Proof/science: Face, Body and strenght (masculinity)

[eduardkoopman]

I have done you and me a service. And I digged into the scientific results on (see links at bottom, study 1 and 2):

What matters most/more in attractiveness for men?
Face, or Body. And how much does it matter?


Face
Study 1.
Face Is most important. To quote: "face attractiveness was a significant stronger predictor of overall attractiveness"

How much does face matter?
About 76% of a man TOTAL attractiveness is decided by face + body. (pretty brutal Blackpill by the way)
About 52% is face.
About 24% is body.
The other 24%, is I guess stuff like voice, status, wealth, personality traits,extraversion, social skills, and so on.

So. Face matters 2 times as much as body, for a man his attractiveness!

Body
So, body matters 24% of attractiveness.

What matters most. Strength or Height?
Quotes from study 2:
"Ratings of strength are a robust and much larger predictor of attractiveness than either height or weight."
"Height is attractive even independent of making a man look strong."

They say, in study:
80% of Body attractiveness = strength + height.
And 70% of Body attractiveness = strength.
And 10% of Body attractiveness = height.

I disagree with this a bit. Because. Strength does have a height correlation also, which they likely failed to calculate. Taller = more muscle mass (potential) = more strength.
So I guestimate bodily attractiveness is more like:
* 40% strength;
* 40% height.

The thing is. A 6'2 man, will with some training; be stronger then a man that's like 5'6 an trains alot. So in that sense, height runs over to strength. But still, a tall 6'2 dude that looks weak, might still be less phyciscally attractive looking as a strong looking 5'8 dude.


Links to study's
You should not read popular articles about scientific studies much. Or be very very carefull.

I give you 1 example, how popular media almost always, mis quotes studies.
Title and text in popular media: "Men’s upper body strength accounts for 70 per cent of attractiveness to women"
WRONG!! That study said: that upper body strength accounts for 70% of BODILY attractiness (AKA, face excluded!!). So the study didn't say at all, that upper body strength accounts for 70% of a man his TOTAL attractiveness.
Link to stupid false wrong popular media article: https://www.sunnewsonline.com/mens-...ccounts-for-70-attractiveness-to-women-study/

The links to the actual studies. Only good or high iq people can probably read and understand it decently:
study 1:

Contributions of the face and body to overall attractiveness

Contributions of the face and body to overall Read more about attractiveness, overall, males, component, symmetry and interaction.

www.yumpu.com

Study 2:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2017.1819

 

[needsolution]

I have no face and no body, not even height.

 

[maxmendietta]

Even if i measured 7 feet and had a 25 bideltoid frame. There is nothing you can do for my shrinked amygdala and damaged neural centers from all the years of neglection and rejection.

 

[Madhate]

I'd like to believe this but cmon, these studies are done by asking foids. They will ALWAYS lie and virtue signal. So these type of studies can never be correct sadly.

 

[eduardkoopman]

I have no face and no body, not even height.
View attachment 255418

Yep, fucked. Since face + body = 76% of a man his attractiveness. Only last hope: getting a strong body and high status and money; and maybe it will do some.

 

[Usum]

And between the face and body... there is a NECK... which is the easiest thing to work on as a reminder.
And body is important.
It made a real difference for all along... because 98% of men look like shit.
I still mogg young men in the gym ... even them have almost 0 definition (many already balding )and just look like a bit muscled with 20% BF... whereas I looked like a tri-athlete at their age.

 

[eduardkoopman]

I'd like to believe this but cmon, these studies are done by asking foids. They will ALWAYS lie and virtue signal. So these type of studies can never be correct sadly.

wrong. these were not stupid questionaire studies. Read the fucking method they used.
Stupid questionaire studies, are worth jack shit. I agree.
But not all scientific studies are stupid (low cost) questionaire studies. Some are good studies, that measure behavior/action, and not wordly answers (aka virtue signaling, etc..). THEREFORE; Always check, how the the study is conducted. If it's just a fucking questionaire, then just next. In the actuallfull paper of every study, they will describe how they did it.
These 2 studies. All they did, was show women a picture of a man, and then they had to give ratings. So it was not like asking; "do you like strong man? Yes/No/Neutral"; but they showed pictures of men, and then asked: give an attractiveness rate from 1-10.

