I feel this overlooks the fact that looksmaxing is a very young phenomenon. Most users on the .org are probably 13-18. In high school there is not much differentiating you from your classmates, and the most obvious difference any perceptive student can see between the popular and less popular students is their appearance. Looksmaxing primarily is a status seeking method for teenagers.
Can someone truly low in IE really IEmax their way into relationships? To the extent effort makes any change at all, it is much easier to improve one's appearance than to become more likeable.
I find it hard to believe that you sincerely would place aggression and wealth as more important than physical attractiveness. A wealthy but ugly man gets gold diggers at best, prostitution at worst. Aggressive but ugly and poor probably just rapes. A physically attractive man lacking in both performs fine. He has no need for aggression as women will approach him in social settings, and a lack of wealth is quickly forgiven.
There is a reason the strategies you recommend are called jestermaxing. It feels humiliating to have to make a performance of yourself just to not seem autistic. Chad doesn't have to. In this way, looksmaxing feels much more appealing.
"There is a reason the strategies you recommend are called jestermaxing. It feels humiliating to have to make a performance of yourself just to not seem autistic. "
I'm a highly competent jester, a slightly overweight bookworm with mediocre looks and the height of a Spanish midfield playmaker, who for the majority of his life has had the emotional stability of an average BPD person. I'm also dirt poor (despite being highly educated), due to an extreme aversion to wage labor.
being the jester has never felt humiliating. to some extent, of course, the behaviour of any successful jester is instrumental. but reasonably cognitively advanced apes don't work with a neat divide between the instrumental and the expressive; what's expressive is often what actually works, and what works is often what moulds your character into a certain shape. for me, it's all about flow states, humour and a certain amount of pro-social chaos, rather than some cognitive appraisal of what conformity or the signalling of social success requires.
the simple truth is that one can be much much weirder than most people think, and yet find sexual and romantic success. that doesn't, of course, mean its an even playing field, just that the unfairly distributed skills and assets don't look exactly like they would in a world more boring than the one we actually inhabit. some people are natural jesters, and derive immense joy from it. and why wouldn't they? what's humiliating about creating situations, atmospheres and experiences for others?
People talk past each other constantly on this subject because what they talk about are different things they believe are the same.
Looksmaxxers are talking about what they define as "genuine desire", encounters prompted by women, that end quickly in intercourse, without going through the "hassle" of treating women as people (being friends with them, hanging out, etc - most casual sex falls here since people report sleeping casually with their friends/acquitances).
Adding to that, of course, that they want to have access to women who are more attractive than they are right now, and don't want to "settle" with fat ugly women even if they are easy, because that would mean being "miserable".
The obvious remedy to get that is to look better, and looks become critical to attract women with high sociosexuality that may be open to sleep with men on the basis of pure physical attractiveness.
But non-autistic people, who enjoy socializing, nor see spending time with members of half population as a burden, are talking about finding someone who eventually is going to have intercourse or a relationship with you because they like you as a person/enjoy your company/have good experiences with you. To get that, looks aren't as important in comparison to other characteristics. Also, as they are non-autistic, they don't have disorted perceptions of what's attractive, nor have rigid standards on who they would accept to date, so they don't think it is miserable to get what's within your reach.
Since most human beings aren't autistic nor behave like looksmaxxers, mating doesn't work the way looksmaxxers say it does, but it works in a way that it gives room for what looksmaxxers want to happen. At the cost of increasing men’s beauty standards, spending time, money and effort in questionable “Ws” and probably ending up struggling anyway due to poor social skills.
That simply isn't true about incels having lofty high standards. Women of all physical strata have high standards for casual sex (relative to themselves) as you've described it.
First, Costello's study on incels' standards relied on abstract stated preferences, he didn't even show them pictures of women to actually test their preferences in a more realistic way, nor he stress-tested them by, for example, putting them in the situation of having to ‘trade’ physical attractiveness with other traits. You guys like to insist on stated vs revealed preferences, but use a poor quality study that relies on stated preferences to insist incels have low standards. 🧐
Second, as far as I have seen, the literature that is often quoted regarding this (Kendrick et al, Liu et al and so on) shows both men and women increasing physical standards for casual sex. With men increasing them slightly more and being more willing to ‘trade’ women's bad personality traits and low income as long as they are physically attractive, while women remain more rounded in the traits they prefer on a casual partner.
That, being fair, doesn't prove alone that incels are pickier than women or picker than other single men. Quality research is needed.
