Hello you savages. Get my free Reading List of 100 life-changing books here - chriswillx.com/books/ Here’s the timestamps: 00:00 What Actually Makes an Attractive Face? 05:30 Why Masculine Faces Can Cause Concern for Women 13:56 The Different Signals of Make-Up & Tan 18:17 What Makes an Eye Attractive? 20:20 Why We Are So Drawn to Faces 26:28 Do Women Like Muscular Men? 31:34 Do Men Like Heavier Women? 42:11 Men’s Tastes Are Shaped by Social Ecology 46:10 Is There a Generally Attractive Waist to Hip Ratio? 54:27 What Role Does Height Play in Attraction? 1:02:12 What Happens When the Female is the Breadwinner 1:12:14 Worst Mating & Dating Myths 1:16:00 Are Women Really More Picky Than Men? 1:26:00 Discriminating Based on Hair Colour 1:30:59 Do Men Want Wider Age Gaps as They Age? 1:35:16 How Attractive Are Tattoos? 1:41:20 What You Need to Know About Stated v Revealed Preferences 1:51:37 The Counter-Signal of Saying ‘I Don’t Know’ 2:01:28 Where to Find Macken
Hey Chris! I really want to know if you've seen the recent top NETFLIX show "CAN I TELL YOU A SECRET?" It's from your neck of the woods! The accents are the same to my ears, anyway..without getting into too much detail- I questioned for a good while if it was a parody, or would ever find a grain of reason. or if the 4 people filmed in it also produced it... I'd love to hear what you think of this culture banger from Northern England, and if it's an accurate representation of how exciting and scary "true crime" gets in those parts. Maybe I was too harsh on the 2 part limited series! Maybe i need more compassion for the poor victimized igfluncers? Idk.. I HOPE you can talk about it sometime bc I watched it the WHOLE (miserably frustrating) TIME thinking.. "Chris would probably love to tear this up' 😂 👏🏻
Bois, I'm still just tryin to calculate my mating success over here - is it number of mates? Quality of mates? Sex over a lifetime? Forget it; I'm goin back to bar hoppin.
@@Rickai85 Indeed, very synchronistically symetrical. I wasn't right on the sentence, but I was also very close to the place where he said it as I read it.
Around 19:30 he talks about how eye color matters less if you're in a room of people with the same eye color, but if you're the odd one out color wise, it may benefit you. This reminds me of one time when I went to a Lamborghini dealership. They had like 10 of the same model, and it made them seem sooo much less interesting and valuable, compared to seeing one alone on the road. I was taken aback by how subconsciously they seemed so much less cool when there were a bunch of them sitting together in one place.
Way back when (I'm dating myself here), I crossed the English Channel on the ferry & there were two Lamborghini Countachs down below where the cars were. I remember thinking it was so cool & glamorous to see them in person.
Not true. You missed the pattern. What makes you attractive depends on the context, but it's always the thing that's rarer - because evolution strives for diversity. So: bearded when all others are clean-shaven and vice versa, blue eyes when all other eyes are brown, etc. Look at your surroundings, and you will know how you can stand out from your peers.
I'd say attraction comes down to different permutations of: looks/evolutionary traits personality (funny/witty, intelligent, integrity, self-esteem, honesty, emotional/social intelligence) finance passion/hobbies/skills. Then people have different "genre" preferences: business, intellectual, creative, sporty/warrior, rational, religious/secular etc. Then there are unhealthy (physical/emotional abusers), taboo(kids/animals) and superficial (gold-diggers, trophy-wives)attractions . In most cases, I think being a well rounded, emotionally and psychologically healthy person and having average or above looks = An attractive person.
Being a guy with a very feminine face myself, I can definitely attest through my own personal experience that there are a lot of women that are very attracted to feminine features in men. Men are made to believe that if you aren't hyper masculine in every way then you're destined to be an incel, but in reality this is not true. I'm 26 but look like a 16 year old because the way my face is, and very often get bullied and shamed for it, but at the same time a lot of girls have told me that I am very attractive. Dudes are always shocked whenever there is an attractive girl interested in me because I am the complete opposite of what you would call a "masculine" male adult, and because of this I was made to think something was wrong with the way I look, but I'm beginning to accept myself for who I am now.
This also lines up well with the studies around the pill, which causes women to go for more feminine faces (ie. caring in appearance) whereas once off contraception - there is a swing to classic male looks. Talking notable shifts, not everyone of course. Fellow youthful face owner, now bearded, and noticing a distinct shift in the type of women who approach me now.
Thank you so much for having me on, Chris, it was a pleasure. And thank you for your continual promotion of the evolutionary human behavioral sciences; it suits you better than club promotion!
