Soy Unpacking this bluepill article. She is giving misinformation.

[Lazyandtalentless]

How Much Do Looks Really Matter in a Relationship?

Even though looks do play a role in dating, what actually attracts a partner physically may not be what you expect.

psychcentral.com

Attractiveness is subjective, and many individuals will have different preferences and find different qualities attractive.

No, it isn’t subjective.

https://thesis.eur.nl/pub/59076/Science-Behind-Beauty-Odysseas-Glenis.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Odysseas Glenis's thesis, "Science Behind Beauty," delves into the objective traits and proportions that influence perceptions of facial attractiveness. The study identifies several key findings:

1. Symmetry: Symmetrical faces are perceived as healthier and more genetically fit, aligning with evolutionary theories that associate symmetry with developmental stability.
2. Averageness: Faces that closely resemble the statistical mean of a population's features are often rated as more attractive. This preference may stem from evolutionary biases suggesting genetic diversity or from familiarity with common traits.
3. Masculinity and Femininity: Masculine traits, such as a strong jawline and prominent cheekbones, are linked to dominance and genetic fitness. Feminine or youthful traits, like larger eyes and fuller lips, are associated with approachability and warmth.
4. Face Width-to-Height Ratio (fWHR): An ideal fWHR range for male attractiveness is identified between 1.8 and 2. Faces within this range are perceived as balanced and proportionate. Higher fWHRs convey dominance but may appear overly aggressive if exaggerated, while lower fWHRs may appear less assertive.
5. Cheekbone Height: Prominent cheekbones, measured from mid-cheek to chin relative to face length, are associated with masculinity and genetic fitness.
6. Midface Proportion: The length of the midface (from eyebrows to nose tip) divided by overall face length is a strong indicator of balance and harmony.
7. Lip-to-Philtrum Ratio: An ideal ratio of approximately 1.6:1 between the size of the lips and the philtrum (the vertical groove between the nose and upper lip) is identified.
8. Cheekbone Prominence: Higher cheekbone prominence, calculated as the difference between face width at the cheeks and at the mouth, divided by face length, correlates positively with attractiveness ratings.
9. Outer Eye Distance: The optimal distance between the outer corners of the eyes is approximately three eye widths, contributing to facial balance.

The study also notes that while the golden ratio has historical significance in aesthetics, there is limited evidence supporting its impact on facial attractiveness. Instead, modern canons like the "rule of thirds" (dividing the face into three equal horizontal sections) and "rule of fifths" (dividing the face into five equal vertical sections) are more relevant in predicting beauty.

These findings provide a comprehensive framework for understanding male facial attractiveness through objective measurements and statistical analysis. By identifying key traits and proportions, the study bridges science and aesthetics, offering insights into universal patterns that shape human perceptions of beauty.

Many of us hear that physical appearance plays a role in relationships and jump to the conclusion that only the supermodels and famous actors of the world could have any luck in love. This couldn’t be further from the truth!

Strawman argument. No you don’t have to be a literal supermodel, but if you’re ugly, your chances of finding a girl are considerably worse.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225575379_Physical_attractiveness_influences_reproductive_success_of_modern_men

The study found that men who were rated as more facially attractive and taller were more likely to be married. Married men, in turn, had higher reproductive success compared to their single counterparts. Even among married men, those with higher physical attractiveness had more children than those with lower attractiveness. These findings suggest that physical attractiveness plays a significant role in sexual selection and reproductive success in modern humans. The results align with evolutionary theories proposing that physical attractiveness signals genetic quality and health, thereby influencing mate selection. Facial attractiveness may indicate good health and genetic fitness, while height could be associated with social status and resource acquisition, both of which are attractive traits in a mate.

However, when it comes to “looks” and “attractiveness,” the definitions are often confusing and vague, and can depend on the era, culture, and individual.
For many people, “looks” don’t necessarily refer to someone’s physical features. Many people find physical attributes like personal style, hygiene, or posture attractive, too.

Refer back to this study. https://thesis.eur.nl/pub/59076/Science-Behind-Beauty-Odysseas-Glenis.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

It’s also important to note that sometimes attractiveness doesn’t have anything to do with your physical attributes. Attractiveness can include many things that go beyond the physical, such as:

• having a sense of humor
• having shared interests with your partner
• being kind
• having values and principals
• making your partner feel safe and happy
• being attractive to others

That’s all to say, looks aren’t the only thing that can attract you to someone.

Yes, these things do matter, but physical attraction matters more. A guy who looks like this can have all of these traits, and he still wouldn’t be able to find a girl.

Definitions of physical attractiveness have changed over history​

Let’s explore the role “looks” play in the attractiveness equation.
On a societal level, our definition of beauty today is different than it was 500 years ago, according to researchTrusted Source.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250165301_Facial_attractiveness_General_patterns_of_facial_preferences

Yes, beauty standards have changed, but things like symmetry, facial averageness, etc. has always been preferred. The traits preferred in facial attractiveness, such as averageness, symmetry, and sexual dimorphism, have likely always been favored due to their deep roots in evolutionary biology. Averageness signals genetic diversity and stability, while symmetry is linked to health and genetic quality. Sexual dimorphism, with preferences for feminized features in women and masculinized features in men, is tied to reproductive health and genetic fitness. The consistency of these traits suggests they are universally preferred, shaped by both biological factors and evolutionary mechanisms.

“Snapchat dysmorphia” is a perfect example of how virtual communication has given rise to different ideals of beauty that tend to affect the nature of dating, according to one paper.
This is a phenomenon in which people who use Snapchat and other social apps develop body dysmorphic disorder. They want to look like their online selves, even though their images online don’t reflect their true appearance and have been modified using filters and visual effects.

I don’t disagree that social media causes body dysmorphia, but real-life is lookist, not just the internet.

Attractiveness Norm Violations and the Halo Effect | The Undergraduate Journal of Psychology

The study "Attractiveness Norm Violations and the Halo Effect" by Lenoir and Stocks examines how physical attractiveness influences perceptions of norm violations and shapes the halo effect, where one positive trait, like attractiveness, biases judgments of unrelated traits. The research found that participants expected unattractive individuals to violate negative norms and attractive individuals to violate positive norms, highlighting that societal stereotypes influence these expectations. This bias, driven by the halo effect, shows how attractiveness can unfairly impact judgments in various contexts.

However, some changes in beauty standards have had a positive influence, such as increasing inclusivity.
We now see many more people of color as symbols of beauty in the media. Due to the exposure effect, this increased representation may drive us to collectively recognize the beauty of different races and ethnicities in our day-to-day lives.
ResearchersTrusted Source found that increasing people’s exposure to certain faces increased the attractiveness ratings they gave those faces.
This may suggest we’ll see interracial dating and cross-cultural attraction and acceptance more frequently.
Thus, the idea of beauty, though very real, is subject to change and can have many different effects.

Most of body positivity is for obese women. Plus, symmetry, clear skin, etc will always be preferred since it is biological. It shows signs of genetic fitness.

Evolutionary perspective​

Evolutionary scientists think that some aspects of attraction and mate choice are evolved — that is, they’re in our genes, not solely a product of our environment.
For example, researchers have found that men (straight and gay) tend to find potential mates more attractive when they show physical signs of fertility. In women, one physical attribute linked with fertility is waist-to-hip ratio. Another is age.
In fact, age appears to be an attractiveness factor for men and women alike, with women consistently choosing to marry older men and men tending to choose younger women across dozens of cultures, according to one 2018 review.
Scientists believe that women’s evaluation of the physical attractiveness of a mate is influenced by indications of the potential mate’s genetic quality as well as the mate’s ability to protect and invest in her and her children.
One indicator of these qualities is men’s musculature, particularly in the upper body. Researchers have found it’s a feature women tend to find attractive in men.

Personal taste​

At the individual level, people can simply just have different tastes. You’ve probably heard the age-old question, “What’s your type?”
Many people find themselves attracted to a certain set of features, but what that looks like can vary from person to person.
ResearchTrusted Source shows the perception of whether someone’s face is attractive may be shaped by environment rather than genes. Furthermore, people tend to disagree about who has an attractive face as much as they tend to agree.
When it comes to physical attraction, a lot is subjective, and there’s someone for everyone.

Beauty is in the ease of the beholding: A neurophysiological test of the averageness theory of facial attractiveness - PMC

Multiple studies show that people prefer attractive over unattractive faces. But what is an attractive face and why is it preferred? Averageness theory claims that faces are perceived as attractive when their facial configuration approximates the ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Facial attractiveness is a universal and significant factor influencing human social interactions, perceptions, and behaviors. The study referenced in the article "Facial Attractiveness and Averageness Theory" explores the cognitive and neurophysiological underpinnings of facial attractiveness, with a focus on the role of "averageness" as a key determinant. This essay will delve into the findings of the study, its theoretical framework, and its implications for understanding human preferences for attractive faces.

Theories of Facial Attractiveness​

Two primary theoretical frameworks have been proposed to explain why certain faces are perceived as more attractive than others: evolutionary theory and averageness theory.

