Why i think genetics come in bundles, and women have better harmony

[Deleted member 20397]

Travelling this summer i noticed how,in terms of height, the average is 5'10 but it is not as common as you think to find 5'10 people, that means that the distribution of height might have heavy tails for men. That seems to be the refrain of most male charateristics, therefore if we assume all these genetical "events", are indipendent that means there is higher probability to find genetically gifted men and conversely trash genetics men, that leads to the conclusion that often good genetics come in bundle. Unfortunately these events are not indipendent since attractive people tend to mate with attractive people, and that leads to even a bigger disparity. That explains, in cinjunction with other things how it is harder to find actual stacies(no makeup frauds) than to find chads despite the higher diamorphic requirement for males since the deviation from a childs face to a male face is bigger than that of a woman. Women have better harmony too overall because the smaller the deviation the less chance you have to fuck up a face since the development is shorter.
That is in line with how the universal system works, everything tends to a state of neutrality so the higher the highs the lower the lows, despite women having a higher baseline overall, men will always be the slave workforce or the leaders.
Altought the first assumption about height may be anecdotal so there is some uncertainty about what i said.

 

[Mongrelcel]

you're onto something tbh, most male kids look like they would continue developing into a chad (or a good looking guy), but there are way less chads than kids who seem to have the potential

 

[Gandy]

you're onto something tbh, most male kids look like they would continue developing into a chad (or a good looking guy), but there are way less chads than kids who seem to have the potential

The Pareto principle is a 20%/80% distribution
(cause-effect).

Sturgeon's law is 10% / 90%.
("90% of everything is garbage")

Tinder has shown us it's 1% / 99% when it comes to male attractiveness
(attractive, vs. unattractive males)

Most men are nothing but potential 'betabux' and walking ATM's for women.
Very, very few men are so attractive a woman would be attracted to him purely based on physical specs, or be willing to have a one night stand with him.

Nearly any man in existence can get a relationship or marriage with enough money.

But the amount of men that women feel genuine sexual attraction towards are very few.

 

[Deleted member 14693]

the average is 5'10 but it is not as common as you think to find 5'10 people

Not true, im 5'11 and most people are 1 inch or less around my height

 

[Deleted member 16220]

Genetics don't come in "bundles" or "harmony". The real answer is that the genetic polymorphisms and proper development that cause one to have good craniofacial development usually develop the entirety of the skull properly. If one has good maxilla and mandible development you would assume the orbitals and eye area would have went into it's proper place as well. So when you look at a good looking face the entire thing is proper not just the jaw or mandible, but the eye area as well. And as for height and health, it's mainly IGF1, MTOR and other growth factors based on diet that cause one to be large in size and you would assume this would go systemic, and those with heightened growth factors likely have a bigger dick as well logically. That's the real answer.

 

[Aesthetics_III]

The Pareto principle is a 20%/80% distribution
(cause-effect).

Sturgeon's law is 10% / 90%.
("90% of everything is garbage")

Tinder has shown us it's 1% / 99% when it comes to male attractiveness
(attractive, vs. unattractive males)

View attachment 1843627

Most men are nothing but potential 'betabux' and walking ATM's for women.
Very, very few men are so attractive a woman would be attracted to him purely based on physical specs, or be willing to have a one night stand with him.

Nearly any man in existence can get a relationship or marriage with enough money.

But the amount of men that women feel genuine sexual attraction towards are very few.

fisherian runaway blackpill holy shit. When beauty is the primary factor in determining a womens choice of partner, they select extremely strongly for beauty. it never began for 99% of men

 

[Deleted member 20397]

@Jacob Hate i agree with you on the first part about the face, on the second part i understand you argoument about the incidence of enviromental factors and hormonal on height etc, but i was talking more about potential genetics than actualized product, i understand things such as hormones and orthotropics have an effect but they are not linear in relation to favorable traits, if they were everybody could be artificially made good looking by working with hormones and enviroment. Surely a diamorphic face comes with good test and slightly better height,but the "systemic effect" as you said is marginal. I am taking specifically about gentic code

 

[Deleted member 20397]

Very, very few men are so attractive a woman would be attracted to him purely based on physical specs, or be willing to have a one night stand with him.

Nearly any man in existence can get a relationship or marriage with enough money.

But the amount of men that women feel genuine sexual attraction towards are very few.

