Dude420
Ascend or Rope
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2018
- Posts
- 3,044
- Reputation
- 6,687
Here is the debate that can be seen on this thread https://looksmax.org/threads/hooded-eyes-are-so-annoying-and-awful.2890/ :
Aesthetics are subjective. We need to come to terms that there's not a single look that will be universally pleasing to every single female on Earth. Different people like different things. Work with what you have and improve what you have.
Aesthetics are mostly objective for commonly shared evolutionary fitness reasons you Bluepiller.
Keep your pills inside your ass dude, and start facing reality. If you take two guys that are not subhumans, and ask 10 girls to choose one of them, chances are the 10 of them won't choose the same one. It's just simple human behavior and different elements of attraction.
Just because one of them has "hooded eyes" or has a better jawline doesn't mean it'll increase his chances of being picked to 100%.
"The evolutionary psychological claim is that—for our evolved computational problem solvers to actually solve the adaptive problems faced by our ancestors (food acquisition, parenting, mate acquisition (EDIT: INCLUDING WHICH PHYSICAL CUES INDICATE GOOD GENES))—they had to be richly structured by selection in a content-specific way. That is, they are endowed by what philosophers would once have called innate ideas or a priori concepts (e.g., food, child, my child, male-female, ingroup-outgroup, mother, kin, cheater, free rider, snake, spider, animacy, number, noun, object, aggressive formidability, friend, enemy, predator, leader, and perhaps thousands of others). These are built in to evolved modes of interpretation, conceptual-motivational systems, or evolved intuitive ontologies, in what might be thought of as a Darwinian Kantian-computational synthesis of how our evolved programs organize experience (Boyer & Barrett, Chapter 5, this volume; Cosmides & Tooby, 1994b; Tooby, Cosmides, & Barrett, 2003). This different approach explains and often predicts the (previously unappreciated) set of human universals (see, e.g., Brown, 1991) as reliably developing adaptations, their by-products, and their interactive products."
- Evolutionary Psychology, Handbook1, p.35.
Humans share universals adaptations such as what they find to be sexually attractive, which is an adaptation of capital importance because the selection of a mating partner with good genes increases the potential survival and reproducing output of offsprings (aka. the goal of existence, the genes which do this increase their survive, the other ones are left out). Women slightly differ on mate preferences because of minor differences in their genetic makeup factoring minor mutations, minor differences in brain development due to environmental exposure and contextually based dependent variables such as age, height, and ethnicity, but the underlying commonly shared adaptive structure about physical indicators signaling good genes still stay prevalent as it clearly manifests itself in our culture today (Like on Tinder, it is clear that in general terms, women agree about who is and is not attractive based on match rates). In practical terms how this manifest itself is that women will vary on who they find to be the most attractive on males of similar SMV, but will mostly agree about on who is most attractive when the gap of SMV becomes evident.
I hope those BlackPills will taste good to you.
View attachment 2414View attachment 2415View attachment 2416
Ask science to explain this. These are just a few examples. Stop with your blackpill shit. For every man there is that a girl finds hot, there's another below average looking guy fucking a hot chick somewhere else. Just because you don't go outside and see reality, doesn't mean it's not happening.
Go to any nightclub/bar and see how many average looking males or below average looking males end up with a chick. Science can't explain human behavior, because if it could, then there would be no serial killers or mentally ill people.
If the blackpill was true, then you wouldn't be here today.
I feel like people in here preach theories that help them cope with their fucking failures.
I will also ask science how to explain the vast majority of times that people match with their looks match are very close to it you bluepill confirmation bias nitpicker.
Science has simply not solved all the puzzle yet, the human brain is very complex, doesn't mean they didn't broadly figure out some of the big pieces yet.
The "vast majority" is not what you see on the internet or in magazines. The vast majority are people on the streets. Look at couples that pass by you and tell me they are all looks matched. Just because you see models dating models doesn't mean average looking guys can't date hot girls.
Either you are heavily cursed with confirmation bias or you don't know how to assess looks level or a mix of both. Obviously, money and personality enter to some extent in the equation (money-> power/control over your environment increase survival and availability of more resources to invest in offspring, personality-> intelligence and social abilities are genes that you would like to pass on to your offspring to increase their survival and reproductive output and indicates mate more suited to survive and take care of offspring), which may mostly explain rare instances of major differences in looks matched, but for the most part, if you study the literature and scientific studies on male attractiveness, you realize that looks mostly prevails because it is of paramount fitness importance. The brain is composed of commonly shared adaptive specialized cognitive systems engineer by natural selection to increase one's fitness if you believe that being attracted to physical cues signaling good genes isn't one of them moreover a significant one in mate selection you are BluePill as hell.
Last edited:
