New looksmaxing metastrategy (stay out of the negative)

axedee

axedee

Spreading dickpill like the plague
Joined
Jan 18, 2019
Posts
462
Reputation
708
Bad features are far more impactful than good features and fixing them should be your utmost priority over enhancing regular/good features.
The reason for this is the way the human brain works

This is rooted deep in our brain and stem from the Prospect theory
Prospect theory is a theory in cognitive psychology that describes the way people choose between probabilistic alternatives that involve risk, where the probabilities of outcomes are uncertain. The theory states that people make decisions based on the potential value of losses and gains rather than the final outcome, and that people evaluate these losses and gains using some heuristics. The model is descriptive: it tries to model real-life choices, rather than optimal decisions, as normative models do. The theory was created in 1979 and developed in 1992 by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky as a psychologically more accurate description of decision making, compared to the expected utility theory. In the original formulation, the term prospect referred to a lottery. The paper "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk" (1979) has been called a "seminal paper in behavioral economics".[1]
Valuefun.jpg

This bring us to the negativity bias
The negativity bias,[1] also known as the negativity effect, is the notion that, even when of equal intensity, things of a more negative nature (e.g. unpleasant thoughts, emotions, or social interactions; harmful/traumatic events) have a greater effect on one's psychological state and processes than neutral or positive things.[2][3][4] In other words, something very positive will generally have less of an impact on a person's behavior and cognition than something equally emotional but negative. The negativity bias has been investigated within many different domains, including the formation of impressions and general evaluations; attention, learning, and memory; and decision-making and risk considerations.

Explanations[edit]
Paul Rozin and Edward Royzman proposed four elements of the negativity bias in order to explain its manifestation: negative potency, steeper negative gradients, negativity dominance, and negative differentiation.[4]

Negative potency refers to the notion that, while possibly of equal magnitude or emotionality, negative and positive items/events/etc. are not equally salient. Rozin and Royzman note that this characteristic of the negativity bias is only empirically demonstrable in situations with inherent measurability, such as comparing how positively or negatively a change in temperature is interpreted.

With respect to positive and negative gradients, it appears to be the case that negative events are thought to be perceived as increasingly more negative than positive events are increasingly positive the closer one gets (spatially or temporally) to the affective event itself. In other words, there is a steeper negative gradient than positive gradient. For example, the negative experience of an impending dental surgery is perceived as increasingly more negative the closer one gets to the date of surgery than the positive experience of an impending party is perceived as increasingly more positive the closer one gets to the date of celebration (assuming for the sake of this example that these events are equally positive and negative). Rozin and Royzman argue that this characteristic is distinct from that of negative potency because there appears to be evidence of steeper negative slopes relative to positive slopes even when potency itself is low.

Negativity dominance describes the tendency for the combination of positive and negative items/events/etc. to skew towards an overall more negative interpretation than would be suggested by the summation of the individual positive and negative components. Phrasing in more Gestalt-friendly terms, the whole is more negative than the sum of its parts.

Negative differentiation is consistent with evidence suggesting that the conceptualization of negativity is more elaborate and complex than that of positivity. For instance, research indicates that negative vocabulary is more richly descriptive of the affective experience than that of positive vocabulary.[5] Furthermore, there appear to be more terms employed to indicate negative emotions than positive emotions.[6][7] The notion of negative differentiation is consistent with the mobilization-minimization hypothesis,[8] which posits that negative events, as a consequence of this complexity, require a greater mobilization of cognitive resources to deal with the affective experience and a greater effort to minimize the consequences.

Evidence[edit]
Social judgments and impression formation[edit]
Most of the early evidence suggesting a negativity bias stems from research on social judgments and impression formation, in which it became clear that negative information was typically more heavily weighted when participants were tasked with forming comprehensive evaluations and impressions of other target individuals.[9][10] Generally speaking, when people are presented with a range of trait information about a target individual, the traits are neither "averaged" nor "summed" to reach a final impression.[11] When these traits differ in terms of their positivity and negativity, negative traits disproportionately impact the final impression.[12][13][14][15][16] This is specifically in line with the notion of negativity dominance[4] (see "Explanations" above).

As an example, a famous study by Leon Festinger and colleagues investigated critical factors in predicting friendship formation; the researchers concluded that whether or not people became friends was most strongly predicted by their proximity to one another.[17] Ebbesen, Kjos, and Konecni, however, demonstrated that proximity itself does not predict friendship formation; rather, proximity serves to amplify the information that is relevant to the decision of either forming or not forming a friendship.[18] Negative information is just as amplified as positive information by proximity. As negative information tends to outweigh positive information, proximity may predict a failure to form friendships even more so than successful friendship formation.[2]

One explanation that has been put forth as to why such a negativity bias is demonstrated in social judgments is that people may generally consider negative information to be more diagnostic of an individual's character than positive information, that it is more useful than positive information in forming an overall impression.[19] This is supported by indications of higher confidence in the accuracy of one's formed impression when it was formed more on the basis of negative traits than positive traits.[2][14] People consider negative information to be more important to impression formation and, when it is available to them, they are subsequently more confident.

