Natasha Tori Maru

This is a silly comparison that doesn't argue for true objective attraction as a binary. Babies don't stare at women waists for their waist to hip ratio. Most of the time they are fixated on eye colour and shape. Facial expressions of laughter and smiling catch them more than facial aesthetics (but there are trends in looks that are more universally attractive). This only points toward some parameters that can be indicative of objective attractiveness. Not that hotness is totally objective. There's a huge leap you make from evidence of shared preferences to proof of objective attractiveness. Picking some extreme example isn't arguing your case.

What the fuck am I hearing here. I'm only 1hr 13mins in. Not only am I disappointed in these women - I do not understand how I am the same species as them. Gender aside, people lack all critical thinking.... and it's getting worse! All down hill from here, baby! (btw I will respond to your larger post above, just time poor and would like to do it justice )

@Jirh I think this is a really solid, fair dissection of the flaws and assumptions behind the fallacy of claiming there is some subjective/objective binary looks or "hotness" can fit neatly in. Arguing for the '"absolute hotness" - sounds bizarre. There's no clean way about it. How the fuck am I meant to fully understand just how much culture and images have affected my own barometer? How can that even be quantified? You could try to run the claim that we 'biologically react outside of cerebral preferences obtained from the social domain' but even in biological response alone, there is a large variation in response. Lets see some "absolute hot" claims

@Basman you can sit down for a brainstorming session, and critically think through all the systems that might influence how attraction isn't a binary split between subjective/objective. It's more of a spectrum. You also have to define what you mean particularly with the term "attraction" "Fairly objective and obvious" - that word fairly is loaded with... A lot of nuance. It's potentially doing a lot of work there.

@Xonas Pitfall Leo does fall into reductionism regarding the masculine/feminine frame. I agree. You cannot cleanly lacerate out the two biologies without factoring in a whole ecosystem of influences. It is all systematic. Hormonal variation, culture and institutions, economic structure and incentives, individual personality variation etc etc. The framing men aren't as emotional is ridiculous to me. It could be simply bias too - sometimes men aren't even conscious they operate from emotions or embody them, and so think they do not make decisions (or are influenced) as such. Ha! Visible emotional expressions aren't the only emotions or indicators of them. The argument I get behind more frequently is that men can often use logic to override emotions more often than women (in general). Even then, people are so delusional they often twist logic to attend to their emotions and justify their decisions in this way... This isn't to deny biology and sexes have very real effects.

It is a great tool for inquiry - my words were a bit strong I think. It doesn't destroy critical thinking - it can weaken it though. We already have issues with low critical thinking, so I might argue it is reasonable to put forth many users do not use it in a way that fosters this ability (especially if they never had the skill at all to begin with!). Overall I really like AI though

I agree. It is a scale. It is a false equivalency to frame it as binary. How far on either side of the scale between objective <-----> subjective is where the meat of the argument is. I think the above is the only sensible stance. Leo's frame appears (to me) an attempt to justify his own taste by framing it as objective. But the argument folds harder than origami on inspection

@Yimpa Riden' em' HARD

@Leo Gura that's on you if you think you aren't influenced. As I stated, some metrics for beauty are on the objective side. But there are huge variations in what people agree on. It's the logic of the argument that needs to be elaborated on, else it makes little sense. You aren't really addressing what I raised. But that's cool.

I feel pretty similar to this. Echoes my thoughts. If objectivity/subjectively is a spectrum rather than binary, the marker is skewed heavily toward subjective for me. Sure, there are some universally agreed upon attractive qualities. But the range of taste is so bloody broad. Just look at porn as an example of that range...

This could just indicate you are more influenced. This also assumes shared preference will equal better judgement. Weird to leap to make. "Good taste" is badly defined. The whole statement could just indicate you are typical. I would say you are more sensitive to common beauty signals would be a stronger statement.

Rofl 😃 you're such a little shit, but I love it. I don't hate AI. I dislike how users plug urguments into AI (those they want to refute, or their own) and use it for nefarious ends. Just to win. Are we here for truth? If you argue only to win, you aren't really trying to discover the truth (and it's frequently half way between both sides when the discussion is protracted and systemic) AI can be abused to outsource critical thinking. It's rather obvious who does this. Many do on the forum here, and the internet at large. Using AI to brainstorm for you is so, so bad for cognition. Use it or lose it. I don't see many people able to critically asses simple concepts that arrive from social media! Red pill, looksmaxing, insane misandry disguised as feminism, MGTOW, blaming women or men for systemic issues out of their control. People fall for it, hook line and sinker, because they do not use critical thinking enough for it to be the default. I'm not saying that you should never use AI for this. But it is not something you should frequently outsource. It needs to remain sharp. And to do this requires use. It's also antithetical to what actualized.org stands for. I have this printed and use it when thinking about new topics or working through complex systems (such as the topic here): Critical thinking cheat sheet

@Jirh I don't hate AI 🥹

Personally I don't give a fug too much about status provided a dude is able to look after himself. Theres a minimum. I just want someone I can rub brains with 😀 the brains are a bit more of a turn on for me. And humour - but good, crafty humour is often a proxy for intellect. I wouldnt consider myself part of this bell curve we are discussing, though

Women's biological attraction to status could be steelmanned by looking at how safety and certainty is a concern. Men need to supply provision to look after women when they bear children. Status might not be the direct target - but many things function as proxies: money, strength, social standing etc Coupled with, historically, women would need to select well. Getting pregnant was risky. Perhaps biology and attraction favoured for this selection - hence status being an attraction mechanism. Hard to say if that is a hardwire biologically or a manifestation of the social domain. Status is a signal. And a good one for genetic propagation.