Looks are more important than you think! Merged [Official thread]

[DonJuanForever]

I'm Bringing Sexy Back

Hey I gotta get some posting in here, lol, can't let you guys hog all the room! Oh yeah, if anybody wants to make some $$$$ in Real Estate, send me a pm, lol...no that was a cheap commercial, I don't think I could handle more clients.

But here's the thing........skip 2 MY mota-fvckin LOU!!! I told you he was my favorite poster. Here's the thing skip, let's discuss this "looks" theory, you and DonJuanByNature said,

"Ugly guys cannot approach girls the same way good looking guys do"

Well here's the thing, my looks have not changed that much since I was in high school. If someone I went to high school with would see me they would still recongize me and it's been 4 and a half years and a whole lot of growing up since then.

What's makes a guy "ugly" is his attitude and lack of sexual flow, not his lack of Scott Stenier's biceps.

There's 2 TYPES OF LOOKS. There's physical looks and there's professional/clean LOOKS. One attracts women, the other attracts men.

Physical looks include the body parts of a person, the face, smile, legs, thighs, arms, chest......this attracts us, this is what a woman specializes in.

Professional/clean looks include the way a person dresses, smell, match, their style, their wardrobe in particular.....this attracts women, this is what a man specializes in.

There's no such thing as an "ugly" guy...more so there's a such thing as a guy with no style.

Girls don't fvck guys because they have "pretty" faces, lol.

Skip let's discuss, when you say it's all about looks, what do you really mean? I mean I'm not gay or nothing, but I don't think girls like Justin Timberlake because he has a pretty face because his face isn't pretty to me, lol.

I'm bringing sexy back too!!

- John a.k.a. the Real JT

 

[john_1234]

the times i've seen not-so-good-looking guys hook up w/ hot girls is when the guy and hot girl already knew of each other within their established network of friends. not-so-good-looking men have slim chances of hitting it off w/ hot girls outside their networks

 

[bob2007]

I'm very thankful skip posted this but I find his comments completely wrong. Have any of you even seen the entire 5 videos? How can you say that the guys are losers because of their looks and won't get any decent chicks. They all picked up chicks at the end!!

The video's been a huge confidence boost, if these below average guys can get chicks I should be cruising. Now, I have the confidence to approach a whole lot more.

BTW donno why the tall guy was so insecure about his height, sluts should be all over him. One time in class I heard this girl mention the guy's height like 3 times.

The key in the video's were communication and rapport building. Even the pick up artists who were teaching the guys weren't good looking. The better dressed one is like 7.5, 8 at best.

 

[i am me]

funny video, props for findin it

 

[noneother]

Im gonna have to get technical here, and correct you.

well, youre assuming that the probability density function that would describe the probability of a guy having a certain attractiveness value is going to be normal. Your assumption that ugly guys are equally probable as really hot guys will be the same will be true of the PDF is normal. But what if its not?!!
In, fact, its more likely to not be. It could be some multimodal PDF which would kill that assumption of yours, ugly guys may be more common than hot guys, or vice versa, the PDF could be a complex distribution!

Second, you gave a link to a guassian distribution, well the problem with that is that guassians are used if the range is negative infinity to positive infinity. But a guy's attractiveness will never be negative!!!; we usually measure a guys attractiveness on a positive valued scale of 1-10. So to correct you, you would use a gamma distribution for modeling a PDF on the probability of a guys attractiveness. a Gamma distribution has a range of 0 through positive infinity, ideal for when something can never be negative.

are you a statistican or actuary?

 

[skip2mylou781]

i simply KNOW that if a hot girl sees a guy for the first time and finds him ugly, then there'll be very little he can do right to properly attract her and end up getting with her

thats why its so ****in stupid that u see these ugly guys tryin to game good looking girls, when what they SHOULD be doing is improving their looks, since that would increase their chances the most


bob2007 - they didnt pick up chicks in the end, i cant believe ANYONE thinks that the fat or short guy had what is called success.......if u woulda only seen the body language and facial expressions of the girls they were "picking up", u knew those girls werent interested in ANYTHING SEXUAL WATSOEVER!!! why?? cuz of lack of looks

donjuanforever - a girl wont want an ugly guy in a sexual state, and yes your right, a guy dressed in style is automatically better looking than a slob, but a guy with style AND in good shape is even better........and hey cmon, i kno u can tell an ugly guy when u see one - those 2 guys in the videos were ugly, obv girls had no interest in them cuz they were way below them in looks, u could see it written on their faces

 

[In2theGame]

I have to agree with you skip. I myself have picked up alot of girls and many have thought i was attractive. This is my opinion. Looks get you in, Charisma gets you deeper and self attitude gets you around all the bases. In my experience with women, They all want the "sexy" guy or the "Hot" guy... many times the "sexy" or "hot" guy may have no game or no character ( not funny, too serious, just plain azzhole) BUT for those who have the looks and the funny, cool, smooth..etc.. attitude. theres nothing that can bring them down because they have what women want.. Sexy, Hot and can make them feel good about themselves and make them laugh. Although i find myself attractive and women have found me attractive... I owe my success to my personality. naturally i make people feel good when im around by getting along with them... even at job interviews.. the interviewers have expressed how much they liked me because of my attitude. Same goes for women.. if i get them laughing and feeling "Connected" with me... its over. I have actually talked to many girls on the phone (late night i might add).. and then expressing flat out.. that i was getting them wet by the way i was talking to them. its ALL in one's character.

 

[Holland]

I can't believe you keep holding on to your shiit about these video's being proof of your statement. They dont prove shiit. These guys have only tried for a short amount of time, from ground zero (if not, below). It takes a lot more time to become succesfull.

I have said it before, but you seem to ignore things that you can't deny, so I'll just quote it again:

You are using logical (male) reasoning and women are not logical (and not male either). Women don't think the same way men do!!!

Check Sean in the DYD: ****y comedy program. If he can be succesfull with those looks, anyone can.

 

[The Juan and only]

Im gonna have to get technical here, and correct you.

well, youre assuming that the probability density function that would describe the probability of a guy having a certain attractiveness value is going to be normal. Your assumption that ugly guys are equally probable as really hot guys will be the same will be true of the PDF is normal. But what if its not?!!
In, fact, its more likely to not be. It could be some multimodal PDF which would kill that assumption of yours, ugly guys may be more common than hot guys, or vice versa, the PDF could be a complex distribution!

Second, you gave a link to a guassian distribution, well the problem with that is that guassians are used if the range is negative infinity to positive infinity. But a guy's attractiveness will never be negative!!!; we usually measure a guys attractiveness on a positive valued scale of 1-10. So to correct you, you would use a gamma distribution for modeling a PDF on the probability of a guys attractiveness. a Gamma distribution has a range of 0 through positive infinity, ideal for when something can never be negative.

I hope that was a joke. Nobody here cares whether or not you're a proficient statistician. But I guess we can still have a discussion 'bout it on the basis that this thread has gone to hell anyway.

Now, you haven't actually proved anything with this. You've simply said that the distribution is probably not normal, without providing any data to support your claim.

..some sh!t about gamma distributions...

That's not relevant. A bell curve (standard normal distribution) can still be used to represent this data, and besides, who's to say the rating scale cant be shifted into the negative. Either way, I don't think the graph was the point.

 

[(+) Mindset]

I disagree with skip.
But before I proceed I must say that I have no clue as to why he's so obsessed with looks. One thread is enough, isn't it?
Are you trying to force your opinion on us or something?

Looks matter to guys.
They don't matter as much to girls.

Approach a girl with excellent confidence, making it clear you are the prize, and not being a wussy, and you'll get where you need to get no matter what.

Period.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

the times i've seen not-so-good-looking guys hook up w/ hot girls is when the guy and hot girl already knew of each other within their established network of friends. not-so-good-looking men have slim chances of hitting it off w/ hot girls outside their networks

Thats so true. Id say 100% of ugly guys dating hot girls got them in this way. 0% of ugly guys got them from approaching hotties outside their network.

Although, not all ugly guys with the hottie was seen as ugly in the eyes of the hottie. Not all women have the same taste. we see the same thing in men. one woman will be a 10 to one guy, but to another, shell be a 3. So just becuase we think the dude was ugly doesnt mean she did. Its most likely, the woman thought the guy was good looking in her eyes, and thus why she is dating them, totally consistent with skips theory.

 

[Bvbidd]

^ Yep.

Also keep in mind your not gay, and that guy to you is always obviously going to look a lot uglier in your eyes.

 

[Super_geek]

I hope that was a joke. Nobody here cares whether or not you're a proficient statistician. But I guess we can still have a discussion 'bout it on the basis that this thread has gone to hell anyway.

Now, you haven't actually proved anything with this. You've simply said that the distribution is probably not normal, without providing any data to support your claim.

Well, non-normal probability distributions are more common in nature than normal. Infact, normal distributions are not the norm. most PDFs in nature will be a mixture of guassians, basically, multimodal, asymetric and non-normal. So I dont need to collect data on guys attractiveness to know that it has a probability far greater than .5 that it WONT be normal, beucase it is already known that normal distributions occur a small percent of the time in nature. modeling a guys attractiveness is another arbitrary instance in nature, and is subject to the same prior probability of a kind of PDF. Saying "I cant know what distribution it will be before I collect data" would be a true statement If I had zero information on the priors of the Probability distributions. But thats not the Case, I do have some information, ie the prior probability of the probability distribution. SO I can safely make the statement "ITs more likely to be non-normal" before I collect data on a guys attractiveness. I mean, do I really need to give you abunch of arbitrary examples from nature showing how normal it is for it to be non-normal? I cant know what it will be with 100% certainty untill I collect data, but I never made a claim I know that theres a probability of 1 that its non-normal. Im using inductive logic here, saying its more likely to be non-normal. you dont need to be 100% certain to make safe decisions or accurate claims. Thats what probability theory does.

some sh!t about gamma distributions.
That's not relevant. A bell curve (standard normal distribution) can still be used to represent this data, and besides, who's to say the rating scale cant be shifted into the negative. Either way, I don't think the graph was the point.

well not on this positive values data, but you could make the rating scale negative if you wanted to, but the assumption is that a guys attractiveness will be a positive value. IF this is the case, then you cant use a guassian distribution. It would be predicting that some nagative values of attractiveness have a positive probability of occuring, which is a lie if we are using a positive scale to measure attractiveness. In this case, where skip is refering to uglyness/attractiveness, he uses numbers like n/10 to rate a guy. sO its obvious he is using a positive scale. Sorry, a guassian cant be used on this scale. try a gamma distribution.

 

[The Juan and only]

Im using inductive logic here, saying its more likely to be non-normal.

Initially I thought the very nature of the scale would be self normalising, but in hindsight that's just stupid; 5/10 or the "mean" isn't necessarily going to be the mode or median and so you're right, its probably not a normal distribution.

However I'd say the distribution is probably quite symetrical in terms of the extremes (making the original comment true) but we don't have any data so we can't say. I think the point here is two fold: 1. we are losers 2. the original poster should not have tried to use a statistical analysis.

also, I'm an engineering student and haven't done statistics for quite a while, so I'll have to take your word on the gamma distribution -- despite the fact I still think a bell curve distribution would be adequate on the basis that the scale is relative.

 

[skip2mylou781]

ok listen, i dunno how many times i need to clear this up. I'll try to make my FINAL point here, ill even put it in quotes, to quote me:

"if a guy is not famous, not rich, and not so popular that everyone knows him (aka giving a girl a reason to "use" him for money or to lift her social status, THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL a guy whos below a 4 will EVER look sexually attractive in the eyes of a girl whos above an 8 - by this, I mean the guy whos a 3 walks up to a girl, he says

a)hi
b)baby ur sexy
c)canned opener
d)ANYTHING

the hb9 takes a quick look at him, and DISQUALIFIES him automatically from any future sex that he may be thinking of. Why is he disqualified? cuz hes simply not good looking enough for someone of her beauty.

THIS is the only point im making about looks.......i dont care bout LTR, famous people, rich people, DO NOT CARE - i am talking about ugly chumps trying to use their "personality" to overcome the flaw that a hot girl will NOTICE RIGHT AWAY AND USE IT TO NOT WANNA **** U, IN THE FIRST 2 SECONDS SHE SEES U!

those ugly chumps need to either improve their looks or lower their standards, i cant believe people dont understand sosuave.com and the techniques it offers.........NOTHING will work for u if ur ugly hitting on a hot girl, this shyt is only for good looking guys on how to attract girls AFTEr the initial attraction of looks

if ur ugly and dont like me, then guess wat??? u DONT NEED TO BE UGLY, anyone can be at least a 7 with proper working out, style, and self-maintenance

I will not post any more replies in this thread

 

[(+) Mindset]

Well you are somewhat wrong. I'm not ugly, I consider myself average, however I will say this:

Umm, isn't it obvious that if someone is not "popular" he likely doesn't possess the outgoing characteristics that are required for attraction?

I know some very unattractive guys. Short/skinny, pale, etc.
They are outgoing as hell and girls are all over them. Their outgoingness makes them popular thus girls see this and act upon it.

So let me say that how you look has no affect on attracting women. It's all about ATTITUDE and CHARACTER.

I've seen it, and there's no way in hell you can make me believe otherwise.

 

[Trev4]

ok listen, i dunno how many times i need to clear this up. I'll try to make my FINAL point here, ill even put it in quotes, to quote me:

"if a guy is not famous, not rich, and not so popular that everyone knows him (aka giving a girl a reason to "use" him for money or to lift her social status, THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL a guy whos below a 4 will EVER look sexually attractive in the eyes of a girl whos above an 8 - by this, I mean the guy whos a 3 walks up to a girl, he says

Yes skip, we all agree look is essential. No one cares man.

u DONT NEED TO BE UGLY, anyone can be at least a 7 with proper working out, style, and self-maintenance

You're still a 3 man. Which explains why you're so obssesed with this issue. Just because you've got in better shape and maybe got a new haircut or something doesn't mean you got from 3 to 7. Most guys can improve but if you're in the small minority (i.e you) that were born a 3 or below: you're basically ****ed up.

You were dealt some bad cards by nature, boo hoo so focking what take it like a man and stop whining by posting the same sh it ten times a day.

I will not post any more replies in this thread

hallelujah

 

[DonJuanForever]

Geez guys I'm mad. This thread is 8 pages long and everybody is putting their info. in on it, BUT WE ARE DISCUSSING NOTHING. I would much rather come here and have an in-depth discussion about SOMETHING, and let the damn thing go for 19 pages, lol!

Okay skip, lol. You make a lot of assumptions, First you said this,

"donjuanforever - a girl wouldn't want an ugly guy in a sexual state, and yes your right, a guy dressed in style is automatically better looking than a slob, but a guy with style AND in good shape is even better"

Skip for one thing buddy, you assume that a guy is ugly based on his facial features, dress, etc...then when that hot babe comes up and sits on his lap that happens to be his girl, your jaw drops. Sexual state is NOTHING MORE...AND NOTHING LESS....than just being seductive. Being seductive around a chick is what turns them on, period. Now, if a guy doesn't have common sense to wash his azz and put on clothes that match and comb his hair and brush his teeth, that's his own personal problem.

See, you NEED TO LEARN HOW TO BE SEDUCTIVE. It's easy, and it's quite simple.

Again skip, looks do play a part, but it's not the SAME TYPE OF LOOKS SKIP. Everything about you needs to be SEDUCTIVE. From the way you dress, talk, walk, and behave....THAT IS SEXY.

I don't have to have a big azz.
I don't have to have nice thighs
I don't have to have big biceps.
I don't have to have a sex pack.
I don't have to have a pretty boy face

I just need to have a seductive attitude, seductive behavior, seductive outlook on the world....and wash my azz, wear nice clothes, keep some Winterfresh in my mouth, and put some deodorant on......and skip I swear to you, I'M DONE.

You guys are just making this tooo hard. Stop all this theory shyt guys. Do you guys want to learn about Real Estate? Pm me, because I know if you can put all this research into women, I know damn well you can find some good properties and make yourself a hell of a fortune.

What about it skip.....fvck accounting, come in Real Estate, I have the funds for you.

- John

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

Geez guys I'm mad. This thread is 8 pages long and everybody is putting their info. in on it, BUT WE ARE DISCUSSING NOTHING. I would much rather come here and have an in-depth discussion about SOMETHING, and let the damn thing go for 19 pages, lol!

Okay skip, lol. You make a lot of assumptions, First you said this,

"donjuanforever - a girl wouldn't want an ugly guy in a sexual state, and yes your right, a guy dressed in style is automatically better looking than a slob, but a guy with style AND in good shape is even better"

Skip for one thing buddy, you assume that a guy is ugly based on his facial features, dress, etc...then when that hot babe comes up and sits on his lap that happens to be his girl, your jaw drops. Sexual state is NOTHING MORE...AND NOTHING LESS....than just being seductive. Being seductive around a chick is what turns them on, period. Now, if a guy doesn't have common sense to wash his azz and put on clothes that match and comb his hair and brush his teeth, that's his own personal problem.

See, you NEED TO LEARN HOW TO BE SEDUCTIVE. It's easy, and it's quite simple.

Again skip, looks do play a part, but it's not the SAME TYPE OF LOOKS SKIP. Everything about you needs to be SEDUCTIVE. From the way you dress, talk, walk, and behave....THAT IS SEXY.

I don't have to have a big azz.
I don't have to have nice thighs
I don't have to have big biceps.
I don't have to have a sex pack.
I don't have to have a pretty boy face

I just need to have a seductive attitude, seductive behavior, seductive outlook on the world....and wash my azz, wear nice clothes, keep some Winterfresh in my mouth, and put some deodorant on......and skip I swear to you, I'M DONE.

You guys are just making this tooo hard. Stop all this theory shyt guys. Do you guys want to learn about Real Estate? Pm me, because I know if you can put all this research into women, I know damn well you can find some good properties and make yourself a hell of a fortune.

What about it skip.....fvck accounting, come in Real Estate, I have the funds for you.

- John

youre so full of shyte man! if your ugly, the so called "sexy seductive attitude" wont work. did you not read skips theory?

 

[DonJuanForever]

Hey God of Getting Layed, let me make my point to you.........

let me ask you............

what makes a guy ugly?

Just answer that, and anybody else on the "looks" trip, answer this question...then this will further prove MY point