Natasha Tori Maru

@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.

@Jirh looksmaxxers working out if someone is attractive to them or not. Do you think they carry scale rulers and protractors? 🤣🤣🤣 Fuck it's too easy to rip on looksmaxxing. I need a challenge lol

Honestly, if you advocate for looksmaxxing like it's genuinely going to be a "thing" you are suffering from a cognitive distortion. It's your algorithm. It's marketing "look at this thing that is wrong, I have the solution". Supply and demand. Touch grass. This shit isn't a thing. Cognitive. Distortion.

Like a limp, wet noodle. Soggy 3 day old ramen 🍜

I'm gatekeeping my opinion and review you fucks! 😎😄

Haha, tell that to the looksmaxxers with their pseudo adoption of mathematical principals applied to faces 😜 I think this is a silly example. Domain error in species. Can't just use category errors like that and try to argue from there.

@Leo Gura hell yeah 😁

Health indicators over appearance might be a better frame.

Interesting line of thought. I think this pushes to "how objective are biological mechanisms?" Which is interesting. I can think of "pain" being a good example to steelman this. Pain, you could argue, is a pretty strong objective indicator that triggers a biological response of "not good, get away, warning, stop". Our experience of pain is objective on this way, removing the range of perceptive tolerance, it still indicates danger or something wrong. Pushing this into men's response to the appearance of women: waist to hip ratio, breasts, arse. Clear skin. Shiny hair. Bright eyes. All can induce similar "objective" (you could argue) responses in men. Many times, outside their control. Women experience something similar, but the example is better suited to men due to the strength of their sexual drivers and biological responses.