Should LOOKS THEORY be Prescriptive or Descriptive (POLL)

[DelonLover1999]

[DON'T VOTE ON THE POLL BEFORE READING THIS THROUGH]

Let me start with an analogy: Music theory is the field that attempts to explain what makes music have the effects it does on us. In other words, what makes good music, good. Or scary music, scary. It's a very interesting field, but at the heart of it, lies a problem: Why do we feel the need to attempt to put into words and patterns, what are minds are inherently capable of evaluating?

Nobody needs to know what scales are to tell when a singer is out of tune. We perceive almost all of it subconsciously. Because of that, Music Theory is viewed as descriptive rather than prescriptive. It attempts to explain why something works, not limit the artist's creativity. Some of the best musicians of all time had no grasp on theory at all; they just had their ears and an instrument, and they made magic happen.

The equivalent to this when it comes to the Aesthetics of the Human Body is: Just trust your judgement. Everyone is born with the ability to evaluate faces. That doesn't mean everyone is created equal, of course. Just like someone who has grown up listening to music or watching movies 24/7 will have a better understanding of that particular way of expression, someone who's seen and thought a lot about faces will be better at judging them than the average person.

I've seen so many users here get caught up in theory and ratios and abstract concepts, doing mental gymnastics to try to justify why they think X mogs Y. In the end, your eye is what should guide you. Knowing theory will help you understanding things better, but it's not a replacement. If Beethoven had been born deaf, he would never have become, well, Beethoven.

TLDNRD: Trust your instincts first when it comes to beauty. PSL autism comes in later, and merely as a tool.

Spoiler: Tags

@PointOfNoReturn @AscendingHero @Reckless Turtle @HarrierDuBois @emeraldglass @5'7 zoomer @garoupilled_
@Preston @Gargantuan @john2 @cytoplasm @ceo @ascension @BrahminBoss @longjohnmong @pneumocystosis @Lord&Master
@Debetro @Interested @Mewton

 

[BrahminBoss]

Great thread

 

[DrTony]

Outcomes trump theory

 

[christian2710]

Thsi is a great thread I agree

 

[DelonLover1999]

Outcomes trump theory

outcomes can be very random, thats the nature of reality

 

[DrTony]

outcomes can be very random, thats the nature of reality

Wrong buddy. Outcomes will guide and revise your theoretical predictions.

 

[Deleted member 18582]

Descriptive

Intuition over Reasoning

We need an Anti-Kantian turn in looks theory

 

[DrTony]

In theoretical physics, we build theoretical predictive models of how the universe works. If these predictions do not align with experimental realities, we go back and either discard the theoretical model or update it. Same here. Real life outcomes (success with women P in V) guide the theoretical predictions of looks theories

 

[DelonLover1999]

Wrong buddy. Outcomes will guide and revise your theoretical predictions.

In physics? Yes. In Chemistry? Also yes. But try modelling a whole society, and every single individual’s actions within it, and you’ll see that it’s basically impossible.

I don’t buy this whole ‘your success is your real rating’ bullshit. It’s like a game: your appearance is an important stat, but you still have to show up and play.

 

[Debetro]

Everyone uses the descriptive approach inuitively, when seeing one new face the first thing you do is subconsciously rating it in 1 second. Later on you may resort to other things but your subconscious rating always comes first

 

[DelonLover1999]

Real life outcomes (success with women P in V) guide the theoretical predictions of looks theories

they’re linked, but building your theory based on this fact alone is a recipe for disaster. And even if it were a good idea, think of how difficult it would be to gather data on a large scale.

 

[autismmaxxer]

it shouldnt exist in the first place, we only need fluffyhairtheory and driptheory rest is cope

 

[NerdcelThundercok]

dnr

 

[emeraldglass]

[DON'T VOTE ON THE POLL BEFORE READING THIS THROUGH]

Let me start with an analogy: Music theory is the field that attempts to explain what makes music have the effects it does on us. In other words, what makes good music, good. Or scary music, scary. It's a very interesting field, but at the heart of it, lies a problem: Why do we feel the need to attempt to put into words and patterns, what are minds are inherently capable of evaluating?

Nobody needs to know what scales are to tell when a singer is out of tune. We perceive almost all of it subconsciously. Because of that, Music Theory is viewed as descriptive rather than prescriptive. It attempts to explain why something works, not limit the artist's creativity. Some of the best musicians of all time had no grasp on theory at all; they just had their ears and an instrument, and they made magic happen.