And body is important.

Extremely important. It's the 2nd place on the "what matters" list; after face. So that is extremely/very high. And thus extremely important, also.

 

[needsolution]

Yep, fucked. Since face + body = 76% of a man his attractiveness. Only last hope: getting a strong body and high status and money; and maybe it will do some.

Bro i dropped school, i have no education, nobody knows me here, im doing minimum wage job. It's fucking over
Even my voice is shit

 

[Effortless]

I would like to add,

Initial Attraction Study:
https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/chapter/initial-attraction/

"People who are attractive are also seen as having a variety of positive characteristics, and these traits are activated quickly and spontaneously when we see their faces. For instance, more attractive people are seen as more sociable, altruistic, and intelligent than their less attractive counterparts."

 

[Madhate]

wrong. these were not stupid questionaire studies. Read the fucking method they used.
Stupid questionaire studies, are worth jack shit. I agree.
But not all scientific studies are stupid (low cost) questionaire studies. Some are good studies, that measure behavior/action, and not wordly answers (aka virtue signaling, etc..). THEREFORE; Always check, how the the study is conducted. If it's just a fucking questionaire, then just next. In the actuallfull paper of every study, they will describe how they did it.

Extremely important. It's the 2nd place on the "what matters" list; after face. So that is extremely/very high. And thus extremely important, also.

had raters rate ‘physical strength' from ‘1 = very weak' to ‘7 = very strong'. For attractiveness, raters rated the men from ‘1 = very unattractive' to ‘7 = very attractive'. Isn't this basically a questionnaire?

 

[dingodongo]

It makes sense but you can't do shit for your face while you can do all sorts of shit for your body. Those stupid surgeries are cope. I'd say the body thing depends on the chick. Fitness chicks will appreciate a muscular body more than some random girl on the street.

 

[eduardkoopman]

had raters rate ‘physical strength' from ‘1 = very weak' to ‘7 = very strong'. For attractiveness, raters rated the men from ‘1 = very unattractive' to ‘7 = very attractive'. Isn't this basically a questionnaire?

Not, in my opinion.


Imo, picture rating = action/behavior rating.
And asking without picture but just in words:"how important do you find strength in a man his attractiveness rating?" That I see as questionaire nonsense.

All shit results, comes often from questionaires (just words only).

Studies like this (picture rating based for example). Come with results like; "appreance is 76% of total attractiveness", or outcomes like that.
While questionaire will gives results like: Confidence and personality matters 70%.

I would like to add,

Initial Attraction Study:
https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/chapter/initial-attraction/

"People who are attractive are also seen as having a variety of positive characteristics, and these traits are activated quickly and spontaneously when we see their faces. For instance, more attractive people are seen as more sociable, altruistic, and intelligent than their less attractive counterparts."

Added brutal overflow of looks importance. But it's true. It (looks) even overflows, to the "personality" aspect of a man (and woman)

 

[Effortless]

had raters rate ‘physical strength' from ‘1 = very weak' to ‘7 = very strong'. For attractiveness, raters rated the men from ‘1 = very unattractive' to ‘7 = very attractive'. Isn't this basically a questionnaire?

Its like you didn't even try to read the whole thing. Its conclusion wasn't based on the raters answers which is what would make it a questionnaire, its conclusion was made from seeing if the raters visual cues could make accurate judgement on strength and how looking strong does in fact correlate to actually being stronger.

Same for the facial attractiveness, they ask people to rate subjectively but then use the evidence they have to see how it correlate with the raters answers thus making for objective conclusion, not a questionnaire.

