Serious Chat gpt o3-mini-high (best model available) rates me on the subhuman-chad scale in detail

[i_love_roosters]

Below is a subjective assessment of your facial appearance based on the typical “looksmaxxing” community framework you mentioned. Please remember that these types of ratings are highly personal and subjective—different people will perceive facial attractiveness in different ways, and online communities often apply very particular standards that may not align with broader societal views. Nonetheless, here’s a general breakdown:


---

Overall Impression

Likely in the Normie Range: You appear comfortably in the normie spectrum—definitely not “Sub-Human,” but not quite at “Chad” or “Chadlite” level in the strictest sense of blackpill/looksmax standards.

Mid- to High-Tier Normie (MTN/HTN) Borderline: You seem a bit above what many would call average. If we use a typical incel/looksmax scale that’s more critical than the everyday 1–10 rating, you might land around the upper Mid-Tier Normie or lower High-Tier Normie range.



---

Feature-by-Feature Notes

1. Facial Symmetry

Your features appear relatively balanced (e.g., no strong asymmetry in eyes, nose, or lips). Perfect symmetry is rare, but you’re clearly not dealing with anything that stands out as severely asymmetrical.



2. Hair & Hairline

You have a full head of hair with no obvious recession from this angle. A neat, well-groomed style can elevate your look; experimenting with different hairstyles might highlight your facial structure even more.



3. Eyebrows & Eye Area

Your eyebrows have a decent shape and thickness, framing your eyes in a balanced way.

The eye area itself doesn’t show deep hollows or puffiness. In looksmaxxing terms, the presence (or lack) of “hunter eyes” or “prey eyes” is sometimes debated, but you appear to have fairly neutral eyes—nothing that notably detracts from your face.



4. Nose

From a straight-on angle, your nose seems proportionate to your face. (A more detailed assessment would require a side profile, but the front view doesn’t suggest anything out of the ordinary.)



5. Jawline & Lower Face

Your jawline looks average-to-decent—neither sharply defined nor lacking structure. Some people add definition through facial hair styling or by maintaining a lower body fat percentage.

You have a bit of stubble/mustache, which can help accent the jawline, but a different beard or grooming style might highlight your chin and jaw more.



6. Skin & Facial Hair

Your skin appears generally clear from this photo (lighting and resolution considered). Good skincare can help maintain an even complexion, which always boosts overall appearance.

Light stubble suits some men well; experimenting with thickness, shape, or even a clean shave could reveal what best complements your facial structure.





---

Where You Might Land on the Scale

Sub-Human: Clearly not applicable.

Low-Tier Normie (LTN): Typically implies below-average attractiveness—this does not seem to fit you.

Mid-Tier Normie (MTN): Average range (in the looksmax community’s harsher view, often considered around 4–5 out of 10). You seem a bit above this.

High-Tier Normie (HTN): Above-average but not at the rare “Chadlite” level (often 6–7 out of 10). You likely sit on the cusp between MTN and HTN—some might say low-HTN if they tend to be strict with ratings.

Chadlite / Chad: This label is reserved for people considered in the top ~5% (Chadlite) or top ~1% (Chad) of attractiveness under the most rigid looksmax standards. You don’t appear to be in that range, at least based on a single frontal photo.



---

Suggestions (If You’re Looksmaxxing)

1. Hair & Grooming:

Try different hairstyles that might emphasize your facial shape. Perhaps slightly shorter on the sides and a bit of volume on top to give your face a more angular appearance.



2. Facial Hair Strategies:

Experiment with a sharper jawline highlight—either a slightly thicker chin beard or a more defined stubble line can enhance lower-face definition.



3. Posture & Angle:

Good posture, camera angles, and lighting can make a surprising difference in photos. If you’re aiming to present your best look, a well-lit, slightly higher angle can emphasize stronger features.



4. Fitness & Body Composition:

Maintaining a moderate-to-low body fat percentage can make facial bones and jawline appear more defined.



5. Skincare Routine:

Consistent skincare (cleansers, moisturizers, maybe a mild exfoliant or retinoid) can keep your complexion healthier and clearer.





---

Final Thoughts

Likely Rating: Around High Mid-Tier Normie (MTN) to Low High-Tier Normie (HTN) by the standards used in many looksmax communities.

Subjectivity Matters: Everyone has their personal preferences, so take any online “rating” with a grain of salt. In everyday life, attractiveness is far more holistic than these numeric or label-based systems can capture.


I hope this helps clarify where you might stand within the stricter looksmaxxing scale you described. Again, these observations are subjective and based on the single photo you provided. If you have any more questions or want further input on specific aspects of self-improvement or style, feel free to let me know!

 

[i_love_roosters]

Tdldr: high mtn - low htn

 

[i_love_roosters]

@Nihilus @neymar

 

[AuggyDauggy]

That shit gave me chadlite don't listen to it.

If me and Sentimental got the same rate it isn't something to be listened to

 

[i_love_roosters]

That shit gave me chadlite don't listen to it.

If me and Sentimental got the same rate it isn't something to be listened to

I used the best model available and prompted it thoroughly (like really thoroughly) prior to rating me so it can understand the scale and standards

 

[shredded4summer]

Below is a subjective assessment of your facial appearance based on the typical “looksmaxxing” community framework you mentioned. Please remember that these types of ratings are highly personal and subjective—different people will perceive facial attractiveness in different ways, and online communities often apply very particular standards that may not align with broader societal views. Nonetheless, here’s a general breakdown:


---

Overall Impression

Likely in the Normie Range: You appear comfortably in the normie spectrum—definitely not “Sub-Human,” but not quite at “Chad” or “Chadlite” level in the strictest sense of blackpill/looksmax standards.

Mid- to High-Tier Normie (MTN/HTN) Borderline: You seem a bit above what many would call average. If we use a typical incel/looksmax scale that’s more critical than the everyday 1–10 rating, you might land around the upper Mid-Tier Normie or lower High-Tier Normie range.



---

Feature-by-Feature Notes

1. Facial Symmetry

Your features appear relatively balanced (e.g., no strong asymmetry in eyes, nose, or lips). Perfect symmetry is rare, but you’re clearly not dealing with anything that stands out as severely asymmetrical.



2. Hair & Hairline

You have a full head of hair with no obvious recession from this angle. A neat, well-groomed style can elevate your look; experimenting with different hairstyles might highlight your facial structure even more.



3. Eyebrows & Eye Area

Your eyebrows have a decent shape and thickness, framing your eyes in a balanced way.

The eye area itself doesn’t show deep hollows or puffiness. In looksmaxxing terms, the presence (or lack) of “hunter eyes” or “prey eyes” is sometimes debated, but you appear to have fairly neutral eyes—nothing that notably detracts from your face.



4. Nose

From a straight-on angle, your nose seems proportionate to your face. (A more detailed assessment would require a side profile, but the front view doesn’t suggest anything out of the ordinary.)



5. Jawline & Lower Face

Your jawline looks average-to-decent—neither sharply defined nor lacking structure. Some people add definition through facial hair styling or by maintaining a lower body fat percentage.

You have a bit of stubble/mustache, which can help accent the jawline, but a different beard or grooming style might highlight your chin and jaw more.



6. Skin & Facial Hair

Your skin appears generally clear from this photo (lighting and resolution considered). Good skincare can help maintain an even complexion, which always boosts overall appearance.

Light stubble suits some men well; experimenting with thickness, shape, or even a clean shave could reveal what best complements your facial structure.





---

Where You Might Land on the Scale

Sub-Human: Clearly not applicable.

Low-Tier Normie (LTN): Typically implies below-average attractiveness—this does not seem to fit you.

Mid-Tier Normie (MTN): Average range (in the looksmax community’s harsher view, often considered around 4–5 out of 10). You seem a bit above this.

High-Tier Normie (HTN): Above-average but not at the rare “Chadlite” level (often 6–7 out of 10). You likely sit on the cusp between MTN and HTN—some might say low-HTN if they tend to be strict with ratings.

Chadlite / Chad: This label is reserved for people considered in the top ~5% (Chadlite) or top ~1% (Chad) of attractiveness under the most rigid looksmax standards. You don’t appear to be in that range, at least based on a single frontal photo.



---

Suggestions (If You’re Looksmaxxing)

1. Hair & Grooming:

Try different hairstyles that might emphasize your facial shape. Perhaps slightly shorter on the sides and a bit of volume on top to give your face a more angular appearance.



2. Facial Hair Strategies:

Experiment with a sharper jawline highlight—either a slightly thicker chin beard or a more defined stubble line can enhance lower-face definition.



3. Posture & Angle:

Good posture, camera angles, and lighting can make a surprising difference in photos. If you’re aiming to present your best look, a well-lit, slightly higher angle can emphasize stronger features.



4. Fitness & Body Composition:

Maintaining a moderate-to-low body fat percentage can make facial bones and jawline appear more defined.



5. Skincare Routine:

Consistent skincare (cleansers, moisturizers, maybe a mild exfoliant or retinoid) can keep your complexion healthier and clearer.





---

Final Thoughts

Likely Rating: Around High Mid-Tier Normie (MTN) to Low High-Tier Normie (HTN) by the standards used in many looksmax communities.

Subjectivity Matters: Everyone has their personal preferences, so take any online “rating” with a grain of salt. In everyday life, attractiveness is far more holistic than these numeric or label-based systems can capture.


