Blackpill Most people think by being more friendly you are more available/ controllable than being a heartwarming asset.

[Pinpoint]

Most overly friendly people just have a low self esteem in people's mind. Trying to be friends iwth someone who ignored/ de-prioritizes you is like kissing their ass (by parameters of the phrase).
The only thing they value is chad, or socioluxury value.
The main qualities women look for in chad are birth-based distinguishments (majority of socioluxury value). Because women want to dominate social circles, and showing off your genetics is the FIRST-30-SECONDS rule of social engagements (which comprises almost everything). Birth based distinguishments that not just show off your power (height), but also your refinement (face/ shape of features/ digits/ bones/ etc.)
Looking like you have edged features/ body/ not soft means/ physiologically implies the dominarchal demeanor, bad ass, etc. and not being soft, pathetic, weak, happy clappy, doughy.
Lol so many people seek the dominating demeanor that it's not even special anymore. It's just accustomed to meet most people who are power hungry. Hence why I SAY THIS about friendship. Where it's pointless. Poeple esteem you less for your loving spirit than the content of your sociodominarchal profile for their own socioluxuriance.
It's the curse of humanity that SO MANY of the traits that distinguish us are outside of our control. So it will forever be the case that the way you are born dictates your life more than what you choose to do.
Women don't check themselves for primal bias this way. They love it (only when they are the ones who are distinct).


Women do not just want a hot guy (even though that is the most needed trait to be primally attractive). They want someone who can carry himself dominant. I mean the implication of the word hot is not just good looking. It means intense/ scattershot like a flame. Women want a person who can dominate on almost any level.
The main things that can deny an attractive chad hotness are other chads who have more demeanor/ alpha behavior, and who have proto-tyranno-luxury. (Someone born into a long strem of wealth, class, ability, reflexes.) If you have a chad who has shitty reflexes and does not look like the protodominant demeanored person who ever girl stereotypes in their dreams as ideal, then you are at risk of rejection.
The protodominant elements/ being born with perfect ability, motor skills, reflexes, never being bullied needs to be there in your life.
Women try and check for protodominant demeanor.
You must watch everything about yourself around women.
I recommend moving out of your family and saying you were adopted, or they are at a nother section of the country and are divorced, and you lived on your own.

Anything for halo effect.

 

[Wasted]

lookism posters used to talk about how motion/behavior contributed to physical attractiveness. Slow movements (not tortoise slow, but calm and collected, think John F Kennedy) signify alpha/dominant genes, and is thus attractive. A man who walks/moves quickly, is fidgety, speaks quickly, etc, those behaviors are unattractive to women. So like you were saying, if you took two equally good looking chads, but one has alpha behavior and the other has beta behavior, the former would win out against the latter. And of course dominance, like you also said, manifests itself in different domains, like motor skills and reflexes (athletics), and I would also say charisma (being quick-witted, having some sense of humor, saying the right things at the right time, etc).

So basically, I agree with what you wrote. I think it's interesting and important for us to remember that while looks are the most important aspect, there are other domains that contribute towards a man being a Chad. But, the mistake some people make here (Red Pillers and the like) is they think that if they display these behaviors and act like this, that it will circumvent their ugliness and make them a chad, which is laughable. Looks are a prerequisite, if you don't have them nothing you do matters (unless you're wealthy, which is a whole different discussion). And, you can't fake these behaviors either, like some men think. These behavioral traits are ingrained and hardwired into your genes, they're a part of who you are. Except, I'm not sure about that because it could be the case that a Chad (who has been good looking his whole life) didn't start out acting dominant, but his family and peers expected him to from a young age. So then he started to act dominant and got positive reinforcement and then entered a positive feedback loop which cultivated his dominant behaviors.

This is the one part I'm unsure of, whether dominant behaviors are genetic or brought about from a positive feedback loop that occurred due to having good looks. Like most things, it's probably a combination of nature and nurture. And on the flip side, an ugly man who has been ugly all his life who tried acting alpha as a child or teen would have gotten negative reinforcement and so would not have continued acting that way because people don't EXPECT an ugly man to act alpha. that's why none of that Red Pill shit works, cause you're trying to step into shoes you weren't born to fill.

 

[Lifeisbullshit95]

Just be Thanos theory

I get it.

 

[Pinpoint]

lookism posters used to talk about how motion/behavior contributed to physical attractiveness. Slow movements (not tortoise slow, but calm and collected, think John F Kennedy) signify alpha/dominant genes, and is thus attractive. A man who walks/moves quickly, is fidgety, speaks quickly, etc, those behaviors are unattractive to women. So like you were saying, if you took two equally good looking chads, but one has alpha behavior and the other has beta behavior, the former would win out against the latter. And of course dominance, like you also said, manifests itself in different domains, like motor skills and reflexes (athletics), and I would also say charisma (being quick-witted, having some sense of humor, saying the right things at the right time, etc).

So basically, I agree with what you wrote. I think it's interesting and important for us to remember that while looks are the most important aspect, there are other domains that contribute towards a man being a Chad. But, the mistake some people make here (Red Pillers and the like) is they think that if they display these behaviors and act like this, that it will circumvent their ugliness and make them a chad, which is laughable. Looks are a prerequisite, if you don't have them nothing you do matters (unless you're wealthy, which is a whole different discussion). And, you can't fake these behaviors either, like some men think. These behavioral traits are ingrained and hardwired into your genes, they're a part of who you are. Except, I'm not sure about that because it could be the case that a Chad (who has been good looking his whole life) didn't start out acting dominant, but his family and peers expected him to from a young age. So then he started to act dominant and got positive reinforcement and then entered a positive feedback loop which cultivated his dominant behaviors.

This is the one part I'm unsure of, whether dominant behaviors are genetic or brought about from a positive feedback loop that occurred due to having good looks. Like most things, it's probably a combination of nature and nurture. And on the flip side, an ugly man who has been ugly all his life who tried acting alpha as a child or teen would have gotten negative reinforcement and so would not have continued acting that way because people don't EXPECT an ugly man to act alpha. that's why none of that Red Pill shit works, cause you're trying to step into shoes you weren't born to fill.

Wit, charm, charisma were implied in what I said. But remember, as you know, that looks, white knighting, etc. are only as good in relation to the feeling of privilege a girl feels from having access to a chad's distinguishing perks in the dating market/ areas of life he will reign dominant in. It flatters a girl for a guy to offer a girl a place of intimacy when he signals it. It's not the entertainment value, they can get that from watching youtube or browsing memes.
Being witty, charming, charismatic, etc.

Yes the positive feedback loop is indeed what chad had to become confident. Intention-tracking-instincts, ITI are what girls used to find out that chad is confident not because of his boldness, and zeal, but because of his tyranno-luxuriant/ domino-luxuriant life experience. It's ironic when a girl points to a guy who is a gymcel buffzilla as "not naturally confident" when he CAN'T BE. Perfectionist insecurity is his motive-substance at that point.
Women don't see the irony in expecting a guy to be measured against his level of confidence (in their valuation of his attractiveness) since confidence is primarily backed/ built on looks. In reality confidence is just a snap-instinct LIE (false allusion to a different aspect that accounts for their physical signal reactions) perspective females use when they really refer to his "proto (start-out) tyranno luxuriance" substance. I.e. looks, good family system, probably decent or above money making family, good genes, good background, geneaologarchy, etc. (old money, and a high chain of success helps you in getting laid, good lineage halo, and lineages show inbuilt well established surefire value).

Women react to men and say "they lack confidence", while confidence is built on looks, so they are really saying that he doesn't have the substance to be confident which I don't like. And it's a lie to say that he lacks natural confidence which accounts for their disinterest, because confidence is built on looks, and confidence in of itself is not esteemed. You could be confident being a furry and you'll just be cringe. You need confidence with the right package. It just so happens that talking about how someone is insecure, instead of confidence, can be something women can say to make them look less superficial (from a psychological perspective... as if anyone REALLY believes it. ... more people are just stuck on confusion and not being able to articulate the thin layer of bullshit when they say that "he's not confident enough") Rather that he didn't have enough tyrannoluxuriant value to gain confidence. Which happens to be the case 100% of the time with insecure tryhards.
It's a lie to say that women love the zeal and boldness of men rather than their top dog position.
Confidence is a part of it. But if you have an anxiety ridden chad with all the needed/ essential elements then he will be valuable to women than a thuggy copehard who is trying to get laid based on swag (unless the women are trashy or jew-washed).
Acting alpha is a sad oxymoron. Acting it deliberately often means you're not alpha.

 

[Pinpoint]

This is why being warm/ friendly is pointless. Everyone seems off the boat from being human for edge-effect. Niceness/ decency are 2nd tier to people playing their dominance games lol.

 

[michael2222]

Women react to men and say "they lack confidence", while confidence is built on looks, so they are really saying that he doesn't have the substance to be confident which I don't like.

4 digit IQ

 

[Pinpoint]

4 digit IQ

Women are primal, we all know it. They look at the logistics of tyrannodominance, rather than happy clappy flower power sensationalistic stuff (as most do subsconsciously, it's just primal nature). You can bury a lot of overtones amidst undertones .
But women who say that confidence is what someone is lacking is really just saying a euphemism for something more primal. Something, if you look at female tendencies (and track them which we all personally do in forging our worldview), is more wanted. Something like dominance, tyrannopower, luxuriance, etc. There's a correlation with confidence, and women use that correlation to veneer their view of what they want so they can look less superficial and avoid slumps of shame.
Whites took it overboard with messiah complexing everything, but this is part and parcel of that.
Abstracts have no bearing on women. They all just want concretes/ materials/ resources/ etc.

 

[Michael15651]

This is on point, especially carrying themselves dominant.