And third, I’m personally inclined to think that people who experienced rejection adopt higher standards as a kind of defense mechanism. It's not weird to see incels shaming women for how they look, for example.
I also think that higher cognitive rigidity and neuroticism (found on incel samples) could play a role in how they perceive women's attractiveness. But I'm not that sure. With this I mean that ‘rigid standard’ doesn't necessarily equals ‘high standard', yet it would still translate in less openness and more problems to accept/pursue a wider range of partners.
Yes I am serious. If it is such a myth I don't see why a researcher that got taxes money to research incels, designed a study so poorly that gives the impression that it was crafted to get the wanted result.
I think the finding doesn't contradict my first comment. It primarily reflects men's higher sociosexual orientation in comparison to women. 1 in 4 women share the same amount of sexual desire as the median men. And as it was expected, the minority of women were willing to sleep with a stranger.
As I said before, most casual sex doesn't happen with a stranger, yet it seems that incels depend on/are attracted to that kind of encounters. So they depend on that minority of women who said ‘yes’ to the possibility of sleeping with a stranger. Looksmaxxing serves that ‘dating strategy’.
None of this tells us if incels share non-incel men standards. Yet I give you the point that when it comes to sex with a stranger, men's horniness makes them more willing than women to accept unattractive partners. But this is more or less uncontroversial.
Edit:
This person admitted incels don't want to date their league. All the rest of the convo is just tone-policing and pleads for empathy and nuance to corner me to adhere to his ideology. All of it without giving a single proof. The rest of the observations were confirmed; incels are oriented to easy sexual access, they see as a burden to date their looksmatch, they assume most people are miserable in their relationships and that they are going to be miserable too, etc.
At minimum you have 0 evidence to support the notion of incels just having sky-high standards.
And you haven't really presented anything beyond speculation that they somehow would differ from the average man regarding having lax standards for physical intimacy.
I was kinda with you up until the nonsensical claim that people transition because of social pressure and to escape bullying. That’s got to be one of the dumbest ideas I’ve read lately
"A strongman would gladly be hit in the face with an ugly stick if he could lift 100lbs more as a result. On the other had, a looksmaxer would sacrifice 90% of his strength, if he could gain the appearance of strength, muscle symmetry, fullness, and lose more body fat."
Why I always thought bodybuilding was sort of stupid. You don't see pro football players, MMA fighters, boxers, or, yes, strongmen or any other kind of athlete looking like that.
I don't agree. The workout routines of high level bodybuilders would put the average gym-goer, let alone the average person, into the ground. "Okay, we are going to start with sets of 20 at 315 lbs on the incline bench...." Find me one weak pro bodybuilder.
Actually, they aren't all that strong, compared with weightlifters, for example.
The point of bodybuilding is simply to achieve a look. Whether that is coupled with actual strength is beside the point. As the original post said, a bodybuilder would give up all the strength for the look, the appearance, the pretense of muscles.
If you are implying that strongmen don't also use lots of PEDs that have health consequences, that is incorrect. They do. Also being 400 lbs (weight of some elite strongmen) is bad for even if you have a reasonable bodyfat percentage.
Anyway, interesting article.
I think there are definitely feedback loops related to being good looking. When I started lifting weights and gaining muscle I noticed I was treated differently, which helped me be more confident, and there are healthy weightlifting communities that recognize this. I think Greg Doucette is a good example here.
Every time you talk about trans people it's like your entire exposure to the concept comes from 4chan via a bunch of cis guys trying to make it make sense to them. Gonna go with: you are missing some critical pieces of the puzzle, and it skews your conclusions badly.
Also?
"In the eyes of adult women, these traits are as bad (or worse) than being a serial killer"
In the eyes of women, those traits are signals that someone is a serial killer. Not 'as bad as' a serial killer. A red flag that they might leave your body in a rolled up carpet in the desert.
I'm kinda confused on your point about trans people... I can see the mechanism you described at work within certain trans people, but it just seems preemptive to act like it's a categorical claim. The majority of trans people I know demonstrate intuitive empathy at every turn (i.e., they're tuned into the feelings of others and respond in appropriate manners). I agree wholeheartedly that medical transition on its own isn't enough to truly alleviate gender dysphoria, and most of the trans people I know also agree with that. Hence, why they couple medical transition with social transition and self care. Also worth noting that there are trans people who don't medically transition either. So maybe this analysis is only applicable to trans people who think that medical transition is the be-all-end-all of their dysphoria?
