Who won this debate? Dude420 vs BeautifulBones - Ascending without PSL increase?, Impact of IQ on attractiveness & Gold Diggers

[Dude420]

I was reading some old arguments between Crisick and @Dude420 , and they're were quite good talking about the primary modality of attraction whether it be subjective or objective. @Dude420 also did a good job with his analysis of Kant I was pleasantly surprised at the IQ I was seeing display after all the low IQ post I read through on a daily. (P.S @Dude420 you also have to read Nietzche, Buber, Heidegger and Dostoevesky, as you have not assimilated the objective and subjective modalities into one beautiful philosophy, but your probably young)

However on to what I truly want to talk about

On the lookist scene we tend to primarily talk about facial looks for getting girls , and although it's one of the most efficient ways to get girls per SD it's not the only way. There are a lot of members that are blessed in other ways let's examine some other ways. These all have genetic components to it , but you might be genetically blessed enough to make it where your looks fell short

Personality - A personality that's a good friend is not the same as an attractive personality. An attractive personality to a woman is basically grounded in someone who can take a lot of mental punishment, and is very aware. This served a evolutionary purpose, so that if someone died they could keep pushing on and take care of children and the tribe. Being very aware to see opportunities like food, and avoiding predators. This is first second is being a genuinely fun person to be around. Think like a popular talk show host , or some masculine comedians like Dave Chapelle, Bill Burr and Russell Brand. Third is being caring and compassionate , and being in tuned to the girls subjective experience.

I can speak on this one extensively , as I live in NYC , and it attracts all the big personalities like Donald Trump and Jay Leno, as well as all the other talk show hosts. I see average guys that have all these 3 personality traits , and they slay like a chad lite. I've also given examples here and here


Money - While there are some gold diggers, and you want to avoid these girls as much as possible, and this stradegy gets a bad rap as betabuxxing. Most girls aren't attracted to the money itself , of course the better lifestyle and the fact you can provide more for her children , but the primary factor in this mode of attraction is your a guy that can make a lot of money. Why else are med school students and law students so attractive. They're potential to make a lot of money. This too is genetically determined by 4 factors primarily IQ, Conscientiousness, Low Neuroticism and High Openness to Experience (look up Hexaco). Girls want to literally birth more people like this into society , but the only drawback of this strategy is that woman work now, so your potential to make money has to be higher than it would've been in a time like the 1950's. If your IQ is high like mine or @Dude420 , @bain or the @theropeking you can do this strategy and slay


Status - You don't have to actually be famous for this to work. You could just be locally famous with a few 1000 followers on social media. The primary thing that girls are attracted to out of this one is social skills and social awareness. Girl's have no problem dating a guy that's more socially apt then them. Not only does this cause deep attraction , but girls will try harder to keep you. Since they know you have the social skills to easily meet another woman. People like this know some of the best club promoters, and social media famous people. This one is kind of hard to separate from personality, but think of this once as kind of personality + extroversion.

Body - I wrote a whole thread on the ideal male body here, but if your over 6ft + have a good body. It can halo any face. I think girls like good bodies because from an evolutionary perspective it meant a lot of good things like :
> This man could afford enough food to grow muscle
> He'll survive long enough to take care of children
> He can take pain over a long period of time
> There's research that says being in shape favorably effects your epigenetics, and therefore giving your children better genetics that you would've given if you were out of shape
> Muscles make woman feel safe

So if you have an ugly face don't worry you might not ever be a slayer, but you can statistically speaking be at least average

Interesting post, glad you took the time to read my previous arguments.
I don't fully agree with your points though, the main nuance is that if you are ugly betabuxxing through moneymaxxing(let's forget status here because it often merge with money anyway) will help you "ascend" in securing a wife, but the underlying reality is that it simply becomes a complex and in fact more costly form of escortcelling where the man becomes conditioned to only get petty sex after being a good boy to her wife, with high risk of cuckoldry, and high risk of divorce once she got what she wanted out of you. An ugly man will never be respected, even if you invest a lot in a woman, all of this is compensatory to make up for your bad genetic, you are bound to be exploited if you don't accept her terms and conditioned, otherwise she will deliberately cheat on you, and if you don't get the message, leave you. That's why looks is always of paramount importance. Each micro PSL decimal possesses utmost existential implications. Looks make you attractive, bad looks make you invisible, if forced to interact with, disrespected, money can make your presence bearable to a woman if you show openness to be exploited. Which also explains why Chads can get immediate sex off Tinder, while bad looking men can only have sex after multiple dates IF they passed the interviews tests which are; do you have money? and how much of it are you willing to invest in me?
Personality does not enter in this equation unless you have a severe personality disorder, women prefer being dominated by a Chad who lacks empathy than being treated nicely by an ugly man. A desirable personality depends on your looks level, the better looking you are the more being dominant becomes attractive, the worse looking you are the more compliant you should be for exploitation in order to be "attractive" (particularly once you entered a relationship).

