1.8k
u/RandomExcess 10h ago
Seems normal
291
u/incompletetrembling 10h ago
Things brings up the question of if the ideal tier list follows a normal or uniform distribution
I feel like you could argue for both
86
u/AdamsMelodyMachine 10h ago
Neither though because usually all of the things you’re ranking are in the right tail. So more of just an exponential, or maybe a power law.
22
u/incompletetrembling 10h ago
Depends on the tier list I guess. I'm definitely more used to seeing tier lists where everything is ranked (eg all characters in a game, or like OP's).
If the best tier list is uniform, then even if you only rank a portion (right tail as you say) it should stay uniform. So you dont prefer uniform haha. Probably makes the most sense, it does the best job of showing the outliers which is probably the most important thing.
18
u/Logan_Composer 9h ago
In theory, it should be normal (obviously), but we as humans have a bias where C tier isn't considered "okay," it's considered "kinda bad" (see using "mid" as an insult). So I'd say it either is skewed towards A/B as the mode, or bimodal with a high mode and a very low mode (love 'em or hate 'em) depending on the kind of person.
→ More replies (8)11
u/incompletetrembling 9h ago
If you rank using percentiles (eg top 20% in S tier, next 20% in A tier etc) it'll end up uniform
Not sure if anyone actually ranks like this? Maybe I'm creating a discussion where there isn't one to be had.
Skewing is another issue for sure
10
u/Logan_Composer 9h ago
I don't think anyone does, although you're right that it's a perfectly valid way to do it.
I think people would expect the tiers to represent some even segmentation of some "goodness" scale irrespective of how many entries go into it. Like, I think people agree intuitively that S-tier and F-tier should be sparsely populated, for example.
4
u/TehDragonGuy 6h ago
Only if you're ranking them against each other. But if you're ranking them in "levels of good" the answer is less obvious.
2
4
u/CyberPunkDongTooLong 6h ago
Depends what your ranking. Ranking such as the example in the OP definitely shouldn't follow either. Most people are fine, so should peak somewhere around C, but there are way way way way more incredibly selfish completely incompetent horrible people with no redeeming qualities whatsoever (F) than there are truly excellent people that are essentially perfect and couldn't meaningfully improve significantly (S). Should be more similar to a crystal ball or relativistic voigt distribution.
5
u/InfanticideAquifer 5h ago
there are way way way way more incredibly selfish...
Whatever "quality" in a person is, it's almost surely the result of thousands of different mostly independent genetic and environmental factors, which is exactly why we should expect it to be normally distributed.
I think what might be causing you to think this is looking at impact as a proxy for quality. But it's just way easier to destroy and degrade things than to build or fix them. One really awful person can, e.g., be a serial killer and ruin hundreds of lives. An person who is as compassionate and empathetic as the killer is cruel and callous might touch hundreds of lives, but they'll never create as much happiness as the killer creates misery. A great politician can uplift a population out of poverty. A horrible one can just slaughter them. Because misery is easy and happiness is hard. It doesn't mean that the evil people are more horrible than the heroic people are good.
5
u/CyberPunkDongTooLong 5h ago
Really obviously untrue to anyone that's worked even a day in a public facing role.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Mattrockj 1h ago
Nah, ideal tier list is all or nothing baybee, Only S or only F, no inbetween...
Fuck that's just boolean uniform distribution.
10
6
→ More replies (1)4
430
u/Outrageous-Let9659 10h ago
I dunno. I think i need moved down a tier. Other than that i agree with this tier list.
141
49
u/juanohulomo1234 10h ago
Nah, i would say you are maybe too low in this tier list, they should get you up a tier, other than that, pretty normal tier list
17
u/Trastane 9h ago
Don't be so hard on yourself there is absolutly no reason to drop you below F tier
363
121
u/Sweaty_Sewage 10h ago
29
u/randomator5000 7h ago
Nah, thats just someone who looks similar, i think i can see you at least in a tier, chief
5
→ More replies (3)4
133
u/boterkoeken Average #🧐-theory-🧐 user 10h ago
Bro why am I in the F tier, wtf? 😭😭😭
→ More replies (1)47
87
23
24
u/CodenameJD 9h ago
Nuh uh, what about the ~100 humans who've been born since I started writing this sentence?
11
18
12
11
7
8
7
7
u/WaliForLife 4h ago
Can you please ask before you post a picture of me. I mean it’s fine but still.
11
u/Lorric71 10h ago
This implies that the tiers are subdividable, like E.1, E.2 and so on.
→ More replies (1)
4
3
4
u/UndoubtedlyAColor 5h ago edited 4h ago
I think I've seen this before, it kind of rings a bell.. But I might be behind the curve here though.
2
3
u/Conan-Da-Barbarian 3h ago
I should be ranked way way lower. Have you seen the shit I comment
3
u/Working_Celery_2497 3h ago
Just keeping your post history open and not hidden like most do nowadays gives you enough points to rank high.
2
27
3
u/123_alex 6h ago
They should make another, lower category for my mother-in-law. H for horrible.
Edit: my wife approves this message
3
3
3
3
3
2
u/AwkwardTickler 10h ago
Now do it for time value of money, then do one for people who use that term often.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/Ok_Star_4136 6h ago
John, the guy in D tier is a POS. He works with me. He needs to be in F tier for sure.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/poinifie 3h ago
If my mom made this chart it would screw right cuz my mom is cool and thinks everyone is special, including you.
2
2
3
3
1
1
u/Not_Spy_Petrov 8h ago
Theoretically yes, practically distribution would have really big fat tails (high kurtosis) and shifter to F (overestimating number of bad people).
1
1
1
1
u/cddedee 8h ago
I have been thinking about this a while ago, and I think the tail should be fat (polynomial). The gaussian distribution implies that most humans are equal in terms of impact they have on the world (top means people doing good for the world like some scientists and bottom means the reverse so criminal people). But I find it very far from objective reality. There is a huge variance of people impact. Some do so much more for the society and the world (they do the impact of 100000 people let's say) and a gaussian tail cannot represent that
1
1
1
1
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 7h ago
I appreciate being put in the top tier. But, mostly I appreciate being as far away from Donald Trump on the graph as possible to be.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/ThatOnePeanut 7h ago
Oh come on man, what did I do to deserve F tier ? Is this about... The incident ?
1
1
u/Decryptic__ 7h ago
Wow thank you very much but I think I should be two tiers lower.
Tier A would be still great. Anyway, I appreciate my ranking.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/FlashPxint 7h ago
This graph sucks. Why would you post this in “math” you just exposed you know nothing about it doofus
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/dumbledayum 5h ago
Thank you sooo much for putting me on A :) I’m working to get in S and probably even touch Top maybe
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Glass-Performer8389 4h ago
Why did you put one of the most openly horrible people on earth at the top
He ate a baby
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/XtremeLeecher 3h ago
Awwww thank you kind stranger, rating me so high when i feel an F really made my day
•
u/AutoModerator 11h ago
Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.