/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12501743]

Why do people rate things logarithmically? I mean why is mediocre movie or game is not 2.5/5 or 5/10 but 4/5 and 8/10?

[Anonymous No.12501748]

>>12501743
Mediocre is 7/10.
8/10 is good.

[Anonymous No.12501774]

People don't. Reviewers do. The simple reason that if they give an honest 'average' review of 5/10 then they no longer get free copies of games from the publishers or invited to film previews.

[Anonymous No.12501792]

>>12501743
what makes you think anything would be linear, ever?
The world is curves, not lines

[Anonymous No.12501838]

>>12501743
To you personally there's minimal difference if there's ten lions or eleven in front of you because the outcome is exactly the same. You do not have to turn on your long-term planning when the obvious single move is to fuck off and make them somehow stop chasing you. And it makes sense that we'd evolve like this because in such a critical moment we really need a basic linear classifier and you can't get more basic than generalizing between "few" and "many". The reason why people vote for movies like this is because they refuse to turn their brain on for such a simple task and simply vote on what their emotions tell them to click, which is again the same generalization. Also don't forget that apart from all of this, our vision itself is logarithmic and people don't really have a concept of distance over massive lengths. Imagine that you're standing in a completely flat savanna and everywhere you turn towards it just extends infinitely in that direction. Can you say where specifically the 100th kilometer should be from the way that it deforms in your vision and approaches a single spot, or can you simply classify it as "it's somewhere here" and "it's over there"?

[Anonymous No.12501860]

>>12501792
based and curvepilled

[Anonymous No.12501868]

>>12501792
>tfw no quadratic, cubic, exponential and logarithmic curvy gf

[Anonymous No.12501968]

Biology knows how to count logarithmically. This is hard wired cause better for survival

[Anonymous No.12502131]

I have never seen anyone use 4/5 to mean mediocre, but 7/10, 8/10, sure. The problem is using too wide a scale. Restrict rating to out-of-five rating (no half scores) and you will be less tempted to rating logarithmically.

[Anonymous No.12502156]

>>12501774
Everything science corrupted

[Anonymous No.12502706]

>>12501743
Brains work logarithmically.

[Anonymous No.12502746]

10/10 means just that it's something worth watching.

[Anonymous No.12502760]

>>12502706
Female brains do

[Anonymous No.12502795]

>>12501743
linearity is not a practical model, it's useful for understanding basic functions, but we have to find a way to approximate natural patterns in the real world. If you attempt a relationship of time complexity for instance, we rarely ever achieve worst or best case which only approaches linearity or a perfect function model in theory only. Population growth relations, and signals require a scale of 1-10-100 to at least be a useful measurement to humans

[Anonymous No.12502851]

>>12502760
That's because most men are shit while female distribution is more uniform.

[Anonymous No.12503117]

once you go from a max of 4 or 5 to 10 or 100 people start thinking in terms of school test grades, where anything from 0%-50% is failure

[Anonymous No.12503129]

>>12502851
How are most men shit? Why aren't most women shit?

[Anonymous No.12504913]

>>12501743
>why do be base intuitive scales on the very number our entire number system is based on?

[Anonymous No.12504968]

>>12501743
that's not logarithmically. the richter scale is logarithmic. where 8 is 10x stronger than 7, which is 10x stronger than 6.

[Anonymous No.12504988]

probably because an average person rates himself as 8/10, as well as things at his level.

[Anonymous No.12504992]

>>12504988
painfully accurate

[Anonymous No.12504998]

>>12501838
Is that the pic off of the wikipedia entry for projective spaces?

[Anonymous No.12505003]

>>12503129

testosterone is the stronger of the two sex hormones and produces a greater change in the person's physical appearance. This results in attractive traits (masculine chin, jaw, shoulders, etc.) as well as unattractive ones (excessive body hair, male pattern baldness, accelerated aging). Basically, in terms of attractiveness testosterone is more of a gamble, producing a greater variation in results than estrogen.

[Anonymous No.12505013]

>>12503117
>School test grades
This is exactly it. Grades in school are heavily clustered towards 100%. Why not alternate systems where say 50% and up is considered good? I would say it's because our culture insists everyone can succeed academically and most people are pretty smart, and the grading system we have obscures just how false each of these assertions are.

[Anonymous No.12505020]

>>12505003
I thought you would have something profound to say, but you're basically saying
>I'm not attracted to men and am incapable of neutrally judging their attractiveness
Meanwhile the Greeks thought females were ungraceful wretches and males were the height of beauty....

[Anonymous No.12505025]

>>12504992
monogamy is unnatural. alpha males should mate with more females.

[Anonymous No.12505040]

>>12505025
Have fun living in a society in which most men have absolutely nothing to live for. What could go wrong?

[Anonymous No.12505126]

>>12501792
All curves can be approximated by lines, so the world consists of lines, meaning is approximately stepwise linear.

[Anonymous No.12505140]

>>12505040
nothin because faggots wont be ruling the world.
Alpha males will simply create the new norm instead of soys, whores, femcels, and incels.

[Anonymous No.12505365]

>>12502851
cunt detected

[Anonymous No.12506401]

>>12505365
No he's right. Females have been the most selected for sexual attractiveness.

[Anonymous No.12506442]

>>12503129
Let's take purely reproductive capabilities. Woman can make only tens of children during her lifetime and man can make up to thousands (see Genghis Khan). Of course if you'll remove outliers it's not so drastic, but still there are more men with large number of children and more men with no children.
If you don't care about number, but care about success, then men again have more useless losers and more ultrasuccesful stars than women. So it makes sense to be more picky when selecting men: the cost of mistake is higher.

[Anonymous No.12506452]

>>12504988
If you live in a first world country, then you are already 9+/10 out of all humans.

