Blackpill Ugly men less likely to attract investors.

[Monk of Failure]

Academics found that investors were more likely to put money into a business if the man pitching to them was ‘good-looking’. They corralled 60 experienced and wealthy backers to view video recordings of 90 randomly-selected verbal pitches made by entrepreneurs from various sectors at three entrepreneurial ‘contests’ in the US. Investors had to rate the looks of the entrepreneurs and comment on the pitch. The ‘good-looking’ guys were 36 more likely to be successful with those pitches than those viewed as unattractive.

JFL at bro skill and talents matter not looks.

Judged on your looks, boys? You'd better get used to it

As a new study shows 'ugly' men are less likely to attract business investors, Josephine Fairley can't help but be slightly chuffed that for once, the mirror’s being held up to male attractiveness in a corporate world

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[BlackPill Scholar]

People want to shuffle resources to the most genetically fit in a society. This ensures that they pass on their good genetics to make sure that the species actually survives. Sounds cucked but it is an evolved trait. 95% of celebrities are above average looking. There will obviously be exceptions but every distribution has exceptions.

 

[Deleted member 18214]

People want to shuffle resources to the most genetically fit in a society.

Soyciety

 

[Monk of Failure]

People want to shuffle resources to the most genetically fit in a society. This ensures that they pass on their good genetics to make sure that the species actually survives. Sounds cucked but it is an evolved trait. 95% of celebrities are above average looking. There will obviously be exceptions but every distribution has exceptions.

High IQ.

 

[FinnCel]

Over for investorcels

 

[AlexanderTheGreat11]

Over for investorcels

 

[Deleted member 21227]

Halo effect making everything easy example #3588852588095

 

[Monk of Failure]

Over for investorcels

No face no investment

 

[Deleted member 19971]

Makes sense, you have to be motivated to learn about how to invest, etc. but why does it matter when you're ugly?
What will you do with the money? Money is temporary happiness.

 

[Saung-Hui Cho]

If you’re ugly your only four hopes are:

1. If you have money
2. If you have a core group of friends and/or a strong social circle/successful family
3. If you have a very low body fat percentage
4. If you are tall

 

[Purveyoroftruth]

That’s why as an incelpreneur you need to make sure that you hire a chad spokesman to properly market your product to investors.

 

[Deleted member 7573]

HOW CAN THEY POST NEWS THAT CONFIRMS THE BLACKPILL EVERY FUCKING DAY AND STILL THEY DON'T BELIEVE US???

 

[Deleted member 19756]

Start a cartel and make them invest.

 

[Vermilioncore]

Many men fail at all life has to offer

 

[Monk of Failure]

Many men fail at all life has to offer

Life is cruel to ugly men.

 

[Gamblord]

People want to shuffle resources to the most genetically fit in a society. This ensures that they pass on their good genetics to make sure that the species actually survives. Sounds cucked but it is an evolved trait. 95% of celebrities are above average looking. There will obviously be exceptions but every distribution has exceptions.

Name checks out. This a heavy black pill.

 

[grondilu]

People want to shuffle resources to the most genetically fit in a society. This ensures that they pass on their good genetics to make sure that the species actually survives.

Stop with this. Good looking people have better genes only in the sense that they are most likely to have good genes. They are the safest bet, but ugly people are mutants, they have not necessarily worse genes, it's just that they are riskier.

People with the best genes also are mutants because they are exceptional.

Beauty is the mark of the norm, not of excellence.

Besides, I refuse to believe that a guy like Jeremy Meeks has better genes than, just because females drool on his stupid face.

 

[BlackPill Scholar]

Stop with this. Good looking people have better genes only in the sense that they are most likely to have good genes. They are the safest bet, but ugly people are mutants, they have not necessarily worse genes, it's just that they are riskier.

People with the best genes also are mutants because they are exceptional.

Beauty is the mark of the norm, not of excellence.

Besides, I refuse to believe that a guy like Jeremy Meeks has better genes than, just because females drool on his stupid face.

Do you know what beauty is to humans? It is formed from the fact that, just like any other animal, there is an ideal physical human. In relation to the environment we evolved to survive in, some people have better traits for survival than others. That is beauty. In facial and bodily bone structure, cartilage and skin. So humans perceive certain people as more beautiful than others because of the fact that those people have physical traits that would increase the liklihood of survival for the children of that couple.

We don't live in a hunter-gatherer environment anymore, so we don't need men with these traits. But that doesn't stop the millions of years of biological programming that has caused us to like them. You have a clump of neurons in the visual cortex of the brain that is purely devoted to analysing faces. Beauty is not a social construct.

Babies prefer to gaze upon beautiful faces

Newborn babies choose to look at attractive faces over plain ones – suggesting that recognising appealing faces is hardwired at birth

www.newscientist.com

Beauty is also not all genetic. There are alot of environmental factors, but why take the risk when mating?

I suppose that it depends on the context of argument. In today's world looks shouldn't matter, they have no purpose anymore but unfortunatly we are biological creatures just like everything else on the planet. Men want a beautiful women, women want beautiful men. Both will settle with someone that is not, based on what they can get, men more so than women.

 

[grondilu]

Then explain why beauty is more a feminine trait than a male trait. In other words, explain the 80/20 rule.

Beauty reflects fitness on a superficial level, based on physical characteristics exhibited by previous generations. It's a statistical estimate. As such, it is highest for normative individuals.

If you think of a fitness distribution graph, which most likely looks like a bell curve, where do you think beautiful people stand ? I posit that they are certainly not a right section delimited by a fitness threshold, because that would include the exceptionally fit people, who must be mutants and thus probably are not beautiful.

I believe beautiful people stand in a narrow band in the middle of the curve. This is also suggested by a study that was out some time ago. They were trying to characterize beauty rigorously, and they concluded that beautiful faces were those that were the closest to average faces.

It is also crucial for women to avoid mating with mutants, regardless of their fitness level, because mutant sperm increases the risk of a fatal pregnancy. A mutant yet fit male can compensate for this risk by impregnating more females, but a female can't, her life is literally at stake. That's why women are attracted by men in the middle of the fitness curve instead of say the last third portion to the right : it is the safest in terms of surviving reproduction.

This IMHO also explains the direction in which Pareto principle applies in human attractiveness. The fitness distribution has a much larger variance for men, because men can have a much larger offspring than women. As a result, a much smaller proportion of men fit into the narrow central band. Thus the 80/20 rule.

Basically, my point is that the main selective pressure for females is on parturition, not on whatever athletic or intellectual traits which are required to be a good hunter gatherer.

This, IMHO, means that beautiful people can by no means be considered "superior" human beings. At best, they are just average.

 

[BlackPill Scholar]

Then explain why beauty is more a feminine trait than a male trait. In other words, explain the 80/20 rule.

Beauty reflects fitness on a superficial level, based on physical characteristics exhibited by previous generations. It's a statistical estimate. As such, it is highest for normative individuals.

If you think of a fitness distribution graph, which most likely looks like a bell curve, where do you think beautiful people stand ? I posit that they are certainly not a right section delimited by a fitness threshold, because that would include the exceptionally fit people, who must be mutants and thus probably are not beautiful.

I believe beautiful people stand in a narrow band in the middle of the curve. This is also suggested by a study that was out some time ago. They were trying to characterize beauty rigorously, and they concluded that beautiful faces were those that were the closest to average faces.

It is also crucial for women to avoid mating with mutants, regardless of their fitness level, because mutant sperm increases the risk of a fatal pregnancy. A mutant yet fit male can compensate for this risk by impregnating more females, but a female can't, her life is literally at stake. That's why women targe men in the middle of the fitness curve instead of say the last righ portion : it is the safest in terms of reproductive abilities.

