Honest talk about the cost of being ugly

[DrZoidberg]

My experience is that particular looks do equate in some regards to trustworthiness.

Bilaterally symmetrical facial features are highly valued …

A lot of guys value big symmetrical boobs. They are 'beautiful'. Works of art.

Clearly guys don't. Boobs are never symetrical. Certainly not natural boobs. And most guys prefer natural boobs.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a good one from Mike Israetel. He's a pretty devisive guy. And he's a body builder. So obviously he's talking from being in the shallow end of humanity. But stuff like this matters, regardless of how deep you are.



Thoughts? I think he's right on the money

LOL. Being a body builder is the "shallow end of humanity"?! That cracked me up. Sorry for derail. I will watch your video soon. At age 50 I was diagnosed as pre-diabetic, 50 pounds overweight, high blood pressure, no self esteem, and struggling at work. I turned to fitness. Now I'm 60: strongest that I've ever been (benched 325 last week at my age!); eating healthy. I take no drugs: but all my numbers are great: blood pressure great, and etc. I've never felt better. Anyway, I'll watch your vide and get back!!...

That's great! I only watched about 2 minutes of the stupid video. It's about the "Brutal reality of being ugly" It's over 35 minutes long. Don't waste your time. I hate watching videos and Z could have least summed up what the video was about. Besides, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" a wise author said hundreds of years ago.

But it isn't. It just isn't. Its such a mean thing to say.

If someone isn't attractive and is told that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then not only are they physically unatrative, can't do anything about it and its their fault for having an unpleasant personality.

I never tell anyone what they look like. I was simply noting that what one person thinks is ugly, another might find attractive or not be bothered by the physical appearance of that person. There are plenty of unattractive men who are married to attractive women because most women are not simply attracted to men due to their physical appearance. When we met, I was not physically attracted to my husband of 44 years due to his appearance. I was attracted to him due to his sense of humor, intelligence, generosity and affectionate nature. That is my point.

As time went on, I found his appearance to be more attractive, probably because I love him. Judging someone by their physical appearance is wrong imo. Beauty is subjective, but of course, I would never tell someone that as a way to comfort them if they thought of themselves as ugly.

I saw what most people would call a very ugly woman in a restaurant last week. She was also very obese. Her partner was a fairly decent looking man and he wasn't obese. They were an older couple and had probably been together for a long time, so maybe there is no brutality of being ugly as how we perceive the appearance of others varies and as the saying goes, "love is blind". People can be happy with their mate regardless of their physical appearance. Do you not understand that? Plus we don't all age well. I've been lucky, but I know plenty of people who haven't aged well. One friend who is very over weight started taking GLP drugs because her husband told her he loves her so much and he is worried that her obesity might lead to health problems that will leave him widowed and he doesn't want to live without her. That's love.

How's any of this relevant to anything in the video? Obviously what you're saying is true. I'm sure Mike Israetel would agree.

And you do tell people how they look. Not with words. But certainly with your eyes and attention. People notice. And your ability to signal this is mostly out of your conscious control.

I've dated some extremely beautiful women in my life. Its like they're living on a different planet. All the social rules are different for them. They also have other problems, that less attractive women couldn't relate to.

Women in general are from, (my male perspective) preposterously superficial and love being associated with beautiful women. I don't understand the behaviour. But its bloody obvious that its a thing.

Women are less picky when it comes to what men they sleep with. But quite superficial in with what women they are seen hanging out with.

But even if women care more about other qualities than looks in a man, they'd still prefer it if he was hot. Why wouldn't they?

Any woman who would challenge that I'd call a liar

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nature vs nurture, Saw this on a nature show,

AI Overview
Yes, female peacocks (called peahens) choose their mates based on the male's vibrant colors, specifically the size, quantity, and iridescence of the "eyespots" on their giant tail feathers (known as the train).