(I think that is my most pitch black dark pill post thus far)

I think their is two separate attraction mechanisms
- How much money you're capable of making (IQ, Conscientiousness, Industry Profitability)
- How gregarious you are with the money you have

I live in NYC, and trust me each set of professionals have they're set of groupies. Lawyers, Doctors, Investment Bankers and Software Engineers. Sometimes these girls will even pay for the dates. Why? Like looks the ability to make a lot of money is rare, desirable and genetic. I won't pretend like it's as powerful as looks alone, but it can be stacked with other things to make a big difference.

You might say what's the evolutionary psychology behind this. Well just like woman want to produce more good looking men in the world. They also want to produce more productive men. There's a reason that horrible novel 50 shades a grey portrayed a billionaire that was also good looking. It wouldn't have had the same effect if it was just a gl guy

Yeah, women are also attracted by humor because it is a signal of good genes(intelligence), I agree money can symbolize a desirable phenotype in the same way. But our brain is still adapted to an ancestral world where we lived primitively, Chad ability to survive and provide for his wife and children far exceeded the one of a small/skinny nerd, particularly in a world where one could not be protected by law enforcement against fighting and stealing. Groupies line up to date a rich man, not because of their intelligence phenotype, but for the reasons I previously mentioned, transferring his wealth to her through manipulation using her sexuality as leverage. I mean foids lined up to be in a "relationship" with anyone who just won the lottery until they ruined him.

The only problem with this theory is that IQ is also associated with high social acuity, and I'm not sure if you know this but men and woman have the same average IQ but different standard deviation, so we have more 115 + that is equalized by the amount we have at 85-. I was trying to get Dr. David Buss on the phone last weekend to talk about this , but he was to busy it seems.

However my theory is that woman seeking resource exploitation wasn't a strategy that evolved across the milenia. It's only in recent time we've had money , so that resources could be passed down multiple generations. The original resource was food and shelter, and this was only procured through a combination of physical prowess and IQ in our hunter-gather phase.

However in this modern world IQ is more reflective of resource gathering , but the female attraction to physical physiques is still a remnant of millenia past where we as Will Durant said :

We are acquisitive, greedy, and pugnacious because our blood remembers millenniums through which our forebears had to chase and fight and kill in order to survive, and had to eat to their gastric capacity for fear they should not soon capture another feast

The adaptive the strategy that gold diggers employ is as new as money, and is therefore not as deeply genetically rooted and therefore not as strong

Yes, I knew about that precision on IQ, I don't see the point of you mentioning it other than plugging you wanting to have a chat with Buss. I guess you caught my attention, do you have some form of a podcast or something of that sort? Would be curious to take a look, otherwise, Buss is a high demand guy and I doubt he will give his time to a random dude.

Resource exploitation was for sure extremely frequent occurrence in ancestral time, it seems quite evident to me, meat was a coveted source of protein acquired by men which women obtained by securing the best hunter as a mate and displayed adaptive mate retention efforts in order to keep plus maximize his investment towards her. I would, therefore, say that gold digging is indeed a deeply genetically rooted behavior. If you supposedly understand evolutionary psychology framework well, you should know that every clearly identified pattern of behaviors in our current society are deeply genetically rooted even though they may not seem intuitive at first glance.
Women should logically go for the nice incel nerd in this day age but they rather fuck the arrogant chad because they are still adapted to an ancestral world even though the traits that lead to the maximization of resource accumulation vastly changed due the abundant environmental changes, being choked turn them on more than seeing their sex partner making calculus while being fucked, this is what we call evolutionary mismatch.

