Current T levels do NOTHING.
The real question is do women of different races have differing T levels while pregnant?
Current T levels do NOTHING.
The real question is do women of different races have differing T levels while pregnant?
Given the lookism data and non-harmful, non-genetic nature of this, it seems fine.
However, it may only be possible to enhance certain races e.g. NW Europeans and native, dominant speakers of certain languages e.g. English, Old English.
I’m not messing with you. This once.
I haz receipts.
Peter Ladefoged wrote: “Many BBC English speakers have the tip of the tongue raised towards the roof of the mouth in the general location of the alveolar ridge, but many American English speakers simply bunch the body of the tongue up so that it is hard to say where the articulation is”.
The ‘orthotropic’ principle!
The extension to the IPA recommends the use of the IPA diacritics for “apical” and “centralized”, as in ⟨ɹ̺, ɹ̈⟩, to distinguish apical and domal articulations in transcription. However, this distinction has little or no perceptual consequence, and may vary idiosyncratically between individuals.
Culturally, actually. Close.
How many of these guys with facial issues speak American, not proper English?
Not judging, per se, just ….noticing.
Why are the Brits considered generally better looking than comparable American men?
Could it be that, to us, they sound stupid because, among other things, they sound drunk? They literally sound like they’re slurring.
Again English English is the only real English, tongue posture is immensely important. It would be like using a hammer wrong and wondering why it hurts, this is important. Common Core is opposed to elocution lessons, wonder why.
And reminder, language is genetic in origin.
“Mutation rates are required only for adding a time scale to both trees. Based on the topologies of trees generated from both the genetic and linguistic data, the inference of the parallel evolution of genes and languages in Caucasus is supported, despite controversies about the mutation rates.”
Parallel evolution, you can’t just take another race’s language and expect fluency on par with a genetic native. This might contribute to, say, Africans’ lower tests score, at least a little.
If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree etc.
The blogs full of historical handsome men leads me to believe Victorian English was particularly good for male facial structure (on women you don’t notice so much)
e.g. the difference to now in
“Flapped” or “Tapped” R: alveolar flap [ɾ] (About this soundlisten) (occurs in Scouse, most Scottish English, some South African, Welsh, conservative Irish and Northern England English, and early twentieth-century Received Pronunciation; not to be confused with flapping of /t/ and /d/)
A lot of Welsh models, almost untouched pristine language rearing, just saying. If a beautiful Welshman moves to America and adopts the accent, over time his facial beauty weakens.
18th and 19th century Americans (listen on youtube) sounded British. Rural British.
This faded out mid-20th century, with the rise of TV monoculture, when the American man’s face seemed to weirdly cave in like a child’s.
Gay men with excellent facial beauty (women admire) also have precise language, old-fashioned dialect. They know, they’re shallow.
How many Hollywood actors are posh?
Schools used to teach elocution. Why no longer? It’s part of speaking a language.
I’ve actually had to tell men that texting over talking will weaken their jaw.
They didn’t know. It’s a MUSCLE.
The digital native Millennials have overall worse jawlines than Gen X. Coincidence?
When old people age, they have fewer people to talk to, speeding up atrophy.
I have met researchers on these disparate topics so can bring you these threads, albeit short of resolution. Research needed, obviously. It is just really interesting. Like, even eating with cutlery made white people have more civilized jaws.
But forcing the proven brain delay of bilinguilism is bad for them, not to mention could be impossible due to differences.
Genetic variations of the COMT gene and a measure of the strength of the brain’s communications network — known as “white matter”— jointly accounted for 46 percent of the reason for why some students performed better than others in the language class.
So girls are better at it.
A waste of a class, must never be compulsory.
But being well-spoken literally makes men hotter to women. We can see it in how their face moves.
How many rappers look like mouth-breathers? [Whites invented rap, called flyting].
Flyting is a ritual, poetic exchange of insults practised mainly between the 5th and 16th centuries. The root is the Old English word flītan meaning quarrel. Examples of flyting are found throughout Norse, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Medieval literature involving both historical and mythological figures.
Crushes on matinee idols are not a coincidence. Speech, song, poetry. All of it helps.