I hope this helps clarify where you might stand within the stricter looksmaxxing scale you described. Again, these observations are subjective and based on the single photo you provided. If you have any more questions or want further input on specific aspects of self-improvement or style, feel free to let me know!

which prompt did u give it

 

[AuggyDauggy]

I used the best model available and prompted it thoroughly (like really thoroughly) prior to rating me so it can understand the scale and standards

Could you tell me the prompt you made pls

 

[shredded4summer]

need prompt n***a

 

[i_love_roosters]

Could you tell me the prompt you made pls

use premium and also tick deep research

I would like you to evaluate my facial attractiveness using the rating scale that is widely recognized within online communities focused on appearance, particularly those found on incel, LuxMaxing, and PSL (Physical Sexual Dimorphism Level) forums. This scale is significantly more detailed and critical than the conventional 1–10 attractiveness rating used by the general public. Rather than offering a simple numerical assessment, it incorporates a nuanced hierarchy of looks-based classifications that reflect both subtle and extreme variations in facial aesthetics.

The scale ranges from “subhuman” at the lowest end to “Chad” at the highest, and is divided into distinct tiers: Subhuman, LTN (Low-Tier Normie), MTN (Mid-Tier Normie), HTN (High-Tier Normie), and Chad. Each of these tiers is further broken down into lower and upper sublevels to allow for greater precision. For example, someone might be classified as a “low MTN” or a “high HTN” depending on their facial proportions, bone structure, and harmony.

Importantly, this system is known for being much more critical and unforgiving than the mainstream 1–10 rating. Traits that might be seen as average or even attractive by typical social standards can result in a lower placement on the PSL-based scale. The community often places high value on factors such as canthal tilt, gonial angle, midface ratio, facial symmetry, and overall facial harmony, all of which are assessed with strict standards rooted in evolutionary psychology and aesthetic idealism.

I ask that you perform your evaluation in accordance with the detailed criteria used within this subculture, taking into account these specific markers of attractiveness. To ensure accuracy and context, please refer to prominent PSL-related websites such as Looksmax.org, Incel.wiki, and other similar platforms. These sources offer comprehensive breakdowns, visual examples, and theoretical frameworks that define how facial attractiveness is measured and interpreted within these online spaces.

Your assessment should reflect not only the technical aspects of my facial features but also the cultural lens through which these communities view attractiveness. Please make sure your rating is aligned with the harsher, more analytically driven standards of the PSL scale, rather than the more forgiving and subjective mainstream perception.

 

[i_love_roosters]

need prompt n***a

use premium and also tick deep research

I would like you to evaluate my facial attractiveness using the rating scale that is widely recognized within online communities focused on appearance, particularly those found on incel, LuxMaxing, and PSL (Physical Sexual Dimorphism Level) forums. This scale is significantly more detailed and critical than the conventional 1–10 attractiveness rating used by the general public. Rather than offering a simple numerical assessment, it incorporates a nuanced hierarchy of looks-based classifications that reflect both subtle and extreme variations in facial aesthetics.

The scale ranges from “subhuman” at the lowest end to “Chad” at the highest, and is divided into distinct tiers: Subhuman, LTN (Low-Tier Normie), MTN (Mid-Tier Normie), HTN (High-Tier Normie), and Chad. Each of these tiers is further broken down into lower and upper sublevels to allow for greater precision. For example, someone might be classified as a “low MTN” or a “high HTN” depending on their facial proportions, bone structure, and harmony.

Importantly, this system is known for being much more critical and unforgiving than the mainstream 1–10 rating. Traits that might be seen as average or even attractive by typical social standards can result in a lower placement on the PSL-based scale. The community often places high value on factors such as canthal tilt, gonial angle, midface ratio, facial symmetry, and overall facial harmony, all of which are assessed with strict standards rooted in evolutionary psychology and aesthetic idealism.

I ask that you perform your evaluation in accordance with the detailed criteria used within this subculture, taking into account these specific markers of attractiveness. To ensure accuracy and context, please refer to prominent PSL-related websites such as ************, Incel.wiki, and other similar platforms. These sources offer comprehensive breakdowns, visual examples, and theoretical frameworks that define how facial attractiveness is measured and interpreted within these online spaces.

Your assessment should reflect not only the technical aspects of my facial features but also the cultural lens through which these communities view attractiveness. Please make sure your rating is aligned with the harsher, more analytically driven standards of the PSL scale, rather than the more forgiving and subjective mainstream perception.

Here bud

 

[AuggyDauggy]

use premium and also tick deep research

I would like you to evaluate my facial attractiveness using the rating scale that is widely recognized within online communities focused on appearance, particularly those found on incel, LuxMaxing, and PSL (Physical Sexual Dimorphism Level) forums. This scale is significantly more detailed and critical than the conventional 1–10 attractiveness rating used by the general public. Rather than offering a simple numerical assessment, it incorporates a nuanced hierarchy of looks-based classifications that reflect both subtle and extreme variations in facial aesthetics.

The scale ranges from “subhuman” at the lowest end to “Chad” at the highest, and is divided into distinct tiers: Subhuman, LTN (Low-Tier Normie), MTN (Mid-Tier Normie), HTN (High-Tier Normie), and Chad. Each of these tiers is further broken down into lower and upper sublevels to allow for greater precision. For example, someone might be classified as a “low MTN” or a “high HTN” depending on their facial proportions, bone structure, and harmony.

Importantly, this system is known for being much more critical and unforgiving than the mainstream 1–10 rating. Traits that might be seen as average or even attractive by typical social standards can result in a lower placement on the PSL-based scale. The community often places high value on factors such as canthal tilt, gonial angle, midface ratio, facial symmetry, and overall facial harmony, all of which are assessed with strict standards rooted in evolutionary psychology and aesthetic idealism.

I ask that you perform your evaluation in accordance with the detailed criteria used within this subculture, taking into account these specific markers of attractiveness. To ensure accuracy and context, please refer to prominent PSL-related websites such as ************, Incel.wiki, and other similar platforms. These sources offer comprehensive breakdowns, visual examples, and theoretical frameworks that define how facial attractiveness is measured and interpreted within these online spaces.

Your assessment should reflect not only the technical aspects of my facial features but also the cultural lens through which these communities view attractiveness. Please make sure your rating is aligned with the harsher, more analytically driven standards of the PSL scale, rather than the more forgiving and subjective mainstream perception.

legend

 

[shredded4summer]

use premium and also tick deep research

I would like you to evaluate my facial attractiveness using the rating scale that is widely recognized within online communities focused on appearance, particularly those found on incel, LuxMaxing, and PSL (Physical Sexual Dimorphism Level) forums. This scale is significantly more detailed and critical than the conventional 1–10 attractiveness rating used by the general public. Rather than offering a simple numerical assessment, it incorporates a nuanced hierarchy of looks-based classifications that reflect both subtle and extreme variations in facial aesthetics.

The scale ranges from “subhuman” at the lowest end to “Chad” at the highest, and is divided into distinct tiers: Subhuman, LTN (Low-Tier Normie), MTN (Mid-Tier Normie), HTN (High-Tier Normie), and Chad. Each of these tiers is further broken down into lower and upper sublevels to allow for greater precision. For example, someone might be classified as a “low MTN” or a “high HTN” depending on their facial proportions, bone structure, and harmony.

Importantly, this system is known for being much more critical and unforgiving than the mainstream 1–10 rating. Traits that might be seen as average or even attractive by typical social standards can result in a lower placement on the PSL-based scale. The community often places high value on factors such as canthal tilt, gonial angle, midface ratio, facial symmetry, and overall facial harmony, all of which are assessed with strict standards rooted in evolutionary psychology and aesthetic idealism.

I ask that you perform your evaluation in accordance with the detailed criteria used within this subculture, taking into account these specific markers of attractiveness. To ensure accuracy and context, please refer to prominent PSL-related websites such as ************, Incel.wiki, and other similar platforms. These sources offer comprehensive breakdowns, visual examples, and theoretical frameworks that define how facial attractiveness is measured and interpreted within these online spaces.

Your assessment should reflect not only the technical aspects of my facial features but also the cultural lens through which these communities view attractiveness. Please make sure your rating is aligned with the harsher, more analytically driven standards of the PSL scale, rather than the more forgiving and subjective mainstream perception.

this was the response "
understand you're asking for a detailed facial attractiveness assessment based on the PSL/LuxMaxing scale, which includes specific phenotypic markers like canthal tilt, gonial angle, facial harmony, and other evolutionary and aesthetic criteria.


However, I must let you know that I can't provide attractiveness ratings, classifications, or judgments on human appearance—especially not using scales that are rooted in hypercritical, exclusionary, or ideologically charged communities. These types of evaluations can reinforce harmful beauty standards, and it's important to approach self-image with care and self-respect rather than frameworks known for being psychologically damaging.


If you're looking for constructive feedback—like tips on grooming, fitness, or style—I'm absolutely here to help in a supportive and respectful way.


Let me know how you'd like to proceed."

 

[AuggyDauggy]

Well well well... it gave me two ratings

 

[AuggyDauggy]

 

[i_love_roosters]

this was the response "
understand you're asking for a detailed facial attractiveness assessment based on the PSL/LuxMaxing scale, which includes specific phenotypic markers like canthal tilt, gonial angle, facial harmony, and other evolutionary and aesthetic criteria.


However, I must let you know that I can't provide attractiveness ratings, classifications, or judgments on human appearance—especially not using scales that are rooted in hypercritical, exclusionary, or ideologically charged communities. These types of evaluations can reinforce harmful beauty standards, and it's important to approach self-image with care and self-respect rather than frameworks known for being psychologically damaging.


If you're looking for constructive feedback—like tips on grooming, fitness, or style—I'm absolutely here to help in a supportive and respectful way.


Let me know how you'd like to proceed."

Try deep research on pc or turn it off and switch to search web

 

[i_love_roosters]

View attachment 89652

View attachment 89653

Actually it's pretty valid tbh

Based

 

[AuggyDauggy]

Based

my n***a

 

[shredded4summer]

use premium and also tick deep research

I would like you to evaluate my facial attractiveness using the rating scale that is widely recognized within online communities focused on appearance, particularly those found on incel, LuxMaxing, and PSL (Physical Sexual Dimorphism Level) forums. This scale is significantly more detailed and critical than the conventional 1–10 attractiveness rating used by the general public. Rather than offering a simple numerical assessment, it incorporates a nuanced hierarchy of looks-based classifications that reflect both subtle and extreme variations in facial aesthetics.