I didn't hash that IQ part out properly. I was saying I don't think resource exploitation evolved because high IQ males would've picked up on it and exploited it in turn. I don't have any blog , but I used to have an affiliate site where i talked about things like biology and philosophy. Long story short I sold about 50-60 of his books through amazon affiliates, so we've exchanged an email or two, but getting him on the phone is proving to be much more difficult

I don't think its IQ alone that makes the alpha personality

Ideal Personality:
High IQ
Low Neuroticism
Slightly Disagreeable
Competitive
Slight Dark Triad


However there's a lot of beta high IQ people, but even they date above their looksmatch

Like this guy from the try guys went to yale

View attachment 9533

and I'd say he's dating about his looksmatch

I'm glad you brought up evolutionary mismatch because I think it refutes your point on gold diggers.

In modern times we can store and accumulate resources like never before.However woman are ill equipped innately to be gold digger because we used to acquire resources on an ongoing basis. Since these resources were perishable, but our genetic wiring has not yet been able to fully switch over to exploit the modern invention of money. To me gold digging is not a genetic phenomenon it's more of a cultural phenomenon.

Girls should be more attracted to dumb trust fund babies, so that they could exploit them for resources

However IRL I see girls much more attracted to ivy league undergrads, med/law school students, and other signals that show competence.

You could make the argument that it's the same genetic wiring that look for competence in terms of resource gathering in the ancestral jungle now looks for already gathered resources in concrete jungle, but I think this argument is a stretch. Since acquired resources doesn't always = competence. There's also a regression to the mean when high IQ people have babies

Gold digging is a manifestation of our biology(psychology) period, like every identifiable pattern of behaviors that is cross-culturally verifiable, it isn't an isolated phenomena that need further causal explications. Honestly, the fuck are you talking about, do you have any scientific perspective, don't use the culture bullshit card, culture is a reflection of our biology in response to the particularities of the environment, everything comes back full circle to our evolved adaptations and therefore can be explained from that framework. I don't want to be rude, but I am not refuting my point with evolutionary mismatch, you just don't make any sense.

If you can show me something where gold digging is a cross cultural phenomenon then I'll say your right, but I still think my point stands that woman are ill equipped to exploit stored up resources, and still use competency as their primary attraction mechanism.

It has to be cultural , or a meme as described by richard dawkins. Money was first used some speculate at 5000 B.C. Yet our genome only changes about 1-2% every 10,000 years. To me girls attraction to competency supersedes any attraction to stored resources

Attraction to Compotency = Hard to Exploit
Attraction to Stored Resources = Easy to Exploit (esp in the context of marriage)

You keep saying that their the same genetic wiring, but the gap between those two modes of being is to large to bridge with a biological explanation alone.

Everyone can understand and relate to an extent with the word gold digger because it is a widespread cross-cultural phenomena, otherwise the expression wouldn't even exist. Money is a more reliable symbol of competency than a girl attempting to scan your level of competency, a low IQ person can't even effectively identify a high IQ person otherwise he would be high IQ himself. Obviously, studying to become a doctor is attractive because it is a symbol of competency (they automatically know you have the grades, disciplined, and have other qualities) but most importantly high future income as well, women were not attracted to excelling gamers with GigaIQ on cognitively demanding games such as Starcraft until they could start making money with it, they were just called nerds/weirdos, plainly disregarded beforehand. Now top gamers that make a lot of money are very attractive to women. If your competency does not lead you to money, that competency does not make you attractive, therefore it is not competency per se that make someone attractive (other than in marginally more attractive) it is the accumulation of wealth and your predictable ability to accumulate wealth in the future with your competency which makes you attractive (like being on his way to obtain a medical doctor diploma).
Since this is a repetitive pattern we can observe in our species, it is therefore quite evident that women are adapted to identify and chose as mate men that make or will make a lot of money (gold diggers) and that money over qualities such as high IQ are the sources of the attraction. This can probably be explained by the fact that a superior and reliable ability to provide has more fitness implications in mate choice than a marginally superior display of intelligence phenotype as a symbol of good genes in ancestral times. Different environments required different skills in order to hunt successfully (we are a nomadic species that conquered all types of different environments), it is, therefore, plausible to think that women who developed as an adaptation a preference in mate choice to look for cues of resources acquisition (the men that came back with the most/largest prey) and compliance to extract those resources from him had an evolutionary advantage over the ones that looked for phenotypical attributes such as high IQ. The extension of that adaptation in a modern environment is gold digging.

