Natasha Tori Maru

Expressions of gratitude are my favourite Unfortunately, there are some nasty forum players who dislike this: there have been accusations of ganging up, glazing, and needlessly interrupting the flow of threads just because they didn't like a poster expressing agreement (even via an emoji, checkmate etc) It is sad to see. Humans love to feel emotions. Drama or contentious threads happen to engage them - good or bad. It's such a shame that many are so numbed by life that even bad feelings (self generated) through heated drama and controversial topics, are better than feeling nothing at all... When people disagree you get more engagement even without emotions. The best insights don't have much activity as sometimes others just don't have anything to add. Which can point toward a true, well rounded post. Does not mean accolades are not warranted! In the spirit of the thread: good post 😃

I feel stuck reconciling time, how it works. As a dimension of reality. One thing happens. Then another. Totally seperate. But I can use my intellect and pattern recognition to infer causation. Progression through time. Time can't exist - but it does? Or I make it up to create and make sense of reality. Time itself feels created by conscious awareness through a series of memories. But the universe itself does not appear to be "becoming" moment to moment. Nothing is bloody happening haha

Can you elaborate on this? Do you view causation occuring in your direct experience of concrete reality?

This is not what I am questioning.

This is where I am pivoting around a bit I think. You better captured it in words. It feels fundamentally unresolved.

Half the looksmaxxing circles and those who discuss it are almost taking the piss, there is legit trolling behind the movement and jestermaxxing.

Can you explain to me how you got from women's advancement to sub replacement fertility rate? How the link is clear without any other possible factors affecting replacement fertility rates?

That's cool, I thought it was a misunderstanding as you could read into it 😁

@AtmanIsBrahman So what do the numbers mean? How was it decided one number means a certain level of attractiveness? What studies were done to come to that conclusion that one number means more regarding beauty than another? All evidence I find tells me looksmaxxing is more than these geometric principles - there are other elements to it. Does looksmaxxing exclude skincare, hair care, clothing selection, body composition? These have existed for a long, long time. If they are part of looksmaxxing, this is nothing new. You say beauty is objective - is this absolute? I claim it is not at all. Some things are more attractive, but there are massive variances across culture and personal preference. I cannot make out your answer and it you are using objective as a blunt absolute term or you think there is some nuance? Beauty is either subjective or objective. Can it ever be subjective to you?

@Rishabh R I am unsure how your point relates to mine? I am claiming it's not a good thing to do, forum or not.

@AtmanIsBrahman if you don't want to address the questions then just say it. I don't require your assumptions. I require answers. AI isn't an answer. I want to know how you came the certain conclusions - all you are doing is proving you adopted someone else's, and cannot show how they got there with your own words. I can relink my original question set if you like? You are making the claim that looksmaxxing is new. It's got validity. I am questioning that. I want you to display how you understand it. I am not going to research this because I want to know how YOU came the the conclusion this was valid. Showing how you checked validity. All I can decifer is that you jumped on a trend and haven't thought about it, and taken on someone else's conclusion as authority IE group think If you can show me your own thoughts I wouldn't suspect the above.

@AtmanIsBrahman my guy. I'm asking to see YOUR data. YOUR critical thinking. Data and how you got to your conclusions. YOU. I don't want an AI answer where you let someone else dictate how to think and you repeat it without any sort of analysis. I think I've asked some good questions. If you could have a think and find sources (ai isn't a source) that back up your claim that would be great! You didn't even scratch my questions. I'm basically forming a claim that looksmaxxing is nothing but a rebrand with maths of concepts that always existed. Looksmaxxing isn't just a psl, angle optimisation. Your AI response even says the research isn't solid. It's contested?? The copy pasta no brain AI response doesn't address even half the questions. Why are you letting AI do all your thinking research and deductive reasoning?

Insisting our view is the correct one, putting others down when they do not align. Pretending this is done for others own good. That there is virtue behind the actions. To teach. Leo does this. And so are others in this thread. Interesting.

@AtmanIsBrahman you are just repeating a claim. Can you please support it? How are you personally seeing that people weren't analysing each part of the face 40 years ago? Can you please supply some research, or historical timelines for the development behind looksmaxing? Do you realise 40 years ago was 1986? Photoshop and it's effects have been replicated with cosmetics for a long, long time. Millenia timescales. Can you show me some data that reports all men agree to the same nose being attractive, the same face dimensions, the same geometry? How do you explain beauty preferences that differ across culture and the data available there? Can you show me data that confirms all people agree that certain celebrities are attractive? That would substantiate "objective" a bit more. Repeating statements isn't building as case.

@AtmanIsBrahman Beauty is not so rigid as to be objective. Can you show me some historical data and links to support none of this existed prior to you encountering it as trend? Can you tell me where the basis for these rules came from? Can you tell me how long they existed for, prior to adoption to faces? Can you give me some evidence to support that others didn't use any of these concepts previously? If you could also share how you came to the conclusion these principles made for 'better aesthetics'? How did you get there from the principles? How exactly do these principles enhance appearance? What elements of beauty are they engaging? How are you deciding what looks better? Who is deciding this? How does this system account for subjective preference?