Reminder why most men don't looksmax

[eduardkoopman]

Most Red and Blue Pillers.
Their ego, just can't handle going full analytical on your face and facial flaws.

For example.
Alexander Grace, has no problem (and other men neither). To tell men, their game, or alphaness, or personality flaws. Nor share his own game flaws.

But the looks flaws, they can't seem to handle.

I agree with Wheat and Waffles, that his rating range is Normie/average

 

[Xangsane]

Just take a shower bro

 

[BaldNonce]

Most men don’t looksmax because society tells them that women like good funny kind men.

So they spend time jestermaxxing and Other normie stuff

 

[.👽.]

i remember back in times when i had 0 girls ever. people said just wait, your time will come and stuff

i really believed that, never thought it could be my face ngl

 

[Deleted member 13367]

I lol'd hard when he said that he "wasnt aware that he was balding".
Redpillers are so fake in regards to shit like this, I wouldnt be surprised if he takes fin as well to maintain what he has, cause his hairloss seems pretty aggressive tbh

 

[eduardkoopman]

I lol'd hard when he said that he "wasnt aware that he was balding".
Redpillers are so fake in regards to shit like this, I wouldnt be surprised if he takes fin as well to maintain what he has, cause his hairloss seems pretty aggressive tbh

He is definitely started to bald
The thing is, he had a really high set hairline to begin with. So he seemed hairline recessing before he was balding already.
But his current temple recession, is deffo balding process stuff, I think

 

[ezio6]

Most Red and Blue Pillers.
Their ego, just can't handle going full analytical on your face and facial flaws.

For example.
Alexander Grace, has no problem (and other men neither). To tell men, their game, or alphaness, or personality flaws. Nor share his own game flaws.

But the looks flaws, they can't seem to handle.

I agree with Wheat and Waffles, that his rating range is Normie/average

Dissapointed with alexander grace for kinda ngelecting the importance of looks pill, his ego gets the better of him smh

 

[Lawton88]

Being old now I can say in my age range men have more of the redpill thinking and don't think much about the blackpill stuff. Its like they know things have changed but are still under the impression money and losing a few pounds should be enough to land a good looking one. Its almost like some are oblivious that they are going to be rejected mostly with their hair being gone etc. Also because they missed the crazy upgrade in standrds with dating sites etc they have no clue on some of the Blackpill stuff.

 

[nastynas]

he is normie, however his videos are really good for making woman accept most redpill concepts.

 

[thecel]

Will I get views on YouTube if I make videos criticizing other black pill channels like Wheat Waffles? Jfl what if I click on every one of Wheat Waffles’s videos and point out all of their flaws no matter how minor?

 

[Deleted member 13754]

Will I get views on YouTube if I make videos criticizing other black pill channels like Wheat Waffles? Jfl what if I click on every one of Wheat Waffles’s videos and point out all the flaws no matter how minor?

You might as well actually make some content and see how it goes

 

[ezio6]

Being old now I can say in my age range men have more of the redpill thinking and don't think much about the blackpill stuff. Its like they know things have changed but are still under the impression money and losing a few pounds should be enough to land a good looking one. Its almost like some are oblivious that they are going to be rejected mostly with their hair being gone etc. Also because they missed the crazy upgrade in standrds with dating sites etc they have no clue on some of the Blackpill stuff.

to really accept brutality of blackpill truth is very hard for oldcels. the severity of the truth and boomer crab mentality social pressure holds them back. if oldcels gets plastic surgery, hair transplants, facelift etc maybe they can compete with millenials (no zoomer lol) its taboo for boomer to cares about their looks, they think only women cares about looks and males who do are homosexual fag

 

[Lawton88]

to really accept brutality of blackpill truth is very hard for oldcels. the severity of the truth and boomer crab mentality social pressure holds them back. if oldcels gets plastic surgery, hair transplants, facelift etc maybe they can compete with millenials (no zoomer lol) its taboo for boomer to cares about their looks, they think only women cares about looks and males who do are homosexual fag

A lot of truth in there. I am gen X and its the same with us as the boomers in thinking mostly. What I have noticed with the oldest Millinial females at bars anyway is that they aren't shy about letting a male above them in looks know they are interested. Gen X females mostly still want the guy to approach though they usually will signal if there is any chance. If its a looks match you have to usually make all the effort.