This IMHO also explains the direction in which Pareto principle applies in human attractiveness. The fitness distribution has a much larger variance for men, because men can have a much larger offspring than women. As a result, a much fewer proportion of men fit into the narrow central band. Thus the 80/20 rule.

Basically, my point is that the main selective pressure for females is on parturition, not on whatever athletic or intellectual traits which are required to be a good hunter gatherer.

This, IMHO, means that beautiful people can by no means be considered "superior" human beings. At best, they are just average.

I never said that beautiful people were in all aspects considered superior beings, just that they pocessed characteristics that are better for survival in a hunter-gatherer environment.

If you take a composite image of every face and mash them together, you get an ideal face. This is because, through both sexual selection and environmental selection, men have evolved towards a certain 'ideal', which is what I meant by beauty. Most males are average looking, but that does not mean that they are the average of every male. It just means they have some unattractive features and some good ones. Of course its obvious that women do not like men that are in your words "mutants" for the reasons you listed and for the reason that it could indicate serious complications of genetic material, which could be a positive or negative. But as I said before, why take the chance?

Then explain why beauty is more a feminine trait than a male trait. In other words, explain the 80/20 rule.

I do not understand what you mean by this, there is an ideal for both males and females.

 

[grondilu]

But as I said before, why take the chance?

Because this is how species evolve. If women had always been capable of rejecting ugly men, we'd still be walking on four.

I mean it literally : one of the reasons parturition is so risky for our species is the fact that we walk upright. It's called the obstetric dilemma.

 

[LOLI BREEDING]

If you take a composite image of every face and mash them together, you get an ideal face.

JFL. yeah look at this hunk

 

[BlackPill Scholar]

Because this is how species evolve. If women had always been capable of rejecting ugly men, we'd still be walking on four.

I mean it literally : one of the reasons parturition is so risky for our species is the fact that we walk upright. It's called the obstetric dilemma.

Evolution occurs from more than just sexual selection. A huge part is natural selection. Members of a species dying out when they are not capable of surviving.

And I was saying 'why take the chance' in response to not mating with hyper robust genetic freaks. Because obviously there are drawbacks to doing so, that is why the ideal is 'average' but as I said before most average men are not the total composite average of all men, but have both unattractive and attractive features.

JFL. yeah look at this hunk

I don't know where you got that picture from nor if it's even correct. Some studies use a hundred men for composite imaging, you need to use every man in the entire population.

Averageness - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This theory has been well documented in the clinical literature for a long time and I haven't found a good argument against it.

An example of another composite average face:

(sorry for the screenshot lol, I can't be bothered to crop it).

 

[grondilu]

Evolution occurs from more than just sexual selection. A huge part is natural selection. Members of a species dying out when they are not capable of surviving.

Yes, and sexual selection is based on what we call beauty, while natural selection is more based on what we call fitness.
Of course, fitness includes beauty to some degree, depending on how important sexual selection matters for the species.
However, both concepts are different. It can not be said that beauty adequately indicates fitness.

 

[Uglyethnicrat]

Even moneymaxxing doesn't work

 

[BlackPill Scholar]

Yes, and sexual selection is based on what we call beauty, while natural selection is more based on what we call fitness.
Of course, fitness includes beauty to some degree, depending on how important sexual selection matters for the species.
However, both concepts are different. It can not be said that beauty adequately indicates fitness.

I agree, although I would argue both are strongly correlated. We evolved sexual selection to judge other humans along the lines of supposed genetic quality.

On the other hand there is this:

Fisherian runaway - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

'An example is the colourful and elaborate peacock plumage compared to the relatively subdued peahen plumage; the costly ornaments, notably the bird's extremely long tail, appear to be incompatible with natural selection.'

That probably only comes into play when you have women lusting after people like Jordan Barrett. Which some do, but the majority of women I have seen talking about him on online forums seem to describe him as being to perfect or looking like an alien.

 

[newlyawakened]

I'm involved in management at a small company and can confirm. I literally hired a chad just to do pitches because of halo effect.