An oft-cited paradox,[20][21] a dishonest person can sometimes act honestly while still being considered to be predominantly dishonest; on the other hand, an honest person who sometimes does dishonest things will likely be reclassified as a dishonest person. It is expected that a dishonest person will occasionally be honest, but this honesty will not counteract the prior demonstrations of dishonesty. Honesty is considered more easily tarnished by acts of dishonesty. Honesty itself would then be not diagnostic of an honest nature, only the absence of dishonesty.

The presumption that negative information has greater diagnostic accuracy is also evident in voting patterns. Voting behaviors have been shown to be more affected or motivated by negative information than positive: people tend to be more motivated to vote against a candidate because of negative information than they are to vote for a candidate because of positive information.[22][23] As noted by researcher Jill Klein, "character weaknesses were more important than strengths in determining...the ultimate vote".[23]

This diagnostic preference for negative traits over positive traits is thought to be a consequence of behavioral expectations: there is a general expectation that, owing to social requirements and regulations, people will generally behave positively and exhibit positive traits. Contrastingly, negative behaviors/traits are more unexpected and, thus, more salient when they are exhibited.[1][2][10][19][24] The relatively greater salience of negative events or information means they ultimately play a greater role in the judgment process.


TLDR or too low IQ:

The negative bias affects everything in life including LOOKS
When looking at faces the brain focus on finding flaws first before it move on to find positives therefore flaws have priority over positive features
so in reality all it takes is one horrible feature to completely destroy you to the moon and back



This picture is a good example of this look how one feature (hair) going in the negative affects him and completely ruins his character
qparzcu-jpg.78639



Being skinnyfat or high fat % will impact (In an negative way) your character in such a way that shrded god tier physics could ever do
Take @FatmanO literally the only thing he's doing is gymcelling and look how taking himself out of the negative impacted his looks
he still don't look like he lift and getting a shreded body wont do much for him anymore, it will never be as impactful as taking himself out of skinnyfat category
for this reason he should put most of his efforts now into fixing his weakest points and not gymceling since that is not his weakest point anymore, I am not saying he should stop gymceling but he should not have it as his priority anymore.
35116



Have overall regular features will always be better than good features with 1 flaw
that one flaw is your death


Make your flaws your number one priority to fix.
 
  • +1
  • Love it
Reactions: fendER, Alexanderr, GrewWrong and 24 others
I swear to God,I didn't understand anything from this post
 
  • +1
Reactions: RichardSpencel, HorseFace and Deleted member 656
you are as gling as your worst feature

you are as gling as your worst angle
 
  • +1
Reactions: RichardSpencel, GenericChad1444, axedee and 2 others
I swear to God,I didn't understand anything from this post
Prioritize on fixing your flaws and your deformities over improving regular/good features
 
  • +1
Reactions: Steve bachall
Fatman went from dying cancer patient to slovenian Johnny Bravo
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: rockndogs, fendER, Alexanderr and 14 others
Good job mate, some fuckers here think that getting some muscle will fix being bald, or that any random shit will make up for their crooked nose.
I didn't know how FatMan looked before, but he really changed tho. He went from legit Incel to random dude. He ascended much more than the average user here does. Fixing negatives (Being fat, bald...) Is much better than any other random shit you try to do.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Extra Chromosome, dodt, GenericChad1444 and 2 others
I swear to God,I didn't understand anything from this post
What he's saying is if you have one flaw IT'S OVER BUDDYBOYO
 
  • +1
Reactions: GenericChad1444, kobecel and axedee
this is the asension I want tbh Im not asking for much
Yeah man, most people here think they can get to chad level. For me, getting from below average to a little bit above would be much more than enough. No need to aim for the stars if you can barely reach the clouds.
 
  • +1
Reactions: sorrowfulsad
Legit post.

I should add that men and women are different in how they rate each other.

Men look for turn-ons. Women look for turn-offs. If a girl is ugly but has a nice ass and tits dudes will still wanna fuck her. Not the case with ugly gymcelled guys. So if you're a guy, focus on fixing failos.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Aryan, Extra Chromosome, Deleted member 470 and 3 others
Make your flaws your number one priority to fix.
Very good post that's why I'm prioritizing my hairline (I'm Norwood 2) over gymcelling by not taking roids no matter how slow the gains are.
Legit post.