 

[Pietrosiek]

Strenght have no corelation to strenght. Im fighting with my shorter dudes and they are much stronger. If youre taller same size of musle is stretxhed so you have same amount of musle but you look skinnier

 

[Gazzamogga]

Here's another study saying body shape>height>penis size

I think what these sort of studies fail to get right is that height is hard to gauge from pictures and perspective afar but has much more of an influence in person so I don't think this sort of stuff can ever be truly accurate

 

[eduardkoopman]

Strenght have no corelation to strenght. Im fighting with my shorter dudes and they are much stronger. If youre taller same size of musle is stretxhed so you have same amount of musle but you look skinnier

I know, you mean to say: "Height have no correlation to strength".
But you're imo wrong on this.
Why? Why the hell would they then make different weight (aka mostly height) classes in MMA, boxing and so on? And why do fightershave a hard time if they go to a higher class. Because, overall, height is correlated with more potential for strength and fighting ability.
A puch from a 6'4 strong muscled boxer, will beplenty harder then that from a 5'7 strong muscled boxer.

You're anecdotal example is imo not great.

 

[Pietrosiek]

I know, you mean to say: "Height have no correlation to strength".
But you're imo wrong on this.
Why? Why the hell would they then make different weight (aka mostly height) classes in MMA, boxing and so on? And why do fightershave a hard time if they go to a higher class. Because, overall, height is correlated with more potential for strength and fighting ability.
A puch from a 6'4 strong muscled boxer, will beplenty harder then that from a 5'7 strong muscled boxer.

You're anecdotal example is imo not great.

No. Weight is not strenght but weight is more important in fighting. And Yes, with height you have more potential to get stronger.

 

[Effortless]

Here's another study saying body shape>height>penis size
View attachment 255520

I think what these sort of studies fail to get right is that height is hard to gauge from pictures and perspective afar but has much more of an influence in person so I don't think this sort of stuff can ever be truly accurate

I agree with you and I also agree with the study. I feel like body shape is very underrated, having good limbs to torso ratio along with broad shoulders, big rib cage and small waist adds tremendously to your looks especially if you're already good looking.

People here don't know how bad a wide hip can ruin a mans aesthetic and it's made even more apparently while wearing clothes.

 

[eduardkoopman]

No. Weight is not strenght but weight is more important in fighting. And Yes, with height you have more potential to get stronger.

Okay. I found that such a weird sentence when you wrote: "Strenght have no corelation to strenght ". I had no idea what you meant. But you meant weight I understand now.

Here's another study saying body shape>height>penis size
View attachment 255520

I think what these sort of studies fail to get right is that height is hard to gauge from pictures and perspective afar but has much more of an influence in person so I don't think this sort of stuff can ever be truly accurate

Great add to the thread

Then why is being short in height seen as such a death sentence here?
If it only matters 6%??
And in that study of mine in OP, they only gave it 10%??

Is height not that important? I can't compute. Because there are alot of blackpillers, and blackpill videos about manletism being game over.

 

[Madhate]

Its like you didn't even try to read the whole thing. Its conclusion wasn't based on the raters answers which is what would make it a questionnaire, its conclusion was made from seeing if the raters visual cues could make accurate judgement on strength and how looking strong does in fact correlate to actually being stronger.

Same for the facial attractiveness, they ask people to rate subjectively but then use the evidence they have to see how it correlate with the raters answers thus making for objective conclusion, not a questionnaire.

Previous researchers have shown that women (and men) have assessment mechanisms that are calibrated to estimate men's formidability (i.e. fighting ability) based on visual and auditory cues that function across cultures and language groups [45–48]. We followed Sell and colleagues and had raters rate ‘physical strength' from ‘1 = very weak' to ‘7 = very strong'. For attractiveness, raters rated the men from ‘1 = very unattractive' to ‘7 = very attractive'.
No. The study WAS based on the raters answers.

 

[Nosecel]

Face > height > body. IVE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR WHO KNOWS HOW LONG. Water is wet

 

[Effortless]

Previous researchers have shown that women (and men) have assessment mechanisms that are calibrated to estimate men's formidability (i.e. fighting ability) based on visual and auditory cues that function across cultures and language groups [45–48]. We followed Sell and colleagues and had raters rate ‘physical strength' from ‘1 = very weak' to ‘7 = very strong'. For attractiveness, raters rated the men from ‘1 = very unattractive' to ‘7 = very attractive'.
No. The study WAS based on the raters answers.

Yes, but what I meant was the conclusion wasn't alone just based on the raters answers, which would make it a questionnaire. They took the raters subjective answers and compared it to their objective evidence to make the conclusion that, yes, the raters could make accurate assessment on strength and attractiveness.

A questionnaire would be making conclusion from the raters answers a lone. This study was to see how their evidence they already have matches the subjective ratings to see if they were correct.

 

[eduardkoopman]

Yes, but what I meant was the conclusion wasn't alone based on the raters answers alone, which would make it a questionnaire. They took the raters subjective answers and compared it to their objective evidence to make the conclusion that, yes, the raters could make accurate assessment on strength and attractiveness.

A questionnaire would be making conclusion from the raters answers a lone. This study was to see how their evidence they already have matches the subjective ratings to see if they were correct.

High IQ.
Understanding the difference between shit studies, and more legit studies is a good skill to have.

 

[Madhate]

High IQ.
Understanding the difference between shit studies, and more legit studies is a good skill to have.

It's over for me i guess

 

[OCDMaxxing]

1. NECK

2. NECK

999999. NECK

 

[eduardkoopman]

It's over for me i guess

Not really. It's good that you made these statements, and ask these type of questions. Because one needs to ask these questions, to learn how to see difference between shit studies and good studies.
there are alot of shit studies out there, and that causes many people to disregard studies/science. But that's because, people haven't learned yet to discern between good and shit studies.

Icouldn't tell the difference in the past either. between shit and good studies/info. But I have learned over time to get better at it; and waht to specifically looks for. I'm not great at it, since I'm not a university scientists whom deals with this type of stuff alot. But I have gotten decent at it.

You asked the right questions, or commented about the right things to ficus on. So, you are doing great at getting the hang of reading studies and seeing if they are any good or a fcuking waiste of time.

Face > height > body. IVE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR WHO KNOWS HOW LONG. Water is wet

Not? Face > Body > Height ????

 

[Madhate]

Not really. It's good that you made these statements, and ask these type of questions. Because one needs to ask these questions, to learn how to see difference between shit studies and good studies.
there are alot of shit studies out there, and that causes many people to disregard studies/science. But that's because, people haven't learned yet to discern between good and shit studies.

Icouldn't tell the difference in the past either. between shit and good studies/info. But I have learned over time to get better at it; and waht to specifically looks for. I'm not great at it, since I'm not a university scientists whom deals with this type of stuff alot. But I have gotten decent at it.

You asked the right questions, or commented about the right things to ficus on. So, you are doing great at getting the hang of reading studies and seeing if they are any good or a fcuking waiste of time.

Not? Face > Body > Height ????

Goodguycel. Also, I was being sarcastic. But yeah. I'm pretty new when it comes to reading studies. Thanks for the help

 

[Gazzamogga]

Face > height > body. IVE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR WHO KNOWS HOW LONG. Water is wet

The studies posted in this thread go against that you fucking moron

 

[Effortless]

Not really. It's good that you made these statements, and ask these type of questions. Because one needs to ask these questions, to learn how to see difference between shit studies and good studies.
there are alot of shit studies out there, and that causes many people to disregard studies/science. But that's because, people haven't learned yet to discern between good and shit studies.

Icouldn't tell the difference in the past either. between shit and good studies/info. But I have learned over time to get better at it; and waht to specifically looks for. I'm not great at it, since I'm not a university scientists whom deals with this type of stuff alot. But I have gotten decent at it.

You asked the right questions, or commented about the right things to ficus on. So, you are doing great at getting the hang of reading studies and seeing if they are any good or a fcuking waiste of time.

Yeah, also, when you read countless studies on attractiveness like a brain dead aspie like me, you'll learn quickly how to asses the BS from the facts. Most of it is pretty easy judgement just based on how thorough the studies are.

Also another thing to think about...

Why is it when you have bad organ health, the skin on your FACE inflames?
Why is it when you have an allergic reaction to food, the skin on your FACE inflame and bloats?
Why is it when you have hormonal imbalance, the skin on your FACE breaks out the most?

Why doesn't it happen to the skin over your back, legs, arms and torso region?

It's because the FACE is the prime signaller of health.

 

[eduardkoopman]

Yeah, also, when you read countless studies on attractiveness like a brain dead aspie like me, you'll learn quickly how to asses the BS from the facts. Most of it is pretty easy judgement just based on how thorough the studies are.

LOL @ the "brain dead aspie" comment about yourself.

The studies posted in this thread go against that you fucking moron

I also had (and have) a hard time on that matter.

My mind is like: Can height matter that little?

In the 2nd studyin my OP. They said it mattered like 10% (on body). And I fealt like in my guess, it wuld matter like 40% on bodily attractiveness.

I watched that link of yours.
And I must say.
With height, it seems more like something that is a: disqualifier factor. Then that it's something that gives you alot of bonus/added points when you have above average height..
As in:
* being short/manlet -> means disqualification.
* being tall -> means you get a little bonus points compared to average height men but not much.

So then, it more like this with height maybe:
- height adds some but not your attractiveness, so it matter "little" on the up/positive side;
- short/manlet height makes one totally unattractive, so it matters "a lot" on the negative side.

 

[weallburninhell]

I have done you and me a service. And I digged into the scientific results on (see links at bottom, study 1 and 2):

What matters most/more in attractiveness for men?
Face, or Body. And how much does it matter?


Face
Study 1.
Face Is most important. To quote: "face attractiveness was a significant stronger predictor of overall attractiveness"

How much does face matter?
About 76% of a man TOTAL attractiveness is decided by face + body.
About 52% is face.
About 24% is body.
The other 24%, is I guess stuff like voice, status, wealth, personality traits,extraversion, social skills, and so on.

So. Face matters 2 times as much as body, for a man his attractiveness!

Body
So, body matters 24% of attractiveness.

What matters most. Strength or Height?
Quotes from study 2:
"Ratings of strength are a robust and much larger predictor of attractiveness than either height or weight."
"Height is attractive even independent of making a man look strong."

They say, in study:
80% of Body attractiveness = strength + height.
And 70% of Body attractiveness = strength.
And 10% of Body attractiveness = height.

I disagree with this a bit. Because. Strength does have a height correlation also, which they likely failed to calculate. Taller = more muscle mass (potential) = more strength.
So I guestimate bodily attractiveness is more like:
* 40% strength;
* 40% height.

The thing is. A 6'2 man, will with some training; be stronger then a man that's like 5'6 an trains alot. So in that sense, height runs over to strength. But still, a tall 6'2 dude that looks weak, might still be less phyciscally attractive looking as a strong looking 5'8 dude.


Links to study's
You should not read popular articles about scientific studies much. Or be very very carefull.

I give you 1 example, how popular media almost always, mis quotes studies.
Title and text in popular media: "Men’s upper body strength accounts for 70 per cent of attractiveness to women"
WRONG!! That study said: that upper body strength accounts for 70% of BODILY attractiness (AKA, face excluded!!). So the study didn't say at all, that upper body strength accounts for 70% of a man his TOTAL attractiveness.
Link to stupid false wrong popular media article: https://www.sunnewsonline.com/mens-...ccounts-for-70-attractiveness-to-women-study/

The links to the actual studies. Only good or high iq people can probably read and understand it decently:
study 1:

Contributions of the face and body to overall attractiveness

Contributions of the face and body to overall Read more about attractiveness, overall, males, component, symmetry and interaction.

www.yumpu.com

Study 2:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2017.1819

Shoulder to waist ratio

 

[Gazzamogga]

LOL @ the "brain dead aspie" comment about yourself.

