Most guys my property person "the chat". The 1 pinch your assemblage buddies that only exists to stock memes, argue, bully, and occasionally denote that you sewage a promotion aliases had a kid. I americium for illustration astir guys.
Recently the chat switched to the Three Six Rule. The thought that, to beryllium date-able, a feline must beryllium a 6 successful 3 categories:
- 6 fig income
- 6 feet tall
- 6 inch pecker
I'm beautiful acold from 6 feet. You tin make immoderate different assumptions you wish. However, I'm happily married. What's the deal? Was my woman ignorant of the rule; did she return pity connected me? Or possibly it's imaginable to compensate for mediocre capacity successful 1 area pinch exceptionalism successful another. If so, what is the conversion complaint and is location an opportunity for arbitrage?
These are the important questions of our day.
The Approach
Back successful your very first stats people you astir apt talked astir the heights of third-graders, and personification drew a beautiful doorbell curve. Distribution of heights is for illustration doorbell curve 101, and doorbell curves are incredibly useful. With conscionable 2 numbers, a mean (μ) and modular deviation (σ), you tin picture an full organization and tally each types of analysis.
Where I unrecorded successful the USA being 6' aliases awesome is really beautiful rare. 91% of each big men are beneath this height. However, older group thin to shrink pinch property and are acold little apt to beryllium successful the making love pool. Especially for a connoisseur of the Three 6 Rule. Let's only look astatine American males betwixt the ages of 20 and 30.
Height Distribution of Males aged 20-30
$$\mu = 70"$$ $$\sigma = 3"$$
A tallness of 6' is astir astatine the 75th percentile. Hold up, percentile? We're not talking astir SAT scores you nerd. We're drastically eliminating men from the making love excavation based connected 3 arbitrary numbers. Let's subtract it from 1 and telephone it an "Exclusivity Score".
Much better. By eliminating guys nether 6' we person removed 75% of the organization from the making love excavation and are near pinch the apical quartile of astir exclusive men. In a room of 100 fellas, 75 aren't moreover worthy talking to.
Now what astir pecker size? Fortunately, this besides follows a beautiful modular doorbell curve and there's nationalist information truthful I don't person to do my ain research. A 6" wiener is moreover rarer than being 6' tall. The mean erect penis magnitude is 5.166" pinch a std dev of 0.654".
Erect Penis Length Distribution
$$\mu = 5.166"$$ $$\sigma = 0.654"$$
Do the math, transportation the 1, and a 6" pecker puts you correct astatine the 90th percentile for an Exclusivity Score of 10%.
In that aforesaid room, we've eliminated 90 of them for having the pedestrian personnel of a specified mortal. The 10 guys near are the pick of the crop.
Getting Too Big for Our Britches
Here is wherever we starting getting a small dumb. I've sewage a room of 100 imaginable making love partners. 25 of them meet my tallness criteria while 10 of them person exclusive capable peckers. What are the likelihood that personification is successful some groups?
To harvester the likelihood of 2 independent actions, you conscionable multiply them. The likelihood of rolling a dice and getting a 5 are 1/6. The likelihood are doing it a 2nd clip are besides 1/6. So the likelihood of rolling 5 2 times successful a statement are:
$$\frac{1}{6} * \frac{1}{6} = \frac{1}{36} = 2.778\%$$
What if the actions aren't independent? If I return a platform of cards and tie 1 randomly, location is simply a 1 successful 2 chance it is red. If I support that card, what are the likelihood the adjacent paper I tie is besides red? It's not 1 successful 2. The platform now has 51 cards, 26 achromatic cards and 25 reddish cards. On my 2nd turn, the likelihood of drafting a reddish paper are 25 successful 51. Just somewhat worse than 50/50. The likelihood of the 2nd action are dependent upon the first action. The likelihood of drafting 2 reddish cards successful a statement are:
$$\frac{1}{2} * \frac{25}{51} = \frac{25}{102} = 24.51\% $$
Height and pecker magnitude look to beryllium correlated, but location isn't a batch of awesome information retired there. But mostly speaking, a taller personification is much apt to person a longer pecker. Since we can't exemplary this narration pinch a precocious grade of confidence, and because this workout is incredibly debased stakes, we're going to disregard it. While location appears to beryllium immoderate limited narration betwixt tallness and pecker, I'm going to dainty them arsenic 2 independent events.
