It's mindblowing you are probably top 1% of all men if...

[sapdori]

-You make $200k+
-6 ft+
-Works out and in decent shape.

The bar's never been lower to become a high value male.

[ShakeBrah]

Lol wtf that’s like top .1% or lower.
I’m top 1% just by being 100k+ and in good shape.

[sapdori]

Lol wtf that’s like top .1% or lower.
I’m top 1% just by being 100k+ and in good shape.

Not sure bout 0.1% breh.

[BaseJumper]

-You make $200k+
-6 ft+
-Works out and in decent shape.

I just check the height in the list.

[RackaDo]

jakes on you op im in the top 100%

[batmanman]

What if I make $180k and im 5'11.75"?

[sapdori]

What if I make $180k and im 5'11.75"?

won't make it brah sry.

Better up your salary to 400k to compensate for that 0.25 in.

[deltakappabrah]

200k+ puts you in the top 3%

Spoiler!

6'+ puts you around +1 standard deviation, or around the top 16%

Spoiler!

Let's call "works out and in decent shape" 1 standard deviations above the average (in the US, average is a fatcel so I'd argue you should be 2 standard deviations above the mean but let's be generous); this is top 16% again

Assuming these three traits are uncorrelated and calculating as probabilities (likely not correct assumptions), having all three is 0.03*0.16*0.16 = 0.08% or ~0.1%

conclusion: ShakeBrah, repped

[ChrisLS8]

Almost there, 6'2 but only made 140 last year but I was off Mar-begining of may

[Fuggettabowteet]

Too bad face and dick size mogs all.

[sapdori]

Too bad face and dick size mogs all.

Ain't no girl fantasizing about some midget with a 9-incher.

[SmillironS]

-You make $200k+
-6 ft+
-Works out and in decent shape.

The bar's never been lower to become a high value male.

2 out of 3 ain’t bad.

[ilovetradies]

too bad you cant get in good shape because the goverment is lowering ur test levels.

[Fuggettabowteet]

Ain't no girl fantasizing about some midget with a 9-incher.

Wrong. A poor aesthetic midget is somewhere smashing your girl right now.

[sapdori]

Wrong. A poor aesthetic midget is somewhere smashing your girl right now.

h3h3

[NMS3]

Just lol at that cope. It’s all about the face Felicia

[sapdori]

Just lol at that cope. It’s all about the face Felicia

Yeah true if you have a vagina

[sapdori]

Money is cope for ugly *******s

Top 1% = at least 6'4", in great shape, high IQ, and good looking

Lololol

Sounds like you are the one coping here ****git

[Fuggettabowteet]

Daniel Craig. The best James Bond ever.


5'10"

Chiseled

spymaxxing ultramogger

[sapdori]

Found someone who doesn't meet any of the criteria

Found a pic of you

[gluon]

200k+ puts you in the top 3%

Spoiler!

6'+ puts you around +1 standard deviation, or around the top 16%

Spoiler!

Let's call "works out and in decent shape" 1 standard deviations above the average (in the US, average is a fatcel so I'd argue you should be 2 standard deviations above the mean but let's be generous); this is top 16% again

Assuming these three traits are uncorrelated and calculating as probabilities (likely not correct assumptions), having all three is 0.03*0.16*0.16 = 0.08% or ~0.1%

conclusion: ShakeBrah, repped

you are not factoring in age, as you are only competing with males 20-40 so income percentiles will be in your favor. but since avg height is increasing that will be slightly against you. but id say it is even lower than .08%

[sapdori]

I see now, it was the height thing that triggered you

Stay mad manlet lol

Oh yes completely. I should've posted a pic that 'shows' a low IQ instead to cover up my insecurity lololol

Good luck with your minimum wage goal for the rest of your life ****git Lolol

edit: bahahaha negging me like a true butthurt lil boy. You little cutie.

[Silencespeaks]

Face

Hair

Height

[rectifryer]

200k+ puts you in the top 3%

Spoiler!

6'+ puts you around +1 standard deviation, or around the top 16%

Spoiler!

Let's call "works out and in decent shape" 1 standard deviations above the average (in the US, average is a fatcel so I'd argue you should be 2 standard deviations above the mean but let's be generous); this is top 16% again

Assuming these three traits are uncorrelated and calculating as probabilities (likely not correct assumptions), having all three is 0.03*0.16*0.16 = 0.08% or ~0.1%

conclusion: ShakeBrah, repped

nah that's bad math.

Stats have to be modeled correctly in the first place if you're to trust their conclusions.

For example, you can be in the top 1% by simply being in the top 1% of any individual category according to your method. The truth is, you're calculating what percentage of the population HAS that specific set of traits, but you're not adding up everyone that could have every possible combination of those 3 traits then normalizing it for the actual value.

Normalize your data *******. I could be top 1% of height , make no money, and be 400lbs of fat and still be top 1% according to you.

[ralphlaurenbrah]

Face is almost everything honestly. I say that as a 6’2 200k+ earner with a 99.7 percentile dick size. I also have ~155 IQ.



Face >>>> everything else unless you’re worth like 50+ mill SRS.

[FAPhaggot]

Found a pic of you

Holy lanklet.

[sapdori]

Face is almost everything honestly. I say that as a 6’2 200k+ earner with a 99.7 percentile dick size. I also have ~155 IQ.



Face >>>> everything else unless you’re worth like 50+ mill SRS.

You must be one ugly muddafuka.

[Ravishing_Rick]

that feel when 5'11

[steeler505]

200k+ is already top 1% on a global scale

[deltakappabrah]

nah that's bad math.

Stats have to be modeled correctly in the first place if you're to trust their conclusions.

For example, you can be in the top 1% by simply being in the top 1% of any individual category according to your method. The truth is, you're calculating what percentage of the population HAS that specific set of traits, but you're not adding up everyone that could have every possible combination of those 3 traits then normalizing it for the actual value.

Normalize your data *******. I could be top 1% of height , make no money, and be 400lbs of fat and still be top 1% according to you.

yes, I addressed that, obviously my post was an extreme shorthand version: "Assuming these three traits are uncorrelated and calculating as probabilities (likely not correct assumptions)"

brb digging up correlations and normalizing all the traits, aint nobody got that much time lol