Personality is mostly "looks"

[Stagger Lee]

A combination of both looks and personality determine whether a female is attracted. Then often it's claimed that personality is more important, can compensate for looks, and it's hard/impossible to change one's looks. So the solution is to change your personality by mostly changing what you say and using tactic xyz.

But the way I see it, personality is mostly the female's subjective visual perception of you. Which includes your fundamental looks, but your mannerisms, body language and facial expressions, general appearance, and to a lesser extent how your voice sounds. Least important in attraction is what you say and tactics. But words and tactics seem to be given great importance and focus. Looks compensate for personality more than the other way around.

I think if your appearance is attractive to a female, what you say doesn't make much difference. And if you're appearance isn't attractive, then nothing you say will cause attraction.

 

[Rubirosa]

I think you're in the minority in your beliefs, at least in the Manosphere.

In his defense, he's basically supporting the belief that female attraction is based on LMS (Looks, Money, Status), and that there's a reason why L is the first letter in the LMS acroynm. If this belief is against the manosphere (which I don't think it is however), it's because one can argue that the manosphere grew out of the PUA movement, and the PUA movement was based on using mental strategy tactics in picking up women if one is lacking in LMS.

 

[The_flying_dutchman]

Looks is most definitely what will initiate interest from females, it's the first thing they notice. After that, personality will determine whether or not she'll let you hit it.

I see guys who are fit, good looking, dress nice etc... yet they can't get a girl cause they have terrible game/personality.

I also know average looking guys that, while initially have difficulty sparking interest from females due to a lack of looks, once they get woman's attention they have no problem tapping that a$$.

I would say that guys who are good looking have a slight advantage due to the theory of numbers, meaning that if out of 100 females find them attractive, maybe 10 of these hoes will find them INTERESTING enough to let them hit it.

Conversely, guys who are average looking have to go out of their way to get the same 100 females' attention, and maybe 10 of these hoes will find them interesting enough to let them hit it. But that's the problem, it's too damn tedious to game 100 hoes in hopes that 10 of them will open up. And so the average looking guy does tend to have a harder time.


EDIT -- The OP also brings up a legit point that good looks can (to a certain extent) compensate for poor game/personality.

Let's say guy #1 is ugly but has got A+ game/personality.
And let's say guy #2 is good looking with B- game/personality.

Guy #2 still has a slight advantage because he doesn't need to expend as much time and effort to initiate interest because his good looks has already taken care of that. His only concern is to not say anything too stupid.

Guy #1 not only has to approach and game the hoe, but he's also got to make sure he's bringing his A+ game otherwise them hoes are gonna look the other way....this is EXHAUSTING and overtime will wear out a man.

 

[evan12]

Look mean a lot of things ,
ex : walk as a man , walk as some one not sure
for a female this is part of look
some guys have good look but walk in submissive or unsure way so they "look" not attractive.
but I do agree with OP that even the superficial look is important (very )

 

[Night-hawk]

To me, confidence in your look, or 'looks' can help shape, mold, your personality.
That said, how you've identified with your self image, over time, can also shape, mold your personality.

 

[SecondHalf]

I'd give up a 9.5 in favor of a fat 5 with a lovely personality any day....NOT.

Nope, it's a shallow world. Looks and power are the sh1t for a big city woman.
I believe the woman who shy's away from such a man are the ones that prefer control over the typical prize.

SH

 

[VladPatton]

What the hell isn't about looks in this world? It's primal, basic, and at the top of the attraction mechanism. Then the other things follow. Call it "Attraction Physics" if you will.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I'm not saying he's wrong. He makes an interesting point.

Actually upon review I kind of agree with him. Words alone are worthless. If we're counting body language, mannerisms, facial expressions, etc. under the umbrella of "looks" then yes, looks matter most. The only thing is one can still learn to adjust those things. Even a different presentation (clothes, fitness) can alter looks to a degree.

I've just never thought of personality as being visually perceived, but it makes sense.

You guys get the gist of what I'm saying. Essentially I'm not denying "personality" is a factor. But I'm saying personality is really mostly visually perceived based on your appearance. For instance, you could take a physically good looking actor or actress, and almost independent of the script, depending on how he/she presents himself/herself can convincingly appear as the either sexy/attractive or unsexy/unattractive.

So when you see a guy, who to you as a male viewer appears average or not particularly good looking, attracting females, I would argue first off he is probably better looking than you think (facial symmetry, good hair, teeth etc) and it isn't because he is saying xyz or doing tactic abc. It's because his nonverbal and appearance is attractive. Or as the mainstream would maybe call it, "charming, charismatic or confident".

Naturals game in various ways (different script and game plan) but besides usually being physically good looking, what ever they do they do it in an attractive way naturally. It's like acting and being a naturally good actor. If he is lacking in looks, girls will still like him but as a friend and not usually sexually. If he has the minimum fundamental physical looks required, females will also be sexually receptive. If he has good physical looks and little game or personality, then he just needs to just stand there, smile and look good and escalate.