Also: it seems like the aggression shared by looksmaxxers and trans people is born of a lack of empathy from others, which creates and/or exacerbates the lack of empathy within the targeted groups. As you pointed out, both MtM and MtF transition can happen if you're repetitively called creepy by the girls around you; is it not the case that this name calling is also unempathetic in many cases? I see women call men creepy for a crime as simple as fumbling a pickup line or being sorta awkward, and I think that's a critical failure to empathize with those men. But an expansion on the relation you see between trans identity and low empathy would be interesting, as I'm struggling to follow it here.
The ugly truth about a lot of looksmaxing, whether it is LL, cosmetic surgery, or steroids...is that it works. It's beyond bizarre to claim that the same tactics utilized by celebrities and millions of normal men (esp regarding steroids) have no real ROI. Hint: the more men do it the more it likely works. Top of the list? Steroids. Blackpillers have missed the plot regarding how much of a force multiplier a muscular physique is.
When a group judges a man as being non conforming to whatever group standard of masculinity/attractiveness, then all socializing WILL be a chore for him.
In fact, a lot of his intangible traits will be judged as insufficient. There's studies showing that most of the positive intangible traits women think they judge men on are the result of the halo effect.
There's also the issue of men being chronically under rated in relation to women.
These poor dudes who get "hot" girls likely are either tall or good looking or white and picking up non white women. Or some combination. Same with the alleged older men banging younger women.
It's bizarre to compare a celebrity spending 1% of their income on their appearance (a highly scrutinized feature of their career) to 100% of a normal person's romantic success.
Nice try. Tons of NORMAL everyday men use steroids, for one. And they have been for awhile. One study found over a third of the men on tinder juiced for example. Tons of NORMAL everyday men wear elevator shoes.
The market for all the other stuff wouldn't exist and be growing if there wasn't strong underlying demand.
Dating is also "highly scrutinized" by women for superficial traits.
To act like "looksmaxxers" are doing anything but telling the truth of how it is is ridiculous. You can quibble about the extent of how true it is, but to pretend these people are somehow defective or "lacking empathy" is ridiculous.
I'm not sure if I'm looking at the same thing (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40337-019-0244-4) but I see 15% admitted steroid usage. It's about 1/3 for "muscle-building supplements" so maybe that got confused for steroids in press reporting.
Fair enough. Instead of 1 in 3 it's 1 in 6, with a ~14x increase between men in the normal population and those on dating apps.
The main point remains unharmed: a lot of men have been doing this for a long time (that study isn't exactly new) and specifically to succeed in dating.
"If a girl is shy, introverted, and clumsy, she might be called a “nerd” and subjected to some high school bullying, but typically adult women do not engage in open hostility against other women for being awkward or having no friends."
The key is "open hostility". They don't hate you, they are indifferent.
This was good until about 1/3 of the way in when it veered off into the author's characteristic absurd caricatures of people who disagree with his politics.
What happened to exercise being a symptom of right-wing extremism?
And accountants vs artists? Pretty sure both of those professions are conventionally left-coded. "Laptop jobs?" All the rhetoric about left-wing America subsidizing right-wing America is just the claim that farmers wouldn't survive without accountants but accountants would thrive without farmers, because the accountants get paid more!
The Right is tradesmen.
The points about "looksmaxxing" and what women are actually attracted to are quite good, though; stick with that!
I never said exercise is a symptom of right-wing extremism. Why ascribe arguments to me that I did not make? Accountants are not left coded -- finance majors are disproportionately Republican relative to all other college majors.
I feel this overlooks the fact that looksmaxing is a very young phenomenon. Most users on the .org are probably 13-18. In high school there is not much differentiating you from your classmates, and the most obvious difference any perceptive student can see between the popular and less popular students is their appearance. Looksmaxing primarily is a status seeking method for teenagers.
Can someone truly low in IE really IEmax their way into relationships? To the extent effort makes any change at all, it is much easier to improve one's appearance than to become more likeable.
I find it hard to believe that you sincerely would place aggression and wealth as more important than physical attractiveness. A wealthy but ugly man gets gold diggers at best, prostitution at worst. Aggressive but ugly and poor probably just rapes. A physically attractive man lacking in both performs fine. He has no need for aggression as women will approach him in social settings, and a lack of wealth is quickly forgiven.
There is a reason the strategies you recommend are called jestermaxing. It feels humiliating to have to make a performance of yourself just to not seem autistic. Chad doesn't have to. In this way, looksmaxing feels much more appealing.
i sincerely believe that aggression and wealth are more important
Aggression or tenacity?