 

[randomvanish]

i really hate him. he's waaaay too whiny.
i'm glad finally he encounter with the fucking blackpill. i don't think he accepted it, you can see the denial. he said "how stupid is this" ffs. it's not stupid at all.

i found him quite annoying because of his redpill stuff. he act like he hates women regardless.

i don't hate women. i want to understand better the nature behind it and become a master of it. he's just whiny and pointing always the negativity towards women. what's the point then ? stupid tbh.

 

[ezio6]

finally he encounter with the fucking blackpill. i don't think he accepted it, you can see the denial. he said "how stupid is this" ffs. it's not stupid at all.

i found him quite annoying because of his redpill stuff because of his whiny ass about women.
he act like he hates women regardless.

i don't hate women. i want to understand better the nature behind it and become a master of it. he's just whiny and pointing always the negativity towards women. what's the point then ? stupid tbh.

just like rollo tomassi they seems to always put women at fault, but as long as awareness are spreading to males and they start asking questions, sooner or later they will resort to blackpill theory imo, even rollo support chads looks theory, his arguments are towards blue pill alpha aka blue pill chads who thought slaying women is enough without knowing the true nature of women (inb4 muh hypergamy). I am cherrypicking here but chad slayer like @Amnesia is one of the sample i guess

 

[randomvanish]

just like rollo tomassi they seems to always put women at fault, but as long as awareness are spreading to males and they start asking questions, sooner or later they will resort to blackpill theory imo, even rollo support chads looks theory, his arguments are towards blue pill alpha aka blue pill chads who thought slaying women is enough without knowing the true nature of women (inb4 muh hypergamy). I am cherrypicking here but chad slayer like @Amnesia is one of the sample i guess

just adapt and overcome.
redpillers like alexander just being whiny

 

[eduardkoopman]

Dissapointed with alexander grace for kinda ngelecting the importance of looks pill, his ego gets the better of him smh

he has no ego, around behavior determinism. it seems. or personality determinism.
I guess saying one did something sub optimum, or personality trait is sub-optimum. Is easier to swallow, than to say CURRENT looks are sub-optimum

****
It's not like, we don't have science cells, giving us answer on.
How much shit matters

I recall coming across this study couple of days ago.

*********Tl;dr: *********************
The hyrarchy of r (r= correlation) for getting follow up dates was for BOTH men and women:

1. attractiveness looks
2. Personable (“fun/exciting,” “responsive,” “dependable/trustworthy,” “friendly/nice”)
3. Money earning potential

******Full analysis for science cells, yeah water is wet outcome basically study******
Women select partners kinda same-ish as men.
They started out testing this hypothosis of: Men like good looking women; and women like moneymaxxed and high status men.

Their conclusion of above hypothosis:
"results showed that participants were more romantically interested in potential partners if they were viewed as attractive and good potential earners, and these associations were not moderated by gender. "

Basically, women like good looking and good potential earners men. And men like good looking and goof potential earners women.
The hyrarchy of r was for BOTH men and women:

1. attractiveness
2. Personable (“fun/exciting,” “responsive,” “dependable/trustworthy,” “friendly/nice”)
3. Money earning potential

So, How much was the r (* see link below for explaining r value reading) ???
(r = value of correlation)In this case how well predicted these 2 factors for relationship initations (actions!).

• How much r for earning potential for relationship initation??
  r = 0.18 to 0.19 (A weak uphill (positive) linear relationship).
  "The data trended slightly toward the tendency for the effect sizes to be stronger for men when compared with women, contrary to predictions made by evolutionary models"
  Men and women found earning potential in the partner equally-ish important, men even slightly more important.
• How much r for Attractiveness in looks for relationship initation??
  r = 0.36 to 0.43 (A moderate uphill (positive) relationship).
  At least looks matters double, 2x, the amount that money matters.
  Same for men and women? I checked the r datas, and for men and women the difference was neglectable. Both women and men responded equally to attractiveness looks. Only 1 factor showed a difference: Women being passivve attitude more. Women put in r 0.07 LESS in into ask the guy out for a 2nd date. BUT women had r 0.11 MORE hope/want for the dude asking them out. Aka, women are more passive in asking a dude out, and when she find him hot she is hoeping more than a dude though he makes a move. Whereas dudes are feeling less like hopeing she makes the first move and they more prone to make the first move.
  "these results showed that perceived physical attractiveness significantly predicted relationship initiation.... with r = .43 in the original article, and r = .36 in the present replication."
• How much r for the COMBO factors being: Personable (“fun/exciting,” “responsive,” “dependable/trustworthy,” “friendly/nice”) for relationship initation??
  r = 0.26 to 0.29 (A weak to moderate uphill (positive) relationship).
  It's ricgt in between the level of matter, between money and looks.
  Same for men and women? Wow, alot of differences are observed, I see between men and women, on this factor. EVEN THOUGH, the overall end score r is kinda the same. I'll share the most interesting and big enough differences worth mentioning:

1. Women have high pro-activity in asking such a personable dude out to hang and also have high want for him to ask her out (although that one less than when dude is atractive). Compared to attractiveness r; she is more pro-active to ask him out, but is less hopeing he asks her out.
2. For dudes, it's totally different. A dude finding a woman personable, he has MUCH less motivation r, to ask her out or hope for her asking him out; than compared to how he correlates with her attractiveness. So a man, is much more pro-active and/or hopeing to be asked out when he finds her attractive than when he finds her personable. For women that gap is smaller. I guess dudes hate the idea of friendzone.
3. When a dude finds a woman personable, the r for ONS shoots up even way higher..
   "results showed that perceived personable characteristics significantly predicted relationship initiation variables .... with r = .26 in the original article, and r = .29 in the present replication."

explaining r values link:
https://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r/

study link: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244015605160

 

[Deleted member 7901]

Not a big fan of his, he does have some good videos but I feel like he is too whiny like others say

also I wouldn't say he is 5 either, do you really want to say that 50% of men mog him if you go outside?
he is unironically one of those men who look better as they age

 

[eduardkoopman]

i really hate him. he's waaaay too whiny.
i'm glad finally he encounter with the fucking blackpill. i don't think he accepted it, you can see the denial. he said "how stupid is this" ffs. it's not stupid at all.

i found him quite annoying because of his redpill stuff. he act like he hates women regardless.

i don't hate women. i want to understand better the nature behind it and become a master of it. he's just whiny and pointing always the negativity towards women. what's the point then ? stupid tbh.

His 5+ years of deeply understanding women, and game. Seems to not have helped him land a woman for a LTR yet.

 

[Lawton88]

he has no ego, around behavior determinism. it seems. or personality determinism.
I guess saying one did something sub optimum, or personality trait is sub-optimum. Is easier to swallow, than to say CURRENT looks are sub-optimum

****
It's not like, we don't have science cells, giving us answer on.
How much shit matters

I recall coming across this study couple of days ago.

*********Tl;dr: *********************
The hyrarchy of r (r= correlation) for getting follow up dates was for BOTH men and women:

1. attractiveness looks
2. Personable (“fun/exciting,” “responsive,” “dependable/trustworthy,” “friendly/nice”)
3. Money earning potential

******Full analysis for science cells, yeah water is wet outcome basically study******
Women select partners kinda same-ish as men.
They started out testing this hypothosis of: Men like good looking women; and women like moneymaxxed and high status men.

Their conclusion of above hypothosis:
"results showed that participants were more romantically interested in potential partners if they were viewed as attractive and good potential earners, and these associations were not moderated by gender. "

Basically, women like good looking and good potential earners men. And men like good looking and goof potential earners women.
The hyrarchy of r was for BOTH men and women:

1. attractiveness
2. Personable (“fun/exciting,” “responsive,” “dependable/trustworthy,” “friendly/nice”)
3. Money earning potential

So, How much was the r (* see link below for explaining r value reading) ???
(r = value of correlation)In this case how well predicted these 2 factors for relationship initations (actions!).