The equivalent to this when it comes to the Aesthetics of the Human Body is: Just trust your judgement. Everyone is born with the ability to evaluate faces. That doesn't mean everyone is created equal, of course. Just like someone who has grown up listening to music or watching movies 24/7 will have a better understanding of that particular way of expression, someone who's seen and thought a lot about faces will be better at judging them than the average person.

I've seen so many users here get caught up in theory and ratios and abstract concepts, doing mental gymnastics to try to justify why they think X mogs Y. In the end, your eye is what should guide you. Knowing theory will help you understanding things better, but it's not a replacement. If Beethoven had been born deaf, he would never have become, well, Beethoven.

TLDNRD: Trust your instincts first when it comes to beauty. PSL autism comes in later, and merely as a tool.

Spoiler: Tags

@PointOfNoReturn @AscendingHero @Reckless Turtle @HarrierDuBois @emeraldglass @5'7 zoomer @garoupilled_
@Preston @Gargantuan @john2 @cytoplasm @ceo @ascension @BrahminBoss @longjohnmong @pneumocystosis @Lord&Master
@Debetro @Interested @Mewton

Certainly descriptive. As we naturally develop a subconscious liking for something, we tend to generate explanations to justify it. However, we cannot devise a rationale capable of altering our perception of an unattractive face, as prescriptive preferences aim to achieve.

 

[Deleted member 24410]

XD

 

[Deleted member 24410]

Great thread

 

[HarrierDuBois]

I guess descriptive for ratings but prescriptive is insanely crucial for any and I mean ANY type of legitimate looksmaxing as you will need to be able to deduce every last millimeter of what you are going to move around or change and why. You cannot just trust that that "Hmm maybe I should add some more chin let me get a genio" you need to carefully study how the chin you desire need to play in with your philtrum height, mentolabial fold, lips, and brow ridge projection etc.
@DelonLover1999

 

[Blond3cel]

Good thread.

IRL I can instanly see if someone is GL or not, I dont need to measure any Ratios its just a matter of a second.

 

[HarrierDuBois]

I guess descriptive for ratings but prescriptive is insanely crucial for any and I mean ANY type of legitimate looksmaxing as you will need to be able to deduce every last millimeter of what you are going to move around or change and why. You cannot just trust that that "Hmm maybe I should add some more chin let me get a genio" you need to carefully study how the chin you desire need to play in with your philtrum height, mentolabial fold, lips, and brow ridge projection etc.
@DelonLover1999

@StrangerDanger your opinion? I see you voted for descriptive.

 

[longjohnmong]

Everyone uses the descriptive approach inuitively, when seeing one new face the first thing you do is subconsciously rating it in 1 second. Later on you may resort to other things but your subconscious rating always comes first

no, the retards on this site will claim obviously good looking people aren't because of "failos" or they'll say someone with beautiful eye area has bad eye area because it conflicts with some youtube video they saw

 

[Octavian_Augustus]

I think beauty is something that you can intuit. That being said, upon closer examination we can quantify or rationally explain why something is beautiful.

It's like our perception of the world. We can tell the sky is blue, but we can also explain it through scientific means.

 

[StrangerDanger]

@StrangerDanger your opinion? I see you voted for descriptive.

There is no objective beauty in the external world, our definition of beauty lies solely in how our visual perception is subconciously interpreted. Putting theory before our subconscious is counterintuitive, as our subconscious is what defines our understanding of beauty in the first place. It is descriptive since looks theory is all about describing in what ways our underlying processes interpret beauty

 

[longjohnmong]

I guess descriptive for ratings but prescriptive is insanely crucial for any and I mean ANY type of legitimate looksmaxing as you will need to be able to deduce every last millimeter of what you are going to move around or change and why. You cannot just trust that that "Hmm maybe I should add some more chin let me get a genio" you need to carefully study how the chin you desire need to play in with your philtrum height, mentolabial fold, lips, and brow ridge projection etc.
@DelonLover1999

descriptive doesn't mean "dude, whatever." you can adhere to a description.