Nuance analysed this and even among teens looks don't seem to be that important.
https://nuancepill.substack.com/p/is-inceldom-really-determined-by-mms-of-bone
I think I cite him in this very article
"There is a reason the strategies you recommend are called jestermaxing. It feels humiliating to have to make a performance of yourself just to not seem autistic. "
I'm a highly competent jester, a slightly overweight bookworm with mediocre looks and the height of a Spanish midfield playmaker, who for the majority of his life has had the emotional stability of an average BPD person. I'm also dirt poor (despite being highly educated), due to an extreme aversion to wage labor.
being the jester has never felt humiliating. to some extent, of course, the behaviour of any successful jester is instrumental. but reasonably cognitively advanced apes don't work with a neat divide between the instrumental and the expressive; what's expressive is often what actually works, and what works is often what moulds your character into a certain shape. for me, it's all about flow states, humour and a certain amount of pro-social chaos, rather than some cognitive appraisal of what conformity or the signalling of social success requires.
the simple truth is that one can be much much weirder than most people think, and yet find sexual and romantic success. that doesn't, of course, mean its an even playing field, just that the unfairly distributed skills and assets don't look exactly like they would in a world more boring than the one we actually inhabit. some people are natural jesters, and derive immense joy from it. and why wouldn't they? what's humiliating about creating situations, atmospheres and experiences for others?
People talk past each other constantly on this subject because what they talk about are different things they believe are the same.
Looksmaxxers are talking about what they define as "genuine desire", encounters prompted by women, that end quickly in intercourse, without going through the "hassle" of treating women as people (being friends with them, hanging out, etc - most casual sex falls here since people report sleeping casually with their friends/acquitances).
Adding to that, of course, that they want to have access to women who are more attractive than they are right now, and don't want to "settle" with fat ugly women even if they are easy, because that would mean being "miserable".
The obvious remedy to get that is to look better, and looks become critical to attract women with high sociosexuality that may be open to sleep with men on the basis of pure physical attractiveness.
But non-autistic people, who enjoy socializing, nor see spending time with members of half population as a burden, are talking about finding someone who eventually is going to have intercourse or a relationship with you because they like you as a person/enjoy your company/have good experiences with you. To get that, looks aren't as important in comparison to other characteristics. Also, as they are non-autistic, they don't have disorted perceptions of what's attractive, nor have rigid standards on who they would accept to date, so they don't think it is miserable to get what's within your reach.
Since most human beings aren't autistic nor behave like looksmaxxers, mating doesn't work the way looksmaxxers say it does, but it works in a way that it gives room for what looksmaxxers want to happen. At the cost of increasing men’s beauty standards, spending time, money and effort in questionable “Ws” and probably ending up struggling anyway due to poor social skills.
That simply isn't true about incels having lofty high standards. Women of all physical strata have high standards for casual sex (relative to themselves) as you've described it.
Dude 💀
First, Costello's study on incels' standards relied on abstract stated preferences, he didn't even show them pictures of women to actually test their preferences in a more realistic way, nor he stress-tested them by, for example, putting them in the situation of having to ‘trade’ physical attractiveness with other traits. You guys like to insist on stated vs revealed preferences, but use a poor quality study that relies on stated preferences to insist incels have low standards. 🧐
Second, as far as I have seen, the literature that is often quoted regarding this (Kendrick et al, Liu et al and so on) shows both men and women increasing physical standards for casual sex. With men increasing them slightly more and being more willing to ‘trade’ women's bad personality traits and low income as long as they are physically attractive, while women remain more rounded in the traits they prefer on a casual partner.
That, being fair, doesn't prove alone that incels are pickier than women or picker than other single men. Quality research is needed.
And third, I’m personally inclined to think that people who experienced rejection adopt higher standards as a kind of defense mechanism. It's not weird to see incels shaming women for how they look, for example.
I also think that higher cognitive rigidity and neuroticism (found on incel samples) could play a role in how they perceive women's attractiveness. But I'm not that sure. With this I mean that ‘rigid standard’ doesn't necessarily equals ‘high standard', yet it would still translate in less openness and more problems to accept/pursue a wider range of partners.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-009-9067-3
You can't be serious. It's pretty undisputed that men have far lower physical standards for casual sex than women.
Again, this whole "incels only want hot women" thing is a myth.
Yes I am serious. If it is such a myth I don't see why a researcher that got taxes money to research incels, designed a study so poorly that gives the impression that it was crafted to get the wanted result.