I looked into data on wealth and marriage I saw a paper last year showing that for birth cohorts from 1890s to 1970s, for men, income explains more variance throughout time So, income is now more important than the past for men for their odds of marriage. For women, income negatively predicted marriage, till the last cohorts in the study, so wealtheir women got married less in the past, but for the latest cohorts in the study, it was about equal for wealthier and less wealthy women, but it is moving in the direction of wealthier women being married more. So income is increasingly more important, especially for men, throughout this time period, and it is beginning to become somewhat important for women
During the podcast I heard you mentioned something about the reasons for infidelity. If you should read this could you direct me to any information concerning infidelity.
I appreciate that someone with an anthro background is entering the evi psych conversation- you are badly needed! 🙏🙏 thank you and keep up the great work!
Yup once he claimed tall girls have dating the hardest I knew what kind of guy he was 😂😂😂. He also won't admit that lots of women value status and preselection over anything in most cases.
No. He tries not to overstate the case or misrepresent the data. Instead, he draws reasonable conclusions that don't satisfy our desire for simple black or white answers to complex topics.
@@CulinaryGuide nah he doesn't live in the real world if he thinks dating is harder for women in any capacity. He also claims more men don't lower their physical standards which I definitely don't agree with. Most men date down.
@@keithmorgan4883100% lol a lot of men really don't care if a woman is taller or shorter than them or super fit or chubby or have small boobs and big boobs. There's some guys that care a lot but in general as long as a woman is not anorexic or obese most men will gladly get with the woman if she is attractive facially and decent personality wise. Actually even if she has horrible personality as long as she fits in the the above parameters a man will still probably have sex😂. Can't say the same for women. Women are far more picky and judgmental. You only need to actually pay attention to women how they talk about different guys and watch their actions compared to men.
Chris is a Purple Pilled Alpha. His beliefs conflict with @hoe_math, Rollo Tomassi (The Rational Male), Rich Cooper (Unplugged Alpha), Dr. Orion Taraban (Psychacks), etc.
Well I am overweight so I appreciate the fat models, especially when they're not hourglasses or pear shapes. It's hard to know how clothing will fit on me when I don't see it in different size models. I don't look to them for aspirational beauty but as-is presentation. I don't understand why that's offensive to people.
Macken probably runned my favorite podcast ever with "Species", as a big fan of animals and biology he was the only person to ever go into so much detail about so many different animal species that i've ever seen, TV shows would never trust their viewer into being smart enough to be given so many details, but Macken did. And so really, I can never promote that podcast enough, it's really something to experience.
Also it's funny because men get more and more shamed for everything while women get encouraged to do more and more antisocial behavior. The average college girl would be diagnosed with BPD 15 years ago.
@@SpartanHoplite360 that's the point, only a gynocentric society would complain about patriarchy. It's like how redditors like to complain how sexist and right wing Reddit is, which is something you could only say if it wasn't ironically. It's a typical tactic of cultists to continue purging
Chris Williamson got him here. He won't admit that women believe in hypergamy, but it's true. I can tell you that I've dated many PhDs in DC (I have just 2 bachelor's). They tell me that I'm very attractive and a good person, but ultimately end up leaving me, because I don't have the status (careerwise), or don't make as much funds. Hypergamy is very real!
Well, to be fair, if a woman is going to make herself vulnerable enough to put her career aside to give you children, then it stands to reason that she wants to make sure that you can pay the bills while she's mothering in the early years of those children's lives. I chose to marry a carpenter and suffered greatly for it because I had to work full-time and then come home and do everything. It was not fun. It was not pleasant and I missed out with my daughter a lot because I was run ragged due to the fact that I did not participate in hypergamy.
@@Mmmmkaaay The point is that even when financial security isn't a factor women still date hypergamously. Its dating up SOCIO-economically. Its not just about $$$...its about the mans status. Finances play a large part about the mans status and is the easiest thing to measure. But its not the only criteria that women use to date hypergamously.
I didn't say it wasn't real. Women clearly mate "hypergamously" in terms of resources, on average, and express preferences congruent with that. Me and Chris were chatting about how flexible these preferences and behaviors may or may not be. To be frank, I think most people will be able to hear that our discussion was not at all about "Is it real?" but whether it is flexible enough to accommodate recent social shifts.
@@R-vw3uz Well what else is factored into "status" besides money? Fame? I mean, not many people are famous in proportion to the population. Perhaps this speaks to the fact that successful women have a harder time finding a mate because they think in their mind. Well, if I have a PhD he should at least have a PhD too. Now that women are educated, it's harder for them to find a man that is at least at the same level. Whereas a successful man will marry a bartender just because she's hot and doesn't care about what her job is or how intelligent she is.
2 points if I may. 1) opportunity. I know you touched on it but 'opportunity' must be absolutely on the top of the reasons why we end up with who we do, and 2) have you ever included studies into 'Arranged marriages' and how views of one's partner changes over the years. How well do 'Arranged marriages' work. Does the 'wisdom' of the elders actually help in matching couples into productive loving relationships?
Jordan Peterson’s whole argument about that woman not being attractive has to do with the wide-spread condition of metabolic disorders which is a crisis in the society and how there’s an attempt to normalize it, specially in light of having just come out of a pandemic with those who suffered the most were those who had those conditions.
you're right. Fat is just the outward appearance of something that internally is life-limiting to millions. 1/4 of the population has fatty liver disease! $4.4 _Trillion_ spent on healthcare is mostly due to that, and that's going to grow to consume all spending yet the stupid US govt. subsidizes this....@@GlutenSensitivityReader
It's odd that these "metabolic disorders" don't seem to exist in Third World countries and never seemed to occur when widespread famine and hunger were a constant threat.
@@jonsnowight9510 incorrect , there are plenty of lesser well off countries that have just as bad an obesity problem because they allow mcdonalds into their country.....
I'm gonna give the simple forbidden (partial) answer to why faces matter: Physiognomy. A person who is angry all the time will display this on their face. A person who is anxious, stressed, sleep deprived, etc. Your attitude through life will reflect on your face and be readable.
The irony is they're essentially arguing for inferred traits based on physical ones, which today is considered racist. Yet we have no problem when it's got a scientific label like speciation.
I agree with tinyknott. I'd add that faces are individually identifiable. You'd have to know a person very well to identify them from their hands or from their body/walk with the face hidden.
@@realistic_delinquentgender is literally BASED ON THE EXISTENCE OF SEXES…. If they are different, it’s because people keep stupidly using Gender in place of Seggs
Many intelligent, creative men realized that industrial Jobs and classroom education were stifling and monotonous so decided to break free and live with less security and less money while pursuing more meaningful entrepreneurial side hustles, or technical professions where we are our own bosses. Many want work where they have more control over everything and don't mind finding ways to live with less, like getting used instead of new things for example. Many women are doing the opposite, they are putting effort into schools and Jobs now so that they can be independant, have money for travel and property. Women are finally able to get into that lifestyle we are getting out of. Women dont like this because men aren't going for the big bucks like before, yet women want to work so choose to focus less on being there as a partner for a man. It can be easier for women to see men as less than them, unmotivated, undeserving because of this. Men who stay in the 9 to 5 work are often unhappy, boring, uncreative, tired, too busy, sick, and generally worn out by the grind. That's why man began rejecting the industrial employment once they had the chance. Some women can become overly proud of themselves and can fall to the game of pushing others down to lift themselves up. Some lack the compassion and patience they once needed to be in harmony with men now that they don't focus on that as much. Others are distracted and ambitious, thinking of relationships as impossible and too much trouble with all the other stuff they have to do to make it. There is also more of a culture that is synthetic, toxic, unhealthy, nutritionally deficient, alcoholic, smokers, weaker bodies,mentally ill, ugly people. Many people are so into their smart phones that they ruin the time they used to be 100% deeply engaged with a partner. They are distracted, not making eye contact, you need to repeat what you say to them 3 times, their posture is bad, its a selfish dynamic, that an untested technology is producing. Women wanted out of the role of homemaker so the traditional roles went out the window for them. Men decided that if women dont have to follow the rules they wont either. So they can get what we wanted too, an endless stream of dates with no commitmentment or children, no need to spend years on a boring education or a job working for all that extra money a family needs, etc. Now they can focus on drugs, video games, and short term pleasure instead of the bigger disciplined game of family, relationships and work. Now that religión is out of their way some don't feel obligated to think of morality or traditional practices as valuable for them.
Wow usually long YT comments are dumpster fires but this was eloquent and compelling. There's some real tragedy in men and women passing each other by like this.
I was hoping they would discuss on tattoo section of the podcast about a study where they found childhood trauma is linked to tattoos and piercings. Would have been interesting to hear how that affects dating behavior and how some people find others with similarities attractive. The study is called "The association of childhood abuse and neglect with tattoos and piercings in the population: evidence from a representative community survey"
Interesting, I'll have to find and read that paper. Especially since my childhood involved quite a bit of abuse and neglect, yet I only have one tattoo and no piercings at 43 years old. The tattoo was done as a memorial to my father after he died from cancer.
I think he's also aware of the fact that a lot of people might take what he says very literally and get down on themselves/seriously affect their self-image. He states he's very data oriented, and so what he says might be more interpreted as a singular objective truth, instead of reflecting the wide variety of preferences and so on...
I’ve been asked over 10 times this winter if I have kids. I’ve never been asked this question once before but this winter I’ve really grown out a beard. Finally I have an answer to this riddle. Thanks Chris and Macken
One thing I think is very wrong is to say that there's no "should" in this question. Health should be attractive, because health is largely heritable and healthy offspring are better to have than not healthy offspring. Anyone whose instincts get rewired away from favoring health will find their lineage ruined over time. This "ultra objectivity" is a cop-out. Just assume that successful long term propagation of the species is good. Now you can say should and should not.