 

[HarrierDuBois]

There is no objective beauty in the external world, our definition of beauty lies solely in how our visual perception is subconciously interpreted. Putting theory before our subconscious is counterintuitive, as our subconscious is what defines our understanding of beauty in the first place. It is descriptive since looks theory is all about describing in what ways our underlying processes interpret beauty

Taking what we subconsciously think and filtering it to as close to perfection as possible makes it easier for us to calculate why things look good or bad and how we can improve them.

 

[StrangerDanger]

Taking what we subconsciously think and filtering it to as close to perfection as possible makes it easier for us to calculate why things look good or bad and how we can improve them.

I agree. Its origin is ultimately descriptive but as our knowledge expands and our graps of looks theory becomes more accurate, the prescriptive model begin to holds up in comparision as it does not depend on individual biases.

The descriptive model is limited since it only measures our individual perception whereas through theory we can measure the collective understanding of beauty and therefore it is more objective, It's like if you took all the minds in the world and made a Venn diagram out if it and assessed the percieved beauty, then the objectivity would be the intersection, as that is where the shared commonality is found.

 

[aesthetic beauty]

[DON'T VOTE ON THE POLL BEFORE READING THIS THROUGH]

Let me start with an analogy: Music theory is the field that attempts to explain what makes music have the effects it does on us. In other words, what makes good music, good. Or scary music, scary. It's a very interesting field, but at the heart of it, lies a problem: Why do we feel the need to attempt to put into words and patterns, what are minds are inherently capable of evaluating?

Nobody needs to know what scales are to tell when a singer is out of tune. We perceive almost all of it subconsciously. Because of that, Music Theory is viewed as descriptive rather than prescriptive. It attempts to explain why something works, not limit the artist's creativity. Some of the best musicians of all time had no grasp on theory at all; they just had their ears and an instrument, and they made magic happen.

The equivalent to this when it comes to the Aesthetics of the Human Body is: Just trust your judgement. Everyone is born with the ability to evaluate faces. That doesn't mean everyone is created equal, of course. Just like someone who has grown up listening to music or watching movies 24/7 will have a better understanding of that particular way of expression, someone who's seen and thought a lot about faces will be better at judging them than the average person.

I've seen so many users here get caught up in theory and ratios and abstract concepts, doing mental gymnastics to try to justify why they think X mogs Y. In the end, your eye is what should guide you. Knowing theory will help you understanding things better, but it's not a replacement. If Beethoven had been born deaf, he would never have become, well, Beethoven.

TLDNRD: Trust your instincts first when it comes to beauty. PSL autism comes in later, and merely as a tool.

Spoiler: Tags

@PointOfNoReturn @AscendingHero @Reckless Turtle @HarrierDuBois @emeraldglass @5'7 zoomer @garoupilled_
@Preston @Gargantuan @john2 @cytoplasm @ceo @ascension @BrahminBoss @longjohnmong @pneumocystosis @Lord&Master
@Debetro @Interested @Mewton

Prescriptive. People are decent at telling attractive, average, unattractive, but not at objectively placing someone on a 1-10 scale. People overate dudes who fit their ideal archetype and underage dudes who don’t fit their abstract idea of a chad even if the ratios and features are there.

 

[DelonLover1999]

I guess descriptive for ratings but prescriptive is insanely crucial for any and I mean ANY type of legitimate looksmaxing as you will need to be able to deduce every last millimeter of what you are going to move around or change and why. You cannot just trust that that "Hmm maybe I should add some more chin let me get a genio" you need to carefully study how the chin you desire need to play in with your philtrum height, mentolabial fold, lips, and brow ridge projection etc.
@DelonLover1999

The best use for precise calculations is definitely surgery. It's obv not a natural skill, hence why theory plays a very crucial role, and prescriptive "ideals" sort of make sense. But in the end, a good surgeon should still use his eye. The two approaches complement each other in this scenario.

 

[Lord&Master]

Everyone, especially Children instinctively (or at least at a subconscious level) knows when someone is attractive or not without having to pull out a chart of ratios of PSL gods and measure a face. Children tend to trust more attractive people and avoid ugly people. Children being comfortable and wanting to be around you is a great sign you are attractive.

The problem arises when Children grow older and begin to be influenced by the outside world.

They develop biases. Some develop racism.

Trying to get an accurate rating on looksmax nowadays is pretty hard.

I notice something quite common.

I notice the better looking someone is, the more criticism they get or the ruder the replies are.

