Looks are the most important thing (Ditto)

[Alle_Gory]

No they didn't.

Please provide exact quotes / references. Again, the burden of proof is on you.

Yup, the tard just copied and pasted some names off wikipedia.

I'll start with a few from the top.

Luis W. Alvarez was born in San Francisco, Calif., on June 13, 1911. He received his B.Sc. from the University of Chicago in 1932, a M.Sc. in 1934, and his Ph.D. in 1936. Dr. Alvarez joined the Radiation Laboratory of the University of California, where he is now a professor, as a research fellow in 1936. He was on leave at the Radiation Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1940 to 1943, at the Metallurgical Laboratory of the University of Chicago in 1943-1944, and at the Los Alamos Laboratory of the Manhattan District from 1944 to 1945.

Early in his scientific career, Dr. Alvarez worked concurrently in the fields of optics and cosmic rays. He is co-discoverer of the "East-West effect" in cosmic rays. For several years he concentrated his work in the field of nuclear physics. From this site: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1968/alvarez-bio.html

Carl David Anderson (3 September 1905 – 11 January 1991) was an American physicist. He is best known for his discovery of the positron in 1932, an achievement for which he received the 1936 Nobel Prize in Physics, and of the muon in 1936. From this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_David_Anderson

Christian Boehmer Anfinsen, Jr. (March 26, 1916 – May 14, 1995) was an American biochemist. He shared the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Stanford Moore and William Howard Stein for work on ribonuclease, especially concerning the connection between the amino acid sequence and the biologically active conformation (see Anfinsen's dogma).[1] From this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_B._Anfinsen

All in all, absolutely NO CONNECTION whatsoever to his argument. He's quoting physicists to prove that women prefer confidence over looks. :crazy:

 

[Alle_Gory]

It makes perfect sense once you think about it, and do your homework.

I think he has. He's the one dating chicks because he's not a wimp like you. "I'm afraid to get hurt again!" Or whatever you said last time. Hahahahaha.

Where's that confidence you're preaching about??

Believe me, I wish I could lie to myself and believe that looks matter. That way I would have confidence and be able to get girls. But that s.hit ain't the truth, and I have to live with that.

They don't want to get closer to you because they don't feel comfortable. We don't even feel comfortable talking to you, shouldn't that tell you something?? I guess not. You're so focused on the looks thing that you forget to act like a person. Creepy.

Oh. It's you again. I thought I got rid of you the last time you trollishly kicked open the door on one of my teaching sessions to spew out all kinds of childish insults my way. Well, I'm not your b.itch. You can go do the googling yourself. I have faith.

You prove my point in the next paragraph. Chicks dig you, they come to you because they like the way you look and then you open the mouth and say stupid sh*t like this. Looks get your foot in the door, the girl is INTERESTED because of your looks. But then she sees more and doesn't like it.

Hasn't 150 years of scientific research taught you anything? Go read an article and maybe you'll learn something.

I didn't say that. I was paraphrasing an embarrassingly asinine comment the OP made. You really think such filth would come out of my mouth? Please. To believe that one can get GUARANTEED bush simply by having a symmetrical face, one would have to be developmentally disabled.

No one mentioned a symmetrical face before you got here.

...which is why I would never do that. I only speak of things of which I know. In this case, it happens to be evolutionary biology.

You're a kid who can quote a textbook. And you're still not very good at quoting things that are relevant to the discussion.

You are garbage, Jdela. You have the stones to start a thread claiming that having a symmetrical face is the most important thing in the dating game, and then to proceed to say that anyone who doesn't share that view is "ridiculous"? Get the f.uck out of here, man.

Notice how he keeps debating against the "symmetrical face" argument even though he brings it up.
We don't care about the symmetrical face, we're not arguing for or against the symmetrical face.

WHO are you talking to??

 

[courage99]

Yes i do think that's look matter, if you're a skinny nerd and you're trying to go up against a 6 foot guy with model looks then you're probably not going to get ANYWHERE.

I'm not saying that looks are the be all and end all but they DO matter. This is why i think that every guy who is serious about picking up chicks HAS to gym regularly.

You don't need to look like brad pitt but putting time into your hair skin cloths etc. will help you a great deal more than going around thinking that looks dont matter.

