More Thoughts on a Minor Irritation

A couple days ago I wrote about my irritation with men who brazenly undervalue a woman’s looks for the purpose, in my opinion, of raising their own status and appearing alpha. Needless to say, I find this tactic transparently self serving and ineffective. Reader Silas left a comment that I thought was pretty insightful.

Even supposing that people in the Roissysphere subtract 1-2 points from the average opinion, is that really a bad thing? Part of the mindset of Game requires depedestaling women and viewing yourself as the chooser.

To clarify, I didn’t intend to indict the whole Roissysphere with my complaint.  Only a small subset of probably 10% or so. 

Frank Sinatra once said that he was for anything that got a man through the night, be it God, or whiskey.  I have similar feelings about how a man internally “depedestals” women in the looks arena.  If knocking em down a couple points works, great.  If imagining a woman with a big dog turd on her head works, thats fine too.

In his book, The Mystery Method, Mystery suggests that when describing women you should limit yourself to two categories: cute, and alright. No category for hot. No category for gorgeous.

I have no objection to this. I think objective analysis should be possible though when not in the process of attracting women.  For example, Grace Kelly is not objectively “cute”.  She is (err was) beautiful. 

In this sense, the 1-2 points that are subtracted from an average woman’s looks aren’t added to women. They are added to you. If you’re a male 7, and you rate a female 8 as a 6, then you already have the view that you are more desirable to her, which will naturally cause you to act more assertively and confidently, thereby increasing her attraction to you. As your scale of female attractiveness is readjusted, you gain more psychosocial value.

Again, if this works for an individual guy to act more confident, have more swagger, and put aside approach anxiety, I’m all for it.  However, like actors who keep “in character” offset, some guys think they need to carry this mindset everywhere. 

Perhaps they do, but only up to a point. I would hope that a man would have the ability to rationally discuss, and rate a womans looks, as objectively as possible when not in the process of raising his perceived value.

Here is another thought.  Why couldn’t a man internalize himself as a 10?  No need to worry about her looks.  I think that would be more effective in approaching a true 9 than telling yourself the 9 is really a 6.  After all, who wants a 6 when they can have a 9?

Does Michael Jordan think he won all of those titles because the other teams weren’t that great, or does he think he won them because he was that good?

 However, personally, I would submit that the lower scoring isn’t simply a psychological technique, but is actually a readjustment of a flawed scale. If too many women rate 8-10, then the 8-10 rating simply doesn’t mean as much. By setting the bar for 10 astronomically high, you realize that such a women is actually extremely rare. From a statistic standpoint, it makes more sense that 1’s, 2’s, 9’s and 10’s should essentially be statistical outliers, and that 3’s and 8’s should fall between 2-3 SDs of the average.

Agree completely.  This doesn’t require disengenous and harsh rating though.  Simply accurate and realistic judging done in good faith.

Let me use an example to demonstrate what I am talking about. This post from Roissy shows what I am getting at.  It contains a few outlier comments that are, in my humble opinion, completely off base.  The girls in the picture were being called 3s and 4s in some cases.  Completely over the top.  I’ll let a few Roissy regulars speak to this from the comments section…

First Thursday…

The white girls are 7s. Genuinely pretty, but nothing spectacular. The asian appears to be a 6, but she’s at a funny angle, so its hard to say.

A lot of guys have a tendency to depress girls’ ratings just to out macho other guys and prove how ultra-high their standards are. Not an attractive trait.

I might as well have used his second paragraph as a post to what I was getting at.  That’s it in a nutshell.

From Roissy himself…

as for the girls… from left, 6.5, 7, 6, 7.5. the girl on the far left looks as though she could go up or down a full point based on viewing angle. she’s a wildcard.

Completely reasonable.

From the 5th Horseman…

Relatively similar to mine (6.5, 8, 6, 6.5). Beauty is objective, and serious observers will not deviate to far from the consensus.

Again, reasonable.

Here are my ratings, FWIW…

7, 7.5, 5.5,7

 

I also found two rating systems from two smart, well spoken, and prolific posters.

First from PA…

As public service and a mater of urgent necessity, here is the 1-10 scale. It ranks healthy adult women of childbearing age. In other words, it is not applied to children, old women, or women with obvious and unusual deformities.

1 – actively repulsive
2 – ugly
3 – unattractive
4 – unpleasant but tolerable
5 – indifferent
6 – approaching cute
7 – cute with flashes of pretty
8 – consistently pretty
9 – hot
10 – beautiful

By Willie’s standards the four photo girls are 5s. By David Alexander’s they are 4s.

By my standards they are 7 for Red Shirt, 8.5 for Blondie, 5.5 for Asain Chick, and 8 for Romanian Pixie.

Next from Doug1 with a bit different scale…

PA–

Your version of the scale seems a bit ideosyncratic. It allows more 10s than seems usual in the PUA community or certainly than how Roissy uses 10. It’s not good to not have an ultimate that’s really up there. Hot is usually used to cover the high area of the scale, not just one spot on it.

