>>76417854
That study in picrel is bullshit.
Dating apps are extremely limiting since all you have is a picture and a description.
This is like if I asked you to draft a basketball player for your NBA team, but instead of having access to things like stats, records, experience, anecdotes, and footage, all you have access to is a single picture of them and a description.
Obviously, you'd be forced to choose the tallest and strongest looking one, even though he might be total dogshit at the game.
You have no choice but to assume he is the most likely to be effective with the limited information you have.
Even more nonsensical, would be if I concluded that height and muscle are more important than basketball skill due to the data of your selection.
Which is DEMONSTABLY false, and a horrendous claim to make.
It's easy to assume, as men, that women are just as visual as we are, and that they respond to visual fetility cues the same exact way that we do, just gender-reversed.
But that isn't how it works. Sexual attraction is assymetrical and women faced different evolutionary challenges than men, which alters how they preselect mates.
That doesn't mean looks don't matter, but dominant men are preselected for a multitude of social, cognitive, and physical traits.
Not just cheekbones and jawline like incels want to believe.
The problem with blackpill studies is that they are, like, 90% correct, but always reach an inaccurate conclusion due to the logical fallacy of projecting their own sexual psychology onto women, and misattributing this data because of it.