• How much r for earning potential for relationship initation??
  r = 0.18 to 0.19 (A weak uphill (positive) linear relationship).
  "The data trended slightly toward the tendency for the effect sizes to be stronger for men when compared with women, contrary to predictions made by evolutionary models"
  Men and women found earning potential in the partner equally-ish important, men even slightly more important.
• How much r for Attractiveness in looks for relationship initation??
  r = 0.36 to 0.43 (A moderate uphill (positive) relationship).
  At least looks matters double, 2x, the amount that money matters.
  Same for men and women? I checked the r datas, and for men and women the difference was neglectable. Both women and men responded equally to attractiveness looks. Only 1 factor showed a difference: Women being passivve attitude more. Women put in r 0.07 LESS in into ask the guy out for a 2nd date. BUT women had r 0.11 MORE hope/want for the dude asking them out. Aka, women are more passive in asking a dude out, and when she find him hot she is hoeping more than a dude though he makes a move. Whereas dudes are feeling less like hopeing she makes the first move and they more prone to make the first move.
  "these results showed that perceived physical attractiveness significantly predicted relationship initiation.... with r = .43 in the original article, and r = .36 in the present replication."
• How much r for the COMBO factors being: Personable (“fun/exciting,” “responsive,” “dependable/trustworthy,” “friendly/nice”) for relationship initation??
  r = 0.26 to 0.29 (A weak to moderate uphill (positive) relationship).
  It's ricgt in between the level of matter, between money and looks.
  Same for men and women? Wow, alot of differences are observed, I see between men and women, on this factor. EVEN THOUGH, the overall end score r is kinda the same. I'll share the most interesting and big enough differences worth mentioning:

1. Women have high pro-activity in asking such a personable dude out to hang and also have high want for him to ask her out (although that one less than when dude is atractive). Compared to attractiveness r; she is more pro-active to ask him out, but is less hopeing he asks her out.
2. For dudes, it's totally different. A dude finding a woman personable, he has MUCH less motivation r, to ask her out or hope for her asking him out; than compared to how he correlates with her attractiveness. So a man, is much more pro-active and/or hopeing to be asked out when he finds her attractive than when he finds her personable. For women that gap is smaller. I guess dudes hate the idea of friendzone.
3. When a dude finds a woman personable, the r for ONS shoots up even way higher..
   "results showed that perceived personable characteristics significantly predicted relationship initiation variables .... with r = .26 in the original article, and r = .29 in the present replication."

explaining r values link:
https://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r/

study link: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244015605160

Lol that men care much about women's career. Not sure if we have some male virtue signaling going on or its just broke average looking dudes giving that answer. Most guys would rather have a Stacy Walmart cashier than a Stacy career climber with all that baggage and attitude.

 

[TheAnomaly]

My friends dont LM. Eithier they’re bluepilled and in a LTR with looksmatch, or long term incels who have thrown in the towel. One guy is blackpilled and he tries to get with girls (fails). He knows looks matter, but he doesn’t try to LM. IDK why.

 

[Deleted member 795]

Most men don’t looksmax because society tells them that women like good funny kind men.

So they spend time jestermaxxing and Other normie stuff

If everyone would looksmax then the average standards would be higher. Let it be

 

[stay coping]

i remember back in times when i had 0 girls ever. people said just wait, your time will come and stuff

i really believed that, never thought it could be my face ngl

Receiving useless platitudes like this is a massive indicator that you’re fucked.

 

[Deleted member 795]

Dissapointed with alexander grace for kinda ngelecting the importance of looks pill, his ego gets the better of him smh

He is a sort of pua, his videos talk about how to ACT with women lol

 

[eduardkoopman]

My friends dont LM. Eithier they’re bluepilled and in a LTR with looksmatch, or long term incels who have thrown in the towel. One guy is blackpilled and he tries to get with girls (fails). He knows looks matter, but he doesn’t try to LM. IDK why.

I'm happy though. it's like that.

Less competition = better chance at winning/mogging

 

[eduardkoopman]

Lol that men care much about women's career. Not sure if we have some male virtue signaling going on or its just broke average looking dudes giving that answer. Most guys would rather have a Stacy Walmart cashier than a Stacy career climber with all that baggage and attitude.

They worded it odd imo in the summary, when they said money mattered and looks mattered. But not maentioning the levels of mattered.

* the r for money as only 0.18-0.19; which is an r that is genrally translated as: A weak uphill (positive) linear relationship.

*Whereas the r for looks was DOUBLE that of money. 0.36 to 0.43 range. Which is generally translated as: moderate uphill (positive) linear relationship.

Alot of things matter. @EverythingMattersCel
that's imo not so much the question, that alot of stuff matters.
The question is imo: how much does it matter?