So backmost to these 2 groups of 25 and 10 guys. Since we're treating them arsenic independent characteristics we tin conscionable multiply the likelihood to get astatine our Blended Exclusivity Score.
$$\frac{1}{4} * \frac{1}{10} = \frac{1}{40} = 2.5\%$$
Now we're talking! The Three 6 norm is really starting to radiance successful it's expertise to enforce exclusivity. In a room afloat of 100 random guys, you whitethorn find 2 aliases 3 that tin meet our criteria truthful far.
Let's Talk About Money
Humans person gotten bigger complete time. However, I've yet to spot tallness aliases pecker size successful immoderate CPI basket-of-goods erstwhile measuring inflation. Neither party's system argumentation is to blasted for the rising costs of peckers successful the market shop that is destroying the mediate class. The heights of American men aren't driven by liking complaint policy. Incomes are.
So erstwhile we talk astir a 6 fig income, we request to nail down a date. For now we'll look astatine 2014 since that is the astir caller information I found.
The different problem pinch distributions of income is they aren't normal. Look astatine that agelong tail disconnected to the right. But if we return the earthy log of our incomes, it abruptly becomes normalized pinch a mean of 10.8 and modular deviation of 0.758. We tin ever person our values backmost to dollars by raising e to that number arsenic the exponent.
Income Distribution
Normalized pinch Natural Log
$$\mu = 10.8$$ $$\sigma = 0.758$$
Taking the earthy log of $100k gives you 11.513 aliases an Exclusivity Score of 17%. To exemplify that 11.513 corresponds to $100k we tin quickly check:
$$e^{11.513} = $100,007$$
Setting a Baseline
We already talked astir the likelihood of uncovering personification successful a group of 100 guys that is some 6' gangly and 6" endowed. If we adhd successful their net we get astatine our Improved Blended Exclusivity Score.
$$BES = \frac{1}{4} * \frac{1}{10} * \frac{17}{100} = \frac{17}{4,000} = 0.425\%$$
In a gaggle of 100 suitors, it's really improbable that a azygous 1 will meet each 3 criteria. Perfection. We now person a genuinely unreasonable group of standards by which to take our making love partner.
Even better, we now person a modular by which we tin measurement different permutations of height, pecker length, and income. As agelong arsenic we stay much exclusive than 0.425% of the organization we tin research the information and commencement to reply the large questions:
- Can you still day personification that is 5'3" if their income is $200k+?
- How gangly does personification request to beryllium to compensate for a micro-penis?
- Is location a pecker magnitude astatine which tallness and income go irrelevant?
Sure, we're not pursuing the missive of the law, but Jesus told maine to travel the tone of the law. I'm beautiful judge this is what he was talking about.
Diving In
Let's clasp income dependable astatine $100k for a spot and attraction connected conscionable tallness and pecker truthful we tin commencement building a exemplary for conversion. Remember that our mean tallness is 70" pinch a std dev of 3". This intends that for each inch we grow, we move 0.333 std dev from the mean. At 6' we are 0.666 std dev from the mean.
Meanwhile, each inch that our pecker grows moves america 1.53 std dev from the mean. An inch of pecker is worthy a batch much than an inch of tallness erstwhile measuring our Blended Exclusivity Score. How overmuch more?
We already wished that our target Blended Exclusivity Score (BES) is 0.425%. If we clasp net changeless astatine $100k, which has an exclusivity people of 17%, we tin take immoderate magnitude of pecker and find the minimum tallness required to scope 0.425%.
$$ES_{Height} * ES_{Pecker} * ES_{Salary} = BES$$ $$ES_{Height} = \frac{BES}{ES_{Pecker} * ES_{Salary}}$$ $$ES_{Height} = \frac{0.425\%}{ES_{Pecker} * 17\%}$$
Since we request to usage Exclusivity Scores (ES), not inches, we will usage immoderate excel functions to make this easier. To find the ES of a definite pecker we type in:
$$ES_{Pecker} = 1 - NORM.DIST(Length, \mu_{Pecker}, \sigma_{Pecker}, true)$$
To return an Exclusivity Score and person it backmost to a tallness we conscionable do the inverse function:
$$Height = NORM.INV(1 - ES_{Height}, \mu_{Height}, \sigma_{Height}) $$
If we build a array for various pecker lengths astir betwixt -3σ and +3σ and propulsion it connected a chart, we get thing for illustration this. Notice that for 6" peckers we request the predicted ESHeight of 25% which corresponds to 72":
Now this is an absorbing chart. On the shorter extremity of the penile spectrum our tallness is fundamentally level astatine almost 6'6". At the utmost short extremity of pecker magnitude location is very small exclusivity quality betwixt 3.25" and 4.25". They're truthful mini that you person to beryllium connected the utmost extremity of the tallness curve to get backmost to a BES of 0.425%.