My scale (for 18-29yos):

1 – repulsive
2 – ugly
3 – unattractive
4 – not very attractive; tolerable
5 – plain; ok
6 – cute
7 – pretty
8 – very pretty; beautiful
9 – gorgeous
10 – international class gorgeous

That puts the middle of the scale between plain and cute, which seems about right to me for 20s girls. Given the amount of chubbiness around, the average american girl these days may actually fall between 4 and 5.

Both are (not to beat a deadhorse) reasonable.

 

I didn’t pick this topic only because of what I see online.  I have had a couple friends likes this.  They try to AMOG the group with dismissive comments about women the others find attractive. 

I can remember one incident where I basically went Lloyd Bentsen and told the guy, in so many words, that I knew alpha and you aren’t one.  I didn’t use the term alpha of course, but words to that effect. 

I have also had friends who were the exact opposite.  Every 5 that showed any interest at all was suddenly “so” hot, “fckin” hot, or my all time “favorite”: “smokin” hot.  “Sure bro, go for it”, was about all I could usually muster.

I think If I had to choose one or the other, I would prefer the unreasonably tough grader as a wing man as opposed to the soft touch. Maybe. Would depend on a lot of independent variables though.  I could see arguments for both.  Perhaps more on that another time.

Advertisements

12 Comments

Filed under alpha, beta male, game, Mens Issues

12 responses to “More Thoughts on a Minor Irritation

  1. Eumaios

    The ten point scale is too wide, the gradations finer than the distinctions men make. Following the myth (true or not) that people can only remember 7 things at once, I propose a 7 point scale.

    1 – repulsive
    2 – ugly
    3 – unattractive
    4 – plainly cute
    5 – pretty
    6 – beautiful
    7 – gorgeous

    I find these categories easier to apply reliably. I have a sister-in-law who is Ugly (2). Her husband’s ex-wife is Repulsive (1). My wife is on the high side of Plainly Cute (4). Her other sister is a 3. I knew only one 6 and few 5s during high school in West Texas, but 6s are plentiful in Austin. I can only think of one 7 I have personally seen. She was, paradoxically, the diametric opposite of my preferred type.

    The girls in the Roissy pic are 5, 5, 4, 5. I agree with Roissy that red-shirt could go up a point. Her left side is prettier than her right side.

    • Hi Eumaios,

      I like the 10 point scale because it allows for more distinctions.

      Your scale is reasonable though, which is most important to me.

      Telling a story about a perfect 7 doesn’t quite have the same ring to it though. heh

      • Eumaios

        “Telling a story about a perfect 7 doesn’t quite have the same ring to it though.”

        For those who reject the tyranny of the clumsy base ten system, it does.

      • Eumaios

        “I like the 10 point scale because it allows for more distinctions.”

        Distinctions any finer than those I’ve given ought to be concrete relatives. “Jennifer is more attractive than Laetitia, though both are Beautiful (6).” This by itself would eliminate many of the idiotic arguments over ratings. Men might still disagree over relative rankings, but these assessments are understood by most to be subjective. Whether a woman is beautiful or merely pretty is not subjective. The 10 point scale, in its overfine distinctions, contributes to the perception that attractiveness is not as objective as it really is.

  2. curtis

    You rightly described Grace Kelly as objectively beautiful as opposed to cute. So, are beauty and cute-ness on the same scale? Are cuteness and beauty different qualities with a distinct scales. And some men may prioritzed cuteness over beauty.

    Out of the four girls roissy graded I found the two lowest marked girls the most alluring or cute – their facial expressions, posture, clothes or something indefinable. While accepting the other two have more beauty. I prefer the Ugly Betty actress – when not uglied up – to the model Gisele Bundchen.

  3. Roissy himself is prone to this. He will often swoop in late in a thread to give a rating 1-2 points lower than the more reasonable guys in the thread. He’s a lot more subtle about it, but it isn’t him at his most attractive.

    • Hi Thursday,

      I haven’t noticed that. I do think he is a pretty stringent grader, but I have found him to be consistent.

      I think he errs on the side of caution so to speak. That might be the subtlety you are talking about that I might be missing.

      BTW, While I’ve got you here, I do appreciate the reason and nuance you bring to blogs I see you comment on. I notice you aren’t prone to hyperbole or indefensible positions. It’s nice to see.

  4. slumlord

    For what its worth I agree with commentator Vladimir at Roissy’s, While the 10 point scale allows for degrees of discrimination in debate I tend to agree with a pragmatic 5 point scale.

    1-Repulsive.
    2-Unattractive but doable
    3-Neutral
    4-Attractive.
    5-Hot.

    I also think that you’ve got allow a degree of variation due to differences in individual’s tastes, so a 1-2 point difference in judgment may be quite valid and not really someone trying to AMOG.

    As for my tastes, I would rate the four girls in the link as 8, 7(6), 5, 5. Roissy’s latest girl doesn’t do anything for me but I could see how she would rate a 7.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s