 

[JdelaSilviera]

JDSilvera, you're deliberately riling up JASA aren't you? Lulz. If you have the energy to fight for your arguement and cause for another, lets say, 100 pages. I'll give you rep. Lulz. JASA wins by attrition most of the time and the opposing side usually gives up after page 8. JASA wins by unanimous decision on Round/Page 9. I've got money on it.

Lol thanks, but I´m ignoring the retard. The thing here is like a paradox... women don´t give a sh*t about JASA, and he thinks he is good looking, conclusion he must delude himself with this kind of thinking. But why would he bother with this if looks don´t matter...conclusion he doesn´t believe in what he says.

Look at these idiotic statements from Just A Shot Away:

"the evidence shows that female animals choose males (with a select few exceptions) that will best be able to provide healthy offspring."
"Since girls are all about confidence and game"

Anyone else can see a blatantly retarded contradiction here? Accordingly to him a confident guy shows he is healthy, with his confidence and game.... right.. it´s not that if he looks good. To my knowledge girls are animals too....
More over evolution shouldn´t be taken into account as much, because the drugs we take today, specially women can mess up hormone levels and thousands of years of natural selection

Sick people look bad... have you seen someone dying? Cancer,AIDS? they don´t look so good. LOOKS INDICATE HEALTH but the retard next door doesn´t see it.
If looks indicate health for men, why wouldn´t that be the case for women.

He also keeps saying (and putting in everyone else mouth) that facial attractiveness is just facial symmetry, only a moron could think that.
Although facial symmetry is a part of your looks, your skin complexion (if you are sick it doesn´t matter how symmetrical is your face your skin will be yellow and you will look bad), your height, your eye color, your hair color/texture,musculature etc.. all these characteristics contribute for your looks...
As you can see, the only thing you can´t change is your facial symmetry, wich is ONE component of your looks. You can try to improve yourself and change the other components, or you can just sit there reading more and more gurus (wich by the way most puas have muscles one wonders why) saying looks don´t matter and only you need to do is to read their material.

He also uses scientists that were nobel laureates in quantum physics and sh+t like that... what a fraud. Even if there are some scientists who think looks don´t matter for females, how do they know it? They ask, they interview women in these studies, but accordingly to JASA, women can´t be trusted...( actually it seems they can but only when they say that looks don´t matter). I think these arguments settle the issue to any intelligent person who reads this.
My goal is to help, you can get hot women, but probably not the way you look now. If you look very good and don´t get girls, the problem might be the lack of social life, and you can do something about it also.

In the end you always seen good looking guys hooking up with good looking girls since your childhood. The guys from football team with hot cheerleaders etc... Many women, might "prefer" later in their lives money or fame, but this isn´t even sexual attraction... you guys know better.

PS: This thread is mine, so I´m using my definition of looks...

 

[Just a Shot Away]

Most people here aren't talking about facial symmetry, but the whole package. That includes, body shape / structure and the clothes they wear. Does that change anything?

Yeah. Those people are confusing looks with appearance. Appearance matters a great deal, which is why you can take any homeless man off the street and give him a shave, shower, and a nice suit and he'll pull any ice queen from the club just as well as any other guy with the appropriate amount of confidence and game.

Wrong. The burden of proof is on you since its you making the claim.

Absolutely it is. Oh but wait...I'm not making a claim. I'm teaching the facts to those whom are uninformed. If you question my teachings, verify them for yourself. ebscohost.com is a great site for a database of scientific journals.

No they didn't.

Yeah, they really did. Sorry.

english is not my native language

That's all fine and dandy, but still doesn't excuse you from not being able to locate the apostrophe.

Looks don´t equal to facial symmetry, there are other things that need to be taken into account.

Well, innate "looks" is that which you cannot change. Facial symmetry, height, bone structure, etc. But you're not talking about height, are you Jdela?

Lool... brilliant analogy, and I bet women will approach more and ask your phone numbers as if you were more tanned or muscular, let it go son, this isn´t making you any good.

Hey, it's your analogy. Oh, and I'm tanned and muscular and women NEVER approach me for my phone number. This is very easy to understand once you research sexual selection.

You can go from ewww to hot..

