There seems to be 2 main models for human attraction when applied to humans.

[reptiles]

The sexual selection model essentially states humans are ornamental creatures like all other animals. An good example would be a peacock they have very intricate beautiful wings but those serve no evolutionary purpose. This model essentially states certain traits are just attractive purely on the basis that it looks good and not cause of a intuitive biological health model. This models predictive power would be useful if we can pick isolated tribes and show them people of European descent and then get them to rate which 1 they prefer relative to there own.


The other main model is the model I mainly support which makes the most sense in my opinion is the biological fitness model this states certain traits are attractive due to biological reasons. I'll use the example of tall masculine lower 3rds this implies you have higher testosterone which means generally your more dimorphic and dimorphism is what makes the 2 sexes attracted . Essentially sexual dimorphism is the key in this model unlike the last 1. For this model to have predictive power we would need to do a similar study on a larger scale.

Overall I don't know and it frustrates me if the 2nd 1 is true it's better for nearly all of us if the first 1 is true then it's awful essentially you have to whiten yourself just to be attractive which i don't think flows well with evolution.

 

[reptiles]

The sexual selection model essentially states humans are ornamental creatures like all other animals. An good example would be a peacock they have very intricate beautiful wings but those serve no evolutionary purpose. This model essentially states certain traits are just attractive purely on the basis that it looks good and not cause of a intuitive biological health model. This models predictive power would be useful if we can pick isolated tribes and show them people of European descent and then get them to rate which 1 they prefer relative to there own.


The other main model is the model I mainly support which makes the most sense in my opinion is the biological fitness model this states certain traits are attractive due to biological reasons. I'll use the example of tall masculine lower 3rds this implies you have higher testosterone which means generally your more dimorphic and dimorphism is what makes the 2 sexes attracted . Essentially sexual dimorphism is the key in this model unlike the last 1. For this model to have predictive power we would need to do a similar study on a larger scale.

Overall I don't know and it frustrates me if the 2nd 1 is true it's better for nearly all of us if the first 1 is true then it's awful essentially you have to whiten yourself just to be attractive which i don't think flows well with evolution.

@eduardkoopman
@goat2x
@Hunterslayer

Thoughts which model do you think fits the best

 

[Deleted member 1774]

 

[goat2x]

Its a combine of both tbh
there are ton of features that would display high t/ would be better for hunting and shit but still looks bad,and the "white washing" propaganda simple can be debunked by the 3 month old babies preferring more beautiful faces, it seems like we born with a part of our brain which completely respondn to looks

 

[Deleted member 5385]

Like @goat2x really strong dymorphism with some feminine features- like shorter nose and midface are more feminine but looks better, c.m give really strong sex appeal. Fuller and wider lips, more brachy etc.

 

[Deleted member 439]

Another Version of your first theory completely contradicts the second theory. This is known as the handicap theory.

Basically, there are some indicators of sexual value for males which are costly. For example; High testosterone is immunosuppressive. However since it is costly, it ensures only strong individuals can afford this trait.

Therefore, the costlier and more of a handicap a feature is, the more it is a reliable indicator of strength, as only strong individuals can afford it.

 

[goat2x]

Like @goat2x really strong dymorphism with some feminine features- like shorter nose and midface are more feminine but looks better, c.m give really strong sex appeal. Fuller and wider lips, more brachy etc.

Faceandlms really got destroyed on this topic yesterday thats the only part i have seen from the stream

 

[Lev Peshkov]

It is literally 80/20

Superior genes survive lesser one's die out

 

[bdycope]

unfortunately its number one.
we are humans but were not that different to other eukaryotes, its probably just about whats aesthetically pleasing
you can have a good jaw and be low T, it comes down to genetics

 

[Deleted member 275]

Therefore, the costlier and more of a handicap a feature is, the more it is a reliable indicator of strength, as only strong individuals can afford it.

But if this was true, wouldnt the ugliest men be the most attractive? Paradoxed.me

Living as an ugly man is extremely costly and only the strongest can survive such a life of constant torment and rejection.