In the mediate of the chart, we spot the dependable curve that we apt expected wherever tallness is being driven by pecker length.
Then we scope the correct broadside of the floor plan and things get crazy again. Once our pecker magnitude reaches 6.5" (2σ from the mean), our ESPecker people becomes truthful precocious that tallness becomes a non-factor. In fact, ESPecker * ESSalary is already much exclusive than our target of 0.425%. Exclusivity people person to beryllium betwixt 0 and 1. There is nary number successful that scope you tin multiply by to get a bigger number. This creates the conception of a vale that we'll travel backmost to.
Let's do this 1 much clip but clasp pecker size changeless astatine 6". This clip we will measurement the net required for various heights to support our BES. To measurement our required salary, we do the aforesaid point arsenic earlier isolated from we besides person to person our normal distribution backmost to dollars.
$$ES_{Salary} * ES_{Pecker} * ES_{Height} = BES$$ $$ES_{Salary} = \frac{BES}{ES_{Pecker} * ES_{Height}}$$ $$ES_{Salary} = \frac{0.425\%}{17\% * ES_{Height}}$$
Again we request to person our heights into Exclusivity Scores utilizing Excel:
$$ES_{Height} = 1 - NORM.DIST( height, \mu_{Height}, \sigma_{Height}, true)$$
This will springiness america our net exclusivity score. Not only do we request to person our Salary ES backmost to a number, we besides request to raise e to that powerfulness to person it backmost into dollars.
$$Salary = e^{NORM.INV( 1 - ES_{Salary}, \mu_{Salary}, \sigma_{Salary)}}$$
We person different vale connected the correct manus side. Once you scope heights of 6'4" pinch a 6" pecker, those 2 factors unsocial make you truthful exclusive that net becomes irrelevant. These guys are specified a drawback that we tin disregard their income entirely. I telephone this the "Valley of the Sexy Hobo".
We tin proceed this workout for each combinations, but I cognize the logic why you're still here. You want an executive level position wherever you tin quickly find your ain Blended Exclusivity Score. I sewage ya.
Let's commencement building immoderate views we tin action on. Something to laminate and support successful your wallet for that adjacent information of velocity dating. I committedness this information will travel crossed arsenic very convincing and not astatine each creepy.
We'll commencement by building a elemental information table, heights connected the x-axis and pecker magnitude connected the y-axis. Both axis astir correspond positive aliases minus 3σ. Fill retired our information array pinch required incomes, adhd a power map, and voila.
Let's stitchery immoderate insights. I've highlighted the intersection of 6' and 6" while the prima represents the mean tallness and pecker length. Notice that a man who is physically mean needs an income of astir $250k to meet the aforesaid criteria arsenic our perfect Three 6 man, that's a reasonably exclusive salary. Income increases drastically arsenic you move near and up the chart, and quickly drops to our level of $951 arsenic you move down and to the right.
The really absorbing worldly pinch doorbell curves happens astatine the extremes. Now our "Valley of the Sexy Hobo" is two-dimensional. It wraps astir the full bottommost and correct of the table. And connected the apical near we person the "Peak of the Emasculated Rich".
The different absorbing point pinch doorbell curves is their distribution, really wide they are. We'll dive deeper into the worth of an inch later, but for now we tin commencement to spot immoderate trends. An inch of pecker is worthy measurement much than an inch of height, truthful we request to comparison modular deviations.
Our perfect Three 6 man is 1.27σ supra the pecker mean, but only 0.66σ supra the tallness mean. If he was willing successful expanding his BES, he could get retired sized returns by focusing connected penile growth. With conscionable 1σ of pecker magnitude (0.65") he will driblet into the "Valley of the Sexy Hobo". However, if he grows by 1σ he still needs to gain $20k. I'd dislike to beryllium the man tearing up my 2 week announcement because I paid for the incorrect maturation surgery. How embarrassing.
Now for fun, let's put net connected the z-axis and spot conscionable really precocious the "Peak of the Emasculated Rich" is. Remember, our income distribution doesn't see antagonistic numbers, truthful we've created a level for our lowest salary. Theoretically, we should expect the net requirements to driblet beneath zero astatine the utmost area of the "Valley of the Sexy Hobo". Which of people suggests that our tallest and astir good endowed men should really beryllium paid for their making love services.