I think you made some some really good points esp. the limited ability to discern high IQ @ lower intelligence quotients, and that money the idea of a rich person can be observed by almost anyone. Also that furthermore that woman are more concerned about applied competency then absolute competency in it's own right. There's a fortnite player named myth that didn't lose his virginity until after he got some status and money from gaming

View attachment 9621

First let me umbrella all the concepts I'll discuss as competency itself. Which I think woman evolved as value analysis and value capture algorithms deeply embedded into their biology for the analysis of men, to which men have likewise embedded into their biology an algo for analyzing women. To describe competency I think we must look at it from in a twofold biological analysis. Firstly to survive, this one is easy to get to the age of reproduction alive, and in a heathy enough state to survive and to make enough children. Secondly is to strive, this is to raise so much above the basic requirements of your survival , so that you can be more Fredrick Nietzsche described this as the Ubermenche(While I do think the Ubermenche philosophy has some flaws let's go with it for now).

However while we've discussed intelligence phenotype and how maybe the only widely way it can be observed is status and money. There's also the conscientiousness phenotype that can be observed broadly as well. These two studied by psychology and stated by J. Peterson here only account for 30-50% of success in America. Which leaves 50- 70% of the story unexplained, and that's just measuring success as acquired income.



However, there's also physical competency which the lookist are primarily concerned with which pretty much boils down to face, height, frame.

There's the personality we've been discussing boils down to IQ, Concscitousnnss, and low neuroticism, and this is primarily involved resource gathering. However I like better Heidegger's definition in the The Question Concerning Technology where he describes a bringing forth of nature. Which he describes as a provocation on nature itself to bring forth standing reserve, or useable resources , but this can also be stockpilable resources. However I still believe the personality which does the bringing forth is everything, and the stock pilled resources while still a bonus is superseded by the personality itself.

Then there's a kind of cultural competency which is something like the ability to uplift the souls of the masses through art, literature, play-write, personality, food . This is what I think( I could be wrong) you are least versed in. This is the realm of the existential philosophers whereas I've only seen you quote the essential philosophers that are obsessed with the categorical imperative i.e objectivism vs subjectivism. This is somewhat ties into where you and Crisick argued, but I don't think he had the knowledge base to support his claims.
This is the realms where artist, novelist, actors, chefs, fashionista's , musicians live in. This is the realm that nourishes the human soul. I've met too many starving artist in NYC that slayed despite lacking looks, and bringing forth personality. Let us never forget that humanity majors in college usually have the most sexual partners and and lose their virginity first. I can send the study if interested.

There's also status, but this is a discussion for another day

So where do we stand with these three definitions of male competency which determine male attractiveness. You can clump them all together into one variable called attractiveness. Although looks is the most powerful because it requires the least standard deviation increase to become a slayer. Anyone one of these 3 can make you a slayer, but the other two require more standard deviations. Like Russell Brand's personality only ascended him because it's at least 5 standard deviations above average. Woman work nowadays, so your competency has become more stringent. You must be more hard working, higher IQ, and more mentally resilient than you would have had to been in the 1950's.

I'm glad @Dude420 we had this discussion on this thread in particular

The classic lookist user will discount the other modalities of competence, and only "see" physically attractive people who slay, and the post here talking about how they want to rope

"these three definitions of male competency which determine male attractiveness. You can clump them all together into one variable called attractiveness. Although looks is the most powerful because it requires the least standard deviation increase to become a slayer. Anyone one of these 3 can make you a slayer"

As I told you in my first response (taking as an example an ugly man) status/money can make you "ascend" in attracting a wife but the underlying reality is that it is only a sophisticated form of "exclusive"("" could cuckold in your back) escortcelling, you are not loved for who you are but used as a medium for resources transference. This is not truly "ascending" to me and isn't "slaying" either, you can't just "clump them all together" and say money make you attractive just as looks can make you attractive, this is too simplistic and make you lack critical nuances on how one is treated by women depending on how one score on the different scales (money vs looks). This is to me, the main fundamental identifiable flaw in your argument which generates disagreement between me and you.

Referring to our debate on gold diggers, you want a romantic partner, not a gold digger, us an ugly man you can at best only get the latter, as an extremely good-looking man the first one is accessible without even needing what makes you "attractive" in the ugly man gold digging scenario, aka money.

I never said they're not gold diggers in existence, and I never said woman aren't attracted to gl men

If your dropped jorge into the dating pool, and made him super frugal, and not willing to give up resources. He would still have an average to slightly above average dating life despite him being lacking both looks and personality department.

