I'd say the only thing that comes second is a dynamic chadlike personality which, if you were going to implement tricks/ boosters to make your personality come off well, that it would not work unless you have the looks to implicate a lifestyle around it.
I wouldn't say personality in of itself gets you girls. Looks practically do 80% of the work when you deal with the frame of overall female superficiality. But when it comes to moments after initial attraction you need something to keep your value-track banging forward.
Dynamic chadlike personality needs to be there to secure that a male does not have autism, or a shitty life experience.
Every hope a non-chad has is that a female is bluepilled so she doesn't have a conscientious payload of the importance of looks, judgment, etc.
Women are like men, although have adhd/ anxiety/ etc. which stop many of them from being nothing but brainless valley girls in the general scheme of society. With the rise of technology that demographic will be decreasing.
PUA is premised off the fallacy that women are not conscientious thinkers, and don't choose on the basis of the blackpill, but on who vibes right with personality/ etc. BUT this only works in rare cases. The more a female knows about the blackpill or who personally makes their personal criteria of attraction (on a conscious level, not a wavering impulsive level) about looks, then PUA jig is up. Youwill be like trying to sell meat to a vegetarian.
90% of divorces are initiated by college educated women. Let that say something in itself.
You need a personality to scream halo effect or your looksmaxxing is apparent/ your flaws you are burying ar apparent.
Personality only has a slight utility in keeping her entertained, but it is mostly a halo effect platform for your natural aptitudes/ abilites/ lifehistory/ things that make you distinct for other males. Dispositional transmitter of distinction.
Even if you commonalitymaxxx (have the same interests) funnymaxx/ charismamaxx/ skillmaxx/ sportmaxx,... humans are primal and they want the trill of being on a dominarchal rollercoaster. Primal priority pyramid will shift from emotional enrichment/ companionship and move onto something else. In fact, you may have fucked a girl up for every good person because she won't find goodness from people a worthy currency anymore.
Looks, money, status are worthy currencies because eventually personality gets dull and women want things that have the primal tittilization of dominance among their peers which come from features/ traits that most guys cannot attain, and girls cannot get.
You need some undeniable distinction. If you were indian take everything maxxed, and women won't care.
So looks are necessary. The most natural based distinction people look for is genetics.
Important concept: Arbitrary Lookist Estimation Lean of Primal Esteem System, ALELOPES
Alelopes is where a girl will esteem the one who looks better rather than the one who can perform the best.
Or if a guy who performs better than a guy who looks better, it won't matter, the primal idealization of a certain look beats the skill of a man. That in of itself is part of the overarching idealprimalismarchy of females. (idealness primally desired over everything)
If an indian martial arts champion, who is younger btw is beating down a good looking white guy, then a girl will try to find a way to access his genetic capital rather than the guy who is clearly maxxed everywhere else.
Lookistemation hierarchy. Lookistmationarchy. (lookist estimation (primal faculty) hierarchy.
The hierarchy that picks on the basis of aesthetics, because a guy fits a certain fantasy/ physio-implication joy that they would rather have than letting someone who is practical (a real bad ass, like someone who looks like a redneck, or a tryhard ethnic) take the prize of victor. This certain type of hierarchy makes what you do in of yourself redundant. Lookistemation, or the lookism bias in women makes almost everything irrelevant that you can do to maxxx yourself unless you develop high value tier traits in unchangable places.
Lookistemationarchy, yes. But is there a personalitistemationarchy? no. I mean, in rare cases I've seen girls take an artist or something they love over a good looking guy if the good looking guy wins/ shows dominarchal value.
But overall lookism takes you everything, because it's more of the general primal wiring women have.
Everything with girls is a ideality they are pursuing, like men, but men are way more kickback and unmeticulous abotu these kinds of things.
I wouldn't say personality in of itself gets you girls. Looks practically do 80% of the work when you deal with the frame of overall female superficiality. But when it comes to moments after initial attraction you need something to keep your value-track banging forward.
Dynamic chadlike personality needs to be there to secure that a male does not have autism, or a shitty life experience.
Every hope a non-chad has is that a female is bluepilled so she doesn't have a conscientious payload of the importance of looks, judgment, etc.
Women are like men, although have adhd/ anxiety/ etc. which stop many of them from being nothing but brainless valley girls in the general scheme of society. With the rise of technology that demographic will be decreasing.
PUA is premised off the fallacy that women are not conscientious thinkers, and don't choose on the basis of the blackpill, but on who vibes right with personality/ etc. BUT this only works in rare cases. The more a female knows about the blackpill or who personally makes their personal criteria of attraction (on a conscious level, not a wavering impulsive level) about looks, then PUA jig is up. Youwill be like trying to sell meat to a vegetarian.
90% of divorces are initiated by college educated women. Let that say something in itself.
You need a personality to scream halo effect or your looksmaxxing is apparent/ your flaws you are burying ar apparent.
Personality only has a slight utility in keeping her entertained, but it is mostly a halo effect platform for your natural aptitudes/ abilites/ lifehistory/ things that make you distinct for other males. Dispositional transmitter of distinction.
Even if you commonalitymaxxx (have the same interests) funnymaxx/ charismamaxx/ skillmaxx/ sportmaxx,... humans are primal and they want the trill of being on a dominarchal rollercoaster. Primal priority pyramid will shift from emotional enrichment/ companionship and move onto something else. In fact, you may have fucked a girl up for every good person because she won't find goodness from people a worthy currency anymore.
Looks, money, status are worthy currencies because eventually personality gets dull and women want things that have the primal tittilization of dominance among their peers which come from features/ traits that most guys cannot attain, and girls cannot get.
You need some undeniable distinction. If you were indian take everything maxxed, and women won't care.
So looks are necessary. The most natural based distinction people look for is genetics.
Important concept: Arbitrary Lookist Estimation Lean of Primal Esteem System, ALELOPES
Alelopes is where a girl will esteem the one who looks better rather than the one who can perform the best.
Or if a guy who performs better than a guy who looks better, it won't matter, the primal idealization of a certain look beats the skill of a man. That in of itself is part of the overarching idealprimalismarchy of females. (idealness primally desired over everything)
If an indian martial arts champion, who is younger btw is beating down a good looking white guy, then a girl will try to find a way to access his genetic capital rather than the guy who is clearly maxxed everywhere else.
Lookistemation hierarchy. Lookistmationarchy. (lookist estimation (primal faculty) hierarchy.
The hierarchy that picks on the basis of aesthetics, because a guy fits a certain fantasy/ physio-implication joy that they would rather have than letting someone who is practical (a real bad ass, like someone who looks like a redneck, or a tryhard ethnic) take the prize of victor. This certain type of hierarchy makes what you do in of yourself redundant. Lookistemation, or the lookism bias in women makes almost everything irrelevant that you can do to maxxx yourself unless you develop high value tier traits in unchangable places.
Lookistemationarchy, yes. But is there a personalitistemationarchy? no. I mean, in rare cases I've seen girls take an artist or something they love over a good looking guy if the good looking guy wins/ shows dominarchal value.
But overall lookism takes you everything, because it's more of the general primal wiring women have.
Everything with girls is a ideality they are pursuing, like men, but men are way more kickback and unmeticulous abotu these kinds of things.
Last edited:
