Blackpill A simple biological explanation for why Height > Face

[FiveFourManlet]

Tbh I don't understand the logic behind Face>All. Literally it shouldn't be important. Back in 20018BC nobody cared about your proportions or big nose. Only jaw was important, since they used it to chew meat. Height+frame+muscle+intelligence (kind of)>>>>>>>face. An ugly face would only sometimes mean disease, but a big nose, brown eyes and recessed chin /= disease. Jaw is the only feature that truly matters tbh.

cope, eye area is crucial.

 

[Konon]

cope, eye area is crucial.

But why

 

[FiveFourManlet]

But why

@FACEandLMS

 

[Limerencel]

100,000+ women I said yes to on Hot or Not and got 7 matches of which 5 replied to me, of which 4 carried on the conversation through small talk until they ALL ghosted me. My height was in my bio, and it was a full bodyshot, best pic of me.

LOL. So your best counterpunch is bringin up your Hot or Not stats?
Have you tried leaving the house? There's a world beyond your mom's basement.
You're 19 and 6'2. If you took the right steps, you could likely ascend.

 

[BRCel123]

Face is everything

 

[Bagelcel]

Frame makes you stronger too. Both frame and height are very important and above face.

This.

I'd say Frame + height > Face
But not just height on it's own.

 

[solcel]

being short had an advantage too. Short people don't have to eat as much calories as a 6'3 man does. Also manlets have a low center of gravity allowing them to climb shit easier

 

[OBLITERATION]

everyone’s weakness is ‘the most important’

 

[Allblueeeee]

So what is the ideal height for you OP?

 

[Deleted member 1983]

thanks OP i guess ill go out and be bombarded by girls now because im 6'2.

 

[Villain]

Short men ! LETS. VOLT. IN !!!

 

[FiveFourManlet]

thanks OP i guess ill go out and be bombarded by girls now because im 6'2.

You are white and tall, OUT

 

[Villain]

Short men ! LETS. VOLT. IN !!!

 

[Deleted member 1983]

You are white and tall, OUT

ill be here long after you ascend boyo

 

[lastchancel]

LOL. So your best counterpunch is bringin up your Hot or Not stats?
Have you tried leaving the house? There's a world beyond your mom's basement.
You're 19 and 6'2. If you took the right steps, you could likely ascend.

I went to a mixed school and was rejected by all the girls. They were repulsed by me, you don't know my story but you make assumptions because you think all your problems stem from your height, and me just not trying hard enough has to be the truth, to fit your narrative that only height matters. You don't want to acknowledge your subhuman face to cope, but if girls don't like you, then it's not only your height.


Also, "leave ur mums basement" is a line straight off IT soyboy advice, what's next, be confident? be yourself? take a shower? JFL at this cope.

thanks OP i guess ill go out and be bombarded by girls now because im 6'2.

you and I both. Finally FiveFourCopelet has found a solution for our problems, JBT theory

 

[Hunter]

height > face for everyday life.

face > height for getting laid

 

[Frankenstein's M.]

Then why tf Iam I seeing 6+ guys always alone while 5'5 chads getting pussy thrown at them all the time.

 

[Hunter]

There comes a threshold where your height can make things severely difficult (5’5-5’4) but it never rules you out in the way a horrific face does, honestly people do not respect height when it’s accompanied by an ugly face.

People may lack respect for you at your height, but they do not feel instinctive fear in the same way they do when they look upon an ogre. Between 5’5-5’10 face is far more important, you believe height to be more important because from the perspective of someone who stands 5’4 (you), it is.

Walk one day in the shoes of an ogre and your mind may be changed.

lmfao below 5'10 height is far more important than face.

 

[It's All Genetics]

This holds true with evolutionary science, which shows a man who is short and good looking would have more complications than a tall ogre. A good face still shows signs of health and quality, but height and frame show protection and security, far more important to foids simply based on how they vote.

 

[Existentialcel]

Cope

 

[big nose bug eyes]

Height only really matters if you're 5'4'' genetic toxic waste like OP. If you're at least 5'7'' you are fine if you have a good face. Things like height and race are prerequisites but your face is the deciding factor.

 

[SchrodingersDick]

high IQ. I've been saying this for ages.

Perceived fighting success is 1:1 with SMV

ive seen 3 guys under 5,5 get gf's

out of the how many million guys you've seen in your life ?

exceptions don't disprove a rule.
those guys aren't getting ONS though
ONS = primal sex appeal
LTR = $afe, $table cuck

 

[ColdLightOfDay]

lmfao below 5'10 height is far more important than face.

So in your world a 5’9 man with a Chad face stands a lower chance than a 5’11 man who looks like a gargoyle? Lmao, this height meme is beyond retarded.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Always tons of bullshit in "evolution" threads.

This claim i make all the time that height > face may seem like some Low IQ shit post manlet self pity cope.

But it actually has a very simple explanation behind the reasoning i have come up with to make this claim.

The one goal a organism has all comes down to immortality (@Limerencel first introduced the immortality concept to me) of its genes. So using this rule, this explains why the male nature is to spread his seed, because if you only reproduce once, that does not guarantee that his offspring will spread the genes which will continue the immorality of his genes. But even if he has 100 children that still does not guarantee that his genes will be passed on, which is why our job is to spread our seed as much as possible to give the best possibility of passing on our genes though generations.

So how does this relate to why Height > Face?

This is a very simple concept, it is because it is down to the survival of the fittest. Take away the society we live in, the laws and everything. What males dominate? The taller males, as they are generally bigger and stronger than shorter males. It does not matter about the face, because it is all about having the best genes to pass onto offspring, to increase the chance of survival.

Height wins in this aspect, not face at all.

There is a reason why it is taboo to call a tall man ugly to his face, and why females would rather call him average looking, its because they do fear the consequences of this action.

There is also a reason why female will happily mock short males for their height in front of their faces, because they do not fear the consequences of this action.

This goes back a long way, much further than you think, mocking short men is not just a modern society invention. It has been around for a very long time.

This just proves that height > face, in the dating market as well as in everyday life.


Conclusion:

A good face doesn't make you stronger, height does.

Natural selection and sexual selection do not function in a perfectly reinforcing parallel. "This man is big and could maybe win a fight against this small man" does not mean either that the former will always succeed in the basic state of nature or that foids will always select the former. If this is the case, why aren't human beings 100 feet tall and growing with each new generation? There are various equilibria and constraints to consider in these matters.

But - it is perfectly possible for a slut to make the wrong choice, to prefer exaggerated ornamentation, to be attracted to marks of beauty with a dubious-at-best connection to physical health. This phenomenon is referred to as Fisherian runaway selection, a process that amplifies sexual dimorphism - makes males "beautiful" with no real value and tends to be unleashed in environments that are weakly selective (e.g. ours). You find them in this case preferring taller and taller men, ones with indications of well-developed facial bones, etc. and being picky to the point that these features are directionally selected with such rapidity as to lose functional utility. But that still doesn't answer the question - what do sluts like more? Good eye areas? Height? Frame? All of them are supposed to be "good". They're social creatures, too, and use status games in making their decisions - a man's performance in this arena is "proof" of his worth - is his height, face, etc. actually useful?

This is a particular reason why naturalistic arguments are so bizarre in our context. Everything is so deformed and divorced from "survival" that it's hard to latch onto what exactly a "jud jeen" could be.

Survival of the fittest is legit

"Survival of the fittest" is a specious Spencerian fiction. "Reproductive fitness" in a rigid biological sense means "reproductive success"; there is no strict valuation of the alleles that are passed in greater or lesser proportion. "Good" is environmentally contingent and foids are not intelligently selecting the "best" mates with calculating shrewdness. They are obeying imperatives that have emerged under obsolete or vanished environmental constraints. Civilization has been built on the suppression of stupidly animalistic female sexuality and now that it has become clogged with the flotsam of complacent hubris, it seems "okay" to remove social and legal obstacles to female agency. "I can't believe it took us millennia to realize that freedom is good!" They are, however, preparing the ground for their overdetermined matrix to collapse in flames and for humanity to revert to a primitive and barbaric state, speeded along by the sexual selection of men who will make it and keep it so.

everyone’s weakness is ‘the most important’

Yeah, this is always the case. It would be interesting to determine wth some degree of objectivity what factors are most important in attracting foids, but everyone here always resorts to: "Whatever is wrong with me. Volcel if it's not wrong with you too." In the absolute best case, people might draw support from individual studies that point toward a particular conclusion and then contradict each other when each person's "open and shut muh rational science" evidence is compared.

In my own experience in failing to attract foids, I would end up with a hierarchy that looks like the following:

status > NT > face > height > race

because that is the comparative degree to which I lack or do not lack in each area.

Is everyone going to agree with that?

 

[Welcumtotherealworld]

Eh this varies from country to country. Face is the most important in the west. Can't say the same for the rest of the world.

 

[FiveFourManlet]

Always tons of bullshit in "evolution" threads.



Natural selection and sexual selection do not function in a perfectly reinforcing parallel. "This man is big and could maybe win a fight against this small man" does not mean either that the former will always succeed in the basic state of nature or that foids will always select the former. If this is the case, why aren't human beings 100 feet tall and growing with each new generation? There are various equilibria and constraints to consider in these matters.

But - it is perfectly possible for a slut to make the wrong choice, to prefer exaggerated ornamentation, to be attracted to marks of beauty with a dubious-at-best connection to physical health. This phenomenon is referred to as Fisherian runaway selection, a process that amplifies sexual dimorphism - makes males "beautiful" with no real value and tends to be unleashed in environments that are weakly selective (e.g. ours). You find them in this case preferring taller and taller men, ones with indications of well-developed facial bones, etc. and being picky to the point that these features are directionally selected with such rapidity as to lose functional utility. But that still doesn't answer the question - what do sluts like more? Good eye areas? Height? Frame? All of them are supposed to be "good". They're social creatures, too, and use status games in making their decisions - a man's performance in this arena is "proof" of his worth - is his height, face, etc. actually useful?

This is a particular reason why naturalistic arguments are so bizarre in our context. Everything is so deformed and divorced from "survival" that it's hard to latch onto what exactly a "jud jeen" could be.



"Survival of the fittest" is a specious Spencerian fiction. "Reproductive fitness" in a rigid biological sense means "reproductive success"; there is no strict valuation of the alleles that are passed in greater or lesser proportion. "Good" is environmentally contingent and foids are not intelligently selecting the "best" mates with calculating shrewdness. They are obeying imperatives that have emerged under obsolete or vanished environmental constraints. Civilization has been built on the suppression of stupidly animalistic female sexuality and now that it has become clogged with the flotsam of complacent hubris, it seems "okay" to remove social and legal obstacles to female agency. "I can't believe it took us millennia to realize that freedom is good!" They are, however, preparing the ground for their overdetermined matrix to collapse in flames and for humanity to revert to a primitive and barbaric state, speeded along by the sexual selection of men who will make it and keep it so.



Yeah, this is always the case. It would be interesting to determine wth some degree of objectivity what factors are most important in attracting foids, but everyone here always resorts to: "Whatever is wrong with me. Volcel if it's not wrong with you too." In the absolute best case, people might draw support from individual studies that point toward a particular conclusion and then contradict each other when each person's "open and shut muh rational science" evidence is compared.

In my own experience in failing to attract foids, I would end up with a hierarchy that looks like the following:

status > NT > face > height > race

because that is the comparative degree to which I lack or do not lack in each area.

Is everyone going to agree with that?

Race is most important