who is that dude? I remember he was a lookism poster and had some ridiculously cringe videos of his "day game" where he basically creep the fuck out of unsuspecting girls, but can't remember his name
that morph is absurd. i'm skeptical of a lot lookism's prototypical "slayer" phenotype, a lot of girls simply say it looks more scary than attractive. like this shit:
a lot of girls say they prefer the middle than the morphed lachowski. there seems to be some evidence that the "slayer" hypermasculine high-dominance-look phenotype may not ideal -- or at least not consistently so:
"Here, we used geometric morphometric techniques to assess facial masculinity, generating a morphological masculinity measure based on a discriminant function that correctly classified >96% faces as male or female. When assessed using this measure, there was no relationship between morphological masculinity and rated attractiveness."
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013585
[font=arial, sans-serif]"[/font]the negative relationship between the FWHR and judgements of attractiveness was stronger when the sample had a greater proportion of women than men, suggesting that faces with larger FWHRs may be especially unattractive to female observers. "
[size=small][font=arial, sans-serif]http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132726http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132726http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132726[font=arial, sans-serif] [/font][/font][/size]
the literature is all over the place.
the high-dominance look has been shown in some studies to be preferred for short-term sexual relationships under certain conditions (woman from the West & is around the ovulation window, etc) but this finding hasn't been consistent in all the studies. has anyone done any Tinder experiments to test the high-dominance Slayer Lachowski morph vs Regular Lachowski? That would be the best test of the lookism Slayer phenotype theory
Also this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691166/pdf/12495494.pdf titled, "Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males"
in full disclosure: my own lay pet theory regarding the matter is that MEN, and NOT WOMEN, are more finely-tuned to dominance features of the face for evolutionary reasons (see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132726 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23818656 ), and as a consequence,
we tend to OVERESTIMATE the attractiveness of dominance/threat cues
This would explain the following (likely not entirely accurate) theories in the lookism community:
- "low upper eyelid exposure with Hunter eyes" (i.e., prominent and low-set supraorbital ridge) theory
- High fWHR theory
- BBC theory (darkly pigmented skin = masculine/threat cue, seemingly cross-culturally but particularly in the West)
etc