Etiquette had benefits. I very much want to benefit from telling men this.
The Chad trope has no actual basis in psychology. Journalists lie.
Anti-equalism is politics, not personality.
Attractive men are likelier right-wing (genetic attractiveness) and they didn’t study personality but attitudes.
Left-wing men score ‘better’ on generosity games because they believe resources are infinite, this does not make them kinder people. Lab conditions are not reality.
Actually when competing in studies, socialists cheat.
Attitudes are not personality.
“People who tended to favor their group over themselves were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”
Measure of self-loathing or social desirability bias/lying.
The fatter men would score higher…
“People who preferred socialism more were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”
See the bias?
If anything socialists are more selfish, but they didn’t study sense of personal entitlement.
Attractiveness actually correlates to IQ which correlates to earnings. Extremes mean nothing for the population.
Some of the most bitter men are not lookers, saying hot men are ‘mean’ because they know the history and purpose of socialism is just blatant envy and disinfo.
SJWs always lie.
Despite the rigged method, “Results indicated a moderate, statistically significant negative relationship”
MSM lies, don’t trust headlines.
CHECK. What did they actually test?
“there was a strong tendency of raters to perceive that more attractive men and women would be less altruistic and egalitarian in real life.”
Bias. Attractive people have to reject more, from the one person asking they don’t see how often that person is pestered. Thinking there’s something wrong with a person saying No to you doesn’t make them mean, it makes the entitled show up why the source was right to reject. I’ve seen ugly women or slutty women try to force a man to date them or touch them, only to explode in rage at the simple assertion of a right to refuse.
“After all, why wouldn’t we expect for attractive people to be less selfish and more altruistic?”
Dehumanizing and bitter.
Control for SES, attachment style, parent/childhood quality?
Mean people can be typical narcissists and clean up well, their temporary attractiveness doesn’t make them mean.
Genuinely attractive are nice if you respect their rights. Due to wrong ideas about their stupidity, they have a low tolerance for controlling bullshit.
“In any case, I can’t pretend these results were too surprising to us, since we did after all hypothesize that most of them would be true.”
Not science. You’re supposed to not bias it?
“Our hypotheses were based on the theory that because attractive people tend to (a) be highly valued by others as mates and allies, and (b) benefit from inequality, they have reduced incentives to (a) increase their value to others by being altruistic and (b) support egalitarian norms.”
It’s an equalism study, Harrison Bergeron bullshit.
Egalitarianism is meritocracy. Equalism is not.
“Our results were also consistent with related research which has hinted at lower altruism among attractive people, and especially among attractive men.”
Context? [And no, it doesn’t, plus studies don’t hint].
“Why is this tendency more evident in men than in women?”
Then it can’t be sexual.
Why should you be forced to give your property away to others?
Burden of proof.
“I can only speculate, but it may be related to the increased tendency of attractive males to pursue short-term, low-investment, low-empathy mating strategies.”
Wrong, more men see themselves married one day than women.
“Because they are more appealing to women as short-term mates”
Sexist and women are the less shallow sex in studies.
“attractive men are more likely to succeed with (and hence to pursue) such strategies”
Actually the most attractive men and women don’t sleep around, disgusted with other’s superficiality.
And hence to pursue – non sequitur. Men can think.
“Less attractive men, in contrast, need to be kinder and more high-investing in order to attract a mate.”
Look at the typical domestic abuse case. Not lookers. Criminals in general are uglier. This was found in the Victorian era.
Psychopaths, as covered prior, actually have a totally average IQ. They’re compulsive liars.
There’s also a confound of going to the gym (nurture) because genetic facial ‘hotness’ has nothing to do with your biceps.
Plus he’s implying all men fake being decent, which isn’t actually a Nice Guy.
Unless you mean r/niceguy
“Women also can pursue either short-term or long-term mating strategies, but unlike men, their strategy of choice seems unrelated to how attractive they are to the opposite sex ”
False. The sluttiest women are around 4-6 trying to poach 7-9. Sex is all they offer. The ugly mistress is actually more spiteful, having few sexual opportunities.
Men are more shallow, as as sex.
“On average, men ranked good looks and facial attractiveness more important than women did (d = 0.55 and 0.36, respectively), whereas women ranked honesty, humor, kindness, and dependability more important than men did (ds = 0.23, 0.22, 0.18, and 0.15). “Sex-by-nation ANOVAs of individuals’ trait rankings showed that sex differences in rankings of attractiveness, but not of character traits, were extremely consistent across 53 nations and that nation main effects and sex-by-nation interactions were stronger for character traits than for physical attractiveness.”
Good husbands are hotter.
Biased researchers assume everyone is desperate and r-selected.
“Attractiveness as a result of having certain personality traits”
Reputation is important.
Surprising no one, alcohol increased male lechery.
The Bible did say not to get drunk.
Old men are more petty and embittered than young ones in rating women, who are fair and more realistic.
“Both younger and older judges showed an attractiveness bias and downrated the social desirability of younger unattractive targets. Younger judges rated younger and older attractive targets as equal in social desirability. Older male judges rated older attractive targets as less socially desirable than younger attractive targets. Results are discussed in terms of cultural expectations of beauty.”
Classic projection, by being harsh on their own age group they felt better about their own aged situation.
“Physical Attractiveness and the “Nice Guy Paradox”: Do Nice Guys Really Finish Last?”
Do men like other men who aren’t douches? Women aren’t another species. They avoid Mean Girls too.
“Overall results indicated that both niceness and physical attractiveness were positive factors in women’s choices and desirability ratings of the target men.”
Facial attractiveness higher in the not-angry.
Weak men can think acting up by being angry or passive-aggressive will attract women. No. Abnormal behaviour is abnormal for a reason. Personality disorders, real or faked, aren’t attractive.
“We find that “what is good is beautiful,” with personality reflecting desired traits as facial attractiveness. This phenomenon can also be called the “halo effect.” We can thus presume that personality traits may contribute to judging facial attractiveness and that the personality traits desired in a person are reflected in facial preference.”
Think about it, alpha males don’t have to be insecure.
Judging all men off American teens is ridiculous.
And bullies? Insane reasoning.
The equalist guy’s topic was already covered. This is why you must check up.
“The study finds that individuals — both men and women — who exhibit positive traits, such as honesty and helpfulness, are perceived as better looking. Those who exhibit negative traits, such as unfairness and rudeness, appear to be less physically attractive to observers.”
Note: on a one-to-one personal interaction basis, not political.
“Nice guys finish last” – consider the source.
The ugly angry men are literally trying to claim they have a “great personality”. It’s absurd. Having a bad boy persona won’t make up for their genes.
The halo effect is based on something real. A true stereotype.
And rule-breakers are considered uglier.
Bad ‘boys’ are the balding smelly guy at the bar with a pot belly ten years after high school.
“Involvement with bullying in any role — bully, victim, or bully-victim — was associated with negative financial, health, behavioral and social outcomes later in life.”
They are at high risk of low IQ habits.
“Bullies were at high risk for later psychiatric problems, regular smoking, and risky or illegal behaviors, including felonies, substance use and self-reported illegal behavior. …All groups were at risk for being impoverished in young adulthood and having difficulty keeping jobs. Both bullies and bully-victims displayed impaired educational attainment. There were no significant differences across groups in the likelihood of being married, having children, or being divorced, but social relationships were disrupted for all subjects who had bullied or been bullied.”
The unstable men who try to make others (including women) absorb their anger are simply defective.
Bullies haven’t actually matured. They’re just weaklings, all groups have them. Low emotional intelligence.
“What happens to many bullies is that their social development becomes stuck at the point where they win power and prestige through bullying, and they tend not to progress toward individuation and empathy as adolescents usually do. They get left behind.” – Sullovan, Cleary & Sullovan
“They are more likely to commit acts of domestic violence and child abuse in their adult life”
“Bullies are more likely to commit crimes, with a 4-fold increase in criminal behavior by age 24. By this age, 60% of former bullies have at least one conviction, and 35% to 40% have 3 or more.
(Sources: Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1992; Smith, 2010)”
The death penalty used to address this.
Emotional retards who can only be aggressive and have criminal kids. When they’re eventually losers, this is just the consequence of their anti-social behaviour.
Who wants to be like that? What woman wants a guy likelier to abuse her and their children?
Back to personality, EI also (as covered previously) predicts occupational success.
“Research on personality has shown that perceiving a person as attractive fosters positive expectations about his/her personal characteristics. Literature has also demonstrated a significant link between personality traits and occupational achievement. Present research examines the combined effects of attractiveness, occupational status, and gender on the evaluation of others’ personality, according to the Big Five model. The study consisted of a 2 (Attractiveness: High vs. Low) x 2 (occupational Status: High vs. Low) x 2 (Target gender: Male vs. Female) between-subjects experimental design (N = 476). Results showed that attractive targets were considered more positively than unattractive targets, and this effect was even stronger for male targets. Occupational status influenced perceived agreeableness (lower for high-status targets) and perceived conscientiousness (higher for high-status targets).”
Perceptions. Not reality. And they’re probably judged by the average earner and comparatively less attractive, a bitter bias. Like the average woman who calls all better-looking ones slutty despite how that’s actually less likely.
Men are deluded about the importance of genetic looks and refuse to believe in their own ugliness despite world cues.
“Generally, the fewer men at a level of attractiveness, the fewer total messages women sent. The fours, for example, constituted only two percent of the population, and they got only four percent of all the messages.”
As a group, women know their league and most of them are smart enough to date in it.
Men are rejected so much by an ignorance of their league.
Maybe in both sexes the exceptions are personality disorders e.g. histrionic, narcissistic, borderline entitlement.
“What about those with so-so looks? Women rated as twos received only about 10 percent of the messages sent by men. But men at that same level received 25 percent of the messages women sent. The women seem more realistic.”
Average and ugly men actually ignore average and ugly women.
They choose to be alone.
Deny assortative mating all you like, marriage studies prove it.
Nope, hot does not exist.
That’s Hollywood and porn brainwashing.
It didn’t exist fifty years ago.
There was sultry or alluring but it was a type of beauty, as it should be.
That’s natural (whereas mainstream ‘hotness’ is normally plastic surgery, which a biologist has no valid comment on as a fashion trend).
Natural always wins. It’s the genetic billboard.
Nowadays, men are programmed to find the cheap sexual signals of desperation attractive.
Cheap is the correct term because there’s little to no investment required.
It’s obvious with celebrities.
Jessica Alba. Note the manjaw. Hot?
Markle. Again with the manjaw. Hot?
What are you being told to select by media?
The Jewess Johansson, post-nosejob. Hot?
The Jewess Jolie, same. Again, post-surgery and owns a manjaw. Hot?
There’s a reason he didn’t name names or dare show photos.
Hollywood only hires the whores, with manjaws. There’s no control group.
Another chameleon face to illustrate the point:
Which one of those four pictures is hot and how many are beautiful?
I’d say one “hot” and zero beautiful. The hotness is confounded by make-up and hair dye, which he didn’t mention!
Nor did he mention male beauty, which obviously does exist.
I see it all the time.
e.g. Jakob Hybholt. This is a real man. He exists.
Men in studies have different risks of abusing their spouse (aggression) based on their facial features. Again, something you’d think he’d mention?
At least “handsome” (a word that used to be applied to women too) versus “sexy”.
Adonis versus Hercules. Any man who’d get insecure about this is deluded.
We don’t get insecure about Athena and Aphrodite. Typical model versus lingerie model.
But they’re both forms of beauty. Neither is better and it really is a spectrum because both must be fundamentally fit (Darwin) and hence, beautiful. So two sisters, one can be hotter (the “hot one”) and the other more pretty, hot features age badly after ten years as fertile markers and pretty remains constant as a purer genetic quality, easier to pass on to male and female offspring too. Hotness has no history as a concept, as he alludes it’s based in 60s advertising. Surgeons can fake “hot” but never beautiful because it’s genetic and individual. The 60s allowed people to display “hot” but again, that’s a fashion trend, our bodies didn’t magically change.