This would make ugly balding manlets the most attractive as they have the biggest life handicap.

 

[reptiles]

Faceandlms really got destroyed on this topic yesterday thats the only part i have seen from the stream

I feel like faceandlms gave into too much of the sexual selectionist view the 2 examples of why blue eyes and coloured feathers spread in humans and peacocks has a biological basis thankfully.

Blue eyes helps analyse static images better this was useful in hunter gatherer times when women were selecting out fruits.

Meanwhile the colored feathers act as a defense mechanism in case a predator tries to kill a femoid the males feathers act as a luring mechanism for a predator so the femoid can escape it's indeed giga brutal that nature sees men as sacrificial altars.

He also never explained why certain races are more attracted to white people i generally believe this is cultural. My citing source would be the ancient Chinese views of white people they never used to consider whites intrinsically more beautiful. however all cultures generally agree a pretty face is a pretty face.

Face seemed to be arguing that racial homophily out mogs dimorphism however this goes against natural selection as nature wants to bump up genetic diversity.

The only argument proving any racial arguments would be on a probabilistic scale which can ring true for asian's they are very neotanized but for all the other races of man this makes no fucking sense.

What i would love to try is to get babies who have never experienced western beauty standards to be raised in an tribal area and i would want to see what would be the most natural reaction.

The issue with the hazda study is they are genetically isolated and are not really as connected to modern day non hunter gather peoples if we got a westernized british person and we raised him in a san tribe i would want to see what the british person would most likely prefer

 

[goat2x]

I feel like faceandlms gave into too much of the sexual selectionist view the 2 examples of why blue eyes and coloured feathers spread in humans and peacocks has a biological basis thankfully.

Blue eyes helps analyse static images better this was useful in hunter gatherer times when women were selecting out fruits.

Meanwhile the colored feathers act as a defense mechanism in case a predator tries to kill a femoid the males feathers act as a luring mechanism for a predator so the femoid can escape it's indeed giga brutal that nature sees men as sacrificial altars.

He also never explained why certain races are more attracted to white people i generally believe this is cultural. My citing source would be the ancient Chinese views of white people they never used to consider whites intrinsically more beautiful. however all cultures generally agree a pretty face is a pretty face.

Face seemed to be arguing that racial homophily out mogs dimorphism however this goes against natural selection as nature wants to bump up genetic diversity.

The only argument proving any racial arguments would be on a probabilistic scale which can ring true for asian's they are very neotanized but for all the other races of man this makes no fucking sense.

What i would love to try is to get babies who have never experienced western beauty standards to be raised in an tribal area and i would want to see what would be the most natural reaction.

The issue with the hazda study is they are genetically isolated and are not really as connected to modern day non hunter gather peoples if we got a westernized british person and we raised him in a san tribe i would want to see what the british person would most likely prefer

i dont think your blue eyes analogy is accurate at all
imo you you focus too much on the biological factors / hunter gatherer days,if we extract the historic domination that white showed they would be still the highest psl(on average) imo
(browridge,jaw,nose,maxilla) you can have all these features as another race males of course but it seems to be more appearent in caucasian skulls. thats why they make up most of the models etc.
the worst thing is that we are arguing a very grey area we already know that the human brain develops a part that it is only used for the judgement of other faces,i dont think all ogree features/hunter gatherer features would mog soft and hard features aka harmony.
We can argue that if they so worshipped whites they would have draw jesus as a nordic man like other countries but they indeed didnt,
it seems like Mohamed was white, thats why they worshipped him that much.

 

[goat2x]

I feel like faceandlms gave into too much of the sexual selectionist view the 2 examples of why blue eyes and coloured feathers spread in humans and peacocks has a biological basis thankfully.

Blue eyes helps analyse static images better this was useful in hunter gatherer times when women were selecting out fruits.

Meanwhile the colored feathers act as a defense mechanism in case a predator tries to kill a femoid the males feathers act as a luring mechanism for a predator so the femoid can escape it's indeed giga brutal that nature sees men as sacrificial altars.