I should add that men and women are different in how they rate each other.

Men look for turn-ons. Women look for turn-offs. If a girl is ugly but has a nice ass and tits dudes will still wanna fuck her. Not the case with ugly gymcelled guys. So if you're a guy, focus on fixing failos.
Goddam I never looked at it that way. I'm reading this on the train sitting across from a chubby foid with a cute face I'd fuck. Meanwhile her looksmatch is postmaxxing on incel forums.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: dodt and Deleted member 245
I agree fixing flaws is more important but if you can do both at the same time then do both
 
So if I do this scale of failos would you agree?
Skin>Hair>Eye area>jaw and chin>Height>Frame>Ears>Nose>Mouth
Except for the two first I'm not sure
 
So if I do this scale of failos would you agree?
Skin>Hair>Eye area>jaw and chin>Height>Frame>Ears>Nose>Mouth
Except for the two first I'm not sure
skin is definitely not more important than hair, eye area or jaw unless it's legit awful

take arcbrah for example, he has good features and awful skin and still slays
 
  • +1
Reactions: androidcel
When i see a chico morph about his hair something is alway wrong.
He has a "tall" haircut, and people switch all of tuft of hair with head; so he looks like having a overlong head lol.
I see people with NO HAIR, having a goode eye area and still slayer.

Anyway i agree, even if everybody has flaws, just fix the most important ones.
 
skin is definitely not more important than hair, eye area or jaw unless it's legit awful

take arcbrah for example, he has good features and awful skin and still slays
If you have cystic acne it's over
 
Very legit theory tbh. Bottleneck theory. Just have all above average features.
 
  • +1
Reactions: LowTierNormie and androidcel
Very legit theory tbh. Bottleneck theory. Just have all above average features.
For real, even having everything average is decent enough to get laid. Just fix your big problems first, and then focus on the smallest shit you can think about. It's simple
 
So if I do this scale of failos would you agree?
Skin>Hair>Eye area>jaw and chin>Height>Frame>Ears>Nose>Mouth
Except for the two first I'm not sure
Where does philtrum go?
 
my entire face is a flaw
 
Thanks for the reminder. Chico s pic is fucking brutal tbh b h
 
It’s over born chadlite at least or death
 
This is true to the core man. My life ended when I got bad acne. I can't do shit fuck all until I get rid of this shit. No amount of stylemaxxing/gymceling has been able to overcome this flaw. It makes me so mad. But don't blame anybody for being disgusted with me. I'm mad at myself. Can't even look at myself when I wake up I make sure not to open bathroom light.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 245
So if I do this scale of failos would you agree?
Skin>Hair>Eye area>jaw and chin>Height>Frame>Ears>Nose>Mouth
Except for the two first I'm not sure
Eye area should be first and mouth area second, then hair and skin and the rest. It’s crazy how underrated mouth area is, also the features that move in motion are most important aka eye area and mouth which is what people focus on when you talk to them
 
fixing flaws is literally what looksmaxxing is boyo.. people who get slayer surgeries before they fix deformities are literally subhuman IQ
 
  • +1
Reactions: Extra Chromosome
Thanks for the post about cognitive bias. Do you happen to know books about the matter?
 
Fucking caged at norwooding chico,from Angel to UTTER DOG.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Extra Chromosome
My worst feature is definitelly my acne and skinniness thankfuolly bpth of those can be fixed
 
Good point OP, thanks
 
I would have to agree with you that fixing a flaw to average is in most cases better than fixing an average feature to great, while ignoring the flaw.

However, there will be some cases where the flaw is so impractical to fix that bringing an average feature to great will still yield a benefit, even though the flaw is still present.

For example, if you have minor NCT or minor eye lid exposure but simply cannot afford to visit Taban in California to get your eyes fixed for 20kUSD, adding filler to your mediocre jawline to bring it to sharp and chiseled is better than leaving it as average.

Would you agree?
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 656
Imagine having a flaw in 2019
 
Meanwhile, a female has to have only ONE good attribute to get thousands of simps and chads
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 656
Meanwhile, a female has to have only ONE good attribute to get thousands of simps and chads
Men look for a reason to fuck a girl. Anything above average is a reason. Women look for a reason not to fuck a guy. Anything below average is a reason.

Almost everyone has a halo. Almost everyone has a failo.
 
  • +1
Reactions: axedee and rockndogs

Similar threads

Floyd
Replies
9
Views
480
britishchadlite
B
BWC_virgin
Replies
13
Views
1K
MoggsWithBoness
MoggsWithBoness
N8verBegan
Replies
3
Views
469
mvp2v1
mvp2v1
tigrxs
Replies
88
Views
3K
tigrxs
tigrxs

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top