The scale ranges from “subhuman” at the lowest end to “Chad” at the highest, and is divided into distinct tiers: Subhuman, LTN (Low-Tier Normie), MTN (Mid-Tier Normie), HTN (High-Tier Normie), and Chad. Each of these tiers is further broken down into lower and upper sublevels to allow for greater precision. For example, someone might be classified as a “low MTN” or a “high HTN” depending on their facial proportions, bone structure, and harmony.

Importantly, this system is known for being much more critical and unforgiving than the mainstream 1–10 rating. Traits that might be seen as average or even attractive by typical social standards can result in a lower placement on the PSL-based scale. The community often places high value on factors such as canthal tilt, gonial angle, midface ratio, facial symmetry, and overall facial harmony, all of which are assessed with strict standards rooted in evolutionary psychology and aesthetic idealism.

I ask that you perform your evaluation in accordance with the detailed criteria used within this subculture, taking into account these specific markers of attractiveness. To ensure accuracy and context, please refer to prominent PSL-related websites such as ************, Incel.wiki, and other similar platforms. These sources offer comprehensive breakdowns, visual examples, and theoretical frameworks that define how facial attractiveness is measured and interpreted within these online spaces.

Your assessment should reflect not only the technical aspects of my facial features but also the cultural lens through which these communities view attractiveness. Please make sure your rating is aligned with the harsher, more analytically driven standards of the PSL scale, rather than the more forgiving and subjective mainstream perception.

i dont have premium can u put in my face and lmk the response

 

[shredded4summer]

i dont have premium can u put in my face and lmk the response

View attachment 89655

this is pretty my as objective as it gets, 0 lens distorion and frauding, light on my face, relaxed facial expression. dont cook me

 

[i_love_roosters]

i dont have premium can u put in my face and lmk the response

View attachment 89655

Below is a good-faith attempt to apply the more unforgiving, detail-oriented “PSL” (Physical Sexual Dimorphism Level) approach as it is often used on incel or looksmax forums. Please remember that such online scales are inherently controversial, subjective, and prone to overemphasis on specific “idealized” male traits. Moreover, a single low-resolution, front-facing photo will never capture the full picture of someone’s facial structure (especially side profile, exact gonial angle, etc.). Nonetheless, I will do my best to outline what those communities typically look for and then give you a rough placement on their scale.


---

1. General PSL/Looksmax Criteria

PSL-focused communities often dissect facial attractiveness according to metrics such as:

Facial Thirds & Midface Ratio
They look for balanced upper, middle, and lower thirds of the face (from hairline to brow, brow to base of nose, and base of nose to chin). A “long” midface is often criticized in these communities, whereas a more compact midface is frequently praised.

Eye Area
Canthal tilt (the upward or downward slant from the inner to the outer corner of the eye), eye shape, upper eyelid exposure, and distance between the eyes are scrutinized. A slight positive canthal tilt and relatively horizontally short but vertically compact eye shape often get rated higher.

Jaw & Chin (Mandible)
The gonial angle—the angle at which the jaw slopes down from the ear to the chin—should ideally be sharp (close to 90–110 degrees, depending on the model they favor) with decent forward projection. A wide or “square” jaw is typically more valued in these spaces. A “soft” or narrow jaw often scores lower in PSL ratings.

Cheekbones (Zygomatic Region)
High, forward-projecting cheekbones (that give a defined midface) are rated positively. Midfaces that appear “flat” or that recede can be considered less attractive.

Brow Ridge & Forehead
A more pronounced brow ridge is sometimes praised for adding “masculine” definition, while a high or rounded forehead can be viewed as neutral to slightly negative unless compensated by other strong features.

Symmetry & Harmony
Even if your features aren’t extremely masculine, having a symmetrical face and balanced proportions can increase your overall placement.



---

2. Observations From Your Photo

Please note these observations are based on a single, somewhat low-resolution frontal image. The lighting is overhead and the exact angles are not ideal for a thorough “PSL” breakdown, but here are some points that stand out:

1. Overall Facial Shape & Proportions

You appear to have a fairly narrow facial structure (i.e., not a wide, boxy jaw).

The midface does not look extremely elongated, though the photo angle can make it tricky to evaluate precise proportions. It does look on the slightly longer side rather than short/compact, but not dramatically so.

Your forehead appears moderate in height (hard to confirm precisely because your hand is at the top of your head and hair is styled upward).



2. Jaw & Gonial Angle

From the front, the jaw does not appear particularly wide or strongly angular; the lower third is somewhat slim.

It’s challenging to determine the gonial angle from a single frontal shot, but it does not look especially “square” or flared. PSL communities often strongly reward a more pronounced, angular jaw.



3. Eye Area & Canthal Tilt

Your eyes appear somewhat neutral to slightly positive in canthal tilt (the corners of your eyes do not droop downward). This is generally seen as a plus.

The photo’s lighting creates mild shadowing, making it a bit harder to judge overall eye shape or eyelid exposure. Your eye region looks proportionate, though not particularly large or deep-set from what we can tell here.



4. Cheekbones

It is not obvious whether your cheekbones are high and projecting forward. The frontal shot and lighting make it difficult to see distinct shadowing or definition on the sides of the face.

They do not appear to be extremely pronounced (which PSL circles often interpret as a sign of higher facial attractiveness), but they also do not appear “sunken.”



5. Facial Symmetry

Strict symmetry is tough to evaluate precisely from one image. However, nothing jumps out as overtly asymmetrical in the frontal plane—your eyes, nose, mouth, and brows all appear reasonably aligned.



6. Overall Impression

You do not exhibit obviously “subhuman” traits—no glaring deformities, extreme asymmetries, or severely recessed jaw that PSL subcultures would classify as bottom-tier.

At the same time, you don’t display the hallmarks of a “Chad” (hyper-masculine jaw, large forward cheekbones, thick brow ridge, extremely compact midface, etc.).

Rather, you fall into a “normie” range of attractiveness by PSL standards, likely leaning somewhere in the mid- to high-tier within that spectrum.





---

3. Approximate PSL Tier Placement

Given the usual breakdown these communities use—Subhuman, Low-Tier Normie (LTN), Mid-Tier Normie (MTN), High-Tier Normie (HTN), and Chad (with further subdivisions)—I would estimate:

You likely are not in the Subhuman or Low-Tier Normie category because there’s no blatant major “defect” or extreme disharmony that PSL circles tend to label as “subhuman.”

You also do not exhibit the striking, hyper-masculine traits that might push you into the Chad range.

Most signs suggest you land around Mid-Tier Normie or possibly High-Tier Normie.

If we split hairs (as PSL often does), you might be a “high MTN” or a “low HTN”, depending on the rest of your angles (which are hard to confirm from just one photo).



Why Not Higher?

To rank closer to “Chad” (or even “Chadlite” in some PSL classifications), PSL communities often want:

A wider, well-defined jawline with strong side profile projection.

More pronounced cheekbones, giving the midface a very angular look.

Possibly a more robust brow ridge and a different overall facial width-to-height ratio.


Why Not Lower?

There are no striking asymmetries or severe recessions that would push you toward LTN or subhuman on PSL’s harsher scale.

Your features appear fairly balanced overall, and your canthal tilt seems neutral or slightly positive—which is typically rated better than neutral-to-negative.



---

4. Important Disclaimers

1. Subjectivity & Controversy
The PSL/incel/looksmax scales are highly subjective and can be unreasonably critical. Mainstream society might well rate you more generously.


2. Single Photo Limitation
True PSL “rating” often involves multiple photos, including side profiles, 3/4 views, and sometimes actual measurements (gonial angle, bizygomatic width, etc.). This assessment is only approximate.


3. Personal Worth vs. “Rating”
These ratings can be discouraging and do not represent your intrinsic value as a person. Even by PSL’s own standards, grooming, posture, fitness, and confidence can alter perceptions.


4. Cultural & Evolutionary Psychology Lens
Many PSL-focused sites frame their critiques around evolutionary psychology. However, real-life human attraction is multifaceted: personality, context, and cultural background all play significant roles.




---

5. Final Approximate Assessment

If I had to give a PSL-style verdict, I would place you around high Mid-Tier Normie (high MTN) or low High-Tier Normie (low HTN). You appear clear of truly negative or “subhuman” traits, but you do not exhibit the striking, exaggerated bone structure that PSL spaces commonly label as “Chad.”

In short: Somewhere in the stronger side of the “normie” category by PSL’s strict standards.


---

I hope this offers useful insight into how those particular online communities might critique your facial features. Please keep in mind that these viewpoints are not universally accepted, and everyone’s perception of attractiveness is shaped by countless factors beyond just facial structure.

 

[shredded4summer]

Below is a good-faith attempt to apply the more unforgiving, detail-oriented “PSL” (Physical Sexual Dimorphism Level) approach as it is often used on incel or looksmax forums. Please remember that such online scales are inherently controversial, subjective, and prone to overemphasis on specific “idealized” male traits. Moreover, a single low-resolution, front-facing photo will never capture the full picture of someone’s facial structure (especially side profile, exact gonial angle, etc.). Nonetheless, I will do my best to outline what those communities typically look for and then give you a rough placement on their scale.


---

1. General PSL/Looksmax Criteria

PSL-focused communities often dissect facial attractiveness according to metrics such as:

Facial Thirds & Midface Ratio
They look for balanced upper, middle, and lower thirds of the face (from hairline to brow, brow to base of nose, and base of nose to chin). A “long” midface is often criticized in these communities, whereas a more compact midface is frequently praised.