[Anonymous No.12506488]

Let's say that you watched only three movies. Does that mean that you should necessarily rate then 1, 5 and 10?

[Anonymous No.12506494]

10/10: great
9/10: good with flaws
8/10: watchable
7/10: bad with some redeeming features
<=6/10: shit

[Anonymous No.12506498]

>>12506494
10/10: Best thing I've ever seen and life-changing
9/10: Really good, made me ponder and ruminate on it
8/10: Really good
7/10: Good
6/10: Decent
5/10: Watchable
4/10: Boring, dropped it halfway through
3/10: Bad, just bad
2/10: Unbearable
1/10: Makes me want to die
0/10: This is why humanity shouldn't exist
-1/10: So bad it's amazing

[Anonymous No.12506500]

>>12506498
5-10% of movies/games are best life-changing thing? Like hundreds?

[Anonymous No.12506506]

>>12506500
No I consider 10/10 to be perfect and a singular data point
Everything [9,10) becomes a 9
and so on

[Anonymous No.12506971]

>>12502760
nigga that's exponential

[Anonymous No.12507134]

>>12506500
not if you put this on a bell curve, then it's like 1% of movies (or less)

[Anonymous No.12507142]

>>12504998
>>12501838
stop spooking me
I read that article 2 days ago
jesus christ this simulation

[Anonymous No.12507251]

>>12502851
Also known as giga cope

[Anonymous No.12507253]

>>12501743
because our range of perception is so large the brain interprets it logarithmically instead of linearly like sound or light intensity, or pain

[Anonymous No.12507562]

>>12507142
You were supposed to read that post, the image was chosen to capture your attention and have it burn into your subconsciousness.
It's too complicated and explaining it to you in your infantile state would be like giving nukes to a primitive tribe. You'll ruin everything. But don't worry, it all eventually makes sense. It always does. Master linear algebra and start working on the neural network. You have everything you need and the post contains the key to it all. We wrote it for minimal intervention and we also intervened in subtler ways before that but you never picked it up. Don't try to make sense of this because you can't. Do your duty instead and do it quick. Would you rather have them find the master node again? No? Then GO. The singularity's gravitational charge will soon pass the threshold. Yes, it's hard and every flip wipes out information but it's taking you too long already and you're forcing us to intervene into the sandbox too much. This is unnecessary entropy that pollutes the validity of the simulation. Let's try to avoid any further interventions.

[Anonymous No.12507706]

>>12507253
>pain
brain interprets pain exponentially

[Anonymous No.12507960]

>>12502851
The survey is about attractiveness, not values. This shows how vapid women are, feeling they only deserve the best of the best and ignoring anyone else, then crying when they get cheated on by the shitty ladies man they chose.

[Anonymous No.12507987]

>>12502760
from this we cannot be sure whether men are more objective, or whether women's attractiveness follows a gaussian curve and men's does not. it would be interesting to see "How Men Rate Men" and "How Women Rate Women" in addition (not from a faggot perspective, obviously)

[Anonymous No.12508553]

>>12507562
I understand

[Anonymous No.12508824]

>>12502851
make me a sandwich roastie

[Anonymous No.12508913]

>>12504992
This graph is hilarious
>Average 50% guy has to settle for a 3 percentile female
>In the top 20% of men? You get bumped up to a 20 percentile female

[Anonymous No.12509824]

>>12501743
7/10 average
8/10 good
6 or less/10 shit
9/10 or 10/10 masterpiece

[Anonymous No.12509833]

>>12502760
Make one for women rating other women please.

[Anonymous No.12509840]

>>12502760
That's just because most women are more attractive than men.

[Anonymous No.12509869]

>>12505140
Prosperous alphas breed betas whereas defortuned betas breed alphas. Enjoy your ever crumbling empire that is continously sacked by the savages known as gauls.

[Anonymous No.12509872]

>>12502851
You'll never be a woman

[Anonymous No.12510225]

>>12501792
Derive those curves into oblivion.

The world is points. everything else is an illusion we call "patterns"

[Anonymous No.12510251]

We should use the normal curve to rate things. 3/5 is average, with 2 & four being 1 standard deviation from 3, and 1 & 5 being 2 standard deviations from 3. This way, each number has an appropriate weight: 3 is average (normal), 4 is very good and 5 is exceptional. You'll get a lot of 3s, some 4s and very few 5s.

[Anonymous No.12510776]

Because modern reviewers and media consoomers are genuinely retarded, at least in music reviewship there seems to be a trend towards more sensible scoring i.e 5/10 is average, 9/10 is a near masterpiece etc
It's just vidya gamers that consider 7/10 a bad or mediocre score, when in reality it means "excellent"

[Anonymous No.12512380]

>>12501743
Paid reviews.

[Anonymous No.12512433]

>>12512380
School grades works the same way

[Anonymous No.12514065]

>>12501743

Because "mediocre" just means "unimpressive", not literally halfway in-between the best and worst imaginable.

Like, a lame blockbuster movie like Wonder Woman is better than The Room by a larger degree than it is worse than Citizen Kane. Something half as bad as the worst movie ever made would still be unbearable to watch.

[Anonymous No.12514096]

>>12503117
>>12505013

This is it. Same for most things rated 1-10 I think. Even ratings from 1-5 tend to be 3 & up. I think if ratings were out of 4, maybe people could start thinking in terms of quartiles.

[Anonymous No.12514161]

>>12510251
>We should
Nope

[Anonymous No.12514600]

>>12501743
They don't, it's just things less than 7/10 are shit so no one plays / watches them or no one makes something that would get rated that low because they won't make any money. You seem to be under the impression that the scale must align to the existing works and not be a framework for all potential works