This evobio guy makes a basic error – you can”t assume modern male preferences are historic.
In fact, basic pop culture evidence from the past century suggests otherwise.
“Hotness” is easier to market.
You can buy hotness, beauty is genetic.
He blatantly lies “the majority of human cultures have been polygynous” is a lie.
A Cultural Marxist myth. Look at a family tree, we have them stretching back a thousand years.
He could possibly get away with polygamous if you included sex slavery (rape).
That is bad evolutionary biology. Sexual selection must be a choice to be valid.
Most tribal humans were monogamous and this is why the sexes are born approximately at 50/50, we keep digging up archaeological evidence of couples. Also, savages are not models of civilization, they keep trying that on.
He could mean serial monogamy if the spouse dies (divorce or breaking up doesn’t actually count as this) but he doesn’t.
Most men are not r-selected, he lies again. If so, all men would visit brothels instead of the omega minority. Parental investment outcomes show this strawman single mother scenario leads to death and dysfunction.
Mathematically, he is lying there. Monogamy is better for male DNA.
No sexual selection without natural selection, many feeble, weak r-selected males died off and now we have “crime” in society because they’re still bluntly, stupidly trying to compete without the reward in a society structure. Wars were invented to cull them but we had to mess that up too with draft qualifications and nukes. Without the dregs of men (see: where have all the good men gone?) removed, they are free to multiply with the dregs of women, producing more dregs than ever before. Previously, those women would die alone with no suitable man.
It’s like pulling up weeds.
Idiocracy could only happen when war ceased being common. Who dies first in battle?
Reproduction is the reward (not sex), for survival.
He hints at the rapist strategy of extreme r-types but dances around it. If men would find sex “difficult to resist” and could overpower a woman, surely that suggests…. that her choice didn’t factor into it?
That’s why he refuses to discuss rapists, which are not a viable strategy actually*. He’s pretending there’s a selection without choice, I’m sick of these slutty intellectually dishonest assholes acting like they’re the model of humanity.
*Women can easily not carry to term by starvation, various herbs in every location, punching themselves in the stomach. Why do you think traumatized women stop feeling hungry? Anti-rape baby instinct!
Witches provided abortifacient herbs.
Men aren’t “wired” any way, that’s sexist and poor science (it’s a limited metaphor not used in this field) and it’s the naturalistic fallacy. Most men are faithful and generally good. They have a natural disgust for easy women.
Broadcasting hotness – is not a thing. That’s sexual desperation, a personal choice, not fertility. Plenty of American men willingly prefer infertile women and women who look like it (swollen breasts as if already pregnant, narrow hips, muscled suggesting high testosterone and manjaw, short legs like a child). Those are typical r-types, both trying to avoid pregnancy.
So as far as an evolutionary biologist is concerned, that sexual interaction doesn’t exist because it’s a dead end.
It’s like counting homosexual sex – that doesn’t lead to babies either!
There’s no life created, it’s nothing to them. Except maybe a disease risk, funny he doesn’t mention STD-caused infertility….
You cannot switch reproductive strategy, it’s neurobiological, ask Anonymous Conservative. Your amygdala volume cannot magically change on a dime.
This guy keeps lying.
You cannot have it all, spoiled rabbits.
There’s a reason manwhores, when they marry, tend to get divorced (or cheat). It’s them.
Neither can you turn a ho into a housewife, same reason. It’s them.
This is why the evolutionary types are distrusted in academia, you must prove you’re not one of these guys that is totally excusing half the promiscuity that is completely novel to society now (with fake history) while claiming from the other side of their face that the other half is impossible (women aren’t sluts – but men are sleeping with them somehow) because of babies that don’t exist. (Pre-marital birth rate says different).
Other, lesser mammals were polygamous, not humans!
He doesn’t tell you this.
It would be akin to saying humans can self-clone because you used to be an amoeba, it’s bad science.
Read The Mating Mind for good evobio.
The concept of “hotness” (sciencey) isn’t mentioned.
This guy might as well be an astrologer. This is cold reading a modern culture and trying to re-write history.
He also misrepresents Freud. Madonna/Whore is a specific complex and has nothing to do with that.
Madonna is marrying a woman for reputation then cheating on her with whores because the male is too immature to view the mother of his children as a viable sexual and romantic outlet, abandoning her emotionally and sexually in fear. The complex is the split (between socially attractive women to other men and baby-making women at home) and it’s as bad for you as a split personality. That’s it. That’s the complex. It describes a common form of impotence.
They can’t get it up for the wife they chose, assuming childbirth gave her cooties.
Nothing to do with evolution. This guy is full of shit.
Simple question: what is “hotness” without porn?
Do you even know? (no) That’s the purpose of sexual programming. The mind control nobody talks about. Insulting the father figure and telling him housewife types are boring in bed. Old as the musical Grease.
I’m surprised by this conversation between Joe and Bret. I’ve asked multiple men before if they could see someone as only aesthetically pleasing but not sexually pleasing, and they never could (including my boyfriend.)
True, they were lying, assuming the other could.
Women, on the other hand, always could.
Women are more attuned to appearance in general.
Men don’t notice cuticles.
I can find a man or woman aesthetically pleasing, without seeing them as sexually pleasing. Seems like most men either find them sexually pleasing or they don’t.
If they’re honest.
An erection is a solid binary.
If they don’t find them sexually pleasing, they don’t find them aesthetically pleasing either. ‘I would fuck it or I would not fuck it.’ Lots of guys can’t seem to appreciate attractiveness without it being of a sexual nature. This conversation seems like it’s on similar lines as the question I’ve asked people before and yet both men were able to grasp it. Good on them
Men who can are called gay.
That’s why I laughed when they tried to compete by claiming they could do it.
Sluts are shamed because the entire tribe pays for it. Male or female.
Men have to pay with resources taken from the family or possibly a war in revenge for stealing a woman.
Then there’s disease risk, a major source of the shame is avoiding death and defects.
Many STDs are just passed by social contact and as a touchy species, viruses spread easily with hugs, kisses, grooming common to mammals.
I personally think the people who use the word hot to describe women are immature and shallow. I have noticed that the more people use words like that to describe people the worse off our future will be.
It’s so cringe-worthingly American, isn’t it? They sound like rappers.
Not just women, if all a man can be is hot, he must be a real loser.
It’s the one thing you can call a vapid moron. “At least he’s hot”.
Women use it this way primarily, it’s our new ‘nice’. It’s a backhanded compliment, like telling someone they could be a stripper. (Tatum)
These people are so condescending and boring
They think they’re important. E-celebs, aw. Adding nothing to history.
He totally ignored the data on how much women value looks.
Are these two fools trying to pass off this non-think as if it were based on biological fact? Women have a much greater capacity for sex than men.
Shh, don’t tell them! (They won’t listen anyway, they actually think sex is a male thing).
Imagine if men had multiple orgasms and no refractory period, chaos!
It’s like how they say women get triggered easily but if you insult Rick & Morty…
You don’t see many unstable women threatening to rape men online but okay, women are the mad ones. Okay.
I was shocked.
Abstract only, you can read the rest.
Human mate choice is influenced by limb proportions.
So far, so obvious.
Previous work has focused on leg-to-body ratio (LBR) as a determinant of male attractiveness and found a preference for limbs that are close to, or slightly above, the average. We investigated the influence of two other key aspects of limb morphology: arm-to-body ratio (ABR) and intra-limb ratio (IR). In three studies of heterosexual women from the USA, we tested the attractiveness of male physiques that varied in LBR, ABR and IR, using figures that ranged from −3 to +3 standard deviations from the population mean.
You win a cookie.
We replicated previous work by finding that the optimally attractive LBR is approximately 0.5 standard deviations above the baseline.
Health advantage (fitness) over mean.
We also found a weak effect of IR, with evidence of a weak preference for the baseline proportions.
All the cookies.
You didn’t fake anything.
In contrast, there was no effect of ABR on attractiveness,
Gym doesn’t change your ultimate genetic value.
Bicep curls won’t save an ugly mug, sorry.
And if they did, they’d still complain and call women shallow.
Like evolution is something superficial?
and no interactions between the effects of LBR, ABR and IR.
See, this is how you science.
THIS IS HOW YOU SCIENCE.
Our results indicate that ABR is not an important determinant of human mate choice for this population,
straight women, regular straight women
if you wanna pick up lesbians, your results may vary
and that IR may exert some influence but that this is much smaller than the effects of LBR. We discuss possible reasons for these results, including the limited variability in upper limb proportions and the potentially weak fitness-signal provided by this aspect of morphology.
Gym also means you throw off ratios with circumference and other noise. Optical illusions tend to operate on this principle. Women adapt out of being fooled.
A peacock can’t exercise into better plumage, LBR is the human genetic equivalent.
This is a solid finding, LBR is the male version of female WHR.
It’s nice to see someone take a male study seriously. We need more data so men aren’t pointlessly chasing a marketing dream of abs and pecs. Homoerotic fantasies pushed by gay designers won’t attract women.
I want to see a study in preference for the artificial look of gym bodies (both sexes) against likelihood of personality disorders.
It’s called fitness, smarter people are also naturally more attractive.
Who we’re told is (((smart))) in the modern world is just educated, a different variable, natural IQ correlates to beauty. It’s an established, permanent correlation. Appealing to exception doesn’t work.
“Facial attractiveness has been related to health in both men and women. Certain psychological, physiological, and secondary sex characteristics have been used as accurate markers of hormonal and developmental health. The main objective of this study was to investigate the capacity of women to select males of high reproductive quality based on their facial attractiveness. A total of 66 males were included in the study. Each of them provides a semen sample, and frontal and lateral photographs were taken. Semen analysis was made according to standard WHO (1999) guidelines for morphology, motility, and concentration. Moreover, a Sperm Index (SI) was calculated as the principal component of these parameters. In Study 1, 66 women rated the attractiveness, as a possible permanent couple, of pictures of all 66 men. In Study 2, the pictures of a subset of 12 males were randomly selected from three semen quality subgroups (terciles named good, normal, and bad, according to the value of the SI). These 12 pictures were rated on attractiveness by two independent sets of women (N=88 and N=76). Facial attractiveness ratings were significantly (P<.05) and positively correlated with sperm morphology, motility, and SI, but not with concentration, for all the women sets.“
Fitness and reproductive success, bound.
Darwin wins again.
And naturally, with age men are less attractive and sperm quality tanks (i.e. paternal age and miscarriage go up).
TLDR: Looks count, bitch!
Chants: D.N.A., D.N.A., D.N.A., D.N.A.
“Data from almost 600 participants show that women’s perceptions of male attractiveness do not vary according to their hormone levels, in contrast with some previous research.”
A better question, how did I know this?
Years ahead of time.
(Apart from my own sample size of numero uno).
They aren’t controlling for male beauty!
In an ATTRACTIVENESS study.
It isn’t just something nurture, perceived, externally, it’s innate, it’s nature!
It’s BONE STRUCTURE.
HORMONE CYCLES DON’T DAMAGE THEIR EYE SIGHT!
The natural looks of a man draw the woman, it’s genetic fitness FFS!
(And no, packing on the muscle doesn’t really change your face).
“”We found no evidence that changes in hormone levels influence the type of men women find attractive,” say lead researcher Benedict C. Jones of the University of Glasgow.
You know, I know this might sound controversial, but someone told me once that, well, water is wet? Big if true.
Who might women find more attractive?
The richer ones? The weirder ones?
THE MORE ATTRACTIVE ONES.
[Fuck’s sake, people.]
“This study is noteworthy for its scale and scope — previous studies typically examined small samples of women using limited measures,” Jones explains. “With much larger sample sizes and direct measures of hormonal status, we weren’t able to replicate effects of hormones on women’s preferences for masculine faces.””
With a solid method, lookism is real.
We don’t like a higher-T lesbian compared to a low-T man, do we?
They’re scared to offend ugly men. It’s the current year.
Your beauty is objective and the opposite sex care.
Sorry if the social construct upsets you but we can’t help evolution, cry in a safe space free of GI Joes to trigger you about your terrible stature.