ChrisMaverick dotcom

Hotness Conversion Chart

Hotness Conversion Chart

Back in the early nineties, my friend Jameel became frustrated with the commonly accepted Scale of Babes.

As a standard, men tend to rank women on a scale of 1 to 10. However this system is innately flawed because it doesn’t allow proper granularity to really objectify a babe.

Jameel thus came up with the "halle" system. Theorizing at the time that Halle Berry was the sexiest woman alive, Jameel realized that if you were to divide her base attractiveness by a factor of 1000, you could come up with a standard unit, the millihalle(mh) which could then be used to more accurately score the attractiveness of any woman.

Of course Jameel’s standard theory had the problem that one had to accept that 100% sexiness was equivalent to Halle Berry. I soon expanded upon the theory by postulating that a woman could theoretically score greater than 1000mh and remain on the scale. This yard stick served us well for many years.

However earlier today, Jameel came to me with the problem that he felt the scale was inefficient because there were now women walking the planet who far outranked Halle. Such as Rihanna, who I would estimate at a measure of approximately 5000mh. While this number is certainly still finite and measureable, it clearly creates a problem as it becomes difficult to plot Rihanna, Halle and mere mortal women on the same chart. Clearly the system needed to be rethought. We decided that perhaps moving to a logarithmic scale might make more sense.

I therefore spent this evening doing a lot of math. In the years since high school i had determined that advanced math is actually pretty useless in every day life. Today, I discovered not so much. What I’ve determined is that while the halle scale is still useful to rank women of relative similar attracitveness at any point along the spectrum, it fails for looking at the spectrum as a whole. This is where the Hawt(h) scale comes into play. Like the Bel, a Hawt can be defined as a logarithmic measure that describes the ∆ between two points along the scale. Hawts are a base 2 logarithmic measure. So someone who scores 10H is half as attractive as someone who ranks 11H. This measure of course loses the granularity that made the halle scale useful. i have solved this problem by introducing the deciHawt(dH), which as the name suggests is equivalent to 1/10 of a Hawt.

While it remains easy to measure an individual in a linear matter in the lack of any other individual to compare against, using the mH, the dH allows you to estimate the rest of the scale with relative ease, given a known value for any other person on the scale. It works like this.

dH = 10 log2(mh)

Thus 1000mh is conveniently approximately equal to 100dH (actually, 99.6658dH). Shakira, who is twice as hot as Halle Berry ranks in at 110dH (around 2048mh) and Rihanna at five times as hot scores around 123dH (5042mh), and yet, your average completely unassuming but reasonably attractive woman who would score in the 65mh range (and therefore prohibitively far from the Halle, Shakira, Rihanna end of the scale for graphing) can be represented with a perfectly reasonable 60dH.

The scale is effectively infinite,but allows for much greater precision within the normal human range of attractiveness. Around 130dH (9000mh) the meaningfulness of hotness is basically lost on the human mind. And yet, a theoretical woman 1000 times as hot as Halle Berry and essentially inconceivable in a linear scale, ranks in at almost exactly 200dH.

So there you go. Print this out, study it, keep a copy in your wallet.

Whoever said that science couldn’t change the world?

Crossposted to my LJ Blog.

om

9 comments for “Hotness Conversion Chart

  1. avatar
    February 20, 2009 at 3:24 am

    Dude…my brain hurts now…waaaaaay too much thought LOL

  2. avatar
    February 20, 2009 at 12:11 pm

    While I don’t understand the math, I still want to know where I fall on the scale.

  3. avatar
    February 20, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    This is exceedingly and wonderfully nerdy. However, it can only been seen as a subjective scale as I cannot comprehend how one could find Rihanna significantly more hawt than Halle. Really?!? I mean, Rihanna is hot, but hotter than Halle!?! no way.

  4. avatar
    February 21, 2009 at 6:05 am

    Is zero on this scale real or merely theoretical? and what properties would we expect to see if that was reached? I’m imagining some kind of Bose-Einstein Condensate of ugly… so ugly that it can frictionlessly flow out of its container… uglyiness is transmitted with zero losses, and a Meissner-like-effect, complete expelling its hotness field, such that a hot person would actually levitate if placed above someone so ugly.

    More data points I’d like to see plotted:

    Elanor Roosevelt
    Jocelyn Wildenstein
    Rossie O’Donnell

  5. avatar
    February 21, 2009 at 11:57 am

    Mikey aka DaSkinnyBlackMan in Iraq: now that you’ve had time to digest it, I bet you’re totally using the term on base.

    marmal8 heh. I promised myself before I posted it that I wouldn’t answer that question for anyone. Surprisingly, not that many people asked.

    BeguilingSunflower: actually yes she is. Like I said, I used science here. Science doesn’t lie.

    denovich: zero is theoretical. Much like something can’t be zero millimeters tall, a woman can not be zero millihalles hot. Her simple existence would suggest a value. An mh of one is exactly 0dH. Oddly, for fractional mh, you would have a negative value, these values are so small that people can’t really detect the differences between them. I’d argue that you really need specail instrumentation to define the difference between a 1mh and a 2mh.

    As for the additional points you’d asked for, quite easy. Elanor Roosevelt was probably a little less attractive than Bea Arthur, though not half as attractive, since Bea is a 20dH, Elanor was perhaps an 18dH.

    Wildenstein is actually quite hideous, like really, she disturbs me to look at. She’s clearly in the single digits. Single digits actually have the same problem as the high end of the scale.The differences are hard to measure by the naked eye. a 0dH to 10dH is only a difference of 1mh. I’ll generously give her a 5dH. And put her on the scale as a placemarker.

    Rosie isn’t actually all that unattractive. I mean, she’s not particularly attractive or anything, but I’d argue that to look at her, she’s no less attractive than any other middle aged overweight Caucasian woman. So That makes her a 30dH or so. Around "twice as hot as Bea Arthur"

  6. avatar
    February 21, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    There is an adjustment for out here…it’s based on time. Not so hot one month then 3-4 months later ones vision is skewed 😉

  7. avatar
    February 21, 2009 at 9:37 pm

    hmmmm, Mikey brings up an interesting point. You know that the girl that you see when you walk into the bar (stone sober) looks a LOT better about 2 hours later… So there are variables that can presumably distort the data… I’m just saying, is all.

  8. avatar
    February 22, 2009 at 4:29 am

    Mikey aka DaSkinnyBlackMan in Iraq and lrayholly: Actually, I think both of those are like Paris Hilton’s money and sluttiness. The girl’s attractiveness hasn’t changed, it’s your perceptions that have.I’m allergic to milk. Some offers me enough money, I’ll drink some. It doesn’t make me any less allergic. I don’t think Paris is attractive in the slightest. But if I were sitting in the in the Iraqi sun for four months and she showed up with her video camera, who knows what might happen.

  9. avatar
    March 10, 2009 at 9:14 am

    Any science that puts Rihanna over Halle is inherently flawed. Seriously. I don’t find her to be in the same league at all. And Shakira twice as hot as Halle? Please. She can shake dat ass, don’t get me wrong, but her standing around hotness level is still below Halle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.