kindinternetman
Diamond
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2024
- Posts
- 1,399
- Reputation
- 1,428
People like to throw around the terms "physiognomy" and "high class"
But the truth is there is no such observable-meaningful metric related to this. Only attractiveness prevails.
Ask raters what they think good physiognomy is and they will default to ideals of looking high trust, high class, alluring, and other positive descriptions. But here is the catch:
Press them harder on how physiognomy is deduced and they will concede that it is based on the four Pillars of Attractiveness:
Harmony, Miscellaneous, Angularity, and Dimorphism.
There is no unique combination of these four pillars on an attractive person that will lead to a "bad physiognomy."
Only distinct impressions remain due to the Hollywood effect.
Ex. Blue eyes and blond hair seemingly altering one's character to appear more trustworthy.
If people made the claim:
"He has a good physiognomy for business." Or "he has good physiognomy to work as a bouncer." Then this would be different.
The problem is that people are adding physiognomy as a 5th pillar of attractiveness despite it being entirely comprised of the first 4 pillars.
Regardless. The problem now becomes: Does the kind of physiognomy you have lower your chances of getting attention from women or does it not.
-The answer is it may, but it is far from consistent.
Depending on the experiences a woman has had with previous people who share your physiognomy- she likely will treat you worse or better based on it.
(However the halo of good looks will supersede this judgement unless the experience was traumatic.)
The burden of proof belongs to those who believe physiognomy does matter and should change your total rating. Here is what I need to see:
1. Evidence that so called physiognomy doesn't entirely rely on the 4 pillars (impossible.)
2. Evidence that shows different physiognomy's can exist among men with identical phenotypes with very similar scores (in all four pillars.)
3. That women subconsciously or consciously recognize that these different physiognomy's exist among men of the same phenotypes and looks ranges.
4. That generally, women hold positive and distinct views concerning these aforementioned men.
5. If women do recognize these different physiognomy's: they consider some to be more appealing. And also more appealing for what. For ONS? For LTRs? For friendships?
End. DNR all raters who add physiognomy as a part of their analysis. Until evidence is provided we will continue to only rely on the 4 pillars we have worked hard to perfect.
@dimocel
But the truth is there is no such observable-meaningful metric related to this. Only attractiveness prevails.
Ask raters what they think good physiognomy is and they will default to ideals of looking high trust, high class, alluring, and other positive descriptions. But here is the catch:
Press them harder on how physiognomy is deduced and they will concede that it is based on the four Pillars of Attractiveness:
Harmony, Miscellaneous, Angularity, and Dimorphism.
There is no unique combination of these four pillars on an attractive person that will lead to a "bad physiognomy."
Only distinct impressions remain due to the Hollywood effect.
Ex. Blue eyes and blond hair seemingly altering one's character to appear more trustworthy.
If people made the claim:
"He has a good physiognomy for business." Or "he has good physiognomy to work as a bouncer." Then this would be different.
The problem is that people are adding physiognomy as a 5th pillar of attractiveness despite it being entirely comprised of the first 4 pillars.
Regardless. The problem now becomes: Does the kind of physiognomy you have lower your chances of getting attention from women or does it not.
-The answer is it may, but it is far from consistent.
Depending on the experiences a woman has had with previous people who share your physiognomy- she likely will treat you worse or better based on it.
(However the halo of good looks will supersede this judgement unless the experience was traumatic.)
The burden of proof belongs to those who believe physiognomy does matter and should change your total rating. Here is what I need to see:
1. Evidence that so called physiognomy doesn't entirely rely on the 4 pillars (impossible.)
2. Evidence that shows different physiognomy's can exist among men with identical phenotypes with very similar scores (in all four pillars.)
3. That women subconsciously or consciously recognize that these different physiognomy's exist among men of the same phenotypes and looks ranges.
4. That generally, women hold positive and distinct views concerning these aforementioned men.
5. If women do recognize these different physiognomy's: they consider some to be more appealing. And also more appealing for what. For ONS? For LTRs? For friendships?
End. DNR all raters who add physiognomy as a part of their analysis. Until evidence is provided we will continue to only rely on the 4 pillars we have worked hard to perfect.
@dimocel