He also never explained why certain races are more attracted to white people i generally believe this is cultural. My citing source would be the ancient Chinese views of white people they never used to consider whites intrinsically more beautiful. however all cultures generally agree a pretty face is a pretty face.

Face seemed to be arguing that racial homophily out mogs dimorphism however this goes against natural selection as nature wants to bump up genetic diversity.

The only argument proving any racial arguments would be on a probabilistic scale which can ring true for asian's they are very neotanized but for all the other races of man this makes no fucking sense.

What i would love to try is to get babies who have never experienced western beauty standards to be raised in an tribal area and i would want to see what would be the most natural reaction.

The issue with the hazda study is they are genetically isolated and are not really as connected to modern day non hunter gather peoples if we got a westernized british person and we raised him in a san tribe i would want to see what the british person would most likely prefer

but averageness is still one of the best measures we can use, i think if you showed a good looking black man and a good looking white men to african women 90% would prefer the black man, its just the way it is.

 

[goat2x]

I feel like faceandlms gave into too much of the sexual selectionist view the 2 examples of why blue eyes and coloured feathers spread in humans and peacocks has a biological basis thankfully.

Blue eyes helps analyse static images better this was useful in hunter gatherer times when women were selecting out fruits.

Meanwhile the colored feathers act as a defense mechanism in case a predator tries to kill a femoid the males feathers act as a luring mechanism for a predator so the femoid can escape it's indeed giga brutal that nature sees men as sacrificial altars.

He also never explained why certain races are more attracted to white people i generally believe this is cultural. My citing source would be the ancient Chinese views of white people they never used to consider whites intrinsically more beautiful. however all cultures generally agree a pretty face is a pretty face.

Face seemed to be arguing that racial homophily out mogs dimorphism however this goes against natural selection as nature wants to bump up genetic diversity.

The only argument proving any racial arguments would be on a probabilistic scale which can ring true for asian's they are very neotanized but for all the other races of man this makes no fucking sense.

What i would love to try is to get babies who have never experienced western beauty standards to be raised in an tribal area and i would want to see what would be the most natural reaction.

The issue with the hazda study is they are genetically isolated and are not really as connected to modern day non hunter gather peoples if we got a westernized british person and we raised him in a san tribe i would want to see what the british person would most likely prefer

My point with that study shows that even non biased people have beauty standards
its already accepted and i think that too beauty is HARDWIRED to our brain.

 

[Deleted member 2157]

2nd is right

 

[reptiles]

but averageness is still one of the best measures we can use, i think if you showed a good looking black man and a good looking white men to african women 90% would prefer the black man, its just the way it is.

I have issues with averagness in how they are used relative to to some of these studies for instance they probably combined chad normie high tier normie a better measure would be to use 100 Chads and then to create a facial composite based of off that.

But yeah the rest I agree with although it's also possible the inverse is true as we like to out breed due to an possible increase of genetic diversity that's just a hypothesis i have though. This applies with white women as well I think.

 

[Deleted member 7753]

It's both. You see boneless tiktok twinks get laid all the time as they have good looks based on harmony with very little dimorphism. But there's also the stature's importance in the dating scene. Women who prefer men that are tall do this because the taller men as they could protect them better as opposed to the ones that are shorter.

 

[reptiles]

My point with that study shows that even non biased people have beauty standards
its already accepted and i think that too beauty is HARDWIRED to our brain.

Yeah I agree there is a huge difference though between saying everyone has a common unity in what they consider attractive and then jumping onto say white people are just more attractive because of XYZ reasons.

I generally think good looking people are good looking regardless of race the only reason the europoid profile is perferred i think is cause of culture

 

[goat2x]

Yeah I agree there is a huge difference though between saying everyone has a common unity in what they consider attractive and then jumping onto say white people are just more attractive because of XYZ reasons.

I generally think good looking people are good looking regardless of race the only reason the europoid profile is perferred i think is cause of culture

No, Caucasian isnt "prefferred" its usually the skull that includes most of the factors, you can have all these factors without being white do, but we are talking in average.
The european profile is "prefferred" cause the growth of the jaw,maxilla,nose,browridge.

 

[reptiles]

No, Caucasian isnt "prefferred" its usually the skull that includes most of the factors, you can have all these factors without being white do, but we are talking in average.
The european profile is "prefferred" cause the growth of the jaw,maxilla,nose,browridge.

I can't really disagree on averages tbqh but i want to know was it cause of genes or the environment i think it's mainly the environment. All humans descend from the same stock we don't evolve ''separately'' it may have been tropical climates that lead to it

 

[goat2x]

I can't really disagree on averages tbqh but i want to know was it cause of genes or the environment i think it's mainly the environment. All humans descend from the same stock we don't evolve ''separately'' it may have been tropical climates that lead to it

I dont know, i will research it more today but i dont think i will find an answer, i think you can go to africa and get a 90 degree gonial angle and a downgrown one and people would prefer the 90degree one, its like when queens deliberately wanted painters to draw them smaller noses and better jaws even in old times.

 

[reptiles]

I dont know, i will research it more today but i dont think i will find an answer, i think you can go to africa and get a 90 degree gonial angle and a downgrown one and people would prefer the 90degree one, its like when queens deliberately wanted painters to draw them smaller noses and better jaws even in old times.

Beauty standards though are different in africa larger noses are more pretty relative to the west and i could probably find biological reasons why assuming you talked to the average black tribe i assume if you showed them a forward grown 1 cause i don't think any race is naturally forward grown i think they would choose the forward grown black guy over the white guy or the inverse could also be true since humans want something new they might perfer the white guy. I think this would ring true for white women as well i don't know

 

[goat2x]

Beauty standards though are different in africa larger noses are more pretty relative to the west and i could probably find biological reasons why assuming you talked to the average black tribe i assume if you showed them a forward grown 1 cause i don't think any race is naturally forward grown i think they would choose the forward grown black guy over the white guy or the inverse could also be true since humans want something new they might perfer the white guy. I think this would ring true for white women as well i don't know

Yeah we will need a study for that in the future, it looks like some exotic/abnormalities are good tho in every race like light eyes
You are right, i think they would prefer the black guy aswell but you just said it "usually" whites have better forward growth and jawlines than other races, that might be the case. outliers will always happen like snowbunnies and black women who worship white men.

 

[Deleted member 439]

Yeah we will need a study for that in the future, it looks like some exotic/abnormalities are good tho in every race like light eyes
You are right, i think they would prefer the black guy aswell but you just said it "usually" whites have better forward growth and jawlines than other races, that might be the case. outliers will always happen like snowbunnies and black women who worship white men.

offtopic but you are seem high iq. change your avi asap, it falios you into oblivion. I really thought you were a low iq ape because of your avi before

 

[reptiles]

Yeah we will need a study for that in the future, it looks like some exotic/abnormalities are good tho in every race like light eyes
You are right, i think they would prefer the black guy aswell but you just said it "usually" whites have better forward growth and jawlines than other races, that might be the case. outliers will always happen like snowbunnies and black women who worship white men.

I feel like were all missing something i don't even know what it is there maybe more models than the 2 i posted here.

 

[goat2x]

I feel like were all missing something i don't even know what it is there maybe more models than the 2 i posted here.

Yeah, thats why i said its still a grey area tbh
its environmental, bioligical, and probably hormonal, cultural. it seems like as we more and more go on the less the high t ogre face will be preferred over pretty boys because (?women stepped up in society, the protection factor is less and less important?)

 

[eduardkoopman]

Overall I don't know and it frustrates me if the 2nd 1 is true .. if the first 1 is true then

Both can be true. since they are not even opposites.
imo, both hold validity inm humans. Although I think "biological fitness" is more important than having ornamental factors.
That said. You need biological fitness if you display ornamental factors. Because it's signaling to women AND OTHER MEN, you are in the game. And thus men will compete with you for attention, in wild life quit violently; so if you are weak you get bashed by other males.