Sure you can. It's probably a one in a billion shot at such a drastic change, but anything CAN happen.

they probably have won the nobel prize for other works than sexual selection. Like this:

Luis W. Alvarez won the 1968 Nobel Prize in Physics for his 'decisive contributions to elementary particle physics

Damn, you busted me! Oh, but wait wait wait...what's THIS? Ah, yes. You asked for the name of a Nobel Prize winner that says that looks don't matter. Luis W. Alvarez officially endorses the theory of evolution, which includes the fact that females go for the most fit males in the sense of survival. Since these qualities don't involve facial symmetry, Mr. Alvarez therefore does not believe looks matter. Whew! That was a close one. I thought for a second there that you had refuted a fact.

1) you have a serious chilhood trauma, of being dismissed by girls because you are ugly

You poor, poor lost looks-matter soul. Sooner or your later your people always resort to this excuse. The walls you've erected around yourself in order to blind yourself from the truth cannot be allowed to crumble in your mind, so you will do anything to protect them. When all else fails, your people eventually fall back on the "you must be ugly", since that's the only way anybody could possibly be aware of the facts. Unfortunately for you, I have a profile picture up and you just embarrassed yourself. I definitely do have childhood trauma though, having my first rejection in a very public setting in elementary school.

JASA wins by attrition most of the time

There's nothing to win. People accept the facts or they do not.

 

[HeyPachuco!]

There's nothing to win. People accept the facts or they do not.

In that case, you have 4-5 people here who are actively NOT accepting YOUR facts. Do you have the power to withdraw from this thread?

 

[JdelaSilviera]

Damn, you busted me! Oh, but wait wait wait...what's THIS? Ah, yes. You asked for the name of a Nobel Prize winner that says that looks don't matter. Luis W. Alvarez officially endorses the theory of evolution, which includes the fact that females go for the most fit males in the sense of survival. Since these qualities don't involve facial symmetry, Mr. Alvarez therefore does not believe looks matter. Whew! That was a close one. I thought for a second there that you had refuted a fact.

You couldn´t be more dishonest than that, any one with some degree of education accepts evolution, DNA random mutations and natural selection.
Actually your argument (appealing to authority) is fallacious twice, you shouldn´t use it, and you should pick at least an authority specialized in evolution

And there are a lot of aspects with the theory up to discussion....

Ignoring the nutcase from now on... and yes I´ve seen your profile picture, you might be muscular and tanned props to you, you seem to take good care of yourself.
It might be the case you have an ugly face ( I can´t see it), or you have mental problems wich seems to be the case.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Absolutely it is. Oh but wait...I'm not making a claim. I'm teaching the facts to those whom are uninformed. If you question my teachings, verify them for yourself. ebscohost.com is a great site for a database of scientific journals.

The burden is on you to support your opinion with facts. I see why you don't like to post facts. Most of your evidence argues AGAINST you. Even you argue against yourself.

You say that you get approached by women all the time and complimented on your looks, then you argue that looks don't attract women.

Hey, it's your analogy. Oh, and I'm tanned and muscular and women NEVER approach me for my phone number.

That's because you're an idiot. They are approaching you because they are interested. Women don't outright ask for your number!

Did you also want them to ask you out and show you a good time? Maybe you would be interested in men instead.

Luis W. Alvarez officially endorses the theory of evolution, which includes the fact that females go for the most fit males in the sense of survival. Since these qualities don't involve facial symmetry, Mr. Alvarez therefore does not believe looks matter. Whew! That was a close one. I thought for a second there that you had refuted a fact.

Luis Alvarez drives a car, therefore he endorses the fact that cars give a man style. He endorses the fact that looks are important.

Luis Alvarez also wears clothes, therefore he endorses the fact that clothes can alter a man's appearance and enhance his bone structure. He endorses the fact that looks are important.

It's that easy.

There's nothing to win. People accept the facts or they do not.

Read that again until you understand the meaning.

 

[Just a Shot Away]

Where's that confidence you're preaching about??

I have none, hence the lack of bush. I thought we went over this, already.

Looks get your foot in the door, the girl is INTERESTED because of your looks. But then she sees more and doesn't like it.

Oh, so my looks don't even matter is what you're saying! Interesting. Tell me more...