*1) Within the first 30 min, Murphy claims that sex & gender are different. Wait a sec, that's idea smuggling.* The sex/gender distinction is ideological, not scientific (as we know from the ideologues like John Money and Judith Butler who appropriated the term "gender" to that end). I'm still waiting to see if Chris questions Murphy about his ideological bias. *2) Murphy disparages lay people who cite a study without extensively knowing findings in the field.* By that logic, individual studies are essentially worthless. *3) Murphy seems to disdain people who translate "theoretical" ev psych findings into "application."* But practicality is precisely what makes science relevant.
@@rafresendenrafresenden.1644 _sex & gender ARE different_ No, they are not, and simply asserting they are doesn't make it so. Moreover, *the sex/gender distinction is a purely ideological belief not backed by any evidence, data, or reasoning,* so anyone espousing it deserves all the scrutiny and skepticism as a pusher of any other religion.
@@rafresendenrafresenden.1644 _sex and gender has been study for thousands of years_ Sex and gender have been *studied* for hundreds of years (the concept of modern scientific "study" only originated after the 1700s). Sex referred to male/female as usual, and *gender was always and only a linguistic term referring to nouns as male/female/neuter in languages like Latin* (gender was NEVER applied to humans until ideologues like Money and Butler did so after the 1950s). I tire of having to educate you. Read more before commenting on a topic you clearly know nothing about, or try to troll elsewhere.
@@monikawojciechowska8964why? I’m a man and I enjoyed listening to it. the guest does seem very female friendly tho, so it does make sense that women would like it
@user-zv7cs7xe1x that's kind of my impression. Some statement made by red pill men seem to be 'the holy truth', and then comes someone like Macken who says 'well, that's not what the data seems to suggest ' and all of a sudden men go mad. No wonder his audience is mostly women, men prefer to watch something that doesn't deny their red pill ideology and doesn't hurt their ego.
@user-zv7cs7xe1x I'm not going to criticize anything they have to say about women. Similar to my view on feminism, I would have no position in which to argue if the claims were only about women. That's not the case, though. As long as they're making claims about men that are more reflective of women's perceptions of men than an accurate assessment of the average man's perspective, then I can't see it as anything more than pandering. In the end, this is just more fuel for division.
Macken Murphy is more concerned about his career than speaking the truth. If you want to know who rules over you its the ones you are not allowed to speak ill of.
I believe that women's preference for a partner's social status is protean and varies greatly depending on context. For example, a woman who identifies with a hippie lifestyle might view a man proficient in playing the guitar as possessing an attractive status. Conversely, a successful lawyer may initially look for a partner who shares characteristics with high-profile figures like Harvey Specter. Yet, due to the rarity of such ideal partners, she might instead value other traits that signify competence and respect. Consequently, her options could include professionals like policemen, soldiers, or firefighters, artists from various disciplines, or even a charismatic friend who has recently opened a restaurant. Even if she earns more than her partner, this does not imply that he holds a 'lower' status. The fundamental desire is for a partner who is competent and esteemed. Nevertheless, I find it more challenging to imagine women aspiring to be with the archetype of the attractive, stay-at-home man. Will societal views on this shift swiftly? I tend to think that while behaviors might adapt over short periods, the underlying preferences, which are embedded in evolutionary biology, are likely to evolve over much longer timescales.
I loved that you addressed the “archetype” issue. I think what makes us attractive or not is whether we value what's best in us and leverage it to our advantage. Seeking our best version also involves this.
“Even if she earns more than her partner, this does not imply that he holds a “lower” status.” This. I recall Jordan Peterson recounting a study where women were judging men’s attractiveness on their picture yet attached some characteristics about the person. It was basically how much wealth they have in addition to their level of competence. In a nutshell, you had the useless poor guy who obviously rated low, the useful rich guy who’s going to rate highly, but they also had the rich guy who didn’t earn his wealth and appeared incompetent so he was rated lowly. Then there’s the “poor” guy that was also a valued, well respected and trusted member of his community that people looked up to that rated highly which reinforces your point that absolutely, “the fundamental desire is for a partner who is competent and esteemed.”
On that note wealth doesn't always symbolise competence, but also you can't be competent and poor. Let say you have a set of skills but your not using them to your advantage you may highly esteemed and good natured, but can we say this person is competent? However to bring it back to evolutionary biology part of nesting is measuring how resourceful your mate is. I don't understand why men didn't evolve to have this as well, because they're also parents (maybe it's a social conditioning as some animals have some type resource seeking ritual for nesting). So if the guy is poor, it unrealistic to stick with that guy. And it is not personal but this is one of the things women have to consider when they're preparing to have a child. It is necessary to ensure that your offspring has a safe environment to grow up and you are also financially secure enough to tend your 100% to them in their infancy (like be present). So it contradicts what you said on women not caring about wealth. However as you said context is important if you are not marrying maybe man's wealth don't matter as much.