I don't know why people want to refute this so badly. I'm not saying looks isn't a pillar of attraction, I'm just saying it's not the only pillar of attraction, but people love to be linear reductionist so badly

Don't get me wrong, money does matter to an extent and in fact, it will indeed give you some form of halo effect on your level of attractiveness (but like I said, I have difficulty with that word because different dimensions get cofounded). Looks will always be king though, even if you are rich and manage to secure a good looking wife, looks will affect her behavior towards you and even outside the relationship.

Men's masculinity and attractiveness predict their female partners' reported orgasm frequency and timing
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513811000250
It has been hypothesized that female orgasm evolved to facilitate recruitment of high-quality genes for offspring. Supporting evidence indicates that female orgasm promotes conception, although this may be mediated by the timing of female orgasm in relation to male ejaculation. This hypothesis also predicts that women will achieve orgasm more frequently when copulating with high-quality males, but limited data exist to support this prediction. We therefore explored relationships between the timing and frequency of women's orgasms and putative markers of the genetic quality of their mates, including measures of attractiveness, facial symmetry, dominance, and masculinity. We found that women reported more frequent and earlier-timed orgasms when mated to masculine and dominant men—those with high scores on a principal component characterized by high objectively-measured facial masculinity, observer-rated facial masculinity, partner-rated masculinity, and partner-rated dominance. Women reported more frequent orgasm during or after male ejaculation when mated to attractive men—those with high scores on a principal component characterized by high observer-rated and self-rated attractiveness. Putative measures of men's genetic quality did not predict their mates' orgasms from self-masturbation or from non-coital partnered sexual behavior. Overall, these results appear to support a role for female orgasm in sire choice.

Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2002.1984
Secondary sexual characteristics may indicate quality of the immune system and therefore a preference for masculinity may confer genetic benefits to offspring; however, high masculinity may be associated with costs of decreased paternal investment (EDIT:Chad). The current study examined women's preferences for masculinity in male faces by using computer graphics to allow transformation between feminine and masculine versions of individual male faces. We found that preferences for masculinity are increased when women either have a partner or are considering a short–term relationship. Such preferences are potentially adaptive, serving to: (i) maximize parental investment and cooperation in long–term relationships by biasing choices towards feminine faced males, and (ii) maximize possible good–gene benefits of short–term or extra–pair partners by biasing choices towards masculine faced males. We also found that individuals using oral contraception do not show the above effects, indicating that such hormonal intervention potentially disrupts women's choices for evolutionarily relevant benefits from males.

Male sexual attractiveness predicts differential ovulatory shifts in female extra-pair attraction and male mate retention
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513805000930
Because ancestral women faced trade-offs in choosing mates, they may have evolved to pursue a dual-mating strategy in which they secured investment through one partner and obtained good genes through others. The dual-mating theory predicts that women will display greater interest in extra-pair sex near ovulation, especially if they are mated to a primary male partner who is low in sexual attractiveness. Forty-three normally ovulating women rated their partner's sexual attractiveness and separately reported their own desires and their partner's mate retention behaviors at high and low fertility (confirmed using luteinizing hormone tests). In the high-fertility session relative to the low, women who assessed their partners as being lower in sexual attractiveness reported greater extra-pair desires and more expressed love and attention from their male partners (EDIT: pressure him to be a cuck towards her to reduce her Chad's dick urges). Women's desire for their own partners did not differ significantly between high and low-fertility sessions.

If you are ugly, you are forced to be a cuck towards her or she will leave, and might still cheat on you nevertheless, always actively scanning for the possibility at the most vital phase, ovulation. A bad looking man betabuxxing isn't what I like to call "ascending" or "slaying", it doesn't compare with purely existing as a Chad.

Looks vs Money in a relationship being the tricky part to explain their diverging and mutually exclusive effects. In dating/creating attraction, it is much more straightforward and easily observable that looks have a vastly superior effect than money as several scientific studies show