No one mentioned a symmetrical face before you got here.

Well, I'm evidently the resident expert on this subject. Nobody mentioned a lot about black hole theory before Stephen Hawking came along, either.

You're a kid who can quote a textbook.

I'm pretty sure I'm old than you, and I haven't quoted a textbook in my life. I've been communicating facts, which I'm sure can also be found in textbooks.

We don't care about the symmetrical face, we're not arguing for or against the symmetrical face.

WHO are you talking to??

Anybody who refers to looks or "having a nice face" like a lot of you people do. Scientists have determined that the number one factor in possessing an attractive face is facial symmetry. I'm sorry that you have such a problem with this, but I cannot change the facts.

women don´t give a sh*t about JASA, and he thinks he is good looking

Correct, they do not. Also, *I* do not think I am good-looking. When I look in the mirror, I do not see a good-looking guy. I've said this many times before (to you as well, which is especially sad) that I'm only basing these statements off of what women tell me, their friends, and scream at me on the street.
lection

If looks indicate health for men, why wouldn´t that be the case for women

It's a very good question, Jdela and the answer is more simple than you might think. You see, male attraction is much more simple than that of females. We have much less to worry about when it comes to creating healthy offspring. Women need to take considerations into account such as the male's ability to provide for her and her young and protect the nest. Since men are supposed to be able to do that for ourselves, we have much less to worry about.

Although facial symmetry is a part of your looks, your skin complexion (if you are sick it doesn´t matter how symmetrical is your face your skin will be yellow and you will look bad), your height, your eye color, your hair color/texture,musculature etc.. all these characteristics contribute for your looks...

Very true, although facial symmetry has already been experimentally determined to be the number one contributing factor. I just say "facial symmetry" because I'm participating in four looks threads currently and it's easier to say that than "facial symmetry, height, eye color, hair color/texture" every time. As far as musculature goes, you can change that so it falls under the banner of appearance.

He also uses scientists that were nobel laureates in quantum physics and sh+t like that... what a fraud.

I already explained this one to Alle. These scientists all subscribe to evolution, regardless of what they won the Nobel Prize for. The point is, they are Nobel Prize winners that all agree that looks don't matter, which is what you asked for.

They ask, they interview women in these studies, but accordingly to JASA, women can´t be trusted...

You think that's how the scientific method works? Scary.

In the end you always seen good looking guys hooking up with good looking girls since your childhood.

Speak for yourself.

PS: This thread is mine, so I´m using my definition of looks...

You can use whatever the hell definition you want. That doesn't make it any less false.

 

[JdelaSilviera]

You think that's how the scientific method works? Scary.
.

Yes, women are interviewed and than you do statistics. You can also examine their body reactions, and guess what they feel sexually aroused to handsome, strong males.
This is the empiric part...of course you have theory before.

Anyway, I´ve have already cross my own line of education and called you retard and I´m not like that. So it really ends here. In the end I know your intentions are good, and this is not a debate contest for me.

 

[Alle_Gory]

I'm pretty sure I'm old than you, and I haven't quoted a textbook in my life. I've been communicating facts, which I'm sure can also be found in textbooks.

Older. Older. Correct yourself before making fun of other members here... some of whom don't even speak English as a native language but still do an awesome job.

Anybody who refers to looks or "having a nice face" like a lot of you people do. Scientists have determined that the number one factor in possessing an attractive face is facial symmetry. I'm sorry that you have such a problem with this, but I cannot change the facts.

People also have bodies.

Also, *I* do not think I am good-looking. When I look in the mirror, I do not see a good-looking guy.

Because you're not confident. Women say you're handsome therefore women find you handsome. That's all there is to it. Because you don't believe it doesn't change the fact that women find you handsome.

Get it? Of course not. Ask your care provider to explain.

You can use whatever the hell definition you want. That doesn't make it any less false.

Most people use the dictionary definition. Argue with the Webster people if you want it changed.

 

[zekko]

People also have bodies.

Right, the body is a big part of looks. I know some might not consider the body as part of "looks" because you can diet, get slimmer, lose weight, lift weights, build muscle, bulk up, etc. But I call BS on this. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you WILL. And people have different genetics so some will respond better to the same nutrition and exercises. Height is also a factor.