This was great, very insightful. I love hearing different perspectives because many times two things can be true at the same time. Dialectics is important to understand in conversations like this. I believe when it comes to problematic behavior, it is a human condition problem rather than a gender problem. Men and women can do horrific things, and with the differing characteristics of both sexes these actions may manifest differently. Men and women shouldn’t be against each other, men and women together should be more forgiving towards the gender as a whole. Men have done terrible things to me and I know there are some cruel people out there, but I’d never blame the gender as a whole..I know there are some wonderful kind men too. Once we realize this we can function a lot better in society ❤
I would be interested to know if, as societal tumult increases, men and women prefer more muscular mates, and as the perceived danger goes down, the desire for muscularity decreases. Considering that environmental factors are contributing to resource scarcity while the world population continues to grow, a future involving combat for scarce resources - land, food, WATER, - will become a reality, and perhaps muscularity in both men and women will signal an ability to survive.
A better comparison of male facial features versus female facial features than beards versus no beards would be strong jaw lines versus soft rounded more feminine jaw lines.
@@maxpower19711 That is the misconception. Most of these guys are not or only partially feminine and posses very above average masculine features as well, with the jaw being at the forefront due to it being a highly dimorphic visible feature. Dense and dark facial hair, especially beard still remains correlated strongly to androgen receptor sensitivity and can be indicative of a mens other (masculine) features as well. The mixed results in the studies arguably stem from women simply not being sincere, considering most of these studies are surveys. Women are culturally wired to preserve their "good" self-image before others and therefore to be cautious with public acts, that could be controversial. It used to be literally life threatening for a women to be totally genuine in past times. Truth is, reasonable physical Masculinity in a male is most often and undoubtedly preferable, at least for female sexual arousal. Obviously larger stature in form of height or general body frame is extremely dimorphic and desirable for women, while also being a less controversial female preference in society. Consequently women are not afraid to admit the obvious in a socially safe environment.
I am not a scientist myself, yet a woman who always preferred tall and slender, yet more feminine-faced guys, so I can speak out of my experience. NO. I liked such guys even as a pretty young person, before I was taking any birth pills. Later, when I was taking contraceptives in my thirties, nothing changed - I still had the very same preference. So from my perspective - no, never. My idea, on the other hand, is this is because of neotenic preferences - more feminine faced guys look a) more like cute babies, so they are easier to be loved and cared for just like babies are, and b) they seem not to be as dangerous as masculine-faced, strong males. So, it's both good sides: it's both more positive (more love) and less negative (less danger).
Seems pretty straight forward, both men and women tend to enjoy seeing feminine features, hense most advertising tends to show attractive feminine women
A friend of mine had a car accident when she was a kid, she flew thru front window, got stuck in it with neck exposed and carotid artery exposed. They saved her, did basic reconstruction surgery as good as they could 30 years ago. She grew up embracing her scars, she is confident, strong, entrepreneur, independent, has cue of men running after her, and always posts on social media that her scars made her value in herself and others the inner beauty. She often gets asked why doesn't she want to do plastic surgery to remove the scars, she says she wouldn't be true to herself self if she would remove the scars 😊
As a single dude who just came off a couple “failed” dates (just not working out but I’m dating with the priority of seeking a long-term relationship), this podcast is absolutely fascinating. I wish you guys talked for 4 hours.
@@murphymackenappreciate it. I’m a little rusty in dating. A buddy recommended I go on a bunch of dates. Work past the nerves and get comfortable with it again. But you gave me a few tips in podcast that I can work on long-term
This dude is a grifter who says a bunch of bs to cater to women and his academia colleagues. Don't buy into this. The most important thing is passing the looks threshold
*The Guest and the Topic are very eye-opening and are a confirmation of what most people would expect without the influence of outside sources.* *It is always a blessing to be able to reevaluate your opinion while listening to a well-educated, well-spoken guest.* *_The world doesn't seem to be so black and white after all_*
Women don't generally want a large age gap ... YES. It's men that want this, sure, but not women. (Ok, let's see all the disgruntled RP comments roll in 😂)
could you elaborate? I've never heard it questioned that women (especially young ones) prefer older men. I'm legit interested to hear the opposite take
@@jasonfabo7126 well I’m 20, me or any of my college mates are not with anyone above the age of 23. Honestly most people date their own age even 1 or 2 years age gap is kind of rare. For me personally, I wouldn’t date someone 3 years older also because I’m in a very different phase of life than some who is 24 and up. Men who are older wanting to get with me just makes me feel like they only want me for my age and they have this sort of revenge fantasy on women their age because they did not get attention when they were younger. I also do not feel safe around older men approaching me.
I always thought the Romeo and Juliet age gap made more sense considering women supposedly mature about 4 years faster than men. And honestly I wouldn’t mind a large-ish age gap. At 32 the youngest I’d go is like 25
@@RM-gq5jv I can understand your point of view, but honestly a good chunk of us (not all cause I get what you mean) are normal guys. I don’t exclusively look for younger women, but I wouldn’t mind it. And tbh the whole “life phase” makes little sense. We all go through life at different rates. I graduated with a bachelor’s degree at 26. I lost my virginity at 27. By that logic, I’m like 5 years behind on life. I’m 32 now with no house yet. So I’m further behind. I grew up poor and lacked resources if you’re wondering. I’m average in intelligence as well. Also it’s kind of a cultural thing. In Mexico, for example, age gaps are pretty normal. In many other countries it’s normal to have a bit of an age gap. In college my 22 year old female friend dated a 29 year old guy who was also in college. I just ask for open mindedness that not all older men are monsters. If I find a woman who is 30, great. If I find one who is 25, great.