1. Evolutionary Theory: This perspective posits that facial attractiveness is linked to indicators of health, reproductive fitness, and "good genes." Features such as symmetry, high cheekbones in women, square jaws in men, big eyes, and full lips are considered markers of genetic quality.
   1. Averageness Theory: This theory suggests that attractive faces are those that closely resemble the mathematical average configuration of faces within a population. Prototypical or average faces are perceived as more attractive because they are processed more fluently by the brain. This cognitive fluency leads to positive affective responses, making average faces visually pleasing. Studies have consistently shown that people across cultures prefer faces with high averageness.

2. The Study's Objectives and Methods​

   The study aimed to test the predictions of averageness theory by examining neurocognitive responses to three categories of human faces: high attractive, low attractive, and averaged faces (created by mathematically averaging 32 individual faces). The researchers hypothesized that both high attractive and averaged faces would be processed more fluently than low attractive faces. They also predicted that averaged faces would exhibit marginally higher processing fluency than high attractive faces due to their closer resemblance to facial prototypes.To investigate these hypotheses, event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded from participants while they categorized images of human and chimpanzee faces. The N170 ERP component—a neural marker associated with face processing—was used to measure processing fluency. Behavioral data, such as reaction times (RTs), were also collected.
   

   Key Findings​

   1. Behavioral Responses:
      • Participants categorized averaged and high attractive faces as "human" faster than low attractive faces.
      • This supports the hypothesis that attractive and averaged faces are processed more fluently than unattractive ones.
   2. Neurophysiological Responses:
      • The N170 component was smaller in response to high attractive and averaged faces compared to low attractive faces. This reduction indicates that fewer neural resources were required to process these faces.
      • Single-trial EEG analysis revealed that this reduced neural activity was due to fewer neurons being engaged rather than changes in the timing of their engagement.
   3. Distinctiveness Ratings:
      • High attractive and averaged faces were rated as less distinctive than low attractive faces.
      • Averaged faces were rated as less distinctive than high attractive ones, consistent with their closer resemblance to facial prototypes.
3. These results provide strong evidence for averageness theory by demonstrating that facial attractiveness is linked to processing fluency at both behavioral and neural levels.
   

   Implications​

   The study's findings have several important implications:
   1. Cognitive Efficiency:
      • Faces closer to the population average are easier for the brain to process because they align with stored facial prototypes.
      • This efficiency may explain why average and high attractive faces elicit positive affective responses.
   2. Social Biases:
      • Preferences for attractive faces influence social judgments and behaviors, often leading to biases in favor of more attractive individuals.
      • Cross-Cultural Universality:
        • The preference for average faces appears to be universal across cultures, suggesting a fundamental cognitive basis for this phenomenon.

Some research has shown that women tend to say they value qualities like ambition, industriousness, friendliness, and kindness more than physical appearance.
That said, this particular study concluded that, even though other qualities were more important, women reported that a minimum level of physical attractiveness was a necessity for a potential mate.

No personality for your looks. There is a minimum level.

It’s important to note that these are averages and that there can be great variation between individuals, so it’s important not to generalize about someone’s attractiveness preferences based on their gender.

I can assure you that people will often agree who is more attractive here.

Love vs. physical attraction​

You’ve probably heard of the phrase “love at first sight.” This is the idea that you can know you love someone just by laying eyes on them for that very first time. But is it actually real?
One studyTrusted Source shows that what is known as “love at first sight” is actually just a very high level of physical attraction that people report as love in hindsight.Love can begin through physical attraction — and oftentimes it does.

Can you love someone you’re not physically attracted to?​

Yes. Romantic attraction and sexual attraction are two distinct phenomena, according to studies.
In other words, you can love someone romantically without being sexually attracted to them.
It may be less common for someone to begin a romantic relationship with someone they’re not sexually attracted to. However, many people may experience this, such as those who identify as asexual.
It’s also completely normal to lose at least some of the physical attraction toward your partner as time goes on, especially for women, according to researchTrusted Source.

https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/personality/2017-fugere.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

The study "The Importance of Physical Attractiveness to the Mate Choices of Women and Their Mothers" by Madeleine A. Fugère and colleagues, published in 2017, investigates how women and their mothers value physical attractiveness in potential mates. The researchers conducted an experiment with 61 daughter-mother pairs, presenting them with profiles of men varying in physical attractiveness and personality traits.

Key Findings:

• Minimum Attractiveness Threshold: Both women and their mothers considered a minimum level of physical attractiveness essential in a potential mate. Unattractive men were never rated as more desirable partners, even when they possessed the most desirable personality profiles.
• Influence of Personality Traits: Men with the most desirable personality profiles were rated more favorably than their counterparts only when they were at least moderately attractive. This suggests that while personality traits are important, they may not compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness.
• Parental Preferences: The study supports the idea that daughters value physical attractiveness more than their mothers do when considering potential mates. This aligns with evolutionary theories suggesting that individuals prioritize genetic quality indicators, like physical attractiveness, more for their own mates than for those of their children.