It's only going to get worse as women continue to rise up through the business and investment worlds.

 

[grondilu]

I agree, although I would argue both are strongly correlated. We evolved sexual selection to judge other humans along the lines of supposed genetic quality.

If sexual selection was very significant, as far as men being sexually selected, that is, women would not whine about most men being ugly, and they would not complain about millennias of patriarchal domination.

I personally believe sexual selection has always persisted, but only in the shadow of natural selection, and mostly through cuckolding, that is women cheating on their ugly husband to fuck Chad. It was necessarily marginal otherwise the monogamous familial structure would never had succeeded. And arguably sexual selection now has become prevalent and the consequence is the disappearance of traditional familial structures (aka, "where are the good men?").

 

[RollD20]

People want to shuffle resources to the most genetically fit in a society. This ensures that they pass on their good genetics to make sure that the species actually survives. Sounds cucked but it is an evolved trait. 95% of celebrities are above average looking. There will obviously be exceptions but every distribution has exceptions.

This. They are biologically programmed to do so. Game is rigged from the start.

 

[LOLI BREEDING]

This theory has been well documented in the clinical literature for a long time and I haven't found a good argument against it.

An example of another composite average face:
View attachment 167166

I'm just saying that we ought to be careful with 'commonly accepted' normie science such as this. the pic I posted has been around forever as the example for 'average faces are best' theory. I'm sure the fact that asymmetries, norwooding and bad pigmentation/blemishes are being corrected this way contributes greatly to the effect, or they might just take chadlite pictures and merge them. wouldn't be the first time it happened. have you tried actually merging truecel faces and seeing the result?

 

[RopeMaXXer]

sounds like a great area to invest in
ugliness has nothing to do with ability
If I had money i'd go around searching for the uglies mfers with startups and seeing what they can do
untapped market

 

[Shigechi]

There's 0 advantage in being ugly. Only a braindead coper could find something good in this shitty situation.

 

[LOLI BREEDING]

sounds like a great area to invest in
ugliness has nothing to do with ability
If I had money i'd go around searching for the uglies mfers with startups and seeing what they can do
untapped market

smart people invest their own money and win
smarter people invest other people's money and win

 

[BlackPill Scholar]

And arguably sexual selection now has become prevalent and the consequence is the disappearance of traditional familial structures (aka, "where are the good men?").

I would agree with that. Along with women entering the workforce so that they can earn their own money. They no longer need to look for a provider and can select men just based on looks. Let alone dating apps giving the opportunity for massive amounts of good looking men just a click away.

I'm just saying that we ought to be careful with 'commonly accepted' normie science such as this. the pic I posted has been around forever as the example for 'average faces are best' theory. I'm sure the fact that asymmetries, norwooding and bad pigmentation/blemishes are being corrected this way contributes greatly to the effect, or they might just take chadlite pictures and merge them. wouldn't be the first time it happened. have you tried actually merging truecel faces and seeing the result?

Or the opposite effect could be occurring. With the advent of obesity and bad lifestyles in the modern world. Facial fat can drastically affect facial aesthetics.

I see your premise, but it takes a massive amount of just perfect features to make a perfectly 'average face' in terms of across a whole population. Most men could see this and use it as a coping mechanism. "Most women like average guys"! Except most men do not have the perfectly 'average' features.

 

[TheIncredibleIncel]

Stop with this. Good looking people have better genes only in the sense that they are most likely to have good genes. They are the safest bet, but ugly people are mutants, they have not necessarily worse genes, it's just that they are riskier.

People with the best genes also are mutants because they are exceptional.

Beauty is the mark of the norm, not of excellence.

Besides, I refuse to believe that a guy like Jeremy Meeks has better genes than, just because females drool on his stupid face.

What are you talking about? Women drool over Jeremy Meeks BECAUSE he has better genes. Facial symmetry and symmetry in general is physical proof that your genes properly replicated themselves.