Spoiler: Studies

http://dating.martinsewell.com/KurzbanWeeden2005a.pdf
"HurryDate events provide strong evidence of the importance of generally agreed-upon mate values as opposed to mate values driven by assortative or other attribute-matching trends, and these generally agreed-upon mate values derive almost exclusively from observable attributes, such as physical attractiveness, BMI, height, age, and race women strongly prefer men who are physically attractive, tall, young, of medium build, and of a similar race. Women’s preferences are not strongly determined by a single trait, but, collectively, their preferences are driven by appearance."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5519305/
"Only the responders’ perception of the targets’ physical attractiveness predicted romantic interest"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26322693/download
"It is remarkable that the strongest predictor of initial attraction in aspeed-dating context was partner’s physical attractiveness, and, most importantly, men and women showed an extremely similar pattern. This finding was highly consistent with the results reported in several other speed-dating studies we mentioned earlier. It seems that women’s attraction feeling is dominated by partners’ physical attractiveness, just as their male counterparts, even though it is possible that when prompted to think about preferences for a potential mate, women would give priority considerations to characteristics like earning potential. women did not care that much about partners’ attachment security and other positive traits, whereas these characteristics did matter to men"

In sum, money is mostly cope for bad looks.

It's a good study and I have no problem with that study, but interjecting with this further confounds the problem.

Around 30% of woman are on the pill , therefore promoting the liking/loving and assortative mating of less masculine faces. For people who have read this thread of mines

https://looksmax.org/threads/facial-psl-ratings-vs-cohesive-psl-ratings.5904/

Know that the ideal masculinity IMHO is a 6-8 as defined by stanines. But aesthetic return on investment has no cap. While I will admit the different modalities of attraction have different pro's and con's. However a lot of things need more explanation like

> If woman are programmed to get the good genes of the masculine men then why do they climax pre male ejaculation. If it were setup to maximize conception female orgasm would happen right after. Like it does with aesthetic men.

I do think it's become harder to be attractive with money. Like i think you need to make north of 250K to really get a significant PSL boost.
Even me being north of 100 K I still don't get as big of a PSL boost as most men would think.

However it still remains the ability to make a lot of money, personality, and looks are desirable, rare and genetic. Which woman's evolutionary psychology which we can think of as a very efficient , but not 100% accurate value analysis algorithm in the production of offspring that can survive and thrive.

I'll add this short note since he had the first and last words; I stop answering because I was fed up arguing with this low IQ guy, but I could dismantle things said in his last post if I wanted to as for the relevancy of ejaculation(read the studies boyo), the pill shit(what about the 70% boyo? It does not nullify everything etc) and more which I still won't further argue here, the main points have been addressed.

Leave you thoughts on this debate!

 

[Sub4Male]

Lol @ people who voted before reading

If by some miracle you win

It proves more that people hate me here then your right .

People are linear reductionist and think they’re life will just be cloud 9 if they were PSL 6+, but let’s see the result

I’ll bet you any amount of money Dr. Buss would be on my side , or the Harvard professor Matthew Lieberman

 

[Dude420]

Lol @ people who voted before reading

If by some miracle you win

It proves more that people hate me here then your right .

People are linear reductionist and think they’re life will just be cloud 9 if they were PSL 6+, but let’s see the result

I’ll bet you any amount of money Dr. Buss would be on my side , or the Harvard professor Matthew Lieberman

I has been over 30 minutes boyo. You seem insecure.

 

[Deleted member 283]

Lol @ people who voted before reading

If by some miracle you win

It proves more that people hate me here then your right .

People are linear reductionist and think they’re life will just be cloud 9 if they were PSL 6+, but let’s see the result

I’ll bet you any amount of money Dr. Buss would be on my side , or the Harvard professor Matthew Lieberman

R u a liberal

 

[Sub4Male]

I has been over 30 minutes boyo. You seem insecure.

If the focus was objectivity and a honesty poll you would’ve removed the names, and adjusted the title . Lol do you eve know what a double blind a study is ? Mr. 100 studies

Jfl I tried to be nice to this guy before I left , but now you will not only know deeply I mogged you in debate but you’ll know my other assertions were also true

Namely your average looking
@Nibba mogs you to hell
You’re personality is deeply flawed , and psychological intervention is not only desirables , but much needed for you to move forward in the world

I’ll pray for you my friend

 

[Dude420]

If the focus was objectivity and a honesty poll you would’ve removed the names, and adjusted the title . Lol do you eve know what a double blind a study is ? Mr. 100 studies

Jfl I tried to be nice to this guy before I left , but now you will not only know deeply I mogged you in debate but you’ll know my other assertions were also true

Namely your average looking
@Nibba mogs you to hell
You’re personality is deeply flawed , and psychological intervention is not only desirables , but much needed for you to move forward in the world

I’ll pray for you my friend

Unless you spend something like well over 3000 hours studying mainly psychotherapy but other related fields like positive psychology, I wouldn't dare to speak about who need psychological intervention between both us, your narcissistic personality disorder is quite obviously apparent to nearly everyone but yourself, as well as your defense mechanisms to protect your narcissistic self like your pitiful personal attacks you are trying to through at me in a desperate attempt to save face. Get banned again please.