Women select primarly for looks yes, but if any men in existence can get a marriage with enough money does sexual attraction really mean anything in terms of passing your genes? Certainly successful men have reediming qualities other than looks(assuming they are average in them)(such as iq etc), if those men filter sexual partners by looks doesn't that make the genetic bundle argument even stronger? I don't really understand your dating point, chads get more pussy yes, chads are more likely to pass on their genes yes, but most of them can't sustain multiple partners, so there has to be another metric other then looks for the remaining % of women. By bundle I don't mean only looks, the genetic pool of looks that carry you into passing your genes by themselves is very limited, and real hypergamy is not the norm despite being popular in sexual contexts that don't have any ripercussion on the future gentic pool(such as casual sex and tinder)

 

[Gandy]

but if any men in existence can get a marriage with enough money does sexual attraction really mean anything in terms of passing your genes?

Nope, that's why the world is full of inbreds, ugly people, people with autism, disabilities etc.

Anyone can breed or have a child (if their ovaries/sperm are functional)

Is the point of your life simply having a child and passing on genes? If so, the only thing that matters in life is money. A 90 year old balding ugly billionaire can buy a supermodel 20 year old.

If it's to have women genuinely attracted to you, then most men are never, ever going to experience that.

There is no right or wrong way to feel happy. I also don't claim being 'chad' and having thousands of women attracted to you is the only way to feel happiness.
For me, happiness can't come just from marrying any random woman then spawning an offspring with her.

 

[Deleted member 20397]

@Gandy fair point but i was talking strictly about genetics, i agree with mostly everything you said just not in this context

 

[litaz]

Genetics don't come in "bundles" or "harmony". The real answer is that the genetic polymorphisms and proper development that cause one to have good craniofacial development usually develop the entirety of the skull properly. If one has good maxilla and mandible development you would assume the orbitals and eye area would have went into it's proper place as well. So when you look at a good looking face the entire thing is proper not just the jaw or mandible, but the eye area as well. And as for height and health, it's mainly IGF1, MTOR and other growth factors based on diet that cause one to be large in size and you would assume this would go systemic, and those with heightened growth factors likely have a bigger dick as well logically. That's the real answer.

You can still be a manlet with a big dick it’s just genetics but yes harmony means the bones in the face and ratios are all close to perfect with proper development

 

[mvp2v1]

Travelling this summer i noticed how,in terms of height, the average is 5'10 but it is not as common as you think to find 5'10 people, that means that the distribution of height might have heavy tails for men. That seems to be the refrain of most male charateristics, therefore if we assume all these genetical "events", are indipendent that means there is higher probability to find genetically gifted men and conversely trash genetics men, that leads to the conclusion that often good genetics come in bundle. Unfortunately these events are not indipendent since attractive people tend to mate with attractive people, and that leads to even a bigger disparity. That explains, in cinjunction with other things how it is harder to find actual stacies(no makeup frauds) than to find chads despite the higher diamorphic requirement for males since the deviation from a childs face to a male face is bigger than that of a woman. Women have better harmony too overall because the smaller the deviation the less chance you have to fuck up a face since the development is shorter.
That is in line with how the universal system works, everything tends to a state of neutrality so the higher the highs the lower the lows, despite women having a higher baseline overall, men will always be the slave workforce or the leaders.
Altought the first assumption about height may be anecdotal so there is some uncertainty about what i said.

This bundle idea of yours suggests more to me that there is some underlying pathology of sorts which impacts growth and development. Especially since all these thing u are thinking of when it comes to genetics can be traced back to singular variables or a group of Variables all impacted by singular other variables such as… sleep. What what impacts sleep? Jaws…. Cranio facial dystrophy is what I’m sort of suggesting is behind this bundle phenomenon.

 

[Deleted member 15302]

Genetics don't come in "bundles" or "harmony". The real answer is that the genetic polymorphisms and proper development that cause one to have good craniofacial development usually develop the entirety of the skull properly. If one has good maxilla and mandible development you would assume the orbitals and eye area would have went into it's proper place as well. So when you look at a good looking face the entire thing is proper not just the jaw or mandible, but the eye area as well. And as for height and health, it's mainly IGF1, MTOR and other growth factors based on diet that cause one to be large in size and you would assume this would go systemic, and those with heightened growth factors likely have a bigger dick as well logically. That's the real answer.

height has no effect on dick