The mating selection process relies heavily on specific visual and physical traits:Eyespot
Color and Iridescence: Research indicates that the brightness and intense blue-green iridescence of a peacock's eyespots are among the most critical factors for mating success.
Train Quality: Peahens evaluate the overall density, symmetry, and length of the tail feathers to gauge the male's genetic health and vigor.
The "Sexy Son" Hypothesis: By choosing the most colorful and robust males, females ensure their male offspring inherit these same attractive traits, giving future generations a reproductive advantage.

From the show plumage correlates to immune system health.

AI Overview
Yes, male peacock colors and elaborate feather trains are directly related to their immune system. In evolutionary biology, this is known as the "Hamilton-Zuk hypothesis" and the "Handicap Principle," where females look for specific "honest signals" of genetic quality.

I'm very sceptical of these evolutionary psychological explanations for what we are attracted to.

And it doesn't matter.

Its more important to establish which traits are attractive rather than to explain why they're attractive..

Why are femme lesbians so often attracted to butch lesbians? Good luck finding a logical explanation for that

 

[pood]

Just out of morbid curiosity, I was able to slog through the first 11 minutes of this boring, stupid video. But I have to give him some credit. Right up front he explains why he is boring the shit out of me and every other intelligent person on the planet with this nonsense. He wants to sell a book promoting the virtues of vanity!

What kind of world do we live in?

Just look at who is the U.S. president, and the leader of Israel, and you will know. It ain’t pretty, and that’s not just a matter of physical appearance.

 

[pood]

Just got up to the 13:40, mark, believing I should try, at this point, to prop open my eyes with toothpicks. Nah. Going to bed.

21 more minutes of this.

We live in a world in which the leaders of the U.S., Israel, Russia and China are all, basically, psychos.

We live in a world in which global warming is due to destroy us all.

And this is what this jerk chooses to talk about, and people, apparently, choose to view.

Mind boggling.

I wonder if his stupid book will be a best-seller?

Probably.

 

[steve_bank]

Nature vs nurture, Saw this on a nature show,

AI Overview
Yes, female peacocks (called peahens) choose their mates based on the male's vibrant colors, specifically the size, quantity, and iridescence of the "eyespots" on their giant tail feathers (known as the train).

The mating selection process relies heavily on specific visual and physical traits:Eyespot
Color and Iridescence: Research indicates that the brightness and intense blue-green iridescence of a peacock's eyespots are among the most critical factors for mating success.
Train Quality: Peahens evaluate the overall density, symmetry, and length of the tail feathers to gauge the male's genetic health and vigor.
The "Sexy Son" Hypothesis: By choosing the most colorful and robust males, females ensure their male offspring inherit these same attractive traits, giving future generations a reproductive advantage.

From the show plumage correlates to immune system health.

AI Overview
Yes, male peacock colors and elaborate feather trains are directly related to their immune system. In evolutionary biology, this is known as the "Hamilton-Zuk hypothesis" and the "Handicap Principle," where females look for specific "honest signals" of genetic quality.

I'm very sceptical of these evolutionary psychological explanations for what we are attracted to.

And it doesn't matter.

Its more important to establish which traits are attractive rather than to explain why they're attractive..

Why are femme lesbians so often attracted to butch lesbians? Good luck finding a logical explanation for that

I am skeptical of all those videos you post....

One of our mistakes as humans IMO is to ignore that we are critters of the natural world. Maybe not all, but6 sects of our behavior are rooted in survival of our ancestors coded in genetics,

We are genetically programed to mate, no instructions required.

When you feel physically threatened your heart rate goes up, more oxygen. More adrenaline enters the blood stream. Immune system revs up. Getting ready to fight.

It is al automatic. Survival mechanisms.

We are flesh and blood animals. Ugly, beautiful, good, bad are abstractions. Civilization id a thin veneer.

 

[steve_bank]

Just got up to the 13:40, mark, believing I should try, at this point, to prop open my eyes with toothpicks. Nah. Going to bed.

21 more minutes of this.

We live in a world in which the leaders of the U.S., Israel, Russia and China are all, basically, psychos.

We live in a world in which global warming is due to destroy us all.

And this is what this jerk chooses to talk about, and people, apparently, choose to view.

Mind boggling.

I wonder if his stupid book will be a best-seller?

Probably.

Had a good nights sleep, a good breakfast, was drinking my coffee feeling good and then I read this.

What a buzz kill.

 

[pood]

Here’s a weird thing about people. Most of us are not 9’s or 10’s or even 1’s or 2’s — for those of us who adhere to these juvenile, nonsensical indices. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, roughly,

Yet people get together and make more people, and even love each into old age when they look wrinkled and often grotesque.

Lincoln famously said, “The good lord must have loved the common-LOOKING people, since he made so many of them.” The “looking” part is commonly omitted from the “common” quote.

During one of his 1858 debates with Steven Douglas, Lincoln, whom Douglas had accused of being two-faced, responded with his customary wit: “If I had another face, do you think I’d be wearing this one?”

But this muscle-bound bozo with his stupid video tries to push a book promoting vanity, when there is SO MUCH ELSE to deal with — politically, philosophically, scientifically, sociologically, and on and on.

But let’s all praise VANITY instead.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here’s a weird thing about people. Most of us are not 9’s or 10’s or even 1’s or 2’s — for those of us who adhere to these juvenile, nonsensical indices. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, roughly,

Yet people get together and make more people, and even love each into old age when they look wrinkled and often grotesque.

Lincoln famously said, “The good lord must have loved the common-LOOKING people, since he made so many of them.” The “looking” part is commonly omitted from the “common” quote.

During one of his 1858 debates with Steven Douglas, Lincoln, whom Douglas had accused of being two-faced, responded with his customary wit: “If I had another face, do you think I’d be wearing this one?”

I think what you and Southern Hybrid are confused about is stuff you are projecting onto what he's saying.



He's not talking about human worth. He's not saying that we should care about looks. He's acknowleging that its a thing and that it affects us. Pretending that it doesn't isn't helping. Its like denying racism exists because we don't like racism. It doesn't help.



FYI, women are rarely attracted to bodybuilders. That's not why they do it. They are vain. But its not about attracting the opposite gender for sex or love. It has the opposite effect.

But this muscle-bound bozo with his stupid video tries to push a book promoting vanity, when there is SO MUCH ELSE to deal with — politically, philosophically, scientifically, sociologically, and on and on.

But let’s all praise VANITY instead.

That's a fair point

 

[pood]

Here's a good one from Mike Israetel. He's a pretty devisive guy. And he's a body builder. So obviously he's talking from being in the shallow end of humanity. But stuff like this matters, regardless of how deep you are.



Thoughts? I think he's right on the money

LOL. Being a body builder is the "shallow end of humanity"?! That cracked me up. Sorry for derail. I will watch your video soon. At age 50 I was diagnosed as pre-diabetic, 50 pounds overweight, high blood pressure, no self esteem, and struggling at work. I turned to fitness. Now I'm 60: strongest that I've ever been (benched 325 last week at my age!); eating healthy. I take no drugs: but all my numbers are great: blood pressure great, and etc. I've never felt better. Anyway, I'll watch your vide and get back!!...

That's great! I only watched about 2 minutes of the stupid video. It's about the "Brutal reality of being ugly" It's over 35 minutes long. Don't waste your time. I hate watching videos and Z could have least summed up what the video was about. Besides, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" a wise author said hundreds of years ago.

But it isn't. It just isn't. Its such a mean thing to say.

If someone isn't attractive and is told that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then not only are they physically unatrative, can't do anything about it and its their fault for having an unpleasant personality.

I never tell anyone what they look like. I was simply noting that what one person thinks is ugly, another might find attractive or not be bothered by the physical appearance of that person. There are plenty of unattractive men who are married to attractive women because most women are not simply attracted to men due to their physical appearance. When we met, I was not physically attracted to my husband of 44 years due to his appearance. I was attracted to him due to his sense of humor, intelligence, generosity and affectionate nature. That is my point.

As time went on, I found his appearance to be more attractive, probably because I love him. Judging someone by their physical appearance is wrong imo. Beauty is subjective, but of course, I would never tell someone that as a way to comfort them if they thought of themselves as ugly.

