Soalian
Kraken
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2019
- Posts
- 3,525
- Reputation
- 2,951
I think there are two
You're overthinking it my manTo add.
it's a bit difficult factor sometimes. Due to type of "what came first": egg-chicken loop.
Like. Did the guy look decent/good base wise. And therefore got postive re-informcements on looks and thus care m ore for looks.
Or Like. Good looking guy, gets a good job based on looks quicker. Gets more money to looksmax, stylemax, etc.. And gets more attention/help, do do his job well and improve. And therefore gets better career development. And so on.
PUT it like this.
to make the comparisson more fair
1. Unskilled and Unmotivated and Dumb, Good Looking guy.
Doesn't get carreer wise as far as Motivated, Smart normie/or ugly looking guy. BUT gets plenty further than Unskilled and Unmotivated and Dumb, UGLY Looking guy.
2. Skilled and motivated and smart, Good Looking guy.
gets priobably further carreer wise than Motivated, Smart normie/or ugly looking guy.
That's probably, how it is.
It's always a bit funny. How when people compare. They make the good looking person: unmotivated, dumb, laizy, and so on.
But why would the good looking person on average be less motivated, smart, active, thanan ugly or nrmoie looking person? I never seen prove of a difference in that.
Like, how pua's always claim. That normies that are game-maxxed, outperform Chads in dating easily. Because Chad has no game, and is dumb socially, and what not. Like, why would Chad have so much less game than the normie. Probably actually even not, because mr. Good lOoking gets more social experience, and validation and rewards. So likely he will actually be more experienced, because social stuff is more rewarding for him.