 

[Lawton88]

They worded it odd imo in the summary, when they said money mattered and looks mattered. But not maentioning the levels of mattered.

* the r for money as only 0.18-0.19; which is an r that is genrally translated as: A weak uphill (positive) linear relationship.

*Whereas the r for looks was DOUBLE that of money. 0.36 to 0.43 range. Which is generally translated as: moderate uphill (positive) linear relationship.

Alot of things matter. @EverythingMattersCel
that's imo not so much the question, that alot of stuff matters.
The question is imo: how much does it matter?

How much do you think things matter. In my younger days when women mostly worked jobs that didn't pay a lot or they didn't work I would say it was 50% looks and 50% money etc. Now just from looking at the younger couples I would say its like 80% looks and 20% money etc. Years ago there were plenty of guys with women a few spots above their looks. Not so much anymore but you see plenty of normie females with guys that are high tier Normie's just under a chadlite.

 

[eduardkoopman]

How much do you think things matter.

depends on location in the world alot also. I think.

In my younger days when women mostly worked jobs that didn't pay a lot or they didn't work I would say it was 50% looks and 50% money etc.

Bank in my younger years. I would say where I life, back than it was already looks mattered most. And money mattered less than status for sure also. Money-betabuxx maxxing , imo kinda over here already since the 2000's

Now just from looking at the younger couples I would say its like 80% looks and 20% money etc. Years ago there were plenty of guys with women a few spots above their looks. Not so much anymore but you see plenty of normie females with guys that are high tier Normie's just under a chadlite.

In poor countries it's different. where they know pverty. Like in Ethiopia money goes a LONG way.

In rich West.
i think the hyrarchy is like this, some have overlap (looks affects status. Status affects money (potential). Personality traits affect status.):
Also, as a really Negative a factor can weight more (manlet looks = game over and an extra 3 inches will make a big change. whereas being 6'1 or 6'4, matters less difference) . so in below list, i gonna assume average ranges .
1. Looks + voice + style 50%
2. status 20%
3. Personality matchings, generally being aperson women can relate to (wether real or acted by dude) 20%
4. Money 10%
rest neglectable

 

[PURE ARYAN GENETICS]

coz of the genetics bluepill. most normies think that other than being fat or thin, the way your face will look is 100% determined at birth so no point worrying or obsessing over it

 

[Deleted member 2729]

coz of the genetics bluepill. most normies think that other than being fat or thin, the way your face will look is 100% determined at birth so no point worrying or obsessing over it

alot of them are waking up tho

 

[PURE ARYAN GENETICS]

Receiving useless platitudes like this is a massive indicator that you’re fucked.

that's all foids got. bullshit to make you complacent and docile. to a tutorial mode foid it's not like she has any struggle anyway so when she gets sad she just needs to calm her feefees and go back to winning at life

 

[Danish_Retard]

Not a big fan of his, he does have some good videos but I feel like he is too whiny like others say

also I wouldn't say he is 5 either, do you really want to say that 50% of men mog him if you go outside?
he is unironically one of those men who look better as they age

I'd say the rating scale we use is pretty exponential at the later stages. Someone might say that Gandy is 9.5/10 but that doesn't mean that 5% of men are better looking than him. This is why the x/10 scale is flawed. It's easier to categorize someone between incel -> chad for geographic location than give a percentage of how many people they mog.

 

[Deleted member 3679]

As an oldcel myself it seems that most guys don't really care that much about getting laid. I know quite a few guys who were chad when younger and gained weight or lost their hair and have not tried at all to fix it. Even if your sex drive isn't super high looking good does benefit other areas in your life though.

 

[Deleted member 13409]

Well I think many men looksmax via gymcelling. I know a few. They are very unattractive in the face but sleep with Beckies because they have some muscle mass and are hyper NT.

but beyond that most men won’t looksmax in the face because “it’s gay”

 

[PYT]

Most men don't looksmaxx because they're told it's gay and men just get bitches by being confident and funny

They also fall into a cycle, we aren't all born with the same base. They grow up fat then have no motivation to workout cause you're already depressed and don't want to be looked at etc.

 

[Lawton88]

As an oldcel myself it seems that most guys don't really care that much about getting laid. I know quite a few guys who were chad when younger and gained weight or lost their hair and have not tried at all to fix it. Even if your sex drive isn't super high looking good does benefit other areas in your life though.

Same here as I am up in age myself. Yep the Chadlites I remember from years ago still in my town are either dead, lost too much hair or have lost their looks by gaining weight. Maybe just one that has actually held up good at this age and I see out there slaying at the drinking clubs/bars the older people go to. I still do see a few average joes constantly making a fool out of themselves going after women they aren't even a looksmatch for and also the real old pretty well off financially guy thinking he can get one of the few decent looking females in their 40s and 50s as if its still the 1980s. Kind of feel sad for them at times but the females will at least be nice to the old wealthy guy while turning him down unlike the men their own age range.

 

[thereallegend]

As an oldcel myself it seems that most guys don't really care that much about getting laid. I know quite a few guys who were chad when younger and gained weight or lost their hair and have not tried at all to fix it. Even if your sex drive isn't super high looking good does benefit other areas in your life though.

What I hear from guys (bluepilled incels in denial) is that "i'm focusing on my career bro" or "it'll come when it comes". Just a bunch of coping. Dating is a race against time.

 

[eduardkoopman]

As an oldcel myself it seems that most guys don't really care that much about getting laid. I know quite a few guys who were chad when younger and gained weight or lost their hair and have not tried at all to fix it. Even if your sex drive isn't super high looking good does benefit other areas in your life though.

yeah. The looks halo effect, goes far beyond dating.

 

[Deleted member 3679]

What I hear from guys (bluepilled incels in denial) is that "i'm focusing on my career bro" or "it'll come when it comes". Just a bunch of coping. Dating is a race against time.

I think guys like us who WANT to date attractive women and are willing to put in the work/improve etc. are in the extreme minority. Even a lot of women who could be decent looking don't take care of themselves.

 

[Chinlet Ascension]

Most Red and Blue Pillers.
Their ego, just can't handle going full analytical on your face and facial flaws.

For example.
Alexander Grace, has no problem (and other men neither). To tell men, their game, or alphaness, or personality flaws. Nor share his own game flaws.

But the looks flaws, they can't seem to handle.

I agree with Wheat and Waffles, that his rating range is Normie/average

Disagree.

Most men don't ever get positive feedback on their looks. If they go out looking their best, or looking their worst, it makes no difference, because they get little to no attention from women. So they're basically just not conditioned to think about their looks much.

 

[metagross]

he has no ego, around behavior determinism. it seems. or personality determinism.
I guess saying one did something sub optimum, or personality trait is sub-optimum. Is easier to swallow, than to say CURRENT looks are sub-optimum

****
It's not like, we don't have science cells, giving us answer on.
How much shit matters

I recall coming across this study couple of days ago.

*********Tl;dr: *********************
The hyrarchy of r (r= correlation) for getting follow up dates was for BOTH men and women:

1. attractiveness looks
2. Personable (“fun/exciting,” “responsive,” “dependable/trustworthy,” “friendly/nice”)
3. Money earning potential

******Full analysis for science cells, yeah water is wet outcome basically study******
Women select partners kinda same-ish as men.
They started out testing this hypothosis of: Men like good looking women; and women like moneymaxxed and high status men.

Their conclusion of above hypothosis:
"results showed that participants were more romantically interested in potential partners if they were viewed as attractive and good potential earners, and these associations were not moderated by gender. "

Basically, women like good looking and good potential earners men. And men like good looking and goof potential earners women.
The hyrarchy of r was for BOTH men and women:

1. attractiveness
2. Personable (“fun/exciting,” “responsive,” “dependable/trustworthy,” “friendly/nice”)
3. Money earning potential

So, How much was the r (* see link below for explaining r value reading) ???
(r = value of correlation)In this case how well predicted these 2 factors for relationship initations (actions!).