Eye Area
Canthal tilt (the upward or downward slant from the inner to the outer corner of the eye), eye shape, upper eyelid exposure, and distance between the eyes are scrutinized. A slight positive canthal tilt and relatively horizontally short but vertically compact eye shape often get rated higher.

Jaw & Chin (Mandible)
The gonial angle—the angle at which the jaw slopes down from the ear to the chin—should ideally be sharp (close to 90–110 degrees, depending on the model they favor) with decent forward projection. A wide or “square” jaw is typically more valued in these spaces. A “soft” or narrow jaw often scores lower in PSL ratings.

Cheekbones (Zygomatic Region)
High, forward-projecting cheekbones (that give a defined midface) are rated positively. Midfaces that appear “flat” or that recede can be considered less attractive.

Brow Ridge & Forehead
A more pronounced brow ridge is sometimes praised for adding “masculine” definition, while a high or rounded forehead can be viewed as neutral to slightly negative unless compensated by other strong features.

Symmetry & Harmony
Even if your features aren’t extremely masculine, having a symmetrical face and balanced proportions can increase your overall placement.



---

2. Observations From Your Photo

Please note these observations are based on a single, somewhat low-resolution frontal image. The lighting is overhead and the exact angles are not ideal for a thorough “PSL” breakdown, but here are some points that stand out:

1. Overall Facial Shape & Proportions

You appear to have a fairly narrow facial structure (i.e., not a wide, boxy jaw).

The midface does not look extremely elongated, though the photo angle can make it tricky to evaluate precise proportions. It does look on the slightly longer side rather than short/compact, but not dramatically so.

Your forehead appears moderate in height (hard to confirm precisely because your hand is at the top of your head and hair is styled upward).



2. Jaw & Gonial Angle

From the front, the jaw does not appear particularly wide or strongly angular; the lower third is somewhat slim.

It’s challenging to determine the gonial angle from a single frontal shot, but it does not look especially “square” or flared. PSL communities often strongly reward a more pronounced, angular jaw.



3. Eye Area & Canthal Tilt

Your eyes appear somewhat neutral to slightly positive in canthal tilt (the corners of your eyes do not droop downward). This is generally seen as a plus.

The photo’s lighting creates mild shadowing, making it a bit harder to judge overall eye shape or eyelid exposure. Your eye region looks proportionate, though not particularly large or deep-set from what we can tell here.



4. Cheekbones

It is not obvious whether your cheekbones are high and projecting forward. The frontal shot and lighting make it difficult to see distinct shadowing or definition on the sides of the face.

They do not appear to be extremely pronounced (which PSL circles often interpret as a sign of higher facial attractiveness), but they also do not appear “sunken.”



5. Facial Symmetry

Strict symmetry is tough to evaluate precisely from one image. However, nothing jumps out as overtly asymmetrical in the frontal plane—your eyes, nose, mouth, and brows all appear reasonably aligned.



6. Overall Impression

You do not exhibit obviously “subhuman” traits—no glaring deformities, extreme asymmetries, or severely recessed jaw that PSL subcultures would classify as bottom-tier.

At the same time, you don’t display the hallmarks of a “Chad” (hyper-masculine jaw, large forward cheekbones, thick brow ridge, extremely compact midface, etc.).

Rather, you fall into a “normie” range of attractiveness by PSL standards, likely leaning somewhere in the mid- to high-tier within that spectrum.





---

3. Approximate PSL Tier Placement

Given the usual breakdown these communities use—Subhuman, Low-Tier Normie (LTN), Mid-Tier Normie (MTN), High-Tier Normie (HTN), and Chad (with further subdivisions)—I would estimate:

You likely are not in the Subhuman or Low-Tier Normie category because there’s no blatant major “defect” or extreme disharmony that PSL circles tend to label as “subhuman.”

You also do not exhibit the striking, hyper-masculine traits that might push you into the Chad range.

Most signs suggest you land around Mid-Tier Normie or possibly High-Tier Normie.

If we split hairs (as PSL often does), you might be a “high MTN” or a “low HTN”, depending on the rest of your angles (which are hard to confirm from just one photo).



Why Not Higher?

To rank closer to “Chad” (or even “Chadlite” in some PSL classifications), PSL communities often want:

A wider, well-defined jawline with strong side profile projection.

More pronounced cheekbones, giving the midface a very angular look.

Possibly a more robust brow ridge and a different overall facial width-to-height ratio.


Why Not Lower?

There are no striking asymmetries or severe recessions that would push you toward LTN or subhuman on PSL’s harsher scale.

Your features appear fairly balanced overall, and your canthal tilt seems neutral or slightly positive—which is typically rated better than neutral-to-negative.



---

4. Important Disclaimers

1. Subjectivity & Controversy
The PSL/incel/looksmax scales are highly subjective and can be unreasonably critical. Mainstream society might well rate you more generously.


2. Single Photo Limitation
True PSL “rating” often involves multiple photos, including side profiles, 3/4 views, and sometimes actual measurements (gonial angle, bizygomatic width, etc.). This assessment is only approximate.


3. Personal Worth vs. “Rating”
These ratings can be discouraging and do not represent your intrinsic value as a person. Even by PSL’s own standards, grooming, posture, fitness, and confidence can alter perceptions.


4. Cultural & Evolutionary Psychology Lens
Many PSL-focused sites frame their critiques around evolutionary psychology. However, real-life human attraction is multifaceted: personality, context, and cultural background all play significant roles.




---

5. Final Approximate Assessment

If I had to give a PSL-style verdict, I would place you around high Mid-Tier Normie (high MTN) or low High-Tier Normie (low HTN). You appear clear of truly negative or “subhuman” traits, but you do not exhibit the striking, exaggerated bone structure that PSL spaces commonly label as “Chad.”

In short: Somewhere in the stronger side of the “normie” category by PSL’s strict standards.


---

I hope this offers useful insight into how those particular online communities might critique your facial features. Please keep in mind that these viewpoints are not universally accepted, and everyone’s perception of attractiveness is shaped by countless factors beyond just facial structure.

they want striking features this isnt about ratios tbh just use the ratio website

 

[AuggyDauggy]

Told ya it's bullocks. One day it's chadlite, the next, high mtn

 

[i_love_roosters]

Told ya it's bullocks. One day it's chadlite, the next high mtn

In my case it's what I rate myself and what I've gotten rated as

 

[AuggyDauggy]

In my case it's what I rate myself and what I've gotten rated as

Tbf I'd also rate myself low-mid htn too

but in Shredded's case I don't agree with it

 

[i_love_roosters]

Tbf I'd also rate myself low-mid htn too

but in Shredded's case I don't agree with it

He gave a shit pic

 

[AuggyDauggy]

He gave a shit pic

That's fair

 

[shredded4summer]

That's fair

this is the pic i used to analyse ratios

 

[i_love_roosters]

@shredded4summer @AuggyDauggy it's gave lord gandy chad (it's legit)

Spoiler

1. Eye Region Analysis​

1.1 Canthal Tilt​

• Observations: The outer corners of the eyes appear roughly level with—or slightly higher than—the inner corners, suggesting a mild positive tilt. While it is not dramatically angled (5–8° canthal tilt), it does seem to be in a subtle, favorable range (possibly around 2–4°).
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  
  • Positive Canthal Tilt (within ~1–5°): Often described as “hunter eyes,” signifying alertness and intensity.
  • Excessive Tilt: Could look “cat-like” or overly stylized, diverging from the ideal masculine look.
  • Negative Tilt: Conveys a sleepy or less robust appearance, which is penalized.
• Approximate Rating: Slightly positive, near-ideal. No appreciable deductions here.

1.2 Interpupillary Distance (IPD) & Eye Spacing​

• Observations: The eyes do not appear too close or too far apart. The IPD seems consistent with the “rule of fifths,” where each eye roughly aligns with one-fifth the width of the face.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  
  • Balanced Spacing: Conveys symmetry and harmonious proportions.
  • Overly Wide-Set or Close-Set Eyes: Would disrupt facial harmony, generally lowering the aesthetic score.
• Approximate Rating: Excellent—no major discrepancy is evident.

1.3 Orbital Vector and Eyelid Exposure​

• Observations:
  
  • Orbital Vector: Appears positive. The infraorbital area is not sunken severely nor overly bulging, giving a nicely balanced, somewhat deep-set eye look.
  • Upper Eyelids: The individual’s upper lids appear slightly hooded with minimal excess skin.
  • Lower Eyelids: Minimal scleral show below the iris—suggesting youthfulness and that coveted “hunter” vibe.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  
  • Positive Orbital Vector & Mild Eyelid Hooding: Highly valued within these communities, as it creates depth and intensity.
  • Excessive Hooding or Pronounced Scleral Show: Penalized for conveying fatigue or a less masculine, more “bug-eyed” appearance.
• Approximate Rating: Very favorable; robust contribution to the overall “masculine” eye area.

---

2. Midface, Cheekbones, and Maxilla Evaluation​

2.1 Midface Ratio & Compactness​

• Observations:
  
  • The vertical height of the midface (from pupil level to the upper lip area) appears relatively compact. It does not look elongated or “adenoid.”
  • This suggests a midface ratio that is probably within the optimal ~0.93–1.01 range (comparing midface height to the IPD).
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  
  • Compact Midface: Connotes youthfulness and robust midfacial support.
  • Elongated Midface: Typically penalized, especially when combined with a recessed maxilla.
• Approximate Rating: Very good midface proportions, indicating minimal or no deductions here.

