I don't think that that's true. I'm not particularly attractive. I'm not tall. I'm not fit. And yet I do all right. I do have a great dog, but I don't think that makes up for it. But I do think that people can detect a shitty vibe pretty quickly even through a couple photos and a bio, and Not Being That is a significant step up.
I agree that there's a wide range of it, from very shallow to slightly imperfect.
But what happens if you wear something that isn't pretty and people start noticing? Some won't like you. Others will notice their reaction and compensate for it. They will think you didn't do anything wrong, and they shouldn't react badly, and make sure to treat you normally.
If you don't wear clothes to fit in and be pretty, you only come off (a bit) worse with the people who aren't self-aware enough. In business, it's important to be able to get along with flawed people; they can still be valuable business partners. But in dating, if you are very smart, you don't want those people who aren't self-aware enough; you only want to go out with exceptional people.
I think you're wrong. I'm dating a a really good-looking girl (11 out of 10) but this fact hasn't changed how people view me. I'm below average in the social hierarchy and treated that way so I would notice if anything changed.
Nah, I'm pretty sure I'm ugly alright, and even if I wasn't there are several data points that make it kinda obvious: First, girls have repeatedly told me so. But just to make sure, I conducted an experiment by creating two accounts on a dating site: one using my real photos, the other using pics from a normal-looking (not overly attractive) man off the web. The "normal guy" got tons of winks and responses, while the real me got nothing as usual. Well, nothing is not quite true, I got a response from a girl who was apparently offended because I thought I was in her league... This pattern didn't change when I made the normal looking guy sound like a total douche on his profile.
I grew up with this belief, but to be honest reality, if anything, seems the opposite. On average, the very attractive people were also nice and... stable, often frustratingly so. And most of the nastiest, unstable people I've met were often on the unattractive end of the spectrum. I've also recall reading research that came to a similar conclusion.
And when you think about it, it actually makes sense. Sure, attractive people have it easier in a lot of ways, and the 'bubble' is a real thing. So perhaps, maybe, there's some correlation between attraction and competence or work ethic or whatnot.
But I'd argue that being bullied, ignored, ostracized, and so on, is a much more likely source of being 'terrible', or unstable, or unpleasant than being coddled a bit more than others.
That said I would argue that the 'safest' person to date, if you're going to account for looks, is the average-looking person who feels comfortable with being average-looking. Ideally about as average as oneself.
Previous OKTrends blog posts and their MyBestFace feature have shown that putting up poor-quality photos has the same effect as being ugly. People just assume you're ugly.
It matters. If you are tall and good looking, it helps.
BUT…
Amongst the vast majority of the most capable, successful, and broadly well-respected people I have worked with, their status has had little to do with their beauty. I am thinking of folks that are not “attractive” in any conventional sense, yet their wits and competence and heart makes them so.
In certain professions, the effect of beauty is outsized. I hardly need name these; look for shallow aesthetes and cameras. In technical professions that value actual competence, I have found that it doesn’t matter (much.)
Not true at all. It's entirely possible for an attractive person to be creepy, and certainly for an unattractive person to not be creepy. Though I suppose the creepiness itself doesn't exactly make you attractive either, so in that way it could be a self-fulfilling prophesy or even a tautology.
But it's definitely not about looks. It's about behaviour.
Snap judgements exist, but IMO most are non-committal. You'll notice people who are very attractive or very unattractive, but most people you simply won't immediately react to sexually (well, except when you're 15).
Of all the women I've dated, only 1 said she noticed me (either way) before first developing a reasonably close friendship.
> why won't you care about your physical appearance? Why leave something that important on the table?
Well, certainly don't be a slob. And not just because of dating! Dressing poorly and appearing unkept effects other parts of life too (e.g. career). Also, exercise is important for all sorts of reasons aside from attractiveness.
But other than being generally healthy and well-kept, I don't focus on my appearance because grooming is boring. Why spend your time grooming beyond a level of general acceptability when you could learn to play an instrument, learn a new language, read a book, or go for a hike?
If all you focus on is appearances, don't be surprised when the only people who find you even remotely interesting are other people who focus a lot on appearances.
People with good social radar can make a good distinction between things like character and awkward/ugly. It's people who lack such radar who confuse these things.
reply