Looks = Power: 5 Reasons You Probably Underestimate Its Value

[DreamAgain]

 

[Plinco]

Psychological deterministic bs

 

[kleathe1]

So basically according to this video you are stuck with what you were born with in the looks department. Logically you could deduce that if you want a pretty girl, you should be in the best physical condition you can muster (eating healthy, working out, sleeping well, I suppose you could do plastic surgery), photoshop your dating profile pictures(do people do this?), and last but not least, $$$ pay this guy to tell you how to look better. Did I miss anything? Pardon my cynicism, but it sure feels like a weak sales pitch.

 

[zekko]

I can't think of a time when I've underestimated the value of looks.

I've never even used OLD, but I don't understand the concept of photoshopping dating profile pics. Maybe if it's just to fix a bad pic. But if you look better in your pictures than in real life, she's going to notice that and be disappointed. I guess some people just want to get that swing at bat.

 

[CornbreadFed]

but mouth piece mane

 

[Mertz09]

I can't think of a time when I've underestimated the value of looks.

I've never even used OLD, but I don't understand the concept of photoshopping dating profile pics. Maybe if it's just to fix a bad pic. But if you look better in your pictures than in real life, she's going to notice that and be disappointed. I guess some people just want to get that swing at bat.

"photoshop your dating profile pictures(do people do this?)," Women do this all the time on the apps. I think it is called "a filtered" picture.
And you are correct, they don't look the same when you meet them in person. I suppose that they do it on Instagram also.

 

[zekko]

"photoshop your dating profile pictures(do people do this?)," Women do this all the time on the apps. I think it is called "a filtered" picture.
And you are correct, they don't look the same when you meet them in person. I suppose that they do it on Instagram also.

Women are a little different though, because they can vary their appearance by wider degrees depending on how they do their hair, makeup, and dress. I've definitely seen pictures of women though, and thought "wow", but then when I saw her in person it was a different story - and not in a good way.

 

[Mertz09]

Women are a little different though, because they can vary their appearance by wider degrees depending on how they do their hair, makeup, and dress. I've definitely seen pictures of women though, and thought "wow", but then when I saw her in person it was a different story - and not in a good way.

That is exactly what I am talking about. And you want to say "OBW, the pic you sent looks like you about 10 years ago." LOL

 

[FlexpertHamilton]

Look up physiognamy. It's controversial but I think it has real merit.

Everyone pretends that they judge people off their actions/character and looks aren't involved but this is pure BS. People judge our actions based on our appearance. If a handsome guy is quiet he's just shy, but if he's ugly he's a serial killer/creep.

Psychological deterministic bs

Determinism is based though

 

[Plinco]

Determinism is based though

Everything is determined except for the human consciousness; to think or not think, to focus or not focus. Everything else is a casual chain reaction.

 

[Hamurabimbi]

I can't think of a time when I've underestimated the value of looks.

I've never even used OLD, but I don't understand the concept of photoshopping dating profile pics. Maybe if it's just to fix a bad pic. But if you look better in your pictures than in real life, she's going to notice that and be disappointed. I guess some people just want to get that swing at bat.

When I was on Tinder. Girls sometimes asked to Facetime me before our meetup.

 

[Hamurabimbi]

Attractive & unattractive people know the value of looks. Average looking people underestimate the value.

 

[Mertz09]

Yes Whiny is a turn off!!!

 

[CornbreadFed]

Attractive & unattractive people know the value of looks. Average looking people underestimate the value.

Average men probably have it the hardest too

 

[Mike32ct]

There are some good looking people who deny that their looks do most of the heavy lifting for them in terms of generating attraction. They might claim it’s more due to their personality, game, social skills, intelligence, etc.

 

[DreamAgain]

There are some good looking people who deny that their looks do most of the heavy lifting for them in terms of generating attraction. They might claim it’s more due to their personality, game, social skills, intelligence, etc.

Most of the guys who "self-improved" from incels to "slayers" did the customary +1 point boost by maxing out everything else they can. It is almost impossible to level up more than this. They already had the baseline attributes to do well with women, but just had to fix some easily correctible things, like getting in shape, or modestly improving their financial situations.

I suppose significant plastic surgery could help even more but, at least among men, it is still taboo, aside from hair transplants or steroids.

 

[Hamurabimbi]

There are some good looking people who deny that their looks do most of the heavy lifting for them in terms of generating attraction. They might claim it’s more due to their personality, game, social skills, intelligence, etc.

yes. It’s astonishing.

 

[Mike32ct]

Most of the guys who "self-improved" from incels to "slayers" did the customary +1 point boost by maxing out everything else they can. It is almost impossible to level up more than this. They already had the baseline attributes to do well with women, but just had to fix some easily correctible things, like getting in shape, or modestly improving their financial situations.

I suppose significant plastic surgery could help even more but, at least among men, it is still taboo, aside from hair transplants or steroids.

I agree completely. A one point boost is a realistic looksmax maximum for most people without surgery.

 

[FlexpertHamilton]

There are some good looking people who deny that their looks do most of the heavy lifting for them in terms of generating attraction. They might claim it’s more due to their personality, game, social skills, intelligence, etc.

It's the same as successful people claiming they were succesful due to "hard work" not natural talent/aptitude/intelligence.

Most people refuse to acknowledge their innate advantages. There is a bias here I forgot the name of. We attribute our successes to internal causes and failures to external causes (while 3rd parties do the opposite when observing someone else)

Everything is determined except for the human consciousness; to think or not think, to focus or not focus. Everything else is a casual chain reaction.

Our thoughts are not something we generate; consciousness is just sort of "there". That's why you wake up in the middle of the night with an idea; your brain was "thinking" whether or not you were consciously involved. It works like this: we have a thought then become aware of the thought, and mistakenly assume that we thought the thought. But to say we think our thoughts is to say we thought the thought before thinking it which is just an absurd notion.

Try this: think of a country, any country, and pick one. What did you pick and why? That wasn't your choice. The countries that came to mind are based on your life experiences + random brain activity you aren't remotely aware of. Thoughts and consciousness/selfhood is not a seperate process from anything else. There are no original "processes" that don't have prior causes. You could even say that humans are a continuation of the Big Bang, as is every other event and process. Only counter argument here is that the Universe itself seems to have started spontaneously, in fact every event seems to occur spontaneously and we only attribute a prior cause to it after the fact (in other words, the past is a result of the present, not the other way around). So is it all all determined or all spontaneous, or both?

 

[Plinco]

Our thoughts are not something we generate; consciousness is just sort of "there". That's why you wake up in the middle of the night with an idea; your brain was "thinking" whether or not you were consciously involved. It works like this: we have a thought then become aware of the thought, and mistakenly assume that we thought the thought. But to say we think our thoughts is to say we thought the thought before thinking it which is just an absurd notion.

Thinking doesn't require consciousness; self-direction does. Look up the concept of ego depletion. Try this experiment: You and someone else both read a book, focus on reading and nothing else. How long did you focus? How long did the other person focus without getting distracted? One person has more free will than the other.