• How much r for earning potential for relationship initation??
  r = 0.18 to 0.19 (A weak uphill (positive) linear relationship).
  "The data trended slightly toward the tendency for the effect sizes to be stronger for men when compared with women, contrary to predictions made by evolutionary models"
  Men and women found earning potential in the partner equally-ish important, men even slightly more important.
• How much r for Attractiveness in looks for relationship initation??
  r = 0.36 to 0.43 (A moderate uphill (positive) relationship).
  At least looks matters double, 2x, the amount that money matters.
  Same for men and women? I checked the r datas, and for men and women the difference was neglectable. Both women and men responded equally to attractiveness looks. Only 1 factor showed a difference: Women being passivve attitude more. Women put in r 0.07 LESS in into ask the guy out for a 2nd date. BUT women had r 0.11 MORE hope/want for the dude asking them out. Aka, women are more passive in asking a dude out, and when she find him hot she is hoeping more than a dude though he makes a move. Whereas dudes are feeling less like hopeing she makes the first move and they more prone to make the first move.
  "these results showed that perceived physical attractiveness significantly predicted relationship initiation.... with r = .43 in the original article, and r = .36 in the present replication."
• How much r for the COMBO factors being: Personable (“fun/exciting,” “responsive,” “dependable/trustworthy,” “friendly/nice”) for relationship initation??
  r = 0.26 to 0.29 (A weak to moderate uphill (positive) relationship).
  It's ricgt in between the level of matter, between money and looks.
  Same for men and women? Wow, alot of differences are observed, I see between men and women, on this factor. EVEN THOUGH, the overall end score r is kinda the same. I'll share the most interesting and big enough differences worth mentioning:

1. Women have high pro-activity in asking such a personable dude out to hang and also have high want for him to ask her out (although that one less than when dude is atractive). Compared to attractiveness r; she is more pro-active to ask him out, but is less hopeing he asks her out.
2. For dudes, it's totally different. A dude finding a woman personable, he has MUCH less motivation r, to ask her out or hope for her asking him out; than compared to how he correlates with her attractiveness. So a man, is much more pro-active and/or hopeing to be asked out when he finds her attractive than when he finds her personable. For women that gap is smaller. I guess dudes hate the idea of friendzone.
3. When a dude finds a woman personable, the r for ONS shoots up even way higher..
   "results showed that perceived personable characteristics significantly predicted relationship initiation variables .... with r = .26 in the original article, and r = .29 in the present replication."

explaining r values link:
https://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r/

study link: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244015605160

Good post, but the problem with studies like this is always that it relies on self-reported data.
So the people conducting the study simply ask people "How much do looks matter?" or whatever.

Since we all know women very well, I think it's safe to say that looks matter way more than they admit here (which is already significant). It would be interesting to see if women lie more about attractiveness, and then to re-examine this study. However, I don't know if there is any reliable way to measure whether someone lied about perceived attractiveness.

 

[Danish_Retard]

Good post, but the problem with studies like this is always that it relies on self-reported data.
So the people conducting the study simply ask people "How much do looks matter?" or whatever.

Since we all know women very well, I think it's safe to say that looks matter way more than they admit here (which is already significant). It would be interesting to see if women lie more about attractiveness, and then to re-examine this study. However, I don't know if there is any reliable way to measure whether someone lied about perceived attractiveness.

Well, the study @eduardkoopman showed doesn't seem to be self-reported but instead looking at the success rate of getting a second date and then the correlation between how looks, personality and money has been rated.

I'm pretty sure that it's this study he is referring to:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18211175/

This study looked at how important each gender rated: Physical Attractiveness, Personality, and Earning Power in a relationship.

You can see the primary result here:

On the left, you can see the degree to which men (blue) and women (red) rated the importance of Attractiveness, Personality, and Earning Power. On the right, you can see to what extent any of those characteristics actually led to dating success (where 0 would be no effect, and 1 would be 100% effect).

In this study, both genders underestimated the importance of looks. Men rated looks as second just barely under personality (8.04/10 vs. 8.1/10). On the other hand, women were WAY off. They rated looks as the LEAST important of all (7.18/10) while for them it was by far the most important thing. In fact, it was slightly more important for women than it was for men.

For getting a woman, looks correlated 0.46 with dating success. This means that as a man, your looks will predict at least 46% of your success or failure in a speed date. Personality correlated 0.32 with dating success. So 32% of your results will be attributed to your personality. Lastly, money only correlated 0.16 with success. So only 16% of your results will depend on money.

What does this tell us? A few primary things:

- For both genders, the order of importance is: Looks > Personality > Money. This reinforces the study findings here, which also showed money is comparatively the least important parameter. In this study, money was actually less important to women than it was for men, yet women said they thought it was quite important at the start.

