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.

Do we expect poo?

@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.

Hit up some of Robert Greene's books! Even if they don't make it to the booklist, I think you would enjoy them, Leo He is releasing a new book soon that I gather has some overlap with spirituality & truth.

The way I try to see it is biology providing a range of potential "attraction mechanisms" while culture adds in its hierarchy of what is important, desirable and meaningful. Then you have individual preferences further moving the needle to modify the above. Neither sex has a purely objective attraction system. The question skews more toward how much of attraction is biological vs socially constructed? Not whether one sex is objective while the other relative. The premise is too reductive.

@Leo Gura gotcha, and yeah this is why I asked because context can change meaning. Not sure why you are commenting on pretending things don't exist.

You can say that it is obvious - but your initial statement wasn't clear. I would say it also relies on women being able to bear children as well as raise them. I don't care if what you say is new or not. Cheers for clarifying 🙏🏻 So, they rely on each other for survival. And each have their own part to play as providers. One cannot be "more of a provider" than the other without making effort quantifying this for each sex.

How are you quantifying "needed for survival" here? I think it's a false comparison. You can't really decouple men and women in terms of needs like this. I don't think survival can be measured independently like that for each sex. I don't think this holds for all contexts.

🎯

You are certainly living up to your name! Great wonder seeking - can't wait until you pop in with some insights after this trajectory change 😁

Very much so. I always look at these sorts of charged discussions in retrospect to juice out what I can do better. How it went wrong. How we can present ourselves and our arguments in a more neutral way. Offense generally appears to be produced by content, framing, timing, and the listener’s identity and context.

In the spirit of good discussion - here is my thesis What about the cost of living and providing for a family, and how this may factor in to birth rates? How do you think modernity (dare I say, capitalism), with it's atomisation of our living (possible to order in almost all we need, smaller families, more appliances, less reliance on anyone else, isolation) affects our psychologies, mental health and cost to maintain such an existence? The degradation of community as a result of atomisation means we rely on others less. No trade. No communal assistance. Smaller families to assist. Third spaces disintegrating. This is forfeit - and our cash and money now replace what community provided. We use our resources to supplant what we used to get from neighbors, friends, strong bonds with larger families. Ever since the wars, when society put women to work, a new labour force was discovered. Capitalism has benefited greatly from this; when the wars ended, women remained working as a new labour force. Women benefited from this. It was a natural progression; we gained economic independence, career opportunities, greater freedom and protection from dependance on a spouse. But there are many systemic unintended consequences to the above. The dual income trap arose; Housing markets and living standards adjusted upward around this new reality. Households that live on one income are priced out. I would argue it is this modern 'atomisation' that is, also, artificially causing a divide between men and women, which is acting as a red herring for the real problem: runaway capitalism. Men and women face different tensions as a result. Men historically derived meaning from provision, protection, family leadership, skilled labour, community status etc. This role has changed with modernity. Women face a different set of issues; expectation to build a career, maintain financial independence, raise children, maintain relationships, manage the house etc. Everyone works harder, we all feel less secure. This doesn't mean women working is the problem, but more that institutions probably haven't adapted that well to a world where all adults participate in the labour market. Social media rhetoric likes to cement itself right in the middle and leverage this pressure by creating men vs women dialogues. It's a red herring for the real problem. Depression, hopelessness, stress, meaninglessness result from the above. The future looks bleak - it's no wonder birth rates are falling in first wor;d countries Poorer counties simply do not suffer from this laceration from community and atomisation. They retain community. Family. Bonds between each other. Positively affecting mental health and happiness. They have yet to face the new systemic problems we do, as first world countries.