The uglier someone is, the nicer people are, and less criticism they get.

Normies will do this without realizing. People love to encourage and virtue signal these landwhales eating themselves into an early grave, applauding them for their freedom of choice, and how they don't seem to care what others think.

As soon as previously overweight celebrities make an effort to become healthy, some folks will start hating on them for "betraying them and setting unrealistic expectations".

The crab in a bucket mentality. People subconsciously don't like to see others above them, or even trying to become better. They see you, as a threat. And will pull you down.

These people must be ignored. These are the same people who don't want you to get surgery, or go to the gym, or lose weight, whatever.


Looks theory is a good explanation of why people treat you a certain way, in your past, present or future. It's a good tool to have a general idea.

The problem is when people get too fixated on it, and start thinking about really specific unnecessary things.

For example, "X is all."

"Why X is better than Y"

"The ideal ratios for all of X"

I used to be a PSL autist, but I have recently realized, through numerous experiments done on normies with PSL gods, is that a lot of PSL gods always lose against more "normal looking people". More "average".

PSL ideals =/= normies ideals.

Remember that at the end of the day, it's only about what the normies think. Our group of looks theorists is such a small niche.

What is a normie? A normie to me is basically your average Joe who goes on about a typical life with typical hobbies. and doesn't have any extreme ideologies like we do.

Who are the real "PSL gods"?

Most male Hollywood actors. These people are conventionally attractive to normies.

But PSL autists with all their biases and their narrow way of thinking will scrutinize every little detail and call them MTN or barely chadlite. Meanwhile, the actor in question mogs pretty much all of their criticizers.


Actors in film are chosen for widest appeal. They want to make the most amount of money of course. Nobody would care to watch a film if it were full of subhumans. People love watching hot people.


But what is the difference between PSL gods and Hollywood actors?


Facial averageness, which is the missing key in explaining harmony.

A lot of people struggle to define harmony on this forum, but I think this is the missing key.

It's no coincidence, that Francisco lachowski, the harmony god, has outperformed all his PSL god counterparts in real life experiments.

But why? Because all of his features are within a range normality. They are not too extreme.

But some PSL autists will criticize him and call him normie because he doesn't fit their "ideals".

It's way more complex than that.

 

[Mewton]

Thats why i say

Harmony >> Psl

In the end what matters if something looks pleasing to the eye or not

 

[DelonLover1999]

forgot to tag @Ellipsis @MaestheticMaso @Eriot Lodger

 

[Deleted member 25938]

I won't try to regurgitate too much, since people have already made really insightful points. What I will say, however, is that looks theory shouldn't gravitate solely towards a prescriptive or a descriptive function. The two narratives both serve its vital purpose within the domain; while analyzing existing beauty relies on description, creating beauty (i.e., looksmaxxing) will inevitably require prescriptive information in order to effectively realize.

I could say the same about music theory. Let's take Beethoven, for example (to remark off of your last paragraph, it's interesting to note that many of Beethoven's greatest works --- The 9th Symphony, all his late period Piano Sonatas and String Quartets, Missa Solemnis, the Grosse Fuge, to name a few --- were composed when he was completely deaf). While he had undoubtedly one of the greatest ears known to civilization, it'd be silly to say that he wasn't guided by any prescriptive theories at all. In fact, Beethoven's works are some of the most structured there are, some examples being:

- Sonata-Allegro Form, used in all of his Sonatas and Sonatinas, which were a hallmark formula of classical era music
- Rondo Form, which is even more complex of a formula than Sonata-Allegro form, which Beethoven implemented in many of the final movements of Sonatas, Quartets, Trios, etc.
- Motivic/Fragmental Development. One particular moment that is striking to me is the Finale of the 9th Symphony, where the beginning is laden with reiterations of cells from the three previous movements.
- and Counterpoint, especially during his late period. Beethoven was known to study Baroque composers such as Bach and Handel extensively, which would attest to, especially due to his deafness, an increasingly significant influence of theory on Beethoven's composition. Beethoven wrote a lot of fugues during this time, and those who have touched a fugue before knows that it is highly structured on both a vertical and linear level. Of his five late piano sonatas, three of them have a fugue (Op. 108, Op. 109, and Op. 110), whereas the other two (Op. 109 and Op. 111) have either a fugato or a movement that uses heavy counterpoint (specifically the second movement of the Op. 109). The middle of the 9th Symphony finale has a very rapid double fugue (a fugue with two subjects playing simultaneously). His Grosse Fuge for string quartet is even crazier, featuring three double fugues, each composing of the first subject of the first fugue combined with a new subject.