I also had (and have) a hard time on that matter.

My mind is like: Can height matter that little?

In the 2nd studyin my OP. They said it mattered like 10% (on body). And I fealt like in my guess, it wuld matter like 40% on bodily attractiveness.

I watched that link of yours.
And I must say.
With height, it seems more like something that is a: disqualifier factor. Then that it's something that gives you alot of bonus/added points when you have above average height..
As in:
* being short/manlet -> means disqualification.
* being tall -> means you get a little bonus points compared to average height men but not much.

Yes that's what I got from the video as well.

 

[je3oe]

Even if i measured 7 feet and had a 25 bideltoid frame. There is nothing you can do for my shrinked amygdala and damaged neural centers from all the years of neglection and rejection.

AAAH FUAARK SO legit.....

 

[Ascensionrequired]

I have done you and me a service. And I digged into the scientific results on (see links at bottom, study 1 and 2):

What matters most/more in attractiveness for men?
Face, or Body. And how much does it matter?


Face
Study 1.
Face Is most important. To quote: "face attractiveness was a significant stronger predictor of overall attractiveness"

How much does face matter?
About 76% of a man TOTAL attractiveness is decided by face + body.
About 52% is face.
About 24% is body.
The other 24%, is I guess stuff like voice, status, wealth, personality traits,extraversion, social skills, and so on.

So. Face matters 2 times as much as body, for a man his attractiveness!

Body
So, body matters 24% of attractiveness.

What matters most. Strength or Height?
Quotes from study 2:
"Ratings of strength are a robust and much larger predictor of attractiveness than either height or weight."
"Height is attractive even independent of making a man look strong."

They say, in study:
80% of Body attractiveness = strength + height.
And 70% of Body attractiveness = strength.
And 10% of Body attractiveness = height.

I disagree with this a bit. Because. Strength does have a height correlation also, which they likely failed to calculate. Taller = more muscle mass (potential) = more strength.
So I guestimate bodily attractiveness is more like:
* 40% strength;
* 40% height.

The thing is. A 6'2 man, will with some training; be stronger then a man that's like 5'6 an trains alot. So in that sense, height runs over to strength. But still, a tall 6'2 dude that looks weak, might still be less phyciscally attractive looking as a strong looking 5'8 dude.


Links to study's
You should not read popular articles about scientific studies much. Or be very very carefull.

I give you 1 example, how popular media almost always, mis quotes studies.
Title and text in popular media: "Men’s upper body strength accounts for 70 per cent of attractiveness to women"
WRONG!! That study said: that upper body strength accounts for 70% of BODILY attractiness (AKA, face excluded!!). So the study didn't say at all, that upper body strength accounts for 70% of a man his TOTAL attractiveness.
Link to stupid false wrong popular media article: https://www.sunnewsonline.com/mens-...ccounts-for-70-attractiveness-to-women-study/

The links to the actual studies. Only good or high iq people can probably read and understand it decently:
study 1:

Contributions of the face and body to overall attractiveness

Contributions of the face and body to overall Read more about attractiveness, overall, males, component, symmetry and interaction.

www.yumpu.com

Study 2:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2017.1819

My dad is legit the exact opposite of all this. 5'4ft, shit face, shit frame, and he still got kids. So there must be hope.

 

[RAITEIII]

Banger @eduardkoopman

 

[eduardkoopman]

My dad is legit the exact opposite of all this. 5'4ft, shit face, shit frame, and he still got kids. So there must be hope.

