putanumonit.com
Primarily relevant to here through the discussion of what people claim to find attractive vs. choose, but also considers various other measures of attractiveness. I dont agree with all these analyses but think its worth posting simply for considering the topic in a lot more detail then Ive previously seen.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don’t think SMV compliance enforcement is the parsimonious explanation . Simps will simp no matter how hot she thinks she is. If she thinks she’s a 3, they’ll say 7, if she says 10, they’ll say 11. Outside of simping, people just try to torpedo other’s status constantly, it’s the main social game, the way to gain status.
If a couple is beautiful, they’ll say they’re likely stupid and superficial. If a successful comedian makes some wanted sexual advances, they’ll say he’s a loser and a creep. The best way to get people to call you stupid is letting them know you tie your status to smartness. They will do so when it makes no sense at all (cf Elon Musk, the endless discussions on whether the people here are smart).
It’s the same if you claim to be beautiful or knowledgeable, the truth of the matter doesn’t enter into it. I don’t know aella from more than a few blog posts and tweets, but it seems obvious to me that by virtue of the scarcity of her attributes among women, she does indeed have very high SMV in her circle.
Otoh, you spend status by praising people, and we don’t see much of that.
It’s why even in a forum like this one, theoretically devoted to good faith cooperate-cooperate discourse, so easily devolves into snark. Because there is nothing that offers status benefits like telling your fellow man : I am above you. It’s always scorn and never hate, because as Eric Hoffer said, you cannot hate those you despise, it would convey the opposite status message.
I don't think this is quite right. Most of the torpedoing of people by strangers is done by people to ingratiate themselves with other people who already think of that person as low status. That is, if the general public thinks Famous Frank is an 8, but you're in a room full of people who think Famous Frank is a 6, or otherwise wish he was lowered to a 6, then disparaging him can gain status with the other people who will agree you and commend you for your insight. Or, if you're in a room full of people who are a mix of beliefs: half think he's a 10 and half think he's a 6, then by picking either side you gain status with half the room and lose status with the other half (which is likely worth it, because value isn't gained by your average status among all people, but by status weighted by the people you interact with, so you can choose to hang out with the faction you align with here).
This means you can gain status by praising people, you just have to praise people that the people around you already like. You spend status by going against the grain, attempting to raise or lower the status of someone that they disagree with you about.
Lowering status is easier than raising status, so it's often a more viable strategy and we see it more. (Note how most Democrats spend their time whining about how awful Trump is, and Republicans spend their time whining about how awful Biden is, and both spend less time actually praising their own figurehead.) But I think both are viable as means of gaining status in the right circumstance.
I find that really hard to believe, it’s very blue state red state, which may be an American thing. In any case a forceful personality isn’t really going to care about the group status, and might in fact gain status by going against convention.
It’s not my experience that agreeing with everything the “in group” says makes you popular, making your case on your side is expected. But I don’t live in the US.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link