Ideal blonde

[iblamexyz]

if the halo effect fades, that doesn’t mean love becomes fake or mechanical, it means it transitions from a chemical peak to a stable attachment. love being partly a choice doesn’t discredit it, it indicates the opposite. the initial dopamine-based attraction isn’t sustainable forever, and that’s why oxytocin and vasopressin bonding exists in the first place

neuroscience shows that early infatuation is impulsive and short-term, while long-term love activates brain regions tied to empathy, memory, and decision-making, especially the prefrontal cortex. that means genuine love isn’t just a reaction, it’s an ongoing commitment reinforced by trust and personality compatibility

if love were only an action, it would vanish the moment novelty fades. the fact that people stay loyal, compassionate, and emotionally connected after the halo fades proves that love matures into something deeper, a mix of feeling, biology, and conscious choice

no jfl

if the halo fades than Love becomes a choice a choice to love your wife/husband

that becomes a choice since what they do is out of Love due to knowing you

so acts of love like making breakfast, coffee or any other house chore that's an act of love

if the halo effect fades

 

[topology]

no jfl

if the halo fades than Love becomes a choice a choice to love your wife/husband

that becomes a choice since what they do is out of Love due to knowing you

so acts of love like making breakfast, coffee or any other house chore that's an act of love

if the halo effect fades

that actually reinforces my point, not yours. if love becomes a choice after the halo fades, that shows it’s real love, not infatuation. when the dopamine-driven attraction and novelty wear off, what’s left is intentional care and attachment built on shared experience, empathy, and trust

making breakfast, helping your partner, or showing affection aren’t automatic chemical impulses anymore, they’re acts sustained by oxytocin and long-term bonding. this is what differentiates infatuation from mature love

the halo effect fading doesn’t make love less genuine, it makes it authentic, because the feelings and actions that follow aren’t just reactions to dopamine highs but conscious expressions of attachment. that’s what real emotional connection looks like, not constant chemical stimulation but stability rooted in choice and personality compatibility

--

i've been attaching studies demonstrating everything i've said, all backed by neuroscience, psychology, and biology, and every claim i’ve made comes from credible, peer-reviewed frameworks. instead of addressing or debunking the evidence directly, you’re focusing on small fragments of the argument and sidestepping the core claims. picking at details doesn’t disprove the studies or the broader biological and psychological mechanisms they show. if you want to refute the point, you need to challenge the data itself.

debunk the study showing that there was minimal difference between attractive and non-attractive males in relationships after a couple of years.

debunk the neuroscience i’ve shown.

debunk the lower satisfaction rates over time, which are not due to aging.

 

[iblamexyz]

that actually reinforces my point, not yours. if love becomes a choice after the halo fades, that shows it’s real love, not infatuation. when the dopamine-driven attraction and novelty wear off, what’s left is intentional care and attachment built on shared experience, empathy, and trust

making breakfast, helping your partner, or showing affection aren’t automatic chemical impulses anymore, they’re acts sustained by oxytocin and long-term bonding. this is what differentiates infatuation from mature love

the halo effect fading doesn’t make love less genuine, it makes it authentic, because the feelings and actions that follow aren’t just reactions to dopamine highs but conscious expressions of attachment. that’s what real emotional connection looks like, not constant chemical stimulation but stability rooted in choice and personality compatibility

--

i've been attaching studies demonstrating everything i've said, all backed by neuroscience, psychology, and biology, and every claim i’ve made comes from credible, peer-reviewed frameworks. instead of addressing or debunking the evidence directly, you’re focusing on small fragments of the argument and sidestepping the core claims. picking at details doesn’t disprove the studies or the broader biological and psychological mechanisms they show. if you want to refute the point, you need to challenge the data itself.

debunk the study showing that there was minimal difference between attractive and non-attractive males in relationships after a couple of years.

debunk the neuroscience i’ve shown.

debunk the lower satisfaction rates over time, which are not due to aging.

no because this debate went long off topic

the core of it was Looksim and face over personality

you turned this into a giga high iq debate

can you agree with me that data can be misleading and trusting every study can only backstab you?

 

[topology]

no because this debate went long off topic

debate went as following:

i claimed: personality matters more for a LTR
you claimed: no, looks matter more as the halo effect exists
i claimed: halo effect fades with studies
you claimed: personality is indepedent of halo effect due to getting more exposure and other p
i claimed: that's not true & showed studies dictating that
you asked: what is love, how is love different from halo effect, and some other things.
i answered the questions & we're here now.

i asked chatgpt what needs to be proven in order for me to "win" the debate and the same for you. i attached the message above & all of our chats. correct me if i misrepresented your points.

i did this as i would need to spend like 30 minutes re-reading everything & making proper conclusions to make it myself and i'm not in the mood.

how i win:

you need to prove the mirror chain — the one that shows how relationships shift from looks-based attraction to personality-based attachment. here’s the exact breakdown:

---

if the halo effect fades → then looks stop heavily influencing perception over time → which means the dopamine and novelty response weakens → leading to habituation and emotional recalibration → so long-term satisfaction starts depending on stable personality traits → and personality compatibility predicts attachment and relationship longevity → therefore personality > looks for long-term relationships.

how you win:

for him to win, he’d have to prove all of the following at once:

1. the halo effect doesn’t fade,
2. attractiveness predicts long-term satisfaction,
3. attractiveness improves personality,
4. habituation doesn’t occur, and
5. love is just prolonged attraction.