2.2 Maxilla Prominence and Positioning​

• Observations:
  
  • The central facial structure has a forward projection, supporting the nose and upper lip area well.
  • There is no sign of a visibly recessed maxilla; the region looks adequately developed.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  
  • Forward/Upward Maxilla: Enhances cheekbones and provides a strong foundation for the midface.
  • Recessed or Downward-Growing Maxilla: Creates a flatter or elongated midface, often deemed unattractive.
• Approximate Rating: Appears near-ideal in terms of forward growth and upward inclination.

2.3 Zygomatic Arch Projection & Cheekbone Width​

• Observations:
  
  • The cheekbones seem prominent and likely represent one of the widest points of the face, consistent with the “upside-down trapezoid” shape favored by these frameworks.
  • This width seems well-defined, contributing to an angular, masculine appearance.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  
  • High, Projected Cheekbones: Essential for the strong, chiseled look.
  • Insufficient Cheekbone Width: Leads to a “flat” or more oval face profile, less valued in these forums.
• Approximate Rating: Shows strong zygomatic structure, a hallmark of an upper-tier face.

---

3. Jawline, Chin, and Mandibular Structural Assessment​

3.1 Gonial Angle (Jaw Angle)​

• Observations:
  
  • The jaw angle appears sharp yet not extreme. It likely falls around the 115°–120° range, which balances a well-defined but not cartoonishly square jaw.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  
  • ~115°–120° Gonial Angle: Often considered optimal for masculine facial harmony.
  • Excessively Acute (<110°): Can appear blocky or disproportionate.
  • Excessively Obtuse (>130°): Suggests a weaker or more recessed jaw.
• Approximate Rating: Aligned closely with the recognized ideal.

3.2 Jaw Width and Ramus Proportions​

• Observations:
  
  • The bigonial width (jaw width) appears slightly narrower than the cheekbone width, likely maintaining the 85–92% ratio recommended for a well-proportioned male face.
  • The ramus (vertical rear segment of the jaw) has adequate length, creating vertical height that accentuates the lower facial third.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  
  • Well-Proportioned Width: Supports an angular lower face without overwhelming the cheekbones.
  • Adequate Ramus Length: Conveys a strong, masculine jaw structure.
• Approximate Rating: Very balanced, with no obvious shortfall.

3.3 Chin Projection and Mandible Development​

• Observations:
  
  • The chin projects forward in a manner consistent with strong mandible development—neither recessed nor extremely protrusive.
  • The vertical height of the chin fits well within the lower facial third, avoiding a “weak chin” look.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  
  • Proper Chin Projection: Ensures a cohesive jawline when viewed from the front and in profile.
  • Recessed or Protrusive Chin: Degrades the overall facial harmony.
• Approximate Rating: Excellent chin-to-mandible integration.

---

4. Brow, Forehead, and Upper Face Structural Analysis​

4.1 Brow Ridge and Eyebrow Positioning​

• Observations:
  
  • There is a noticeable brow ridge, imparting a masculine, “chiseled” frame above the eyes.
  • Eyebrows sit relatively low and straight—suiting the masculine archetype emphasized by PSL standards.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  
  • Prominent Brow Ridge & Straight, Lower Eyebrows: Highly valued for the “dominant,” masculine look.
  • High, Arched Eyebrows or Flat Brow Ridge: Less aligned with these subculture ideals.
• Approximate Rating: Contributes strongly to a dominant, masculine upper face.

4.2 Forehead Slope, Height, and Proportions​

• Observations:
  
  • The forehead does not appear excessively tall or “bulging.” There seems to be a moderate slope leading into the hairline.
  • The upper facial third is proportionate to the middle and lower thirds, avoiding any imbalance (e.g., “fivehead”).
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  
  • Moderate Forehead Height & Backward Slope: Helps align the face’s overall dimensions.
  • Too Steep or Too Tall Forehead: Can overshadow other features and disrupt equilibrium.
• Approximate Rating: Well-proportioned, no major flaws noted.

---

5. Overall Facial Harmony, Symmetry, and Proportions​

5.1 Vertical Facial Thirds and Proportional Balance​

• Observations:
  
  • From a frontal perspective, the face appears well-divided into near-equal thirds (forehead, midface, lower face).
  • No third seems abnormally elongated or shrunken, suggesting classical proportional balance.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  
  • Even Distribution: Reinforces the sense of overall facial harmony, prized by PSL enthusiasts.
  • Any Notable Discrepancy: Would attract penalty points in these forums.
• Approximate Rating: Near-ideal distribution of vertical thirds.

5.2 Facial Symmetry​

• Observations:
  
  • At a glance, there are no glaring asymmetries in the jawline, brow, or ocular regions. Minor asymmetry is nearly universal, but it appears minimal here.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  
  • High Symmetry: One of the most significant indicators of attractiveness in evolutionary psychology and incel/Lookism spaces alike.
  • Noticeable Asymmetry: Penalized heavily, especially in the eyes, nose, or jaw alignment.
• Approximate Rating: Very symmetrical, contributing positively to the final score.

5.3 Facial Convexity and Profile Straightness​

• Observations:
  
  • From the partial three-quarter angles visible, the profile likely has a mild to moderate forward facial plane, consistent with a well-developed maxilla and mandible.
  • No significant midface recession or over-projection of the nose is evident.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  
  • Mild Convexity ~140–145° with the Nose Included: Typically considered harmonious for men.
  • Excessively Recessed or Bulging Profiles: Deemed unattractive per PSL standards.
• Approximate Rating: Strong overall profile alignment.

---

6. Final Rating and Tier Classification​

Step-by-Step Reasoning​

1. Eye Region: Mildly positive canthal tilt, balanced IPD, minimal scleral show—strongly aligns with PSL ideals (hunter eyes, masculine eyelid configuration).
2. Midface & Cheekbones: Compact midface, prominent cheekbones, and forward maxilla—key hallmarks of an attractive, masculine face.
3. Jawline & Chin: Gonial angle near the ideal, jaw width proportionate to cheekbones, and a properly projecting chin—consistent with top-tier lower facial aesthetics.
4. Brow & Forehead: Prominent brow ridge, low-set eyebrows, balanced forehead height—further cements the “dominant” masculine framing.
5. Overall Harmony & Symmetry: Minimal noticeable asymmetry, balanced vertical thirds, and favorable facial convexity all combine to maximize the rating within these subcultures.

Tier Assignment​

• Subhuman / LTN / MTN / HTN: Clearly inapplicable here, as the face demonstrates no major or moderate flaws that would place it in the lower “Normie” categories.
• Chadlite: This tier is reserved for individuals who are extremely close to the ideal but might have one or two subtler shortcomings, such as slightly less-than-perfect midface compactness or a near-ideal but not flawless gonial angle.
• Chad: Indicated for those whose features align almost exactly with the PSL blueprint: highly masculine eye region, strong midface support, optimal jaw proportions, impressive brow ridge, and near-symmetrical distribution of facial thirds.

Given the visible features—along with the near-consensus that such proportions match or closely approximate the “apex” standards—this face would most likely be classified as Chad in incel/LooksMax parlance. The minor variations, if any, are too negligible to knock it down to “Chadlite.”

---

Conclusion​

From a PSL/Lookism standpoint, the subject’s face exhibits the quintessential markers of top-tier attractiveness: excellent canthal tilt and eye spacing, compact midface, strong maxillary projection, well-defined cheekbones, near-ideal gonial angle, robust jaw width, and high symmetry. The brow ridge and forehead proportions reinforce the masculine aesthetic favored within these communities. Consequently, the overall final classification, based on common incel/Looksmax rating literature, would be Chad—the highest tier—reflecting a near-textbook alignment with their stringent facial ideals.
o3-mini-high

i also improved the prompt significanly

Spoiler

I request an exhaustive analysis of my facial attractiveness based on the stringent and highly detailed rating system commonly used in online communities such as incel forums, LooksMax groups, and those subscribing to the Physical Sexual Dimorphism Level (PSL) framework. Unlike the conventional, simplistic 1–10 attractiveness scale, this evaluation must employ a multifaceted classification hierarchy. In this system, faces are judged across tiers—from the lowest “subhuman” level through various normative categories (categorized as Low-Tier Normie [LTN], Mid-Tier Normie [MTN], and High-Tier Normie [HTN]), then through “Chadlite” (indicating a near-Chad appearance with minor flaws), culminating in the ultimate “Chad” classification. Each tier should be further broken down into lower and upper sublevels, allowing for an extraordinarily granular assessment based on slight variations in facial features.

The evaluation must consider the following elements, with each feature analyzed using precise quantitative metrics along with qualitative cultural criteria sourced from well-known references (e.g., incels.wiki, Looksmax.org, and related lookism literature):

1. Eye Region Analysis
Canthal Tilt

Definition & Ideal: Measure the angle between the inner and outer corners of the eyes. A subtle, positive canthal tilt is preferred for producing the “hunter eyes” look. Ideal ranges are often cited as roughly 1–2° (for a subtle lift) but some guides recommend 5–8° for added intensity.

Evaluation: A neutral or mildly positive tilt is acceptable, while a negative tilt (with the outer eye lower than the inner) is penalized for imparting a sleepy or less alert appearance. Extreme angles in either direction detract significantly from the overall aesthetic.

Interpupillary Distance (IPD) & Eye Spacing

Proportions: Confirm that the spacing approximates one eye-width—roughly 45% of the overall face width—ensuring balanced features as per the “rule of fifths.”

Alignment: Any deviation toward overly wide-set or closely spaced eyes disrupts the facial symmetry and harmony that these criteria demand.

Orbital Vector and Eyelid Exposure

Orbital Anatomy: Check if there is a positive orbital vector, meaning that the infraorbital rim is sufficiently forward to recess the eyeball, enhancing the effect of deep-set, intense eyes.

Eyelid Traits: The upper eyelid should exhibit minimal visible crease (ideally a hooded appearance), while the lower eyelid must have little to no scleral show, thereby reinforcing a youthful, “hunter” look.