Point being, none of this level of composition would have been possible, even for someone like Beethoven, without a very heavy background in theory. In order to be a musical great, one has to be both a master in the descriptive (Beethoven was known for his great improvisational skills) and prescriptive domains. Same with looks: if you only choose between black and white instead of making your world a checkerboard, then you're only holding yourself back from being the best looks theorist/looksmaxxer you can be.

 

[DelonLover1999]

I won't try to regurgitate too much, since people have already made really insightful points. What I will say, however, is that looks theory shouldn't gravitate solely towards a prescriptive or a descriptive function. The two narratives both serve its vital purpose within the domain; while analyzing existing beauty relies on description, creating beauty (i.e., looksmaxxing) will inevitably require prescriptive information in order to effectively realize.

I could say the same about music theory. Let's take Beethoven, for example (to remark off of your last paragraph, it's interesting to note that many of Beethoven's greatest works --- The 9th Symphony, all his late period Piano Sonatas and String Quartets, Missa Solemnis, the Grosse Fuge, to name a few --- were composed when he was completely deaf). While he had undoubtedly one of the greatest ears known to civilization, it'd be silly to say that he wasn't guided by any prescriptive theories at all. In fact, Beethoven's works are some of the most structured there are, some examples being:

- Sonata-Allegro Form, used in all of his Sonatas and Sonatinas, which were a hallmark formula of classical era music
- Rondo Form, which is even more complex of a formula than Sonata-Allegro form, which Beethoven implemented in many of the final movements of Sonatas, Quartets, Trios, etc.
- Motivic/Fragmental Development. One particular moment that is striking to me is the Finale of the 9th Symphony, where the beginning is laden with reiterations of cells from the three previous movements.
- and Counterpoint, especially during his late period. Beethoven was known to study Baroque composers such as Bach and Handel extensively, which would attest to, especially due to his deafness, an increasingly significant influence of theory on Beethoven's composition. Beethoven wrote a lot of fugues during this time, and those who have touched a fugue before knows that it is highly structured on both a vertical and linear level. Of his five late piano sonatas, three of them have a fugue (Op. 108, Op. 109, and Op. 110), whereas the other two (Op. 109 and Op. 111) have either a fugato or a movement that uses heavy counterpoint (specifically the second movement of the Op. 109). The middle of the 9th Symphony finale has a very rapid double fugue (a fugue with two subjects playing simultaneously). His Grosse Fuge for string quartet is even crazier, featuring three double fugues, each composing of the first subject of the first fugue combined with a new subject.

Point being, none of this level of composition would have been possible, even for someone like Beethoven, without a very heavy background in theory. In order to be a musical great, one has to be both a master in the descriptive (Beethoven was known for his great improvisational skills) and prescriptive domains. Same with looks: if you only choose between black and white instead of making your world a checkerboard, then you're only holding yourself back from being the best looks theorist/looksmaxxer you can be.

beautifully put

Only point i would make is the following: While in beethoven’s case it is true that he had a very solid understanding of theory; The Beatles, for example, did not have that type of knowledge. And their music is incredibly innovative and harmonically interesting at times.

The main thing I wanted to say with this post, is that I think the best way to use theory is to try to justify and communicate to others what your intuition is telling you. And if the prescriptive ideals don’t align with it, you can either attempt to explain why it still works, or chalk it up to being a personal deviation in your rating style. But you shouldn’t think your taste is inherently wrong. Unless, of course, you’re not even attempting an objective analysis; and are letting other factors, such as emotion and bias, influence your perception.

 

[goo25]

great thread
obviously beauty standards exist but Harmony>>psl at the end of the day what It counts Is how normal people percieve u, not psl autists

 

[mxgged]

[DON'T VOTE ON THE POLL BEFORE READING THIS THROUGH]

Let me start with an analogy: Music theory is the field that attempts to explain what makes music have the effects it does on us. In other words, what makes good music, good. Or scary music, scary. It's a very interesting field, but at the heart of it, lies a problem: Why do we feel the need to attempt to put into words and patterns, what are minds are inherently capable of evaluating?