I saw what most people would call a very ugly woman in a restaurant last week. She was also very obese. Her partner was a fairly decent looking man and he wasn't obese. They were an older couple and had probably been together for a long time, so maybe there is no brutality of being ugly as how we perceive the appearance of others varies and as the saying goes, "love is blind". People can be happy with their mate regardless of their physical appearance. Do you not understand that? Plus we don't all age well. I've been lucky, but I know plenty of people who haven't aged well. One friend who is very over weight started taking GLP drugs because her husband told her he loves her so much and he is worried that her obesity might lead to health problems that will leave him widowed and he doesn't want to live without her. That's love.

How's any of this relevant to anything in the video? Obviously what you're saying is true. I'm sure Mike Israetel would agree.

And you do tell people how they look. Not with words. But certainly with your eyes and attention. People notice. And your ability to signal this is mostly out of your conscious control.

I've dated some extremely beautiful women in my life. Its like they're living on a different planet. All the social rules are different for them. They also have other problems, that less attractive women couldn't relate to.

Women in general are from, (my male perspective) preposterously superficial and love being associated with beautiful women. I don't understand the behaviour. But its bloody obvious that its a thing.

Women are less picky when it comes to what men they sleep with. But quite superficial in with what women they are seen hanging out with.

But even if women care more about other qualities than looks in a man, they'd still prefer it if he was hot. Why wouldn't they?

Any woman who would challenge that I'd call a liar

Three dislikes, just adding mine.

I’m so glad you have dated “some extremely beautiful women.” However beautiful, they must have been real dumb asses to put up with you.

 

[Elixir]

I think smart women are hot.
Even if she looks like a random assembly of broken parts, if she opens her mouth and says things that open my eyes, she morphs into a princess. Sometimes not on the spot. It can take time, which is why superficial appearance takes precedence in brief encounters. But it’s a real effect.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My experience is that particular looks do equate in some regards to trustworthiness.

Bilaterally symmetrical facial features are highly valued …

Symmetry in general, universally attractive. As with so much of how we think, it's a simplification--in the times of old it would have been something of an approximation of reproductive fitness. (Showing unstressed development.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But even if women care more about other qualities than looks in a man, they'd still prefer it if he was hot. Why wouldn't they?

Any woman who would challenge that I'd call a liar

Exactly. While being hot isn't a sole selection criterion it is one of them. And it's going to get more scrutiny of other measures of desirability.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm very sceptical of these evolutionary psychological explanations for what we are attracted to.

And it doesn't matter.

While it's not of direct practical use why do you question the idea?

Any species, selecting mates for reproductive fitness is going to be selected for.

Its more important to establish which traits are attractive rather than to explain why they're attractive..

Why are femme lesbians so often attracted to butch lesbians? Good luck finding a logical explanation for that

Actually, I see an entirely logical explanation.

I am in the camp that thinks there isn't really a genetic "heterosexual" or "homosexual". Rather, we get a far simpler model if we look at intensity and filters for the desired criteria, two independent controls rather than a messily-linked "same-sex" and "opposite-sex" attraction.

Thus an asexual has the intensity at near zero, the filters don't matter.

A heterosexual man has the filter of "woman", a bisexual man has both the "man" and "woman" filters.

While such things (gender, sexual attraction) are supposed to be paired biology always messes up pairing, the only question is to what degree. And note that the filters aren't really to "man" or "woman", but attributes. Your butch lesbian has more male traits. This is a "male"-female pair where certain female attributes replace the base male attributes.

And it explains why genetics does such a poor job of selecting against it--we need the pattern to survive.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here’s a weird thing about people. Most of us are not 9’s or 10’s or even 1’s or 2’s — for those of us who adhere to these juvenile, nonsensical indices. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, roughly,

Yet people get together and make more people, and even love each into old age when they look wrinkled and often grotesque.

