Leo’s advise about dating and sex are mostly aimed towards man

[bambi]

Just now, Schizophonia said:

Where does that come from ?

Why wouldnt it be obviously true?

The main issue is conflating attraction with pair bonding. You do not need to be the most attractive mate of either sex to have a fulfilling romantic partnership, you simply need to be attractive enough to some of the opposite sex to enable the pair bonding mechanisms

[AION]

5 minutes ago, bambi said:

I would say Im near the top percentile in this regard

Your view might be biased. Ask a regular guy about this topic to get some grounded insights. 

 

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Girls are attracted to the top 20% of men, and men are attracted to the top 20% of girls.

The problem is the self-biased way men see this situation.

Most guys are attracted to 80% of the girls. And most of them will be happy if they can settle down with a descent looking girl. 

Nowadays if a girl is not fat and old and descent looking and ok-ish personality most guys would be happy to date her at the least.  Perhaps it is just my surroundings but a lot of desperate guys who can’t find a descent girl. 

Edited September 27 by AION

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, AION said:

Most guys are attracted to 80% of the girls.

For a one night lay, maybe. But not for a serious relationship.

When you are desperate you will sleep with anyone. But the more you sleep around the higher your standards get.

Edited September 27 by Leo Gura

[bambi]

12 minutes ago, AION said:

Your view might be biased. Ask a regular guy about this topic to get some grounded insights. 

 

Most guys are attracted to 80% of the girls. And most of them will be happy if they can settle down with a descent looking girl. 

Nowadays if a girl is not fat and old and descent looking and ok-ish personality most guys would be happy to date her at the least.  Perhaps it is just my surroundings but a lot of desperate guys who can’t find a descent girl. 

I am friends with hundreds of men, but what exactly do you mean by groudned insights, how does this follow anything I have written.

What Leo was saying is pretty much all men will be attracted to msot of the 20% of women. This is not saying there is 0 attraction within the other 80%, just it becomes more varied and personal. Attraction is a spectrum too, so all of these discrete categories to me are ultimately pointless.

Like I said to emerald, all this heurisitcs are ultimately meaningless when it comes to the individual. Life is about you, your preferences, your attractions , and what you want

[Emerald]

58 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Girls are attracted to the top 20% of men, and men are attracted to the top 20% of girls.

The problem is the self-biased way men see this situation.

This can happen. And yes, the men who complain about women going after the top 20% of men are also men who tend to only be focused towards the most attractive women. So, it is a projection of their own tendency... and a fear that women are sizing them up the same way.

But women aren't generally as objectively focused when selecting a male partner. So, there tends to be less of a tendency to shoot for some ideal guy.

It's usually some guy who's proximal to her level that she ends up developing organic feelings for. Women tend to look more for their match in my experience.

[eos_nyxia]

Right. So... the top 20% thing.

Does everyone mean "on paper" (via mainstream or societal standards, like boring shit like simply having money, height, social clout), or something more personal and subjective?

Because this really doesn't make sense based on people I've known throughout my life or my own experience.

 

Please, someone explain for me.

 

Edited September 27 by eos_nyxia

[bambi]

5 minutes ago, eos_nyxia said:

Right. So... the top 20% thing.

Does everyone mean "on paper" (via mainstream or societal standards, like boring shit like simply having money, height, social clout), or something more personal and subjective?

Because this really doesn't make sense based on people I've known throughout my life or my own experience.

 

Please, someone explain for me.

 

Most women or men, will be attracted to the top 20% of  their preferred gender within stereotypical biological/sruvival attraction categories for either sex.

So most women on avergae will be attracted to the well known, tall, good looking, confident, rich charismatic man

Most men on average will be attracted to the cute, smoking hot, attractive, stereotypicall femine females

All this is saying is there are a small set of traits that are broadly attractive to most humans of opposite sex. And that there are a broad set of traits that are more specific in their attractiveness to the opposite sex

Edited September 27 by bambi

[CARDOZZO]

This is why I tell man to be more like a scientist on the process of meeting woman.