Nobody needs to know what scales are to tell when a singer is out of tune. We perceive almost all of it subconsciously. Because of that, Music Theory is viewed as descriptive rather than prescriptive. It attempts to explain why something works, not limit the artist's creativity. Some of the best musicians of all time had no grasp on theory at all; they just had their ears and an instrument, and they made magic happen.

The equivalent to this when it comes to the Aesthetics of the Human Body is: Just trust your judgement. Everyone is born with the ability to evaluate faces. That doesn't mean everyone is created equal, of course. Just like someone who has grown up listening to music or watching movies 24/7 will have a better understanding of that particular way of expression, someone who's seen and thought a lot about faces will be better at judging them than the average person.

I've seen so many users here get caught up in theory and ratios and abstract concepts, doing mental gymnastics to try to justify why they think X mogs Y. In the end, your eye is what should guide you. Knowing theory will help you understanding things better, but it's not a replacement. If Beethoven had been born deaf, he would never have become, well, Beethoven.

TLDNRD: Trust your instincts first when it comes to beauty. PSL autism comes in later, and merely as a tool.

Spoiler: Tags

@PointOfNoReturn @AscendingHero @Reckless Turtle @HarrierDuBois @emeraldglass @5'7 zoomer @garoupilled_
@Preston @Gargantuan @john2 @cytoplasm @ceo @ascension @BrahminBoss @longjohnmong @pneumocystosis @Lord&Master
@Debetro @Interested @Mewton
[/SPOIL

Spoiler: Tags

great i agree

 

[softlysoftly]

In theoretical physics, we

you are not a theoretical physicist

 

[DrTony]

you are not a theoretical physicist

I have a bachelors degree in physics and my dissertation was in general relativity.

 

[Acne Victim]

high IQ thread

 

[DelonLover1999]

I have a bachelors degree in physics and my dissertation was in general relativity.

mogged the guy tbh

 

[DrTony]

mogged the guy tbh

Wait until he finds I have first authors publications in Nature lol. Let him cope by thinking I am some stupid incel.

 

[DelonLover1999]

Wait until he finds I have first authors publications in Nature lol. Let him cope by thinking I am some stupid incel.

I heard you did research in oncology or something. Did you pivot from physics?

 

[DrTony]

I heard you did research in oncology or something. Did you pivot from physics?

Yes, pretty unusual path tbh

 

[Lebgfinal]

Doesn't matter I'm ugly in both cases

 

[DelonLover1999]

Doesn't matter I'm ugly in both cases

no cause I descriptively think you are not

 

[Lebgfinal]

no cause I descriptively think you are not

what doest that mean

 

[DelonLover1999]

what doest that mean

read the OP

 

[softlysoftly]

mogged the guy tbh

having a bs in physics doesn't make you a theoretical physicist how did he mog me again?

Wait until he finds I have first authors publications in Nature lol. Let him cope by thinking I am some stupid incel.

congrats, I too have been first author on scientific papers granted it was not through the nature journal

 

[DrTony]

@softlysoftly I just find it funny that people still refuse that outcomes and the market (opposite gender) determine your smv. Not your affirmations or your self-perceived ranking. Do you have an issue with that statement?

 

[softlysoftly]

@softlysoftly I just find it funny that people still refuse that outcomes and the market (opposite gender) determine your smv. Not your affirmations or your self-perceived ranking. Do you have an issue with that statement?

No, I actually agree with that statement.

 

[DelonLover1999]

having a bs in physics doesn't make you a theoretical physicist how did he mog me again?

He didn’t claim he was an actual theoretical physicist. The fact that he’s studied and been involved in the field to a decent degree grants him use of the ‘we’, imo. The mogging part was just a joke, althought you did jump the gun on that comment.

congrats, I too have been first author on scientific papers granted it was not through the nature journal

Nice. What was the area of research?

 

[DelonLover1999]

@softlysoftly I just find it funny that people still refuse that outcomes and the market (opposite gender) determine your smv. Not your affirmations or your self-perceived ranking. Do you have an issue with that statement?

I don’t really have a problem with results determining smv, tbh. It makes sense, depending on the economical model you’re drawing from. But there is such a thing as having high stats and low performance (relative to those stats). And it can happen in pretty much anything, be it dating life or career.