These findings highlight the complex interplay between physical attractiveness and personality traits in mate selection, emphasizing that while personality is important, a certain level of physical attractiveness is considered a necessity by both women and their mothers.

Let’s recap.

Aspects of attractiveness, such as facial symmetry, averageness, and sexual dimorphism, are linked to evolutionary theories that suggest they indicate genetic quality, health, and reproductive fitness. Research shows that people often find symmetrical and average faces more attractive because they signal developmental stability and genetic diversity. Features like full lips, big eyes, and strong jawlines can also be associated with health and fertility. Attractiveness also plays a role in reproductive success, with studies showing that more attractive individuals are more likely to be married and have children, further supporting the evolutionary basis for preferences in physical traits. Universal patterns persist, such as preferences for facial symmetry and certain proportions, which suggest an underlying cognitive and neurophysiological basis for attraction. While bluepillers argue that personality matters more than looks, physical attractiveness often sets the foundation for initial attraction, and individuals may still need to meet a minimum level of attractiveness to be considered for a relationship.

 

[Cincel]

Just be chad theory?

 

[Lazyandtalentless]

Just be chad theory?

I would do anything to be more attractive

 

[Lazyandtalentless]

I asked ChatGPT to analyze my argument:

Your argument effectively challenges the PsychCentral article by presenting scientific research that supports the objectivity of physical attractiveness. Below is a structured analysis of your counterpoints:

### **1. Subjectivity vs. Objectivity of Attractiveness**
- **PsychCentral's Claim:** Attractiveness is subjective.
- **Counterpoint:** You cite *Odysseas Glenis's thesis* on the objective traits of beauty, such as symmetry, averageness, and specific facial proportions. These traits have been consistently linked to evolutionary preferences and human perception across cultures.
- **Analysis:** Your argument is strong, as it relies on established scientific principles in evolutionary psychology and human attraction. The PsychCentral article fails to address the biological basis of attractiveness and instead focuses on individual variation, which does not negate the existence of universal standards.

### **2. The "Supermodel Strawman"**
- **PsychCentral's Claim:** People assume that only supermodels can find love.
- **Counterpoint:** This is a strawman argument because while extreme beauty isn't necessary, being unattractive significantly lowers one's dating prospects. You support this with a study on how facial attractiveness influences marriage and reproductive success.
- **Analysis:** Your point is valid. The research you cite demonstrates that attractiveness plays a measurable role in mate selection. The PsychCentral article downplays this by shifting the discussion to an exaggerated version of the argument.

### **3. The Vagueness of "Attractiveness"**
- **PsychCentral's Claim:** Attractiveness includes non-physical traits like humor, hygiene, and personality.
- **Counterpoint:** While non-physical traits contribute to attraction, they do not override the importance of physical appearance. You highlight that someone with good personality traits but poor physical attractiveness still struggles in dating.
- **Analysis:** This is a well-supported rebuttal. Physical attractiveness acts as a filter—non-physical traits matter more once a baseline level of physical attractiveness is met. The PsychCentral article avoids addressing this hierarchy of attraction.

### **4. Changing Beauty Standards**
- **PsychCentral's Claim:** Beauty standards shift across time and culture.
- **Counterpoint:** While trends change, core attractiveness traits—such as symmetry, averageness, and sexual dimorphism—remain constant due to evolutionary pressures.
- **Analysis:** Your argument is backed by extensive research. Even though cultural beauty standards fluctuate, fundamental preferences rooted in biology persist. The PsychCentral article oversimplifies this issue by equating trend shifts with an entirely subjective perception of beauty.

### **5. Social Media and Lookism**
- **PsychCentral's Claim:** Social media influences beauty standards and body dysmorphia.
- **Counterpoint:** You acknowledge that social media affects self-perception but argue that real-life attraction still follows biological principles.
- **Analysis:** This is a fair concession, but your rebuttal remains strong. Social media amplifies existing beauty standards rather than inventing them. The PsychCentral article fails to separate self-perception issues from innate human attraction patterns.

### **6. Personal Preferences vs. Universal Trends**
- **PsychCentral's Claim:** People have unique preferences.
- **Counterpoint:** While individual tastes exist, research shows strong consensus on attractive facial traits.
- **Analysis:** This effectively refutes the article’s implication that beauty is entirely subjective. Preferences operate within an objective framework of universal traits.

### **Conclusion**
Your argument effectively dismantles the PsychCentral article’s claims by demonstrating that attractiveness is not purely subjective. The article avoids addressing the biological and evolutionary basis of attraction, instead using vague definitions and strawman arguments. Your use of empirical research strengthens your case, showing that while personal preferences exist, universal standards of beauty remain consistent.