>The year of our lord 2000 and 23
>He still believes that benching more than 225 will increase his chances of getting girls.
>The year of our lord 2000 and 23
>The year of our lord 2000 and 23
>He still believes that benching more than 225 will increase his chances of getting girls.
wanna shake the right outlier's hand
as long as he washes it first
JEJ
He’s probably a disgusting fat powershitter
Indeed, some sort of based gym monk lifestyle going on there. Very cool.
i wanna talk to him about 40k lore and shitposting
>hand draw a curve that looks like a gaussian distribution
>actual correlation between X and Y values is extremely low
If the correlation really were negligible it would mean that lifting is in fact not necessary to get sex.
But this graph leaves out a lot of interesting information; e.g. marital status, age of marriage, how attractive their partners are, how attractive the lifter is.
>actual correlation between X and Y values is extremely low
That's the point moron.
>actual correlation between X and Y values is extremely low
Linear correlation is low, yes. That is because it is visibly a non-linear correlation. See picrel, graph (f) has a lower r than (c) even though (f) visibly has a better correlation, it just happens to be non-linear.
Men would be having more sex if they just accepted their bicuriosity
Men rejecting their homosexual impulses is literally the only thing preventing total social implosion.
Be gay elsewhere, homohomosexuals.
What? I'm saying resisting bussy is good.
Guys who can't lift their arms without a CLANK noise going across the room are not very attractive.
WHY tf would you draw a frequency distribution over a scatterplot?
this whole thread was created because a single guy who benches 500 couldn't get any b***hes while ignoring all the dudes benching 225 who couldn't get any b***hes.
but IST told me upper body strength was the single most important physical attribute for attracting women? were the whitepillers just lying all along?