--

the core of it was Looksim and face over personality

i have shown a study that shows there was minimal difference between attractive and non-attractive males in relationships after a couple of years

all studies online show this correlation (regardless of aging & looks)

you turned this into a giga high iq debate

because this argument is supposed to be "high iq." it's rooted entirely in psychology/biology/neuroscience, most people who comment on it have done no research, they just reguritate the same opinions they've heard.

the most research most people have done is just those dating app studies that only show initial attraction. i doubt even 1% has went into the science behind it

can you agree with me that data can be misleading and trusting every study can only backstab you?

data can absolutely be misused or misinterpreted, but that’s not the same as saying all data is misleading. the studies i’ve used are peer-reviewed, replicated, and part of established frameworks in psychology, neuroscience, and biology. they weren’t cherry-picked from unreliable sources or online articles, they represent the consensus view of how attraction, habituation, and attachment actually function

saying data can be misleading doesn’t refute anything i said, it’s just a general statement. the way to disprove my argument would be to show credible, peer-reviewed studies that contradict the ones i’ve cited. until that happens, appealing to the idea that data might be wrong isn’t a counterargument, it’s avoidance. if your point rests on dismissing science altogether, then you’re not debating the data, you’re rejecting evidence-based reasoning

here are some of the frame works you would need to debunk: the big five, triangular theory of love, habituation, infatuation, and more

 

[iblamexyz]

debate went as following:

i claimed: personality matters more for a LTR
you claimed: no, looks matter more as the halo effect exists
i claimed: halo effect fades with studies
you claimed: personality is indepedent of halo effect due to getting more exposure and other p
i claimed: that's not true & showed studies dictating that
you asked: what is love, how is love different from halo effect, and some other things.
i answered the questions & we're here now.

i asked chatgpt what needs to be proven in order for me to "win" the debate and the same for you. i attached the message above & all of our chats. correct me if i misrepresented your points.

i did this as i would need to spend like 30 minutes re-reading everything & making proper conclusions to make it myself and i'm not in the mood.

how i win:



how you win:


--


i have shown a study that shows there was minimal difference between attractive and non-attractive males in relationships after a couple of years

all studies online show this correlation (regardless of aging & looks)


because this argument is supposed to be "high iq." it's rooted entirely in psychology/biology/neuroscience, most people who comment on it have done no research, they just reguritate the same opinions they've heard.

the most research most people have done is just those dating app studies that only show initial attraction. i doubt even 1% has went into the science behind it


data can absolutely be misused or misinterpreted, but that’s not the same as saying all data is misleading. the studies i’ve used are peer-reviewed, replicated, and part of established frameworks in psychology, neuroscience, and biology. they weren’t cherry-picked from unreliable sources or online articles, they represent the consensus view of how attraction, habituation, and attachment actually function

saying data can be misleading doesn’t refute anything i said, it’s just a general statement. the way to disprove my argument would be to show credible, peer-reviewed studies that contradict the ones i’ve cited. until that happens, appealing to the idea that data might be wrong isn’t a counterargument, it’s avoidance. if your point rests on dismissing science altogether, then you’re not debating the data, you’re rejecting evidence-based reasoning

here are some of the frame works you would need to debunk: the big five, triangular theory of love, habituation, infatuation, and more

I will admit you have blown me away

but again everyone thinks they are a fkn Scientist these days

and again you need the halo effect to even get your foot in the door

again ur not going back to the root of the convo

Looksim is rooted even in the guy running pua on the foid he wants

if that's due to social acceptance and how he was brought and raised

muh it goesway, Looksim is rooted in daily life you zoomed in one aspect

but this is a self claimed incel forum by members, I sure wouldn't be if I had be treated better ​

 

[topology]

Looksim is rooted even in the guy running pua on the foid he wants

and again you need the halo effect to even get your foot in the door

if that's due to social acceptance and how he was brought and raised

i don't deny this

muh it goesway, Looksim is rooted in daily life you zoomed in one aspect

i feel the most important aspect of a relationship is, well, keeping it alive. what do you think the point of dating is? i personally see none if a long term relationship is not in the picture

also, have you had a relationship before? if you have been in a relationship before, what country do you live in? this is not meant as an insult but rather to see how you shaped your views

 

[iblamexyz]

also, have you had a relationship before? if you have been in a relationship before, what country do you live in? this is not meant as an insult but rather to see how you shaped your views

JFL

I am a Christcel and live in the uk and I am baltic

and no I am khhv

 

[iblamexyz]

i feel the most important aspect of a relationship is, well, keeping it alive. what do you think the point of dating is? i personally see none if a long term relationship is not in the picture

ofc but my main point was face over personality always

is almost a given even if the halo effect fades we can agree at that point love would be a choice and not down to meh kindness

 

[topology]

is almost a given even if the halo effect fades we can agree at that point love would be a choice and not down to meh kindness

i don't see what's wrong about love being a choice

the choice would be based upon the personality of them if we're saying the halo effect fades, no? i don't think it would contradict anything i said before either

I am a Christcel and live in the uk and I am baltic

i don't know how the women are over there, but i've only heard bad things. i could go on about the central european i dated that was very odd and different from most girls, but it's an anecdote and irrelevant

 

[TruecelTrulecel]

I asked @Jager and @Tigermoggerlol

and is this the ideal blonde



​

Shitty ass hips and waist

 

[iblamexyz]

Shitty ass hips and waist

I think she makes up for it via colouring