Yeah, one would expect a bell curve. But calling the indices nonsensical doesn't make it so--the existence of Playboy makes it clear that there is a general agreement about desirability. And you aren't presenting anything that would show it's not a factor, just that it's not the only factor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think smart women are hot.
Even if she looks like a random assembly of broken parts, if she opens her mouth and says things that open my eyes, she morphs into a princess. Sometimes not on the spot. It can take time, which is why superficial appearance takes precedence in brief encounters. But it’s a real effect.

Yeah, but that takes time. She has to be around you for a period of time for her intelligence to show.

 

[pood]

Here’s a weird thing about people. Most of us are not 9’s or 10’s or even 1’s or 2’s — for those of us who adhere to these juvenile, nonsensical indices. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, roughly,

Yet people get together and make more people, and even love each into old age when they look wrinkled and often grotesque.

Yeah, one would expect a bell curve. But calling the indices nonsensical doesn't make it so--the existence of Playboy makes it clear that there is a general agreement about desirability.

Is there?

Or is it that Playboy appeals to a certain market?

Does Playboy market to gays? Lesbians? To people who like buxom black women? To people like Elixir who think smart women are hot? To people like me who, when younger, thought smart women were hot, but no longer think in those categories at all, who are no long really into sex? (I am still definitely into smart women and people in general, but not in a sexual sense.)

And you aren't presenting anything that would show it's not a factor, just that it's not the only factor.

I was not arguing that sexiness is not a factor in attraction, but indeed that it is just not the ONLY factor. And yes, for a substantial number of people, Playboy standards of “attraction” are not meaningful standards at all.

What I am really pointing out is how incredibly superficial this video guy is, and to point out that he is trying to sell a book avowedly marketing vanity — an incredibly empty, vapid, and self-defeating exercise imo.

Looks fade anyway, and quickly. When we are in our teens and 20s, a hot, sexy appearance may mean a lot — but even then, not for everyone. By the time we are in our 30s and 40s, that is changing.

 

[pood]

I might add also that I surfed this guy online and saw him with his shirt off. He looks like a mass of metastasizing tumors. I am going to venture a guess here, from personal experience among other sources, that most women do not find this attractive. Most women, in my experience, are into guys who are kind, considerate, intelligent, thoughtful, etc., and not guys who look they got bombarded with gamma rays and became the Incredible Hulk.

 

[bilby]

the existence of Playboy makes it clear that there is a general agreement about desirability.

Really? I sincerely doubt that the existence of one particular source of pornographic imagery tells us anything about "general agreement".

A better test would be to look at as many sources as possible, which, thanks to the wonders of the Electric Internet, we can now do in the peace and comfort of our own homes.

Let me know if there is ANY body type or shape; ANY facial feature or arrangement thereof; or ANY race, colour, or creed, that is found in society at large (and 8 billion people is a very large society indeed), but that you cannot find porn of.*

The sheer overwhelming variety of pornstar appearances and niches tells me that your "general agreement" hypothesis is bunk.









* No, seriously, let me know, so I can make a fortune producing porn for a hitherto unexploited market...

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm very sceptical of these evolutionary psychological explanations for what we are attracted to.

And it doesn't matter.

While it's not of direct practical use why do you question the idea?

Any species, selecting mates for reproductive fitness is going to be selected for.

I'll explain.

The human penis shape, and how men feel pleasure, is designed for pumping/pulling out cum from the guy in front. Chimpanzees mostly have gang bang/group sex type sex. Gorillas don't. They do one on one style sex. So a gorilla penis is optimised for that. Our closest relatives are bonobos. Often have group sex. So that can explain it. Human penises are more like chimpanzee penises. Does this mean that humans primarily have gang bangs, or so often that evolutionary pressure will shape the penis? No. Because if humans at some point started sliding towards a more monogamous sexual lifestyle, which is the norm now, it won't put much evolutionary pressure on the penis design, to change it. So it's genetic drift.

So what exactly can we deduce about modern human sexuality based on the size and shape of the human penis? Exactly nothing.