You will never know what dating is really about talking on a forum.

Direct experience is king.

We have plural perspectives and nuances to observe dating.

Go out, talk, make mistakes.

You should strive for contrast between what you hear on reddit, youtube, forum and your direct experience.

[CARDOZZO]

Imagine that I believe what feminists talk about man.

I would be on a mental institution.

[Keryo Koffa]

25 minutes ago, CARDOZZO said:

This is why I tell man to be more like a scientist on the process of meeting woman.

How about an artist? 😜

[eos_nyxia]

34 minutes ago, bambi said:

Most women or men, will be attracted to the top 20% of men within stereotypical biological/sruvival attraction categories for either sex.

So most women on avergae will be attracted to the well known, tall, good looking, confident, rich charismatic man

Most men on average will be attracted to the cute, smoking hot, attractive, stereotypicall femine females

All this is saying is there are a small set of traits that are broadly attractive to most humans of either sex. And that there are a broad set of traits that are more specific in their attractiveness

I think I've always been too omnivorous by nature for this to be true, like I've been attracted to both conventionally good-looking people and people who are less so ("unconventionally attractive"), and even people who would be considered straight-up "conventionally ugly" (though often they have some special, unique personality features or talents that shine through in their demeanour and expression). Though in the last case.... no, they are not necessarily successful or recognized by others, if it's assumed to be a status thing.

It's the eyes that instantly give it away for me, the presence and who the person is.

No, it's not just "confidence" (and all the fake confidence and pretension that comes with that), but there is a sense of a developed, very individual personality of their own making. Like a "gravitas" without the heaviness and seriousness, necessarily. There is also a FEELING quality, like an emotional intensity as well.

TBH I see maybe a handful of men I find genuinely compelling every year IRL, if that, if we're just talking about strangers and first glances.

 

Maybe not so coincidentally, in those I have found most attractive, I also get the sense of being looked into my eyes and being seen more as a whole person and for more subtle qualities, not just the packaging. Like they SEE you. For reference, if relevant, apparently I'm considered conventionally attractive (enough for strangers to get super weird about it IRL), and fortunately for me, I can tell who is just looking at the wrapping and sees nothing else.

Edited September 27 by eos_nyxia

[bambi]

17 minutes ago, eos_nyxia said:

I think I've always been too omnivorous by nature for this to be true, like I've been attracted to both conventionally good-looking people and people who are less so ("unconventionally attractive"), and even people who would be considered straight-up "conventionally ugly" (though often they have some special, unique personality features or talents that shine through in their demeanour and expression). Though in the last case.... no, they are not necessarily successful or recognized by others, if it's assumed to be a status thing.

It's the eyes that instantly give it away for me, the presence and who the person is.

No, it's not just "confidence" (and all the fake confidence and pretension that comes with that), but there is a sense of a developed, very individual personality of their own making. Like a "gravitas" without the heaviness and seriousness, necessarily. There is also a FEELING quality, like an emotional intensity as well.

TBH I see maybe a handful of men I find genuinely compelling every year IRL, if that, if we're just talking about strangers and first glances.

 

Maybe not so coincidentally, in those I have found most attractive, I also get the sense of being looked into my eyes and being seen more as a whole person and for more subtle qualities, not just the packaging. Like they SEE you. For reference, if relevant, apparently I'm considered conventionally attractive (enough for strangers to get super weird about it IRL), and fortunately for me, I can tell who is just looking at the wrapping and sees nothing else.

No, your post actually supports my point. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding.

Let me clarify: I'm referring to the difference between a small subset of specific traits that are universally attractive (generic attraction) and a diverse set of traits that are only attractive to particular individuals (specific attraction). This is why most women tend to be attracted to the top 20% of men who possess these widely desirable traits, and the same concept applies to male attraction.

