# 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝟴𝟵% 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀(𝗜'𝗺 𝘀𝗼𝗿𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗹𝘆😭😊)



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

*It turns out we're all just surface monsters* *whether it's male or female, according to scientific research....aka the uncomfortable Truth..... Even your personality type won't count, looks(your genetic quality)is the key🔑

:/

⛑ Forsight Care:*Heads up*, r*eaders be warned: this is an awkward, cringy;uncomfortable topic that no one wants to talk about in real life. I'm sure you're not too self-conscious about this subject. However.


----------



## Andy 8184 (May 24, 2021)

So men are more attracted to beautiful women and women are more attracted to rich men? Color me shocked. Studies like this also do kinda prove that objective attractiveness is a thing.


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

A girl that speaks in a typical way to someone who uses many words to say nothing for 14 minutes conveying 2 ideas that could be said in 30 seconds.
I guess 30-second video clips don't monetize so easily.

14 minutes about some people who did scientific research to find out what the *common sense* of people who did not come out of a cave yesterday but live in a society for at least 1 year already knew.

Seriously, no bullshit. Is there really anyone here who didn't know this?
I refuse to believe that common sense is so rare among the people here.


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

impulsenine said:


> A girl that speaks in a typical way to someone who uses many words to say nothing for 14 minutes conveying 2 ideas that could be said in 30 seconds.
> I guess 30-second video clips don't monetize so easily.
> 
> 14 minutes about some people who did scientific research to find out what the *common sense* of people who did not come out of a cave yesterday but live in a society for at least 1 year already knew.
> ...


To be honest, I assumed it was 50/50, but it turns out to be 80/20. I had no idea.


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

X10E8Y65M56 said:


> To be honest, I assumed it was 50/50, but it turns out to be 80/20. I had no idea.


What made you believe that the human mind is capable of 50/50 and does not work in absolute, extreme certainties? 

At the beginning it is 100% physical aspect and only then does the personality matter, if it matters, depending on each person. 
You meet a man, your brain makes a simple decision, it's binary. Is the man physically attractive or not? Simple. 
Only then, if your brain finds him attractive, it goes ahead and juggle the percentages.

This thing has been very much studied and re-studied (even excessively) in the field of Sales. Because it's exactly the same behavior there.


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

impulsenine said:


> What made you believe that the human mind is capable of 50/50 and does not work in absolute, extreme certainties?
> 
> At the beginning it is 100% physical aspect and only then does the personality matter, if it matters, depending on each person.
> You meet a man, your brain makes a simple decision, it's binary. Is the man physically attractive or not? Simple.
> ...


Right right, and I'm surprised that I am like that!


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

X10E8Y65M56 said:


> Right right, and I'm surprised that I am like that.


Do you mean 50/50?

Either it could be a fine illusion you believe in (as INFx likes to believe most of the time, it beautifies what is actually to make it more pleasant), or you may have a major mental imbalance.

Because what I explained is a primitive way in which the human mind works, it's something you find written in any book that describes human nature and human behavior.


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

impulsenine said:


> Do you mean 50/50?
> 
> Either it could be a fine illusion you believe in (as INFx likes to believe most of the time, it beautifies what is actually to make it more pleasant), or you may have a major mental imbalance.
> 
> Because what I explained is a primitive way in which the human mind works, it's something you find written in any book that describes human nature and human behavior.


Okay yeah, that makes sense to me.


----------



## Bella2016 (Mar 5, 2013)

I'm not going to waste my time watching this, but the thing about looks is, that without physical attraction a relationship is not a good idea. With physical attraction there is a possibility of a relationship IF multiple other things fall into place (and there is a reasonably slim chance of that). Physical attraction can also include mannerisms, style, scent, etc. Plus, there are degrees of attraction (and that means that if you don't value physical attraction highly then you might have more choice). Also, of course there are people who are recognised by many people to be attractive, but in everyday life, person A will have different taste, at least to some degree, to that of person B, person C, etc.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

impulsenine said:


> A girl that speaks in a typical way to someone who uses many words to say nothing for 14 minutes conveying 2 ideas that could be said in 30 seconds.
> I guess 30-second video clips don't monetize so easily.
> 
> 14 minutes about some people who did scientific research to find out what the *common sense* of people who did not come out of a cave yesterday but live in a society for at least 1 year already knew.
> ...


I think people who are most offended by this haven't yet learned how to deal with what you can change and what you can't and how to tell the difference.


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

The guy in the video actually got a girlfriend because of making that video. So, in a way, it was good advertisement for him to showcase his personality and thoughts publicly. Or maybe that only works for guys.

I was watching the video and thought about how similar things happen with animals (and birds etc.) as well. So it is perfectly natural to be superficial because the initial attraction is not governed by reason (probably not even for women who want to find wealthy partners). I don't know what really happens in the animal kingdom to those who are not deemed attractive by potential mates. I know that the very different looking animals (such as albinos) get ostracized, but do the unattractive ones get bullied because of it or do they just get ignored and die without ever finding a mate?

What makes humans different (or maybe not) is that a lot of the times they go out of their way to belittle and put down people they find unattractive. Even when those unattractive people don't even want to have anything to do with them in the first place. The thing is, you don't have to be exceptionally hideous to be deemed unattractive. The absence of normative beauty equals ugliness for a lot of people. Plain people mostly get ignored just the same. It is perfectly normal for people to have their preferences, and physical attraction is an important part of the whole equation. But to shame people for not being their particular type of attractive...what's the underlying reason behind that kind of behavior? I mean, they're not competition, right? Or maybe they are, just not for mates but other resources...

Anywhoo. Yeah, that's nothing new. I don't think of this subject as anything offensive, awkward or uncomfortable. But it would be easier to live if people didn't put so much emphasis on appearance or the lack of it.


----------



## Andy 8184 (May 24, 2021)

eeo said:


> The guy in the video actually got a girlfriend because of making that video.


Really? That's so cute


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

eeo said:


> The guy in the video actually got a girlfriend because of making that video. So, in a way, it was good advertisement for him to showcase his personality and thoughts publicly. Or maybe that only works for guys.
> 
> I was watching the video and thought about how similar things happen with animals (and birds etc.) as well. So it is perfectly natural to be superficial because the initial attraction is not governed by reason (probably not even for women who want to find wealthy partners). I don't know what really happens in the animal kingdom to those who are not deemed attractive by potential mates. I know that the very different looking animals (such as albinos) get ostracized, but do the unattractive ones get bullied because of it or do they just get ignored and die without ever finding a mate?
> 
> ...


Some people think that shaming other people raises their own social value, I think. So they derive their value on how far above others they are and how much they can put them down. They feel that if they put another person down for something that isn't harming anyone, then they will be elevated socially.

What bothers me about this thread is just how vague the title is and the way it expects me to watch a fourteen minute youtube video that is a response to another youtube video. I'd rather that there was just a summary of whatever studies are being used.

Like 89% of what--89% of people in the study? 89% of people's behavior/motivations? 89% of my motivation is supposed to be purely about appearance or social status? 



--------------------

I think younger people tend to be more attentive to really generic materialistic/superficial values, because they lack experience and discernment...they don't know what they want yet. 

Older people who have the same propensity for materialism are often regarded as immature by their peers--they seem to be bad at relationships and perpetually single as well, probably because they are continuing to hold fast to superficial values which aren't going to be a good foundation for a lasting relationship. But that's just my observation and not based on any science or anything...except for the studies that show that physical attractiveness is not a predictor of relationship satisfaction or longevity (it seems to be a negative influence): Do Beautiful People Have Better Relationships?

I also think young people are conditioned to think about attractiveness as something you cannot change--behavior, posture, body language--how emotionally and socially intelligent you act--these are going to affect how superficially appealing you are as well. Sometimes when people get ignored it's because they are the type of people who don't seek attention anyway, or who feel uncomfortable with it. 

Most people do value the less materialistic pleasures of relationships as well, and it would make sense if their preferences expand to include less than perfect-seeming looks in order to prefer what they actually enjoy. Though before you know someone--before you have a relationship with them--looks or knowledge of their reputation (status) is all you may have to judge. But I think that's why you see people who are not particularly attractive in happy relationships and sometimes see people who are more attractive in unhappy ones.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

WickerDeer said:


> What bothers me about this thread is just how vague the title is and the way it expects me to watch a fourteen minute youtube video that is a response to another youtube video. I'd rather that there was just a summary of whatever studies are being used.


Right?

Link me to the study so I can read it for myself. Watching a reaction to a reaction?









I can only speak for myself in terms of attraction but its always been way more complex than looks, money, status etc


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

WickerDeer said:


> Some people think that shaming other people raises their own social value, I think. So they derive their value on how far above others they are and how much they can put them down. They feel that if they put another person down for something that isn't harming anyone, then they will be elevated socially.
> 
> *What bothers me about this thread is just how vague the title is and the way it expects me to watch a fourteen minute youtube video that is a response to another youtube video.* I'd rather that there was just a summary of whatever studies are being used.
> 
> ...


Oh, I see, that's amusing information; it seems that appearances are less important to older people.  What exactly do you mean by "vague title" and what would a better title name look like......


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

X10E8Y65M56 said:


> Oh, I see, that's interesting. What do you mean by a "vague title", how would you call it......


What does "89%" of "dating" mean?

Does it mean dating success--I think many people in happy relationships would say that being in a happy relationship would be at least "90%" of "relationship success"--I mean...in how they conceive of "dating success" or the value of dating.

So is "89% of dating"...assuming it means something like "89% of what is most important in dating" going to be represented by a successful marriage? By your happy, fulfilling relationship with a life partner or a husband or wife?

Or is "89% of dating" referring to 89% of the people you might swipe left (or right idk--I don't use tinder) on? Because I don't think most people would consider their dating success to be based on whether random strangers swipe left/right on them.

So you get what I'm saying?

Is 90% of dating how many strangers might swipe right on you or is it that you're in a long-term, happy relationship with the guy/girl of your dreams? And the 90% refers to your compatibility with a long term partner? Does it refer to who you'd have casual sex with? What is "89% of it all"?

That is why it's vague--you're using something specific--a percent, and then you are not being clear on what that even means--and we have to watch some 15 minute long video to try to figure out what you're even talking about.

That is what I meant by the criticism about the title and thread being click-baity.

It would be helpful if you looked up the studies that are being cited in this video and provided a link to the news articles or the studies--or even referred to them by name so that others could look the data up to understand what this is about, rather than having to watch that video.

The title would be less confusing if there was a summary in the original post.


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

Queen of Cups said:


> Right?
> 
> Link me to the study so I can read it for myself. Watching a reaction to a reaction?
> 
> ...


It's ok, there's no obligation to watch the video; I'm only pointing it out. It's entirely up to you. 😊


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

WickerDeer said:


> What does "89%" of "dating" mean?
> 
> Does it mean dating success--I think many people in happy relationships would say that being in a happy relationship would be at least "90%" of "relationship success"--I mean...in how they conceive of "dating success" or the value of dating.
> 
> ...


I get what you're saying....

The statistics aren't meant to be taken literally; they're just a generalisation based on the reality that attractive sexy people always wins over average-looking clever individuals. This is a point of contention. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "click bait." Rather than not being watched, I desire my threads to be viewed and reflected back to me, so I get the gist.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

X10E8Y65M56 said:


> I get what you're saying....
> 
> The statistics aren't meant to be taken literally; they're just a generalisation based on the reality that attractive sexy people always wins over average-looking clever individuals. This is a point of contention. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "click bait." Rather than not being watched, I desire my threads to be viewed.


from Wikipedia (the negative aspect is in bold):

"Clickbait is a text or a thumbnail link that is designed to attract attention and to entice users to follow that link and read, view, or listen to the linked piece of online content, *with a defining characteristic of being deceptive, typically sensationalized or misleading."*

I think that if you're going to generalize statistics--you probably shouldn't use specific percentages like "89%." Because that doesn't sound like a generalization--it sounds like a number from a study.

Also "attractive sexy people always wins over average-looking clever individuals" sounds like a conclusion I would like to see actual evidence for, rather than watching a 14 minute video that isn't actually concluding that. It sounds hyperbolic and sensationalized. So it that is what I meant by "click bait."

If you are going to claim such a thing, it'd be nice to see evidence and an argument, not some silly youtube reaction video to a reaction. This is what I think, and also what I'm getting from @Queen of Cups comment to me.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

WickerDeer said:


> from Wikipedia (the negative aspect is in bold):
> 
> "Clickbait is a text or a thumbnail link that is designed to attract attention and to entice users to follow that link and read, view, or listen to the linked piece of online content, *with a defining characteristic of being deceptive, typically sensationalized or misleading."*
> 
> ...


Pretty much. For every YouTube video making a point, I can find one making a counter point. 


I find trying to make any kind of point with them, and not including a summary of what’s being said, breaking it down and what you think and why, intellectually lazy.

I have watched videos posted? Yes on occasion if I’m interested in the subject matter, but it’s rare.

My time is limited and I can read and process it faster than I can watch a video, the search and watch the video its reacting to.

And I don’t want OP to feel bad or ganged up on because I know they had good intentions. My point is stemming from a larger pattern I’ve noticed.


----------