@@joaquin67 I get that but there’s a difference between a 20 year old and a 25 year old. By 25 you’ve been an adult for about 7 years and know a bit about what you want in life.
This guy doesn't understand that jordan Peterson wasn't attracting the model. He was attacking the woke ideology that is the source reason for why she was on the cover.
A factor that came to mind a few times was expectation of family, specifically parents. Even friends. Whether it’s looks or social economic preferences and actual choice.
This was a great episode. Also, I think tattoos are very attractive, but it does depend on the tattoos. It can really highlight your great taste, or lack of taste
20:00 I'd say that the externality of facial appearances being more valued and observed when compared to other body parts like your example (hands) is because of multiple reasons, I'll name a few that I can think of on the top of my head, I'm not an expert but im just using logical reasoning impose a hypothesis. 1) Your face is closer to the sun than the rest of your body so theoretically it would absorb more UV damage when compared to other body parts and so it's a better judgement for genetic damage. 2) We naturally look at peoples faces more than other body parts because thats where our externalities of expression lies, like our eyebrows, eyes and mouthes/teeth. 3) The skin on the faces is quite thin compared to elsewhere which would lead to better observations of constricted blood vessels and thus tiredness, think about your eyebags (the thinnest skin on our bodies) and if your tired then that means you've exerted more energy to produce, meaning your more likely to have worse survival traits. 4) Our teeth can allow us to determine someones diet, as we all know sugar makes our teeth yellowish and thus it would signal excess consumption and so your more likely to have beneficial survivial traits, its the opposite now however due to the processing of sugar cane. (Edit) 5) Our heads obviously contain our brain, the most important organ to our survival and the size of our face and damage to the face is a more significant factor for possible brain damage and possible inflamation. 6) Our hair tells us quite a bit about our nutritional obtainance and thus our level of nutritional consumption meaning were more likely to have beneficial survival characteristics. That's the 6 things I can think of but there could be more, like eye colour to determine genetic diversity, how big our nasal airways are so we can absorb more oxygen, etc.
He mentions that women are putting in a lot of work with makeup, etc, but they seem to put in very little work into their personalities, avoiding high body counts (if you know what i mean), fitness (at least in my area), things that would actually make them more attractive to men.
The problem with selecting women for low body count is you’re also selecting for low sex drive . This preference can cause you to end up stuck in a sexless marriage if you are obsessive about it .
@@jposhpaws2588 HORSE MANURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🐎 💩 I got a low body count but I’m hornier than pack of Triceratops. Check yo self before you wreck yo self. Brother 😂🙏❤️
Good grief. It’s ok if you like bigger gals. No need to be offended on behalf of women. He talked around the answer for half an hour… reiterating his non-answer.
I fail to see any point in history, including those of food scarcity, where I prefer a hambeast over a defined, well proportioned woman. IDK, call me crazy, but a hambeast shows gluttony, sloth, and greed in character which proves to be rather awful motherly traits. I also fail to see the point in history with food scarcity where a woman would even be able to be a hambeast. It's scarce remember? She also has to actually move around to acquire that food, resulting in caloric loss. A well-defined woman who goes to the gym signals not only an abundance of caloric surplus (because she needs calories to exercise), but the discipline and physical prowess, which are traits I'd love to be expressed amongst my children. It also shows way more drive to be able to all that than sit around and eat to get fat. I also don't think it's fair to criticize Peterson's view when you are referencing data from an archaic age. Assuming your hypothesis is correct, food scarcity is NOT a thing at the moment, therefore the input variables change. It takes very minimal effort to be a hambeast at the moment. It might be why most people don't find them attractive.
Macken just did a podcast with FD Signifier, I think Chris and Macken might be in oposite sides of the ideological spectrum, or maybe not in oposite sides but definitely far away from each other ideologicaly speaking.
I think preference for socioeconomic status is very malleable, but preference for status overall is not. In a more egalitarian society with more social safety nets and affordable housing, how much wealth one has does not matter as much in proportion to other potentially attractive traits. Anecdotally, I don't make as much money or have as advanced a degree as my partner, but I'm very attractive in other masculine ways, e.g. athleticism, bravery, assertiveness, martial ability, etc.
I feel like MM is someone who has read all the right things but still just doesn't get it - Everything he says is like he is trying to avoid saying something that might be perceived as negative or "shaming" someone.. He just can't connect the dots..