Great for your dad, for beating the odds. Maybe he locationmaxxed, or other stuff to compensate for that. Hope + action is good, so keep that.

 

[IWantToMax]

I'm going to get that 24% covered by body.

 

[Madhate]

Why is it when you have bad organ health, the skin on your FACE inflames?
Why is it when you have an allergic reaction to food, the skin on your FACE inflame and bloats?
Why is it when you have hormonal imbalance, the skin on your FACE breaks out the most?

Why doesn't it happen to the skin over your back, legs, arms and torso region?

It's because the FACE is the prime signaller of health.

Which is why I believe chewing should work for facial growth. What's the biggest health indicator from a survival standpoint? Eating lots of foods correlates to being strong enough to hunt animals and survive.

 

[Ascensionrequired]

Great for your dad, for beating the odds. Maybe he locationmaxxed, or other stuff to compensate for that. Hope + action is good, so keep that.

He got a 6'1ft female mentalcel who is above average looking and I'm pretty sure he just exploited the fuck out of her insecurities (that height on a woman can be a big failo).

My dad proves being a narcy manipulator whose able to devalue you is legit. My brother also got a decent wife thanks to an utter lack of self awareness, delusion and manipulation.

 

[eduardkoopman]

He got a 6'1ft female mentalcel who is above average looking and I'm pretty sure he just exploited the fuck out of her insecurities (that height on a woman can be a big failo).

My dad proves being a narcy manipulator whose able to devalue you is legit. My brother also got a decent wife thanks to an utter lack of self awareness, delusion and manipulation.

It's one of few legit cheat codes.
The only downside to this is, is that the children might end up prettymentally fucked or suffering from low self esteem. Because of being raised in such a nasty (psychologically speaking) environment.

 

[Ascensionrequired]

It's one of few legit cheat codes.
The only downside to this is, is that the children might end up prettymentally fucked or suffering from low self esteem. Because of being raised in such a nasty (psychologically speaking) environment.

Lmao yeah sounds like me.

Palpatinemax is legit, but I think you have to be a twisted dickhead at heart to pull it off.

 

[Gonners]

Great for your dad, for beating the odds. Maybe he locationmaxxed, or other stuff to compensate for that. Hope + action is good, so keep that.

i also like to add that my dad is like 5'2 or 3 and he was able to get my mom at 5'5. he does have a decent face and looks like he can hold his own though. apart from that, he doesn't give a fuck, he's super low inhib and has a very high t presence. life fuel tbh. unfortunately despite all that i still turned out 5'7

 

[Effortless]

Which is why I believe chewing should work for facial growth. What's the biggest health indicator from a survival standpoint? Eating lots of foods correlates to being strong enough to hunt animals and survive.

Well actually think the biggest health indicator from a survival standpoint is disease resistance. We humans have found ways to get more than enough calories than we ever need thats how we managed to become omnivores and develop such a big brain to body ratio. While eating lots of food does correlates with being strong enough to hunt animals and help with survival, its not always a health indicator, otherwise we would find obese people attractive but no, because obesity can lead to many diseases.

Most of the people through out history died not from fighting animals, other humans, hunger or thirst. It was mainly diseases that caused deadly illnesses.

 

[eduardkoopman]

Lmao yeah sounds like me.

Palpatinemax is legit, but I think you have to be a twisted dickhead at heart to pull it off.
View attachment 255590

I agree, you can't fake being a twisted dickhead.
Some dudes that have great empathy and good psychology; try to be a bad boy or do badboy stuff to impress the ladies.
But I never see it work much. Because a real twisted badboy will do stuff, a healthy person just can't do.

 

[PubertyMaxxer]

Shoulder to waist ratio

shoulder to hip ratio is superior to measure male bodily attractiveness tbh

 

[weallburninhell]

shoulder to hip ratio is superior to measure male bodily attractiveness tbh

shoulder to hips ratio doesn't exist LMAO

 

[Deleted member 5185]

OP is a scholar and a gentleman

 

[Chinacurry]

Is race captured in face? And where is confidence? The 20% residual?