This pattern isn't unique—it's consistent with the types of distributions we observe in many systems

Notice that many counterarguments take the form of saying, 'While I am somewhat attracted to the generic traits, they don't necessarily supercede the specific traits I also find attractive.' This actually reinforces my point: there are universally appealing traits that many people value, while we all also find our unqiue individualized traits compelling

Edited September 27 by bambi

[CARDOZZO]

32 minutes ago, Keryo Koffa said:

How about an artist? 😜

Sure, you can be an artist in the process of relating to woman.

When I say "become a scientist" I mean that you should put your direct experience as the maximum authority to decide what is real or not, especially regarding dating.

[Leo Gura]

In very simple terms, everyone is attracted to the best they can get. Like how everyone is attracted to the lowest price they can find.

It's nothing personal. At an auction everyone is trying to pay the lowest price for the best goods, and we'll just have to see who wins what for how much.

Edited September 27 by Leo Gura

[eos_nyxia]

6 minutes ago, bambi said:

No, your post actually supports my point. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding.

Let me clarify: I'm referring to the difference between a small subset of specific traits that are universally attractive (generic attraction) and a diverse set of traits that are only attractive to particular individuals (specific attraction). This is why most women tend to be attracted to the top 20% of men who possess these widely desirable traits, and the same concept applies to male attraction.

This pattern isn't unique—it's consistent with the types of distributions we observe in many systems

Notice that many counterarguments take the form of saying, 'While I am somewhat attracted to the generic traits, they don't necessarily supercede the specific traits I also find attractive.' This actually reinforces my point: there are universally appealing traits that many people value, while we all also find our unqiue individualized traits compelling

Ok, I get your point more clearly now.

I think I've seen far too many people (usually men) use the "top 20%" argument to insist that "generic attractiveness" is overwhelmingly the top choice, basically what is often considered "good on paper".

I think Emerald has a point in saying many women do not work this way, and it's pretty obvious that a lot of the people claiming otherwise simply did not grow up interacting with women and girls much, listening to their thought processes, and watching the choices they actually made, etc. It's the insider view instead of the outsider one.

[Keryo Koffa]

5 minutes ago, CARDOZZO said:

Sure, you can be an artist in the process of relating to woman.

When I say "become a scientist" I mean that you should put your direct experience as the maximum authority to decide what is real or not, especially regarding dating.

But scientists sample confounding placebo-controlled statistically significant cross-sectional & longitudinal operational randomized sampling bias accounting block cohort power-meta-analysis studies.

And direct experience is far more subjective, limited, circumstantial, self-relating, perspectival & self-bias unaccounting, relationally speaking.

Which is why I recommend the artist approach, get experimental, try things out, take it easy, have fun, don't aim for an outcome but enjoy the process, and master the craft as you explore and draw upon all perspectives offered, integrating them into your toolset, while never getting attached to any in particular, which you otherwise would fall into the trap of, were you using a purely "direct experience" type approach or a scientific model sampling reality based on one's preconceived assumptions backward rationalized by correlations.

I just felt like writing a bit, not critiquing you or anything, just wanted to see what my mind would come up with 😁

[RendHeaven]

@Lyubov elite passport bro rhetoric

[r0ckyreed]

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

In very simple terms, everyone is attracted to the best they can get. Like how everyone is attracted to the lowest price they can find.

It's nothing personal. At an auction everyone is trying to pay the lowest price for the best goods, and we'll just have to see who wins what for how much.

Halo effect in action. It’s all a status game. 

[Leo Gura]

22 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

Halo effect in action. It’s all a status game. 

It's a value game. Status is one type of value.

Edited September 27 by Leo Gura

[Princess Arabia]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

In very simple terms, everyone is attracted to the best they can get. Like how everyone is attracted to the lowest price they can find.

It's nothing personal. At an auction everyone is trying to pay the lowest price for the best goods, and we'll just have to see who wins what for how much.

This is just from a man's perspective. A man who desires hot chicks and settles for what he gets. Women aren't thinking this way. Women aren't going around saying, this is what I can get so I'm attracted to him. A woman is either attracted or she's not, not based on what she can get. Yes, people settle, but attracted, no. 

Edited September 28 by Princess Arabia