SCIENCE: Most of my followers are women. My mentor is a women. Coincidently, I don't seem to say anything that may be deemed offensive about women. I use extreme outliers to introduce doubt. I mention something that "may not be true" because it could support my story - which is totally a good scientific practice. Using correlational studies and not mentioning that there could very likely be confounders or other bias to not draw causal conclusions. CONCLUSION: Sad this kind of propaganda might work to convince the average person who thinks this all sounds Science and is a lot "nicer".
I stopped listening when this guy said that Peterson was delusional to call that woman unattractive. This guy's mostly female audience must love this bs. My mom almost threw up when i showed her that "model"and she's from a poor country Also just because some starving tribe finds fat women attractive because "she must have food" doesn't make it remotely relevant as evidence by men's repulsion
What a man finds attractive when looking for a long term relationship can be very different from what a man finds attractive when looking for a recreational use only relationship. Most women do not know that there is a difference between the two.
I think claiming that morbid obesity is ever attractive is an impossible stretch--sure, there is going to be variety between populations that is mediated by the environmental factors, but people find signal of physical health attractive... If you are so skinny that you are starving to death, thats not attractive. Likewise, if you're so fat that your health is in serious question, that's also not attractive almost by definition.
Obviously you’re looking into the context of a Western who grew up in a society that doesn’t experience food scarcity. They literally said that a woman who is obese (now I don’t think they specify how obese in the episode) are more attractive in certain parts of the world where there are food scarcity because being chubby is linked to social economic status in a poor and starving environment.
@@TheRedemptionRain just to add to your point, he does mention some societies find women at BMI 38 attractive, and that's pretty clearly heavily obese.
I think you missed the point where it was attractive was in a place where people tend to have a lot of food problems. I don't want to attack you but this is the problem people have, they take a result, take the context out and apply it to the wide population...just no
Google "hirsutism." FWIW, you're exhibiting the right-wing equivalent of being mega-woke, where you can't stand hearing a completely true statement because it offends your ideological commitments.
I think it’s also worth remembering - similar to women - men aren’t necessarily looking a certain way FOR women. As a guy who is always in the gym, we’re doing it for ourselves and even honestly for other guys and the bond - vs to get a woman.
One satisfying result from my dissertation research was proving that laypeople's predictions about the outcome of my research were the exact opposite of what the facts stated. They were biased in their predictions because of preconceived prejudices against a particular pattern. Objectively measuring this pattern allowed the actual behaviours to be revealed. Very satisfying to point at a figure and say 'the facts don't lie'.
As long as it doesn't contribute too much to your overall looks 'balance', and minor scar etc can actually add to attraction from females e.g. jason Mamoa or Anakin skywalker in RoTS
This is my first time hearing this man speak. Hes clearly an intellectual and has done the research. Its nice to see intelligent logical thinking men coming from a scientific backgrounds break down what he knows about us from a scientific database point of view. Keep up the good work and drown out the noise from fools you can probably talk circles around. Good job
On average, men are bigger and stronger and so historically have been the default protector/providers and women have been dependent on them. This lead to men focusing more on obtaining money and women more on maximizing their looks. We both are attracted to both. As society has changed and the ability to provide depends less on physical size, relationships are shifting to be more about compatibility than sex for money. It's not that men are less attractive or women just want your money, it's just that those have been the typical gender roles. When everyone can protect and provide for themselves and take care of their appearance, these differences will minimize.
Money hasn’t been a thing historically. It was mostly hunting for resources “food” men were chosen for their athletic bodies, height “tall, and the popular hunter skull “defined jawline” and health which can be assessed from face. these all were and still indicators of male ability to acquire resources “food” and physically protect his family. But also testosterone is on the decline and men aren’t as physically active as before which could explain the mass decline in male physical attractiveness. However this data was conducted from dating app’s profile so I don’t believe most men are unattractive, but mostly just those who are on dating apps.
The gender differences in caring about looks are actually bigger in Western countries. The gender differences in caring about income are smaller in Western countries, but this gap will never reach 0 as long as women are the ones who get pregnant and give birth.
Tons of people talk about how facial attractiveness is very important (WHICH IT IS) but having a healthy bodyfat percentage is literally the best thing you can do for facial aesthetics. For ~95% of people, the reason why they're not attractive is for 1 of 3 reasons 1. Too Fat 2. Don't have a wardrobe 3. Don't go to the barbershop every other week. Rarely is somebody, especially facially, is FUBAR.
6:28 - who would ever say ‘we decide’ what’s masculine and feminine? Dimorphic traits dictate that inference. It’s most certainly not a will-based decision in that regard.
Agreed. For example, people tend to focus on the left side of the face. Similarly, people tend to focus on one facial feature over others (the eyes), so they may not have a balanced view of the overall masculinity and femininity in one's face. That bias doesn't eliminate difference.
Just wanted to note, that when I’m looking at a guys height on a dating site, I’m always thinking about it in relation to myself. I’m 5’4” and I prefer a guy that is not so tall. But I’m definitely more attracted to a guy with broad shoulders and nice arms 😊.