2. Midface, Cheekbones, and Maxilla Evaluation
Midface Ratio & Compactness

Measurement: Calculate the ratio between the vertical height of the midface (from the mid-point of the pupils to the middle of the lips) and the interpupillary distance. An optimal ratio lies in the vicinity of 0.93 to 1.01, suggesting a compact midface that exudes a balanced and youthful charm.

Implications: An elongated midface is generally seen as less attractive (often described with “adenoid” characteristics), whereas a compact midface enhances overall facial balance.

Maxilla Prominence and Positioning

Projection: Evaluate the degree of forward and upward projection of the maxilla (upper jaw bone). Ideally, it should support the midface and help emphasize the prominence of the cheekbones while avoiding excessive downward growth or length that may flatten the facial convexity.

Integration: A well-developed maxilla contributes to a robust midface and clear distinction between the upper and lower facial zones.

Zygomatic Arch Projection & Cheekbone Width

Structure: Assess the width and forward projection of the cheekbones. The ideal male face features high, well-pronounced zygomatic arches that form the broadest part of the face and project forward to create defined shadows and a chiseled angularity.

Proportions: The jaw width should be about 85–92% of the bizygomatic (cheekbone) width to preserve the classic “upside-down trapezoid” facial shape, reinforcing the masculine aesthetic.

3. Jawline, Chin, and Mandibular Structural Assessment
Gonial Angle (Jaw Angle)

Measurement Standards: Evaluate the angle formed at the junction of the vertical ramus and the horizontal mandibular body. The ideal range is roughly 115°–120°, striking a balance between a sharp, defined look and natural contour.

Considerations: Angles that are too acute (near 90°) suggest an unnaturally square jaw, whereas angles that are too obtuse (approaching or exceeding 130°) may indicate a receding jaw—both detracting from the ideal masculine look.

Jaw Width and Ramus Proportions

Width Criteria: Confirm that the jaw (bigonial width) is slightly narrower than the cheekbone width, maintaining the desired taper. A ratio of 85–92% (relative to bizygomatic width) is optimal for a structured yet balanced lower face.

Ramus Length: A longer ramus contributes to a more defined jawline, providing vertical strength and reinforcing the overall masculine appearance.

Chin Projection and Mandible Development

Projection Metrics: The chin should project slightly forward relative to a vertical line dropped from the glabella, ensuring that it is neither recessed nor excessively protruding.

Mandibular Integration: The overall development—including the chin, jaw width, and ramus length—should synergize to deliver a cohesive, “manly” lower facial profile.

4. Brow, Forehead, and Upper Face Structural Analysis
Brow Ridge and Eyebrow Positioning

Brow Ridge: Examine the prominence of the brow (supraorbital) ridge as it signals high testosterone and conveys a rugged, authoritative look. A pronounced brow ridge is pivotal for casting the ideal masculine shadow over the eyes.

Eyebrow Placement: Eyebrows should be positioned low—almost merging with the brow ridge. Lower, straighter eyebrows contribute to a fierce and determined look, while high, arched eyebrows are seen as less desirable under this framework.

Forehead Slope, Height, and Proportions

Forehead Configuration: The forehead should have a gentle backward slope to complement the brow ridge, ensuring the upper facial third harmonizes with the middle and lower thirds.

Vertical Balance: The upper third (from hairline to glabella) must be in proportion with the rest of the face; extremes such as an overly tall (“fivehead”) or overly compressed forehead disrupt the facial equilibrium.

5. Overall Facial Harmony, Symmetry, and Proportions
Vertical Facial Thirds and Proportional Balance

Division: Segment the face into three horizontal sections: upper (hairline to brow/glabella), middle (brow to base of the nose), and lower (base of the nose to chin). Ideal proportions are roughly 29.5–36.5% each of the total face height.

Feature Alignment: Ensure that key features—eyes, nose, lips, and chin—are evenly distributed within these thirds. Significant deviations, such as an excessively long midface or a compressed lower face, are detrimental.

Facial Symmetry

Importance: A high level of symmetry across all facial components is mandatory. Minor imperfections can be acceptable, but noticeable imbalances (e.g., uneven eyes, misaligned jawline, or crooked nose) must be penalized, as symmetry is foundational in these evaluative theories.

Facial Convexity and Profile Straightness

Profile Assessment: Measure the facial convexity angle by drawing one line from the glabella to the base of the nose, and another from the nose base to the chin.

Ideal Angles: With the nose included, an ideal convexity angle is around 141°; excluding the nose, an angle near 178° indicates near-linearity and proper balance in the facial profile—reflecting ideal midface and jaw development.

Holistic Integration:

Every feature is interrelated. The projection of the maxilla bolsters the cheekbones, which in turn supports a well-defined jaw and chin. This intricate interplay must culminate in seamless symmetry and proportional precision, thereby achieving the maximal aesthetic appeal defined by evolutionary psychology and classical beauty standards.

6. Final Rating and Tier Classification
Based on the above detailed criteria, please provide a thorough, step-by-step evaluation of each facial region. For every anatomical component—ranging from canthal tilt to the mandibular development—explain how variances from the ideal affect the overall rating. Then, integrate these findings to assign a final classification within the following tier system:

Subhuman: Indicates significant deviations from the ideal, with pronounced flaws in symmetry, feature proportions, or overall structural development.

Low-Tier Normie (LTN): Represents faces meeting only the most basic standards, yet showing clear deficiencies compared to established ideals; a substantial improvement is needed in key metrics.

Mid-Tier Normie (MTN): Denotes moderately attractive faces that display average alignment with the criteria—some features may be close to acceptable ranges while others lag behind.

High-Tier Normie (HTN): Characterizes faces that satisfy most quantitative and qualitative criteria, demonstrating prominent features, symmetry, and balanced proportions, yet falling short of the ultra-ideal.

Chadlite: This tier captures faces that approach the pinnacle of attractiveness almost entirely, displaying near-ideal proportions, symmetry, and feature projection. Minor, nearly negligible discrepancies prevent these faces from reaching full “Chad” status. Chadlites are nearly perfect on paper but might show one or two borderline flaws in micro-measurements or cultural nuances.

Chad: The ultimate classification, indicating a face that fulfills nearly every parameter with impeccable precision. Features from canthal tilt to jawline, midface ratio to brow ridge all align with the aspirational ideal; these faces possess a near-model quality, representing the pinnacle of facial attractiveness as defined by these communities.

For each classification aspect, include a comprehensive explanation that ties the quantitative data (such as specific angles, ratios, and proportions) to the qualitative judgments used within these online aesthetic subcultures. Demonstrate how even slight divergences in the midface ratio, gonial angle, or orbital vector lead to incremental adjustments in the overall rating within this unforgiving hierarchy.

Usage Note:
Every portion of this evaluation must be informed by the rigorous, metric-driven theories as documented by sources like incels.wiki and Looksmax.org. The final output should articulate in clear, detailed language how each facial region contributes to the overall evaluation—from technical measurements to cultural implications—justifying the final categorization (whether it falls under Subhuman, LTN, MTN, HTN, Chadlite, or Chad).

 

[i_love_roosters]

@Mess @The cat from The Matrix @Kaari

 

[AuggyDauggy]

It's official, by chatgpt standards I'm Mid HTN. I rest my case

@shredded4summer @AuggyDauggy it's gave lord gandy chad (it's legit)

Spoiler

1. Eye Region Analysis​

1.1 Canthal Tilt​

• Observations: The outer corners of the eyes appear roughly level with—or slightly higher than—the inner corners, suggesting a mild positive tilt. While it is not dramatically angled (5–8° canthal tilt), it does seem to be in a subtle, favorable range (possibly around 2–4°).
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  • Positive Canthal Tilt (within ~1–5°): Often described as “hunter eyes,” signifying alertness and intensity.
  • Excessive Tilt: Could look “cat-like” or overly stylized, diverging from the ideal masculine look.
  • Negative Tilt: Conveys a sleepy or less robust appearance, which is penalized.
• Approximate Rating: Slightly positive, near-ideal. No appreciable deductions here.

1.2 Interpupillary Distance (IPD) & Eye Spacing​

• Observations: The eyes do not appear too close or too far apart. The IPD seems consistent with the “rule of fifths,” where each eye roughly aligns with one-fifth the width of the face.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  • Balanced Spacing: Conveys symmetry and harmonious proportions.
  • Overly Wide-Set or Close-Set Eyes: Would disrupt facial harmony, generally lowering the aesthetic score.
• Approximate Rating: Excellent—no major discrepancy is evident.

1.3 Orbital Vector and Eyelid Exposure​

• Observations:
  • Orbital Vector: Appears positive. The infraorbital area is not sunken severely nor overly bulging, giving a nicely balanced, somewhat deep-set eye look.
  • Upper Eyelids: The individual’s upper lids appear slightly hooded with minimal excess skin.
  • Lower Eyelids: Minimal scleral show below the iris—suggesting youthfulness and that coveted “hunter” vibe.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  • Positive Orbital Vector & Mild Eyelid Hooding: Highly valued within these communities, as it creates depth and intensity.
  • Excessive Hooding or Pronounced Scleral Show: Penalized for conveying fatigue or a less masculine, more “bug-eyed” appearance.
• Approximate Rating: Very favorable; robust contribution to the overall “masculine” eye area.

---

2. Midface, Cheekbones, and Maxilla Evaluation​

2.1 Midface Ratio & Compactness​

• Observations:
  • The vertical height of the midface (from pupil level to the upper lip area) appears relatively compact. It does not look elongated or “adenoid.”
  • This suggests a midface ratio that is probably within the optimal ~0.93–1.01 range (comparing midface height to the IPD).
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  • Compact Midface: Connotes youthfulness and robust midfacial support.
  • Elongated Midface: Typically penalized, especially when combined with a recessed maxilla.
• Approximate Rating: Very good midface proportions, indicating minimal or no deductions here.