Ornimental factors help some in humans. Bujt not as much as good genes.
I can illustrate.

Dude A. Chad looks, but wears ugly clothes that don't stand out. He still attractive
Dude B. ugly looks and wears ugly clothes that don't stand out. He ugly
Dude C. ugly looks and wears a very good suite and style clothes that stand out in a good way. He is less ugly, maybe seen as normie, but not attractive.
Dude D. Chad looks, and wears a very good suite and style clothes that stand out in a good way. He more attractrive tan Dude A.

Above example to illustrate the more limited effect of ornamental factors.

 

[Yoyo2233]

Who’s an example of a masculine twpp

The sexual selection model essentially states humans are ornamental creatures like all other animals. An good example would be a peacock they have very intricate beautiful wings but those serve no evolutionary purpose. This model essentially states certain traits are just attractive purely on the basis that it looks good and not cause of a intuitive biological health model. This models predictive power would be useful if we can pick isolated tribes and show them people of European descent and then get them to rate which 1 they prefer relative to there own.


The other main model is the model I mainly support which makes the most sense in my opinion is the biological fitness model this states certain traits are attractive due to biological reasons. I'll use the example of tall masculine lower 3rds this implies you have higher testosterone which means generally your more dimorphic and dimorphism is what makes the 2 sexes attracted . Essentially sexual dimorphism is the key in this model unlike the last 1. For this model to have predictive power we would need to do a similar study on a larger scale.

Overall I don't know and it frustrates me if the 2nd 1 is true it's better for nearly all of us if the first 1 is true then it's awful essentially you have to whiten yourself just to be attractive which i don't think flows well with evolution.

whos an example of a masculine tall lower 3rd?

 

[Mr Norwood]

Faceandlms really got destroyed on this topic yesterday thats the only part i have seen from the stream

I think Face is just a really poor debater. He was unable to offer any theories as to why certain features are an evolutionary advantage off the top of his head but that doesn't mean they don't exist

Height, frame, muscle - higher fighting success, protection, dominance
Forward growth of upper and lower jaw - less restricted airways for better breathing
Alignment of upper and lower jaw resulting in better bite
Wide palate increasing chance of straight teeth
Long face potential sign of mouth breathing suggesting genetic weakness
Large square angular jaw - signify good hormonal profile i.e. HGH, test. Potentially able to withstand more force in battle
Deep set hooded eyes with strong brow ridge - eye is more protected during fight.

Of course the black pill can't explain everything.

The guy who was on with face though must be mental if he thinks when a woman sees a 3ft man vs a 6ft man then there's nothing in her biology telling her the 6ft man is a better mate choice. Cultural factors do have an affect on what is considered attractive but this guy doesn't buy into evolutionary theory at all and believes everything is cultural. It's a mix of both.

 

[Yoyo2233]

Who’s an example of a masculine twpp

The sexual selection model essentially states humans are ornamental creatures like all other animals. An good example would be a peacock they have very intricate beautiful wings but those serve no evolutionary purpose. This model essentially states certain traits are just attractive purely on the basis that it looks good and not cause of a intuitive biological health model. This models predictive power would be useful if we can pick isolated tribes and show them people of European descent and then get them to rate which 1 they prefer relative to there own.


The other main model is the model I mainly support which makes the most sense in my opinion is the biological fitness model this states certain traits are attractive due to biological reasons. I'll use the example of tall masculine lower 3rds this implies you have higher testosterone which means generally your more dimorphic and dimorphism is what makes the 2 sexes attracted . Essentially sexual dimorphism is the key in this model unlike the last 1. For this model to have predictive power we would need to do a similar study on a larger scale.

Overall I don't know and it frustrates me if the 2nd 1 is true it's better for nearly all of us if the first 1 is true then it's awful essentially you have to whiten yourself just to be attractive which i don't think flows well with evolution.

whos an example of a masculine tall lower 3rd?