 

[dogtown]

If the focus was objectivity and a honesty poll you would’ve removed the names, and adjusted the title . Lol do you eve know what a double blind a study is ? Mr. 100 studies

Jfl I tried to be nice to this guy before I left , but now you will not only know deeply I mogged you in debate but you’ll know my other assertions were also true

Namely your average looking
@Nibba mogs you to hell
You’re personality is deeply flawed , and psychological intervention is not only desirables , but much needed for you to move forward in the world

I’ll pray for you my friend

daily reminders

>your a fagot
>your average iq at best

 

[quinn24]

tldr

 

[shimada]

Also I'd give the edge to BB just for being contraversial with most of his theories.

Some of his ideas were too situational to matter but his insight into some details were impressive tbh

 

[dodt]

If a person does not differentiate sexual attraction and general attraction it is over for him tbh ngl

 

[Sub4Male]

daily reminders

>your a fagot
>your average iq at best

You’re

If a person does not differentiate sexual attraction and general attraction it is over for him tbh ngl

I had defined attraction = genetic desirability = sexual attraction

Unless you spend something like well over 3000 hours studying mainly psychotherapy but other related fields like positive psychology, I wouldn't dare to speak about who need psychological intervention between both us, your narcissistic personality disorder is quite obviously apparent to nearly everyone but yourself, as well as your defense mechanisms to protect your narcissistic self like your pitiful personal attacks you are trying to through at me in a desperate attempt to save face. Get banned again please.

- try’s to save face
- ad hominem attack
- doesn’t address how he setup the poll in a way that favors himself

When you get angry you start spelling a lot of words wrong . First you said you IQ mug me instead of mog me and in this one you say I’m trying to thorough attacks at you instead of throw . Please take deep breaths my friend and lower your blood pressure

 

[Nibba]

Namely your average looking
@Nibba mogs you to hell

Ah yeah man his user title or whatever is an inside joke from the beginning of the site lol

 

[Dude420]

Ah yeah man his user title or whatever is an inside joke from the beginning of the site lol

Easy to attack the other person's looks and attitude about it, when one's event reveal his own face.

You’re

I had defined attraction = genetic desirability = sexual attraction

- try’s to save face
- ad hominem attack
- doesn’t address how he setup the poll in a way that favors himself

When you get angry you start spelling a lot of words wrong . First you said you IQ mug me instead of mog me and in this one you say I’m trying to thorough attacks at you instead of throw . Please take deep breaths my friend and lower your blood pressure

People would have asked who said what if I removed the names, and people would find it because that thread still exists.
Either people are objectively voting for me, other might be biased against you because your narcissistic personality makes you dislikable (probably would have still voted for me if unbiased), both cases prove one of my points so I don’t care. If we had a face to face debate people would factor the credibility, that is the usual reality. Anyway if you sabotage your own credibility it is outside of my control, maybe that is a lesson you could learn instead of being bitter again and searching for a way to accuse me not compensating for it. jfl.

 

[dodt]

I had defined attraction = genetic desirability = sexual attraction

You are equiating any attraction and sexual attraction through genetic desirability. But genetic desirability can have different basis, we desire different things and satisfy corresponding needs in different manner and through different sources. Sources of sexual attraction and the desire for resources can both be genetic but are different things. Not everything that falls under one class according to some attribute is the same.

 

[Swagwaffle]

I think @androidcel won tbh

 

[androidcel]

I think @androidcel won tbh

Thanks,i knew that i was smart

 

[Deleted member 439]

" I was trying to get Dr. David Buss on the phone last weekend to talk about this , but he was to busy it seems."

I am caging thinking of beautifulbones calling Dr. David Buss to win a looksmax debate

 

[SendMePicsToRate]

" I was trying to get Dr. David Buss on the phone last weekend to talk about this , but he was to busy it seems."

I am caging thinking of beautifulbones calling Dr. David Buss to win a looksmax debate

Ngl holy necropost tbh

However it honestly seems like something the dude would do in reality jfc