For example, a male model often has the "personality" a woman is looking for due simply to his piled up female conquests.

This is exactly my point, "personality" is just females' subjective perception based visually. The model guy doesn't need "personality", the female fills in a good personality for him based on his looks. Sure the pile of female conquest are a big (visual) positive enforcer (just as money is), but it was his looks that get him the female conquest piling up in the first place.

 

[zekko]

You guys get the gist of what I'm saying. Essentially I'm not denying "personality" is a factor. But I'm saying personality is really mostly visually perceived based on your appearance. For instance, you could take a physically good looking actor or actress, and almost independent of the script, depending on how he/she presents himself/herself can convincingly appear as the either sexy/attractive or unsexy/unattractive.

I think there is a little more to personality than you are giving credit for, but you still have a good point. Think about a very pretty girl who has certain mannerisms that appear cute to you. Then think about a fatty with the same mannerisms - suddenly they're not so charming.

So when you see a guy, who to you as a male viewer appears average or not particularly good looking, attracting females, I would argue first off he is probably better looking than you think (facial symmetry, good hair, teeth etc) and it isn't because he is saying xyz or doing tactic abc.

There's no question guys tend to underestimate other males. For one thing, if you look at some dude you're not very likely to break him down into individual parts, like you pointed out. The guy may have a great smile that you don't even noticed but impresses the ladies.

It's because his nonverbal and appearance is attractive. Or as the mainstream would maybe call it, "charming, charismatic or confident".

Or as Tyler from RSD calls it, "subcommunications".

 

[Stagger Lee]

Reminds me of this quote.

"Men and women do not have the same definition of the term 'a man with a sense of humor.' To men, it means 'a man who thinks a lot of stuff is funny.' Whereas to women, it means 'a man who talks and looks kind of like Hugh Grant.'"

- Dave Barry

Good way of putting it. Men and women do not define personality (or little else) the same way. To men personality means things like character and predominate motivations and conduct, basically objective behaviors and conduct. To women personality means well 'a man who talks and looks kind of like Hugh Grant' lol.

I think there is a little more to personality than you are giving credit for, but you still have a good point. Think about a very pretty girl who has certain mannerisms that appear cute to you. Then think about a fatty with the same mannerisms - suddenly they're not so charming.

I think there is too. But for the purposes of female attraction and what females define personality as, it is mostly dependent on appearance.

A woman might like a guy because of his true personality, but sexual attraction happens fast or usually not at all, and way before she could really know your true personality.

 

[Boilermaker]

I disagree with putting looks in the same category with personality. Unfortunately, I know the OP from a plethora of similar posts/claims he'd made in the past, and that puts me in a biased position.

But it goes against everything the manosphere teaches (as well as real scientists, see for example: www.amazon.com/Beautiful-People-Have-More-Daughters/dp/0399534539) and I cannot agree with it. You don't need Hugh Grant looks at all , to be successful with women, or put it more concretely, to attract woman, your looks probably do not matter at all. Mannerisms are a different story, as samspade put it, and they are not what you'd normally call "looks".

 

[Mike32ct]

As I like say, "Brad Pitt is the best comedian."

If you're good looking, most of what you say will be interpreted as cool/funny by women.

Or "It's not what you say. It's who says it."

Almost everything about a guy is interpreted based on his looks.

Almost every "charismatic" guy I know is broad-shouldered (or at least tall). I've yet to meet a short, skinny guy that women think is charismatic.

 

[yyc12]

I've yet to meet a short, skinny guy that women think is charismatic.

Mmm...Chris Rock?? :crackup:

 

[Slickster]

I've seen short and skinny work.

The chick usually just has to be shorter.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I'm making a different point. Obviously a guy with lots of money or looks will have some success regardless of personality. My point is that the early success can lead to a good woman-getting personality as well. There are a lot of good looking guys on sosuave who had such sh!t personalities/game that they have very little experience. A guy with a great personality will dominate us. However, a guy that had something resembling a personality coupled with ridiculous looks early on will have a jump start in developing game, sure.

But your side-stepping my point, and I don't really agree with your point. Define good "personality". First, personality is subjective and based on the person's physical attractiveness. I think you are denying the importance of appearance and suggesting you can compensate for less appearance with a mostly undefined personality.

As I stated a girl could like your personality but as a friend and not be sexually attracted. PUA instructs to side step that problem, lacking looks and being put into the friendzone, with "good personality" that is C+F, teasing, negs, aggressive, or indirect, or everything under the sun besides what is typical. I don't define "personality" that way or believe you can create attraction that way.

Personality is essentially a combination of a certain level of physical looks (gives a positive interpretation of everything you do) mannerisms, body language and nonverbals more than anything else.

I don't believe very many truly good looking guys to females have sh!t personalities and I don't believe it would matter much if they did. It would only matter if they never had anything to say and were too passive (nervous and tense), or if everything they say is totally bizarre, or they were too mushy (but even then he'd probably get into a LTR). Basically extremes that wouldn't take much change to fix.

If a guy had good physical looks but bad body language, mannerism and facial expressions, then this would be a way he could have a bad "personality". It's why I say personality is mostly dependent on visual appearance and looks.

I think you are really arguing but don't accept it is guys that have similar level of looks the guy that is more outgoing, takes action and does everything right will do better. But what he's doing right is mostly appearance based.

 

[Stagger Lee]

We'll have to agree to disagree then!

This is exactly what I believe, minus "denying the importance of appearance".

I guess you're right that "personality" does not matter to women in the sense that only game and looks matter. I agree with that. I think personality and game are virtually synonymous to women.

I'm defining personality (or game but that's really semantics) for the purposes of female attraction as mostly dependent on visual cues and how your voice sounds when communicating or "gaming", and can never be fully isolated from fundamental physical looks.

Words like personality and game have no real meaning without a definition, or worse when they are misdefined. When one says a person has "game", it's really just an observation of their success with women. Why exactly they are successful is really unknown, so people attribute all kinds of things for various motivations (ego). My argument is that it is mostly due to visual cues and appearance. This is hard to improve on but I think it is possible, but not with just C+F, negs, etc. To call those tactics the active ingredient of game is faulty attribution IMO.

 

[Lexington]

There is a small minority of men who are so good looking that looks alone can carry the day. But for most of us, looks are only good enough to make the first cut i.e gain initial interest. If a girl is standing there and talking to you and you are approaching her in the context of a romantic/sexual frame, then she is at least evaluating you.

When looks disqualify you right off the bat, it should be quite obvious. Most decent looking guys who are well-groomed and not socially awkward don't tend to have trouble with initial attraction; getting in the door isn't the issue. Closing the deal is where sh*t tends to go wrong. They are good looking enough but their Game/personality etc. is what prevents them from getting it into the end zone.

 

[potato]

I very much agree with the OP. My life experiences attest very much to the truth of what is being said. I grew up debilitating shy and never talked to anyone who didn’t talk to me first, and then only hesitatingly. I got over the worst of my shyness because girls kept coming up to me, talking to me, flirting with me. I lost my virginity at 17 to a girl who always insisted that I had such a wonderful personality, although she introduced herself by sitting down next to me and strategically slipping her hand between my legs.

With most of the women I’ve been with; it all began with shy little glances that built up rather quickly that made me feel as if we were old friends although little, if any, words had been exchanged.

I used to think that women liked me because I was such a nice guy. I mentioned this once to a woman who had taken an interest in me. She told me that she’d date me even if I was an a$$hole.

Several times over I’ve had women approach me with a line such as, “You look so honest.” How does one look honest?

I used to swim competitively and there were girls who would come to cheer me on although it seemed to me that they didn’t notice too much if I won or not.

Regularly when I’ve been out, at stores, or in galleries, at work, or even at the doctor’s office women have come close to me and given me a specific directed smile, nod, or wink.

Let’s not forget girls/women with crushes. They develop crushes just by seeing a guy around. He doesn’t have to actually do anything except be there. It’s kind of odd having a girl with a crush come onto you. She’ll typically have ideas about you that are based on how she sees you sprinkled in with a whole lot of her imagination.

I once saw a video, actually a series of videos. It was part of a psychological study. They would put two adolescent boys in a room and then bring in different women who they would tell the boys would be their new teacher. When they brought in average looking women there wasn’t much of a response but when they brought in a good looking woman, when the boys were left alone they would be giggling and giving each other high fives. Interestingly when they did the same experiment with adolescent girls and good looking male teachers, the girls acted very much the same way as the boys did.

 

[Stagger Lee]

There is a small minority of men who are so good looking that looks alone can carry the day. But for most of us, looks are only good enough to make the first cut i.e gain initial interest. If a girl is standing there and talking to you and you are approaching her in the context of a romantic/sexual frame, then she is at least evaluating you.

When looks disqualify you right off the bat, it should be quite obvious. Most decent looking guys who are well-groomed and not socially awkward don't tend to have trouble with initial attraction; getting in the door isn't the issue. Closing the deal is where sh*t tends to go wrong. They are good looking enough but their Game/personality etc. is what prevents them from getting it into the end zone.

I would argue that a woman can be attracted to your looks enough to talk for awhile but was never from the get go attracted enough to close the deal no matter what game/personality. I would also say the minimum attractiveness standard women hold men to is often very high.

I've seen guys that had very good personality/game, but were lacking in physical looks. They could carry on conversation with women and get women to like them but the women were not interested in anything sexual.

I don't entirely disagree that a guy has to also convey personality/game to close the deal. But my main point is that game/personality is mostly still superficial looks and appearance. Things like body language, facial expressions, non verbals, voice etc are a big part of the perception a female has about a guy's personality/game.

 

[bluenorther]

Read about The Guam Playboy, at Pickupguide-com. He likes to go after tourist women and he does it all with charm and confidence, not looks. He's the "ugliest b@stard on the block" but he can nail a chick in minutes flat.