 

[50konsurgeryat35]

to really accept brutality of blackpill truth is very hard for oldcels. the severity of the truth and boomer crab mentality social pressure holds them back. if oldcels gets plastic surgery, hair transplants, facelift etc maybe they can compete with millenials (no zoomer lol) its taboo for boomer to cares about their looks, they think only women cares about looks and males who do are homosexual fag

30%+ of zoomers are incel. They have the worst sexual dynamics of the sexes of any generation. No one is cleaning up on male side except 5%

 

[50konsurgeryat35]

just like rollo tomassi they seems to always put women at fault, but as long as awareness are spreading to males and they start asking questions, sooner or later they will resort to blackpill theory imo, even rollo support chads looks theory, his arguments are towards blue pill alpha aka blue pill chads who thought slaying women is enough without knowing the true nature of women (inb4 muh hypergamy). I am cherrypicking here but chad slayer like @Amnesia is one of the sample i guess

Man amnesia pmed me that he just had rhino and ascended? Or he was just autistic and now less after rhino so talks to girls? You can't ascend from just rhino bro

 

[50konsurgeryat35]

Ok he had 2 rhino's, lower lid retraction along with chin fillers but I don't think that's enough for ascension but I didn't see his before after. I just know he is tall I think

 

[eduardkoopman]

Good post, but the problem with studies like this is always that it relies on self-reported data.
So the people conducting the study simply ask people "How much do looks matter?" or whatever.

Since we all know women very well, I think it's safe to say that looks matter way more than they admit here (which is already significant). It would be interesting to see if women lie more about attractiveness, and then to re-examine this study. However, I don't know if there is any reliable way to measure whether someone lied about perceived attractiveness.

self reported attractiveness. and self reported studies. i agree, are crap.

action based studies are legit.
I also think, attractiveness rating studies where they let a good amount of randoms rate the face, attractibeness. is legit also.

I think inthis study they dide both of the above.
1. ratings attractiveness done by someone else than the person himself/herself. Plus large enough group.
2. actions based, since they tracked after the speed dating willingness to meetup and so on again for a 2nd date. So action based.

Well, the study @eduardkoopman showed doesn't seem to be self-reported but instead looking at the success rate of getting a second date and then the correlation between how looks, personality and money has been rated.

true that

I'm pretty sure that it's this study he is referring to:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18211175/

This study looked at how important each gender rated: Physical Attractiveness, Personality, and Earning Power in a relationship.

You can see the primary result here:
View attachment 1184639

I was not that study.
BUT, it was a study that compared if they got replicated results, as in in that study.
It was replictaed basically.
Which solidifies that original further. In "social science" they often fail to replicate results. This show actually, how well and truthfull and correct the concept is on the hyrarchy in getting dating results.
1. looks.
2. being a person with a personality that is enjoyable / bearable to be around
3. money.

For getting a woman, looks correlated 0.46 with dating success. This means that as a man, your looks will predict at least 46% of your success or failure in a speed date. Personality correlated 0.32 with dating success. So 32% of your results will be attributed to your personality. Lastly, money only correlated 0.16 with success. So only 16% of your results will depend on money.

i think it's not correct to translate r of 0.46 to 46% of the matter equation? Maybe I am wrong, since I am unscholled in statistics. So if someone can conform/deny; that would be great.

- For both genders, the order of importance is: Looks > Personality > Money. This reinforces the study findings here, which also showed money is comparatively the least important parameter. In this study, money was actually less important to women than it was for men, yet women said they thought it was quite important at the start.

true that. Also, a GREAT reminder: EVER LISTEN TO SELF REPORTED stuff from women (and even men). Watch actions. Words = often basically gasighting EVEN when people don't know they talk BS when self reporting and are being honest. Self-deception, and deception is masssive. Unknowingly

 

[eduardkoopman]

I'm pretty sure that it's this study he is referring to:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18211175/

This study looked at how important each gender rated: Physical Attractiveness, Personality, and Earning Power in a relationship.

You can see the primary result here:
View attachment 1184639

this was this actual study (link below). which tried to replicate above study also. And it did replicate, confirming the original study into high legitness levels.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244015605160

 

[Deleted member 13994]

This dude was under the comments saying the black pill was a lie and personality only matters JFL