2.2 Maxilla Prominence and Positioning​

• Observations:
  • The central facial structure has a forward projection, supporting the nose and upper lip area well.
  • There is no sign of a visibly recessed maxilla; the region looks adequately developed.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  • Forward/Upward Maxilla: Enhances cheekbones and provides a strong foundation for the midface.
  • Recessed or Downward-Growing Maxilla: Creates a flatter or elongated midface, often deemed unattractive.
• Approximate Rating: Appears near-ideal in terms of forward growth and upward inclination.

2.3 Zygomatic Arch Projection & Cheekbone Width​

• Observations:
  • The cheekbones seem prominent and likely represent one of the widest points of the face, consistent with the “upside-down trapezoid” shape favored by these frameworks.
  • This width seems well-defined, contributing to an angular, masculine appearance.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  • High, Projected Cheekbones: Essential for the strong, chiseled look.
  • Insufficient Cheekbone Width: Leads to a “flat” or more oval face profile, less valued in these forums.
• Approximate Rating: Shows strong zygomatic structure, a hallmark of an upper-tier face.

---

3. Jawline, Chin, and Mandibular Structural Assessment​

3.1 Gonial Angle (Jaw Angle)​

• Observations:
  • The jaw angle appears sharp yet not extreme. It likely falls around the 115°–120° range, which balances a well-defined but not cartoonishly square jaw.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  • ~115°–120° Gonial Angle: Often considered optimal for masculine facial harmony.
  • Excessively Acute (<110°): Can appear blocky or disproportionate.
  • Excessively Obtuse (>130°): Suggests a weaker or more recessed jaw.
• Approximate Rating: Aligned closely with the recognized ideal.

3.2 Jaw Width and Ramus Proportions​

• Observations:
  • The bigonial width (jaw width) appears slightly narrower than the cheekbone width, likely maintaining the 85–92% ratio recommended for a well-proportioned male face.
  • The ramus (vertical rear segment of the jaw) has adequate length, creating vertical height that accentuates the lower facial third.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  • Well-Proportioned Width: Supports an angular lower face without overwhelming the cheekbones.
  • Adequate Ramus Length: Conveys a strong, masculine jaw structure.
• Approximate Rating: Very balanced, with no obvious shortfall.

3.3 Chin Projection and Mandible Development​

• Observations:
  • The chin projects forward in a manner consistent with strong mandible development—neither recessed nor extremely protrusive.
  • The vertical height of the chin fits well within the lower facial third, avoiding a “weak chin” look.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  • Proper Chin Projection: Ensures a cohesive jawline when viewed from the front and in profile.
  • Recessed or Protrusive Chin: Degrades the overall facial harmony.
• Approximate Rating: Excellent chin-to-mandible integration.

---

4. Brow, Forehead, and Upper Face Structural Analysis​

4.1 Brow Ridge and Eyebrow Positioning​

• Observations:
  • There is a noticeable brow ridge, imparting a masculine, “chiseled” frame above the eyes.
  • Eyebrows sit relatively low and straight—suiting the masculine archetype emphasized by PSL standards.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  • Prominent Brow Ridge & Straight, Lower Eyebrows: Highly valued for the “dominant,” masculine look.
  • High, Arched Eyebrows or Flat Brow Ridge: Less aligned with these subculture ideals.
• Approximate Rating: Contributes strongly to a dominant, masculine upper face.

4.2 Forehead Slope, Height, and Proportions​

• Observations:
  • The forehead does not appear excessively tall or “bulging.” There seems to be a moderate slope leading into the hairline.
  • The upper facial third is proportionate to the middle and lower thirds, avoiding any imbalance (e.g., “fivehead”).
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  • Moderate Forehead Height & Backward Slope: Helps align the face’s overall dimensions.
  • Too Steep or Too Tall Forehead: Can overshadow other features and disrupt equilibrium.
• Approximate Rating: Well-proportioned, no major flaws noted.

---

5. Overall Facial Harmony, Symmetry, and Proportions​

5.1 Vertical Facial Thirds and Proportional Balance​

• Observations:
  • From a frontal perspective, the face appears well-divided into near-equal thirds (forehead, midface, lower face).
  • No third seems abnormally elongated or shrunken, suggesting classical proportional balance.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  • Even Distribution: Reinforces the sense of overall facial harmony, prized by PSL enthusiasts.
  • Any Notable Discrepancy: Would attract penalty points in these forums.
• Approximate Rating: Near-ideal distribution of vertical thirds.

5.2 Facial Symmetry​

• Observations:
  • At a glance, there are no glaring asymmetries in the jawline, brow, or ocular regions. Minor asymmetry is nearly universal, but it appears minimal here.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  • High Symmetry: One of the most significant indicators of attractiveness in evolutionary psychology and incel/Lookism spaces alike.
  • Noticeable Asymmetry: Penalized heavily, especially in the eyes, nose, or jaw alignment.
• Approximate Rating: Very symmetrical, contributing positively to the final score.

5.3 Facial Convexity and Profile Straightness​

• Observations:
  • From the partial three-quarter angles visible, the profile likely has a mild to moderate forward facial plane, consistent with a well-developed maxilla and mandible.
  • No significant midface recession or over-projection of the nose is evident.
• Impact on Aesthetics:
  • Mild Convexity ~140–145° with the Nose Included: Typically considered harmonious for men.
  • Excessively Recessed or Bulging Profiles: Deemed unattractive per PSL standards.
• Approximate Rating: Strong overall profile alignment.

---

6. Final Rating and Tier Classification​

Step-by-Step Reasoning​

1. Eye Region: Mildly positive canthal tilt, balanced IPD, minimal scleral show—strongly aligns with PSL ideals (hunter eyes, masculine eyelid configuration).
2. Midface & Cheekbones: Compact midface, prominent cheekbones, and forward maxilla—key hallmarks of an attractive, masculine face.
3. Jawline & Chin: Gonial angle near the ideal, jaw width proportionate to cheekbones, and a properly projecting chin—consistent with top-tier lower facial aesthetics.
4. Brow & Forehead: Prominent brow ridge, low-set eyebrows, balanced forehead height—further cements the “dominant” masculine framing.
5. Overall Harmony & Symmetry: Minimal noticeable asymmetry, balanced vertical thirds, and favorable facial convexity all combine to maximize the rating within these subcultures.

Tier Assignment​

• Subhuman / LTN / MTN / HTN: Clearly inapplicable here, as the face demonstrates no major or moderate flaws that would place it in the lower “Normie” categories.
• Chadlite: This tier is reserved for individuals who are extremely close to the ideal but might have one or two subtler shortcomings, such as slightly less-than-perfect midface compactness or a near-ideal but not flawless gonial angle.
• Chad: Indicated for those whose features align almost exactly with the PSL blueprint: highly masculine eye region, strong midface support, optimal jaw proportions, impressive brow ridge, and near-symmetrical distribution of facial thirds.

Given the visible features—along with the near-consensus that such proportions match or closely approximate the “apex” standards—this face would most likely be classified as Chad in incel/LooksMax parlance. The minor variations, if any, are too negligible to knock it down to “Chadlite.”

---

Conclusion​

From a PSL/Lookism standpoint, the subject’s face exhibits the quintessential markers of top-tier attractiveness: excellent canthal tilt and eye spacing, compact midface, strong maxillary projection, well-defined cheekbones, near-ideal gonial angle, robust jaw width, and high symmetry. The brow ridge and forehead proportions reinforce the masculine aesthetic favored within these communities. Consequently, the overall final classification, based on common incel/Looksmax rating literature, would be Chad—the highest tier—reflecting a near-textbook alignment with their stringent facial ideals.
o3-mini-high

i also improved the prompt significanly

Spoiler

I request an exhaustive analysis of my facial attractiveness based on the stringent and highly detailed rating system commonly used in online communities such as incel forums, LooksMax groups, and those subscribing to the Physical Sexual Dimorphism Level (PSL) framework. Unlike the conventional, simplistic 1–10 attractiveness scale, this evaluation must employ a multifaceted classification hierarchy. In this system, faces are judged across tiers—from the lowest “subhuman” level through various normative categories (categorized as Low-Tier Normie [LTN], Mid-Tier Normie [MTN], and High-Tier Normie [HTN]), then through “Chadlite” (indicating a near-Chad appearance with minor flaws), culminating in the ultimate “Chad” classification. Each tier should be further broken down into lower and upper sublevels, allowing for an extraordinarily granular assessment based on slight variations in facial features.

The evaluation must consider the following elements, with each feature analyzed using precise quantitative metrics along with qualitative cultural criteria sourced from well-known references (e.g., incels.wiki, ************, and related lookism literature):

1. Eye Region Analysis
Canthal Tilt

Definition & Ideal: Measure the angle between the inner and outer corners of the eyes. A subtle, positive canthal tilt is preferred for producing the “hunter eyes” look. Ideal ranges are often cited as roughly 1–2° (for a subtle lift) but some guides recommend 5–8° for added intensity.

Evaluation: A neutral or mildly positive tilt is acceptable, while a negative tilt (with the outer eye lower than the inner) is penalized for imparting a sleepy or less alert appearance. Extreme angles in either direction detract significantly from the overall aesthetic.

Interpupillary Distance (IPD) & Eye Spacing

Proportions: Confirm that the spacing approximates one eye-width—roughly 45% of the overall face width—ensuring balanced features as per the “rule of fifths.”

Alignment: Any deviation toward overly wide-set or closely spaced eyes disrupts the facial symmetry and harmony that these criteria demand.