I think the finding doesn't contradict my first comment. It primarily reflects men's higher sociosexual orientation in comparison to women. 1 in 4 women share the same amount of sexual desire as the median men. And as it was expected, the minority of women were willing to sleep with a stranger.
As I said before, most casual sex doesn't happen with a stranger, yet it seems that incels depend on/are attracted to that kind of encounters. So they depend on that minority of women who said ‘yes’ to the possibility of sleeping with a stranger. Looksmaxxing serves that ‘dating strategy’.
None of this tells us if incels share non-incel men standards. Yet I give you the point that when it comes to sex with a stranger, men's horniness makes them more willing than women to accept unattractive partners. But this is more or less uncontroversial.
Edit:
This person admitted incels don't want to date their league. All the rest of the convo is just tone-policing and pleads for empathy and nuance to corner me to adhere to his ideology. All of it without giving a single proof. The rest of the observations were confirmed; incels are oriented to easy sexual access, they see as a burden to date their looksmatch, they assume most people are miserable in their relationships and that they are going to be miserable too, etc.
At minimum you have 0 evidence to support the notion of incels just having sky-high standards.
And you haven't really presented anything beyond speculation that they somehow would differ from the average man regarding having lax standards for physical intimacy.
IE appears to be one of those things that can be learned but cannot be taught.
have you ever considered not having to?
The best reason to lift weights is to feel more confident, making you act more confident.
Just rewatched American Psycho and he might as well have been a looksmaxer from 1989.
Jreg speaks of this
I speak of JREG
Do you know of any good cults in Minnesota
I was kinda with you up until the nonsensical claim that people transition because of social pressure and to escape bullying. That’s got to be one of the dumbest ideas I’ve read lately
You don't understand the concept of "fandom" if you think that transitioning has nothing to do with "belonging."
Huge news that hosting soup night makes me attractive
"A strongman would gladly be hit in the face with an ugly stick if he could lift 100lbs more as a result. On the other had, a looksmaxer would sacrifice 90% of his strength, if he could gain the appearance of strength, muscle symmetry, fullness, and lose more body fat."
Why I always thought bodybuilding was sort of stupid. You don't see pro football players, MMA fighters, boxers, or, yes, strongmen or any other kind of athlete looking like that.
So what if they don't? Bodybuilding is a different type of performance.
One is basically a form of plastic surgery. All show, no go.
I don't agree. The workout routines of high level bodybuilders would put the average gym-goer, let alone the average person, into the ground. "Okay, we are going to start with sets of 20 at 315 lbs on the incline bench...." Find me one weak pro bodybuilder.
Actually, they aren't all that strong, compared with weightlifters, for example.
The point of bodybuilding is simply to achieve a look. Whether that is coupled with actual strength is beside the point. As the original post said, a bodybuilder would give up all the strength for the look, the appearance, the pretense of muscles.
Weightlifters meaning olympic weightlifting? That's not even an all around strength sport. It's mostly technique and front squat.
Yeah, strength isn't the focus but you can't be 350 lbs with low bodyfat and also be weak. That doesn't actually happen.
Strength is not the point of bodybuilding - it's a byproduct at best.
You’ve fed my narcissistic supply. I’m blushing.
If you are implying that strongmen don't also use lots of PEDs that have health consequences, that is incorrect. They do. Also being 400 lbs (weight of some elite strongmen) is bad for even if you have a reasonable bodyfat percentage.
Anyway, interesting article.
I think there are definitely feedback loops related to being good looking. When I started lifting weights and gaining muscle I noticed I was treated differently, which helped me be more confident, and there are healthy weightlifting communities that recognize this. I think Greg Doucette is a good example here.
I never meant to imply that strongmen don't abuse their bodies
Every time you talk about trans people it's like your entire exposure to the concept comes from 4chan via a bunch of cis guys trying to make it make sense to them. Gonna go with: you are missing some critical pieces of the puzzle, and it skews your conclusions badly.
Also?
"In the eyes of adult women, these traits are as bad (or worse) than being a serial killer"
In the eyes of women, those traits are signals that someone is a serial killer. Not 'as bad as' a serial killer. A red flag that they might leave your body in a rolled up carpet in the desert.
4chan is dispropotionately trans. Serial killers don't exist, statistically speaking. They are like unicorns.
