Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Memento Mori" data-source="post: 62497" data-attributes="member: 1">An addendum -Some incels (in the colloquial) like to make the anecdote where Chad can be a barely-functioning retarded brick socially and still be successful with women — therefore anything relating to the social domain is negligible.While that may be true, &#039;Chad&#039; is top percentile and a statistical outlier — his experiences are irrelevant to the vast majority of people. It&#039;s kind of like comparing yourself to individuals on the extreme ends of intelligence or in the top 1% of wealth — tremendously advantageous qualities which one would have been incredibly lucky to have won the dice roll of life in, but it&#039;s not something people pathologically obsess over.Looks is still the primary mode of attraction and the means through which one first gauges whether a person is attractive or not to them. There is something of a &#039;looks threshold&#039; which exists for both men and women and varies from individual to individual which is essentially binary in option, where &#039;YES&#039; means passing a particular person&#039;s looks threshold and the subject in question&#039;s appearance is acceptable enough for that person not to completely reject them and &#039;NO&#039; for vice-versa.But this is only the first hurdle. Because facial attractiveness clusters around the mean, unless you have top-percentile looks (and even then they won&#039;t act as a master key if one is deficient in other areas, for example), more factors will come into play regarding long-term attractiveness, and attraction in the later stages becomes something that is more multi-faceted and less unitary.Obviously if you don&#039;t pass the looks threshold on a broad scale and you have nothing else to compensate with, it&#039;s an uphill battle and it&#039;d be something which leads to chronic singleness.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Memento Mori, post: 62497, member: 1"] An addendum - Some incels (in the colloquial) like to make the anecdote where Chad can be a barely-functioning retarded brick socially and still be successful with women — therefore anything relating to the social domain is negligible. While that may be true, 'Chad' is top percentile and a statistical outlier — his experiences are irrelevant to the vast majority of people. It's kind of like comparing yourself to individuals on the extreme ends of intelligence or in the top 1% of wealth — tremendously advantageous qualities which one would have been incredibly lucky to have won the dice roll of life in, but it's not something people pathologically obsess over. Looks is still the primary mode of attraction and the means through which one first gauges whether a person is attractive or not to them. There is something of a 'looks threshold' which exists for both men and women and varies from individual to individual which is essentially binary in option, where 'YES' means passing a particular person's looks threshold and the subject in question's appearance is acceptable enough for that person not to completely reject them and 'NO' for vice-versa. But this is only the first hurdle. Because facial attractiveness clusters around the mean, unless you have top-percentile looks (and even then they won't act as a master key if one is deficient in other areas, for example), more factors will come into play regarding long-term attractiveness, and attraction in the later stages becomes something that is more multi-faceted and less unitary. Obviously if you don't pass the looks threshold on a broad scale and you have nothing else to compensate with, it's an uphill battle and it'd be something which leads to chronic singleness. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread