Natasha Tori Maru

Yeah, I don't think I am a good example of the general female population (in terms of my openness to physical 'defects' - which I do not class as such but by societies standards, I suppose they are). For me, brains trump looks. I have a minimum-ish set of standards, but they are loose. I have had LTR with some dudes who would be probably in the firm 4-5 category. Overweight, male pattern hair loss, not facially attractive by societies standards, short. But man they could chew the fat intellectually. Good humour + fucken icy wicked wit (maybe they were internet trolls ). I think the main element that caught my attention was confidence. Literally BDE. Then I discovered brains and NOM NOM NOM.

You seem surprised by my confidence. Well - SUPRISE I just know there are bigger issues than hair loss that hold people back. Much, much deeper ones. @NewKidOnTheBlock TBH if you own it like that - respect. Making a weakness an armour. That would probably earn points in my vetting books

Tapping out is often the most sensible option. People aren't actually putting effort into understanding what is actually being said by each party. No interest in getting closer to the truth of the matter. Only interest is service to ego (ie winning). You can tell as no one is asking further questions. Was a good brainrub session with you while it lasted

Well yeah, from what you have seen. Our experience is limited to us and can be a significant source of cognitive bias. Cognitive drift also. Like hair transplants.

tl;dr for my links above - LLM's have revealed language is self generating. The intriguing part is how we are interacting with language itself as conduits for transmitting qualia.

Something you do not, perhaps?

Exactly. Fuck the hair, you ain't going no where if you don't even interact. Plus bald head gives the velcro feel! Unbeatable tactile sensations

@LordFall I disagree. Confidence trumps looks every time - provided there are minimum appearance standards and cleanliness are met etc etc "Why not" - that's not a good reason to me. This is not to say looks do not have an effect and should not be focused on. But you need to prioritise and being overly attached to hair signals to me you aren't doing so. This is why I raised earlier I would be vetting the person harder. I don't want to date someone who is fighting their aging and devoting needless energy, money, time and resources to doing so. Again this is my personal opinion. And while this does not exclude it from criticism, it is not something I am going to change my mind over.

Because it does not address the root (huehuehue a pun!!!) issue.

Yeah so, just repeating "It clearly does." isn't further advancing your point. It's just repeating the same claim with nothing else to add while ignoring the counters I raised (and support points, mind you, if you read carefully). You also don't even go into further elaborating on your point then come out that no one is arguing subjective/objective attraction being binary? So how about clearly laying out your claim? I even raised that "fairly" could be doing a lot of heavy lifting in your original statement - prompting maybe some more elaboration on your part regarding where you sit there? Are you interested in trying to discern the truth here (wherever it may be, usually half way between in cases such as these) or just winning???

Hair transplant? The fuck lol. FUCK NO. Bald is fine. If you are so insecure as to be attached to hair holy shit. You need some meaning in life. Either you are a 1) young nub or 2) no experience of life 3) have a pathology. Obviously this is my personal preference - but anyone so fixated on hair is a marker they haven't got priorities. I wouldn't want to date them. Not saying I would rule it out, but I would be vetting what's going on for them psychologically / attachment wise a lot more extensively.

It doesn't matter. There is no universal preference.

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

I do shit (shit#1) - then shit (shit#2) occurs afterwards. Shit#1 and Shit#2 appear to be associated. But in reality, all I can say is one shit is happening then another. I am making a connection between the two shits - via inference - up in my head? I got to this based on determinism / free will and reviewing this thread: Confused with free will I don't think I can say anything else other than "I observe some pattern of shit, some regularities of said shit, and some sequences of shit" Correct me if I am wrong - but I am making this connection up?

@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...