I'm kinda confused on your point about trans people... I can see the mechanism you described at work within certain trans people, but it just seems preemptive to act like it's a categorical claim. The majority of trans people I know demonstrate intuitive empathy at every turn (i.e., they're tuned into the feelings of others and respond in appropriate manners). I agree wholeheartedly that medical transition on its own isn't enough to truly alleviate gender dysphoria, and most of the trans people I know also agree with that. Hence, why they couple medical transition with social transition and self care. Also worth noting that there are trans people who don't medically transition either. So maybe this analysis is only applicable to trans people who think that medical transition is the be-all-end-all of their dysphoria?
Also: it seems like the aggression shared by looksmaxxers and trans people is born of a lack of empathy from others, which creates and/or exacerbates the lack of empathy within the targeted groups. As you pointed out, both MtM and MtF transition can happen if you're repetitively called creepy by the girls around you; is it not the case that this name calling is also unempathetic in many cases? I see women call men creepy for a crime as simple as fumbling a pickup line or being sorta awkward, and I think that's a critical failure to empathize with those men. But an expansion on the relation you see between trans identity and low empathy would be interesting, as I'm struggling to follow it here.
Not all trans people are the same, so generalizations will never cover all of them.
A lot of this is kind of jive.
The ugly truth about a lot of looksmaxing, whether it is LL, cosmetic surgery, or steroids...is that it works. It's beyond bizarre to claim that the same tactics utilized by celebrities and millions of normal men (esp regarding steroids) have no real ROI. Hint: the more men do it the more it likely works. Top of the list? Steroids. Blackpillers have missed the plot regarding how much of a force multiplier a muscular physique is.
When a group judges a man as being non conforming to whatever group standard of masculinity/attractiveness, then all socializing WILL be a chore for him.
In fact, a lot of his intangible traits will be judged as insufficient. There's studies showing that most of the positive intangible traits women think they judge men on are the result of the halo effect.
There's also the issue of men being chronically under rated in relation to women.
These poor dudes who get "hot" girls likely are either tall or good looking or white and picking up non white women. Or some combination. Same with the alleged older men banging younger women.
It's bizarre to compare a celebrity spending 1% of their income on their appearance (a highly scrutinized feature of their career) to 100% of a normal person's romantic success.
Nice try. Tons of NORMAL everyday men use steroids, for one. And they have been for awhile. One study found over a third of the men on tinder juiced for example. Tons of NORMAL everyday men wear elevator shoes.
The market for all the other stuff wouldn't exist and be growing if there wasn't strong underlying demand.
Dating is also "highly scrutinized" by women for superficial traits.
To act like "looksmaxxers" are doing anything but telling the truth of how it is is ridiculous. You can quibble about the extent of how true it is, but to pretend these people are somehow defective or "lacking empathy" is ridiculous.
A third of men are not juiced lmao. You're a freak
I'm not sure if I'm looking at the same thing (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40337-019-0244-4) but I see 15% admitted steroid usage. It's about 1/3 for "muscle-building supplements" so maybe that got confused for steroids in press reporting.
Fair enough. Instead of 1 in 3 it's 1 in 6, with a ~14x increase between men in the normal population and those on dating apps.
The main point remains unharmed: a lot of men have been doing this for a long time (that study isn't exactly new) and specifically to succeed in dating.
Unsure why that's so hard for people to accept.
Low IE is just another way of saying self absorbed. These people lack understanding and perspective because theyre locked inside their own heads.
Self absorbed types can study up on psychology and change.
"If a girl is shy, introverted, and clumsy, she might be called a “nerd” and subjected to some high school bullying, but typically adult women do not engage in open hostility against other women for being awkward or having no friends."
The key is "open hostility". They don't hate you, they are indifferent.
This was good until about 1/3 of the way in when it veered off into the author's characteristic absurd caricatures of people who disagree with his politics.
What happened to exercise being a symptom of right-wing extremism?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/gym-bros-more-likely-to-be-right-wing-assholes-science-confirms/
And accountants vs artists? Pretty sure both of those professions are conventionally left-coded. "Laptop jobs?" All the rhetoric about left-wing America subsidizing right-wing America is just the claim that farmers wouldn't survive without accountants but accountants would thrive without farmers, because the accountants get paid more!
The Right is tradesmen.
The points about "looksmaxxing" and what women are actually attracted to are quite good, though; stick with that!
I am yet to meet a leftist accountant, normie democrat, sure, but a leftist?
And I meet a lot of accountants.
I never said exercise is a symptom of right-wing extremism. Why ascribe arguments to me that I did not make? Accountants are not left coded -- finance majors are disproportionately Republican relative to all other college majors.