Something I've heard plenty are people claiming that the reason women are picky about which partners they have is because women need to carry the baby around for months and then need to take care of it. As it turns out, by studying modern hunter-gatherers we know that's nonsense. Hunter gatherers take care of children comunally. Which specific man births the child is largely irrelevant. They're all in it together. Sex is often ritualised and controlled by the tribe. When I was in Colombia I was in a Wiwa tribe village. They're semi nomadic. Once per year they hang out in a special sexy village. The village elders pair them up and the lovers get to live in sexy huts alone for a while. Then they leave the village. This is common. because hunter gathers want to time child births so that they're staying put in a good place when it's time to birth the kids. Nine months down the road. That's another settlement the Wiwa people go to. Basically, sexuality is often controlled by village elders and out of the lovers control. That's most likely the kind of sexuality and sexual instincts we've evolved for.

People claiming that women are picky because women need a strong man to protect them is modern conservative clap trap projected onto the ancients. It doesn't at all reflect how hunter gatheres have sex or pair bond. It seems like what we've evolved for is having arranged marriages and having sex ritualitically in an arranged fashion.

Not to mention that hunter gatherers were unlikely to understand that sex led to babies. The time it takes between the sex and the first sign of pregnancy takes so long that it's unlikely pre-moderns ever figured it out. Which might help explain all the bizarre birthing myths associated with gods.

We also don't know if the size and impractibility of peacock feathers signal fitness and therefore is what gets them laid. They do all kinds of stuff when courting peahens. It's just a theory.

When it comes to sex and sexuality we have a terrible habit of projecting our own personal politics onto biology and we seem to love biological determinism.

I hang out in the Danish queer community, and the amount of absolute idiocy my tribe often believe, and have really strong opinions on, is astounding. It's a bubble of progressive values and opinions, and the people who only stay in the bubble keep getting their beliefs reenforced. I'm going to assume that this is true for everyone and every comunity. People seem to love having strong opinions on it. And I think that available evolutionary evidence can be used to prove basically anything about our needs, urges and instincts.

For that reason I've chosen to have a humble stance on it and admit that I don't know, and stay skeptical when people are confident about it.

Its more important to establish which traits are attractive rather than to explain why they're attractive..

Why are femme lesbians so often attracted to butch lesbians? Good luck finding a logical explanation for that

Actually, I see an entirely logical explanation.

I am in the camp that thinks there isn't really a genetic "heterosexual" or "homosexual". Rather, we get a far simpler model if we look at intensity and filters for the desired criteria, two independent controls rather than a messily-linked "same-sex" and "opposite-sex" attraction.

Thus an asexual has the intensity at near zero, the filters don't matter.

A heterosexual man has the filter of "woman", a bisexual man has both the "man" and "woman" filters.

While such things (gender, sexual attraction) are supposed to be paired biology always messes up pairing, the only question is to what degree. And note that the filters aren't really to "man" or "woman", but attributes. Your butch lesbian has more male traits. This is a "male"-female pair where certain female attributes replace the base male attributes.

And it explains why genetics does such a poor job of selecting against it--we need the pattern to survive.

I believe that making a species that continually gets their retinas hammered with media triggering dopamine hits and not given much time to sit and reflect, will get a perverted sexuality.

I think we live so far from the lives we've evolved for, that it's damn near impossible to take modern sexuality as any kind of indication for what's natural or normal for our species. Gay, bisexual or otherwise.

I'm on Matt Ridley's team when it comes to homosexuality. It's a mystery. It's not functional. There's no possible scenario we can model that makes homosexuality adaptive or increase fitness. No matter how we mess around with the data, the bottom line, is that fitness and survivability would go up if everyone could potentially have babies from reproduction. It also exists in all mammals at about the same proportions. So it's impossible to breed out (which we've tried to do). One theory is that the genes for homosexuality sits on the same gene or chromosome as something that does something really really important, so therefor has a too high cost for the species to breed out. So it stays. Genetic drift. But ultimately... we don't know. And does it matter? Love is love. I really don't need to know why other people fancy eachother. If it makes your dick hard and you get consent.... fuck it.