Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 120
- 4
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm not aware of any female equivalent meme such as Gigachad.
But here are traits I have noticed that women weigh very highly compared to straight men.
Good sense of fashion.
Being thin to a fault.
Fancy haircut.
Interesting looking face (!= attractive face)
Overall aesthetic such as "art hoe" or "cottagecore".
Male like personality, think humor, sarcasm and aloofness (they project what they find attractive in men to other women)
If women wanted to optimize being maximally attractive to men and not what other women would think is attractive (sort of like the gigachad meme but in inverse), they would optimize;
Breast size
Butt size
Facial neoteny, or neoteny in general
Bubbly personality, high agreeableness (genz calls them "pick mes" lol)
You're modeling female heterosexual attractiveness as "being someone he'll dump a fuck in." Which is kinda like saying "If you're willing to scrub toilets you'll never be unemployed."
That is so say, true, but also bad advice for most people seeking to achieve something.
Yes because I am talking about SEXUAL attractiveness. Which is not the entire equatiion when choosing a life partner.
After all Gigachad is modelled as a Sex God implicitly, not a good husband.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why not? There are plenty of beautiful men in the gyms I go to (9-10 faces). Beautiful women seem far more rare but that might be more down to the types of gyms I to than something generalisable.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, the face is the weak link in overall attractiveness. BUT, I don't think men place AS much importance on faces as women.
If I were to think of it. If I had two girls to choose from (A, B), Girl A has a 7.5/10 face and massive boobs, and girl B has an 8/10 face and medium-sized boobs, I would choose the girl with the massive tits.
I think this can extrapolate to most men. Ask them if would they rather prefer Kate Upton or Keira Knightly. This might be TMI, but when I see Keira knightly I think "wow, she is beautiful", when I see Kate Upton the dog inside of me takes over and I think in cavemen speak.
I think men extrapolate the weight they put on bodily attractiveness to women, hence the obsessive lifting.
Also I think there is a disconnect between biological attractiveness and "beauty standards". A mate that looks a certain way is an indicator of status, that certain way might not be the most biologically attractive.
The whole high SES men prefer skinny women shenanigans. All else being equal no man really prefers a skinny woman (small tits and ass).
This confounds conversations on the topic.
Attraction is hard to model and highly non-linear. And they are obviously not symmetric across genders even when you zoom into the most minute of details.
I think you are confusing direction for magnitude.
My point was that a woman's attractiveness to men can be modeled as;
(0.75)*(facial_attractiveness) + (0.25)*(bodily_attractiveness)
Whilst a man's attractiveness to women can be modeled as;
(0.99)*(facial_attractiveness) + (0.01)*(bodily_attractiveness)
First point being that weights are not the same. The second point being of course it's not linear. So a "real" model would have floor and ceiling functions or activation functions in there. But I am confident about the weight ratios.
Not so sure on this. I am not talking about tastefully thick, I am talking purely about breast and butt size. Large breasts and butts on a deeply subconscious level are coded as low status.
Male faces look much better at a low bodyfat percentage
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link