ratings of both the COC female and a mean estimation of the attractiveness of the other females at the party, as well as the number of females at the party. This is then converted to a percentage to determine the amount of effect, and then converted back for ease of rating adjustment.
When To Use The Cream of Crop (COC) Rating.
Previous versions of The Mach Rating Scale of Feminine Attractiveness were not explicit on when the COCR is used. This has been revised and included in this version of the text.
Before the COCR rating is applied, a person needs to complete the following checklist:
1. Do the quantity of females at this party equate to a number less than 15*? (Not including the COC female)
2. Does a mean rating estimate of the females at the party yield a number less than six*?
3. Is there a COC?
Please note that it is impossible not to tick number three as every party with a majority of ugly women in attendance has a female with COC status.
If a person is able to tick off every item on the checklist, then the COCR adjustment MUST be completed on the COC to account for error variance.
*The reason for the number 15, is that any party with over 15 other women is no longer an intimate setting, meaning that you have a significant amount of statistical power (enough participants to accurately represent the results of the study, for those not down with statistics) to directly rate the female with the full MRS, and not have to correct for error variance.
*According to the MRS, females who do not meet the Mach Threshold of Six (MTS) rating, do not get rated unless asked by a colleague. So, an estimate must be made as to where the female would rank, in preparation for the possibility of being asked by a colleague.
The COCR Formula
The formula used to calculate the error variance is as follows:
Figure 2. COCR Effect Mathematical Rule
First an estimate of the mean rating is made to determine the level of female attractiveness at the party. This is then divided by a division of the rating of the COC female multiplied by the number of people at the party. This is all divided by 100 to determine the percentage of effect the unattractive girls have on our perceived COC rating. However, a percentage is not ideal when adjusting the rating, so this is multiplied again by the mean rating of the females at the party. This then eliminates the use of specific Under-Threshold ratings, and produces a number which is then subtracted from the rating you give the COC female and this determines the person’s actual rating, had you met her in a larger environment, such as a night club.
Performing these mathematical analyses each time can be highly exhaustive. However, the mean rating in group has no effect on the corrected rating, as the number stays constant. Therefore, we can use a table, called the Cream Of the Crop Table (COCT) which enables people to simply read the table, line up the number of people other than the one they are rating at the party, and the rating they gave the person, and the exact error rating correction is displayed.
This is the table:
Figure 3. COCR Error Adjustment Table
Example: you’re at a party with 16 females, and you have estimated the collective average rating of each of them. However, you see find a female that meets the MTS, and you rate her as a 7. You would have to correct her rating of 7 to a 5.95 (rounded up to 6) as a conservative rating controlling for error of incorrect comparison.
And for the record, yes, we did use the ⨃ symbol because it looked like a penis.
P.S. and those who asked for it, here's the OFFICIAL COVER FOR THE BOOK! Like OMG!
Breaking Dawn Spoilers: Bella Smiles...
...just kidding. She doesn't. EVER.
...just kidding. She doesn't. EVER.
No comments:
Post a Comment