What I find attractive as a 36 yr old female: Height doesn’t get me, I’m 5ft 6. I’ll be with tall or short. I prefer a man clean. He can be hairy or not, I just prefer one who is manicured and clean. One who wears fresh clothes and their style matching mine. If they have a beard, they keep it clean. For body shape, one that likes to be outdoors. I’m not into chubby men, reason why is their future health. If they are a bicyclist or hiker is a massive plus. One who is a little tan but not dark or pale. A smile with clean teeth. They don’t need to be straight. Someone I can talk with, someone I can let my hair down and feel comfortable with. Someone who is patient and easy going. 😎 that’s my mix.
I'm dating a man with a fairly masculine face (the brow ridge, a strong jaw line, hirsute) but he has a somewhat feminine physique (he is very slender for a man, with a slender chest and arms) and certain mannerisms that are vaguely feminine, which i had noticed that I like. I dated a very masculine guy once and he was too masculine for me. Very aggressive, sexually, and - weirdly - too strong. It was fun for a bit, but ultimately overwhelming.
Some weird takes for sure. "women generally don't grow beards, some do OBVIOUSLY", "there are some differences between gender and sex", about the Peterson comment - that's not a slightly larger than standard, that the picture is straight up unhealty obesity. Why does it matter if in some historical context this would be attractive or not. It's not healthy or attractive (to a large majority of men) in our current reality. He has his target audience I guess so he throws some personal opinions in between the stats to keep them.
I think the real divide here is this guy is essentially a "sociologist" who uses biological evidence as a cudgel to support his social ideas. Which is fine in a context free of moral statements, less so when you're trying to justify people eating themselves to death as a "attraction cue." It comes with the brainwashing of higher education.
"women generally don't grow beards, some do OBVIOUSLY" this is true. "there are some differences between gender and sex" this is true too. about the Peterson comment he was right about that one too
Lmao u can tell he was liberal immediately bc of the low energy and idgaf type of vibe. Chuckled to myself when he later confirmed with a few comments. Great episode tho
At one point he explains what modern prosperous societies think is beautiful i.e. thin women. Then disparages Peterson for saying a fat woman is not attractive while being advertised to a modern prosperous society. He says “maybe not to you” but according to his very studies, not to anyone willing to buy whatever is advertised unless what’s advertised is food to the famished masses.
The waist to hip ratio for women having little to no bearing on fertility kind of reminds me of the female preference for tall men, on the assumption that they are better fighters. Doesn't necessarily pan out but it may be the best indicator you've got just on first look.
Beard = high or sufficient levels of testosterone = protector. Can shelter and defend me and our offspring. Often comes with musculature. Will also likely transfer that to any male offspring, thus continuing lineage of strong, high testosterone males that will go on to protect the next generation.
Macken presents himself well and has interesting points, but I wish he would commit to a side in arguments. He should contextualize the research he’s familiar with ie western men tend to prefer a BMI in women between x and y.
The pill probably affects those results, I would think... Do we know if that's a factor that has been considered in these studies? Because we do know that it affects choice of mates...
Maybe the reason women prefer clean shaven in short term mating is because they don’t want to be duped by a guy hiding a weak jaw with a beard. A beard is attractive for long term mating because it’s both masculine + she’s either already reproduced with another guy and doesn’t care about a weak jaw in a long term step dad, or she reproduced with him and knows what his jaw looks like. The beard then becomes a masculine long term mating signal, possibly signaling sexual & overall maturity. And it could be similar to the dad bod in that it makes him less poachable - at least for short term sex.
The most attractive eyes are much larger than normal, bigger pupil size of course and color doesn't really matter. Not to wide or narrow on the face as well.
I listened with an open mind & felt unimpressed by this guy in a few ways: (1) Primary function/service provided is that he shares his opinion on statistics that he selects to discuss; something that anyone who is well educated could do. (2) He took multiple jabs at Jordan Peterson to add minimally to a fairly lame point about fat women. As if we don't know that thick women can be very attractive, yet also implying that the obese woman on that magazine is hot because of her face. Chubby or plump are quite different from morbidly obese. He likely knows that too, but wants to feign superiority over Dr. Peterson while virtue signaling with supposed "data" to support him. A very sly move & not honorable. (3) His analysis fails to acknowledge how the category of fat & fit did modest sliding in previous centuries, yet the pushes for fat acceptance have skewed the terms "chubby" & "thick" to include horribly fat people in way that endangers the individuals who lean on that acceptance.
Nice conversation. Beauty is "averageness" in general, its the ability to balance. That's why the Libra sign is related to Aphrodite, and Libra's symbol is the balanced scale.
I loved this episode, and thought the interaction was good. Yes, there was a lot of “in general” and caveats, but I think that was to be fair to the research.
I enjoy hearing new information. It came across a little toward the pedestalizing of women, but that was expected from the mouths of young men. The one takeaway I found most interesting was the attractiveness of women (by size) related to the economic environment. But for the most part it seems that the data is all over the place, bc people are complicated and diverse and more interesting than we can even comprehend on paper.