 

[eduardkoopman]

Is race captured in face? And where is confidence? The 20% residual?

Race. Is imo captured by all aspects.

Face (52%), obviously your race will affect your face. Being native Vietnamese, your race will define your facial features to a large extend. And equally so for other races. Universally,"european" white features are most attrictive overall; which are: high (and prominent) cheeckbones, hunter eyes, eyelid exposure, jawline, color contrast, etc..

An interesting video about universally attractive traitsof face, and race:


Body (24%), obviously your race will affect your body. A Japanese man (in general) will have less, height, and less capability of muscle development; then a West African male.

The other (24%) things. Race will affect your percieved status as well. Like whites are seen worldwide as more prosperous. honest and classy; then for example an man from India. Aka, general biases, related to race.

And where is confidence?

Confidence is captured by the residual 24%.
Guestimation, I think the top 10 aspects of the residual 24% are:
1. Status/fame/power
2. Wealth, money.
3. Voice and Tone
4. Dress/clothes/style
5. Extraversion and social personality (often described as "confidence")
6. being relaxed, low-ish or normal in anxiety/anxiousness/nervousness/neuroticism (also often described as "confidence")
7. Location (actually this one needs to be higher on the list. It all has to do with gender ratio in a loction)
8. being open and flexibel
etc... ?? (i'm kinda running out of things to think about that are universally things that matter a little bit.

 

[Moneymaxxed]

I have done you and me a service. And I digged into the scientific results on (see links at bottom, study 1 and 2):

What matters most/more in attractiveness for men?
Face, or Body. And how much does it matter?


Face
Study 1.
Face Is most important. To quote: "face attractiveness was a significant stronger predictor of overall attractiveness"

How much does face matter?
About 76% of a man TOTAL attractiveness is decided by face + body. (pretty brutal Blackpill by the way)
About 52% is face.
About 24% is body.
The other 24%, is I guess stuff like voice, status, wealth, personality traits,extraversion, social skills, and so on.

So. Face matters 2 times as much as body, for a man his attractiveness!

Body
So, body matters 24% of attractiveness.

What matters most. Strength or Height?
Quotes from study 2:
"Ratings of strength are a robust and much larger predictor of attractiveness than either height or weight."
"Height is attractive even independent of making a man look strong."

They say, in study:
80% of Body attractiveness = strength + height.
And 70% of Body attractiveness = strength.
And 10% of Body attractiveness = height.

I disagree with this a bit. Because. Strength does have a height correlation also, which they likely failed to calculate. Taller = more muscle mass (potential) = more strength.
So I guestimate bodily attractiveness is more like:
* 40% strength;
* 40% height.

The thing is. A 6'2 man, will with some training; be stronger then a man that's like 5'6 an trains alot. So in that sense, height runs over to strength. But still, a tall 6'2 dude that looks weak, might still be less phyciscally attractive looking as a strong looking 5'8 dude.


Links to study's
You should not read popular articles about scientific studies much. Or be very very carefull.

I give you 1 example, how popular media almost always, mis quotes studies.
Title and text in popular media: "Men’s upper body strength accounts for 70 per cent of attractiveness to women"
WRONG!! That study said: that upper body strength accounts for 70% of BODILY attractiness (AKA, face excluded!!). So the study didn't say at all, that upper body strength accounts for 70% of a man his TOTAL attractiveness.
Link to stupid false wrong popular media article: https://www.sunnewsonline.com/mens-...ccounts-for-70-attractiveness-to-women-study/

The links to the actual studies. Only good or high iq people can probably read and understand it decently:
study 1:

Contributions of the face and body to overall attractiveness

Contributions of the face and body to overall Read more about attractiveness, overall, males, component, symmetry and interaction.

www.yumpu.com

Study 2:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2017.1819

Ty high iq bro