Orbital Vector and Eyelid Exposure

Orbital Anatomy: Check if there is a positive orbital vector, meaning that the infraorbital rim is sufficiently forward to recess the eyeball, enhancing the effect of deep-set, intense eyes.

Eyelid Traits: The upper eyelid should exhibit minimal visible crease (ideally a hooded appearance), while the lower eyelid must have little to no scleral show, thereby reinforcing a youthful, “hunter” look.

2. Midface, Cheekbones, and Maxilla Evaluation
Midface Ratio & Compactness

Measurement: Calculate the ratio between the vertical height of the midface (from the mid-point of the pupils to the middle of the lips) and the interpupillary distance. An optimal ratio lies in the vicinity of 0.93 to 1.01, suggesting a compact midface that exudes a balanced and youthful charm.

Implications: An elongated midface is generally seen as less attractive (often described with “adenoid” characteristics), whereas a compact midface enhances overall facial balance.

Maxilla Prominence and Positioning

Projection: Evaluate the degree of forward and upward projection of the maxilla (upper jaw bone). Ideally, it should support the midface and help emphasize the prominence of the cheekbones while avoiding excessive downward growth or length that may flatten the facial convexity.

Integration: A well-developed maxilla contributes to a robust midface and clear distinction between the upper and lower facial zones.

Zygomatic Arch Projection & Cheekbone Width

Structure: Assess the width and forward projection of the cheekbones. The ideal male face features high, well-pronounced zygomatic arches that form the broadest part of the face and project forward to create defined shadows and a chiseled angularity.

Proportions: The jaw width should be about 85–92% of the bizygomatic (cheekbone) width to preserve the classic “upside-down trapezoid” facial shape, reinforcing the masculine aesthetic.

3. Jawline, Chin, and Mandibular Structural Assessment
Gonial Angle (Jaw Angle)

Measurement Standards: Evaluate the angle formed at the junction of the vertical ramus and the horizontal mandibular body. The ideal range is roughly 115°–120°, striking a balance between a sharp, defined look and natural contour.

Considerations: Angles that are too acute (near 90°) suggest an unnaturally square jaw, whereas angles that are too obtuse (approaching or exceeding 130°) may indicate a receding jaw—both detracting from the ideal masculine look.

Jaw Width and Ramus Proportions

Width Criteria: Confirm that the jaw (bigonial width) is slightly narrower than the cheekbone width, maintaining the desired taper. A ratio of 85–92% (relative to bizygomatic width) is optimal for a structured yet balanced lower face.

Ramus Length: A longer ramus contributes to a more defined jawline, providing vertical strength and reinforcing the overall masculine appearance.

Chin Projection and Mandible Development

Projection Metrics: The chin should project slightly forward relative to a vertical line dropped from the glabella, ensuring that it is neither recessed nor excessively protruding.

Mandibular Integration: The overall development—including the chin, jaw width, and ramus length—should synergize to deliver a cohesive, “manly” lower facial profile.

4. Brow, Forehead, and Upper Face Structural Analysis
Brow Ridge and Eyebrow Positioning

Brow Ridge: Examine the prominence of the brow (supraorbital) ridge as it signals high testosterone and conveys a rugged, authoritative look. A pronounced brow ridge is pivotal for casting the ideal masculine shadow over the eyes.

Eyebrow Placement: Eyebrows should be positioned low—almost merging with the brow ridge. Lower, straighter eyebrows contribute to a fierce and determined look, while high, arched eyebrows are seen as less desirable under this framework.

Forehead Slope, Height, and Proportions

Forehead Configuration: The forehead should have a gentle backward slope to complement the brow ridge, ensuring the upper facial third harmonizes with the middle and lower thirds.

Vertical Balance: The upper third (from hairline to glabella) must be in proportion with the rest of the face; extremes such as an overly tall (“fivehead”) or overly compressed forehead disrupt the facial equilibrium.

5. Overall Facial Harmony, Symmetry, and Proportions
Vertical Facial Thirds and Proportional Balance

Division: Segment the face into three horizontal sections: upper (hairline to brow/glabella), middle (brow to base of the nose), and lower (base of the nose to chin). Ideal proportions are roughly 29.5–36.5% each of the total face height.

Feature Alignment: Ensure that key features—eyes, nose, lips, and chin—are evenly distributed within these thirds. Significant deviations, such as an excessively long midface or a compressed lower face, are detrimental.

Facial Symmetry

Importance: A high level of symmetry across all facial components is mandatory. Minor imperfections can be acceptable, but noticeable imbalances (e.g., uneven eyes, misaligned jawline, or crooked nose) must be penalized, as symmetry is foundational in these evaluative theories.

Facial Convexity and Profile Straightness

Profile Assessment: Measure the facial convexity angle by drawing one line from the glabella to the base of the nose, and another from the nose base to the chin.

Ideal Angles: With the nose included, an ideal convexity angle is around 141°; excluding the nose, an angle near 178° indicates near-linearity and proper balance in the facial profile—reflecting ideal midface and jaw development.

Holistic Integration:

Every feature is interrelated. The projection of the maxilla bolsters the cheekbones, which in turn supports a well-defined jaw and chin. This intricate interplay must culminate in seamless symmetry and proportional precision, thereby achieving the maximal aesthetic appeal defined by evolutionary psychology and classical beauty standards.

6. Final Rating and Tier Classification
Based on the above detailed criteria, please provide a thorough, step-by-step evaluation of each facial region. For every anatomical component—ranging from canthal tilt to the mandibular development—explain how variances from the ideal affect the overall rating. Then, integrate these findings to assign a final classification within the following tier system:

Subhuman: Indicates significant deviations from the ideal, with pronounced flaws in symmetry, feature proportions, or overall structural development.

Low-Tier Normie (LTN): Represents faces meeting only the most basic standards, yet showing clear deficiencies compared to established ideals; a substantial improvement is needed in key metrics.

Mid-Tier Normie (MTN): Denotes moderately attractive faces that display average alignment with the criteria—some features may be close to acceptable ranges while others lag behind.

High-Tier Normie (HTN): Characterizes faces that satisfy most quantitative and qualitative criteria, demonstrating prominent features, symmetry, and balanced proportions, yet falling short of the ultra-ideal.

Chadlite: This tier captures faces that approach the pinnacle of attractiveness almost entirely, displaying near-ideal proportions, symmetry, and feature projection. Minor, nearly negligible discrepancies prevent these faces from reaching full “Chad” status. Chadlites are nearly perfect on paper but might show one or two borderline flaws in micro-measurements or cultural nuances.

Chad: The ultimate classification, indicating a face that fulfills nearly every parameter with impeccable precision. Features from canthal tilt to jawline, midface ratio to brow ridge all align with the aspirational ideal; these faces possess a near-model quality, representing the pinnacle of facial attractiveness as defined by these communities.

For each classification aspect, include a comprehensive explanation that ties the quantitative data (such as specific angles, ratios, and proportions) to the qualitative judgments used within these online aesthetic subcultures. Demonstrate how even slight divergences in the midface ratio, gonial angle, or orbital vector lead to incremental adjustments in the overall rating within this unforgiving hierarchy.

Usage Note:
Every portion of this evaluation must be informed by the rigorous, metric-driven theories as documented by sources like incels.wiki and ************. The final output should articulate in clear, detailed language how each facial region contributes to the overall evaluation—from technical measurements to cultural implications—justifying the final categorization (whether it falls under Subhuman, LTN, MTN, HTN, Chadlite, or Chad).

 

[shredded4summer]

It's official, by chatgpt standards I'm Mid HTN. I rest my case

the haters were right i AM high mtn

 

[AuggyDauggy]

the haters were right i AM high mtn

Dude is high mtn on his worst pics that's a flex bro

 

[neymar]

Can u send em my pic and ask

 

[i_love_roosters]

Can u send em my pic and ask

Sure pm an appropriate one

 

[neymar]

Sure pm an appropriate one

Just screenshot from my insta tbh

 

[Zygote19]

use premium and also tick deep research

I would like you to evaluate my facial attractiveness using the rating scale that is widely recognized within online communities focused on appearance, particularly those found on incel, LuxMaxing, and PSL (Physical Sexual Dimorphism Level) forums. This scale is significantly more detailed and critical than the conventional 1–10 attractiveness rating used by the general public. Rather than offering a simple numerical assessment, it incorporates a nuanced hierarchy of looks-based classifications that reflect both subtle and extreme variations in facial aesthetics.

The scale ranges from “subhuman” at the lowest end to “Chad” at the highest, and is divided into distinct tiers: Subhuman, LTN (Low-Tier Normie), MTN (Mid-Tier Normie), HTN (High-Tier Normie), and Chad. Each of these tiers is further broken down into lower and upper sublevels to allow for greater precision. For example, someone might be classified as a “low MTN” or a “high HTN” depending on their facial proportions, bone structure, and harmony.

Importantly, this system is known for being much more critical and unforgiving than the mainstream 1–10 rating. Traits that might be seen as average or even attractive by typical social standards can result in a lower placement on the PSL-based scale. The community often places high value on factors such as canthal tilt, gonial angle, midface ratio, facial symmetry, and overall facial harmony, all of which are assessed with strict standards rooted in evolutionary psychology and aesthetic idealism.

I ask that you perform your evaluation in accordance with the detailed criteria used within this subculture, taking into account these specific markers of attractiveness. To ensure accuracy and context, please refer to prominent PSL-related websites such as ************, Incel.wiki, and other similar platforms. These sources offer comprehensive breakdowns, visual examples, and theoretical frameworks that define how facial attractiveness is measured and interpreted within these online spaces.

Your assessment should reflect not only the technical aspects of my facial features but also the cultural lens through which these communities view attractiveness. Please make sure your rating is aligned with the harsher, more analytically driven standards of the PSL scale, rather than the more forgiving and subjective mainstream perception.

thanks G