How important is the body when it comes to a woman's good looks? A pretty big part I would say.

 

[Tesl]

Yeah. Those people are confusing looks with appearance. Appearance matters a great deal, which is why you can take any homeless man off the street and give him a shave, shower, and a nice suit and he'll pull any ice queen from the club just as well as any other guy with the appropriate amount of confidence and game.

You do realise that in almost every thread discussing this people are talking about the whole package right? When people say "looks", they are not only talking about facial symmetry. Do you get that? Can you please give a Yes/No reply? It sounds to me that you have spent hundreds of hours arguing points that people aren't even making. How much more socially unaware can you be?!

I agree facial symmetry is not important. I believe appearance is important. Are we agreeing with each other?

Absolutely it is. Oh but wait...I'm not making a claim. I'm teaching the facts to those whom are uninformed. If you question my teachings, verify them for yourself. ebscohost.com is a great site for a database of scientific journals.

You aren't communicating "facts". You have an opinion that belief in evolution = belief appearance isn't important. I disagree completely.

Yeah, they really did. Sorry.

No they did not. I can't prove a negative, its up to you to prove the positive. Cite evidence or everyone has to ignore this completely.

Damn, you busted me! Oh, but wait wait wait...what's THIS? Ah, yes. You asked for the name of a Nobel Prize winner that says that looks don't matter. Luis W. Alvarez officially endorses the theory of evolution, which includes the fact that females go for the most fit males in the sense of survival. Since these qualities don't involve facial symmetry, Mr. Alvarez therefore does not believe looks matter. Whew! That was a close one. I thought for a second there that you had refuted a fact.

Your deduction skills are lacking. Theory of evolution != Appearance doesn't matter.

There's nothing to win. People accept the facts or they do not.

Just saying "This is a fact" does not make it true. You are getting horribly taken apart in this thread AGAIN.

 

[1337]

For the eleventy millionth times looks can only get you so far as a hi from a girl nothing more.That kind of thinking hold your back and thats where most of the posters that start these threads are still in the same place. I can bank Henry Ford's money on it that if you got good looking instantly right now you will still be in the same place...complaining why you don't get women. Stop being stubborn accept your flaws and move on.

 

[runningonice]

Being the girl's physical type is usually priority number one. Second is outgoingness. My brother is probably a 9 or 10 in looks (gets checked out by women like a HB10) and only recently has he got the women he should have been getting all along. Before he was shy and awkward around women...not nerdy, but he was tentative. Now he's assertive, funny and charasmatic around women. But the fact remains, if he wasn't physically attractive to them, all the other stuff would go out the window.

My cousin is probably an UG3...has an UG face and the body of Eric Cartman and has a cute 6ish fiancee...but she has a lot of issues, probably doesn't think she deserves better, and from what I hear it's kind of like a mother/son relationship.

So pretty much it's being a girl's physical type and having a decent personality to match for the rest of us. Women find me attractive, not ugly, etc., but that usually means nothing unless I'm their 10. I decided to work out and get muscles and broad shoulders so I could become more women's idea of a 10.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Being the girl's physical type is usually priority number one. Second is outgoingness. My brother is probably a 9 or 10 in looks (gets checked out by women like a HB10) and only recently has he got the women he should have been getting all along. Before he was shy and awkward around women...not nerdy, but he was tentative. Now he's assertive, funny and charasmatic around women. But the fact remains, if he wasn't physically attractive to them, all the other stuff would go out the window.

You just told me he's more attractive to them because of his personality. Sure, the appearance get him the audition, the rest of him makes the sale.

I decided to work out and get muscles and broad shoulders so I could become more women's idea of a 10.

I work out because it's hard. I like to build myself up. I feel good when I'm heavier and more muscular. Comfortable almost...

But I do cut down the body fat somewhat to show the muscles and attract the ladies. That's as far as I'm willing to change my body for a woman.

 

[runningonice]

Women see guys like my brother and WANT to like him. Basically before he wasn't making any moves and was shy. While his personality keeps him in the door, all he's basically proving is "I'm not shy/AFC/an idiot" and they want to like him.

I'm in no way saying you need 9/10 looks to get a cute girl. I'm saying that they see him (same level of attractiveness or higher value) and WANT him, whereas a guy who doesn't get checked out or rarely gets checked out like myself don't have the advantage of immediately putting their b*tch sheild down with hot looks. Luckily, I'm not UG, bald, or fat, and occasionally a woman does find me very attractive, so I have a better deck than the average guy, just a matter of doing what I can to get muscles and be more initally attractive to more women.

I'm basically saying both matter.

 

[synergy1]

LOL, so instead of citing peer reviewed articles or something of substance to back his hypothesis, he carpet bombs us with a list of scientists. JASA, you are a joke. You mention science, but I very much doubt you have any background in it, nor the mental capacity to really apply it to proving your thesis.

You think that's how the scientific method works? Scary.

Right back at you.

Put your money where your mouth is. Cite articles backing your claim. Surely there have to be some that back the opposite side. Why are they invalid? What conclusions can or can't be drawn? Of the articles that cite your thesis, what possible flaws might there be in the methods to invalidate findings?

I suspect this kind of critical thinking is beyond your narrow mental scope, but if you can actually use science to back your claim, answering the above is typically mandatory.

 

[Just a Shot Away]

LOL, so instead of citing peer reviewed articles or something of substance to back his hypothesis, he carpet bombs us with a list of scientists.

Uh...maybe you weren't here earlier, but a poster requested the name of a Nobel Prize winner that backs me up. I provided 72. Blame JdelaSilviera, not me.

You mention science, but I very much doubt you have any background in it, nor the mental capacity to really apply it to proving your thesis.

I do have a background in science, but one needs to know very little about biology to know that looks don't matter. This is a VERY basic concept that's even mentioned on the first few pages of the DJ Bible. It's not my thesis. It's Darwin's. Maybe you've heard of him? I appreciate the personal attack on my own mental capacity, though. Personal attacks from your side always help do the work for me in illustrating just how weak your claims are.

Put your money where your mouth is. Cite articles backing your claim. Surely there have to be some that back the opposite side. Why are they invalid? What conclusions can or can't be drawn? Of the articles that cite your thesis, what possible flaws might there be in the methods to invalidate findings?

Bro. You really think you're the first guy to demand sources? It's getting ridiculous. I used to do it on almost every looks-matter thread, even though the burden of proof is on you. I still do it once in awhile since so many of you guys don't know how to use ebscohost.com or Google just for the sake of your education. These questions are questions that you should be asking yourself. If you want to disprove existing research, this is a good starting point for you.

I suspect this kind of critical thinking is beyond your narrow mental scope, but if you can actually use science to back your claim, answering the above is typically mandatory.

Right, again...I'm not making any claims. I'm standing on the shoulders of giants and imparting the knowledge about sexual selection that has been gained over the last 150 years. If you think everybody's wrong, well that's your right. But your frustration and insistence that my "narrow mental scope" is the source of this information is misdirected.

 

[zekko]

You have to remember that Just a Shot Away defines looks differently than everyone else. To him, anything that could theoretically be modified, are not looks, but "appearance".

So, if you have healthy, attractive hair, that is not part of your looks because you may have used a conditioner.
If you have a clear complexion, that is not part of your looks because you may have washed your face a time or two.
If you are slim and toned, that is not part of your looks because you may have exercised or practiced good nutrition.

So we're down to little else but eye color, facial symmetry, and height (according to JASA). First off, height: tall men tend to be more attractive to women. I've seen this all of my life, you can't convince me it isn't true. But if it's a tall goofy looking kid who doesn't bathe himself, it's not going to help.

Also, the focus on facial symmetry is misleading. I've also seen the studies saying the biggest factor in facial attractiveness is symmetry. But that doesn't mean that symmetry is 99% of attractiveness. It might be only 2% (or 20% or whatever), if other factors count for less.

Finally, I disagree with JASA'a idea that looks and appearance must be kept seperate. If you look at a girl who is attractive, you say that she is good looking. It doesn't matter if she's groomed herself, dressed well, or applied some makeup. You say she looks good.
Here's the definition from Dictionary.com:

"looks,
a. general aspect; appearance: to like the looks of a place.
b. attractive, pleasing appearance."

Looks=appearance.