How Much Should I Pay for an Inch?
Sadly, location isn't a linear relationship. I can't show you that 1" of penis is ever worthy 10 Schrute bucks while an 1" of tallness is worthy 75 Stanley nickels.
What we tin do is exemplary an inch based connected your existent measurements. We tin brute unit it utilizing our laminated tallness vs pecker information array that we support successful our wallets astatine each times. For the Average Man, gaining an inch of tallness is worthy losing astir $25k successful yearly salary. Meanwhile, an inch of pecker is astir offset by reducing yearly net by $128k.
But arsenic pecker magnitude hits the extremes, the other inch of tallness becomes irrelevant. The aforesaid point happens erstwhile talking astir an inch of pecker for highly short and gangly guys.
What we request is simply a unifying equation that perfectly models the worth of an inch successful either department. I astir apt request to commencement practicing my Nobel acceptance speech.
The worth of an inch of pecker tin beryllium modeled by:
$$1" of Pecker = e^{NORM.INV(1-\frac{BES}{Height_{ES}(N) * Pecker_{ES}})} - e^{NORM.INV(1-\frac{BES}{Height_{ES}(N+1) * Pecker_{ES}})}$$
Where N is your existent tallness successful inches and Blended Exclusivity Score is simply a changeless defined arsenic 0.425%. In mentation for my Nobel Prize, this changeless should person a name. Perhaps "The Shallow Constant".
Life's Big Question
Earlier, I posed 3 large questions that support galore group up astatine night. Now that we yet person the framework, let's spell astir answering them arsenic a spot of a wrap up.
Can you still day personification that is 5'3" if their income is $200k+?
I wish the reply was "Date whomever you love!", but sadly a 15 2nd clip connected instagram authoritatively told maine that location are rules. Three rules to beryllium precise. Now, 5'3" is beautiful short pinch an Exclusivity Score of 99%. But connected the flip side, $200k is simply a beautiful precocious income pinch an ES of 3.2%. Taken together, our Blended Exclusivity Score is 3.1%. Pretty exclusive, but still higher than our Shallow Constant of 0.425%. We conscionable request to fig retired what ESPecker we need.
$$0.00425 = 0.031 * ES_{Pecker}$$ $$ES_{Pecker} = \frac{0.00425}{0.031} = 0.137$$
This man is still making love worldly arsenic agelong arsenic their pecker has an ES of 13.7% aliases 5.88". Good to cognize he's still sewage a shot.
How gangly does personification request to beryllium to compensate for a micro-penis?
I don't really attraction to Google the nonstop meaning of a micro-penis, truthful I'll conscionable opportunity that it's 3.5".
This mobility is really beautiful tricky, because the required compensation is limited connected the salary. Remember our peaks and valleys. To supply an answer, we will presume that we are reasoning of the prototypical Three 6 man. This man went to furniture 6' tall, pinch a 6" pecker and earning precisely $100k a year. How do we scheme for the greeting erstwhile he wakes up to a 3.5" pecker?
This new-found micro-penis has dropped the ESPecker from 10% to 99%. To compensate for that, the ESHeight has to summation by the aforesaid but other scale.
$$ \Delta ES_{Pecker} = \frac{.99}{.1} = 9.9$$
$$ \Delta ES_{Height} = \frac{1}{9.9} = 0.10101...$$
We tin past multiply his existent ESHeight by 0.10101 to get a caller people of 0.25% aliases 75.9". This man needs to turn by almost 3" to compensate for his 2.5" pecker loss.
Is location a pecker magnitude astatine which tallness and income go irrelevant?
Ahh, the man whose pecker is truthful agelong and truthful uncommon that he needs neither personality, height, nor net to beryllium a high-value target successful the making love market.
The reply to this mobility is comparatively consecutive forward. Remember that our ES are ever betwixt 0 and 1. They tin only ever make you more exclusive, ne'er little exclusive. We tin disregard tallness and net if our pecker has an ES of 0.425% by itself.
Plugging 0.425% into our NORM.INV() usability determines that a pecker of 6.89" is the constituent astatine which you tin forgo each different attempts astatine wooing the fairer sex.
But Why?
I warned you this was dumb, but dumb is fun. It's a cool measurement to research information and concepts and not interest astir getting everything right. I'm judge I sewage rather a spot wrong. Awesome, fto maine cognize and I'll study a small spot more.
Download Excel File Used for Visualizations
English (US) · 
Indonesian (ID) ·