AtmanIsBrahman

And many more things too. A rhinoplasty is quite safe and effective, provided you know what you’re doing and it actually improves your face. A genioplasty is also perfectly reasonable for a recessed chin. Wearing contacts instead of glasses improves looks in the vast majority of cases—and colored contacts can improve coloring. Going to the gym and keeping a low body fat drastically improves your physical appeal. I could go on. I think if you’re in the dating/pickup scene seriously, you should be doing some looksmaxxes.

Clav is actually a complicated case because he did a huge variety of looksmaxxing procedures throughout puberty (all of which is documented on looksmax.org) and definitely changed his appearance as a result. For example, he injected testosterone from age 14, which changes facial structure to make it more masculine. This only works during puberty. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Clav would have looked above average regardless. But the hypothesis that he didn't significantly improve his looks is very unlikely. I don't think it's purely performative. He genuinely believes in the whole looksmaxxing ideology. How would you rate the percentage of looks vs game roughly? And if it turns out you actually can improve your looks significantly, wouldn't it be worth doing? @Leo Gura

It's objective in exactly the way I said it is. Of course, everything is Absolute Beauty in a sense, but this is not what we're talking about. You have to separate uses of terms for different contexts. There is actual science behind this and I already gave you an introduction which you can research further if you so desire. If you want to be closeminded, go ahead. You are approaching this from a perspective of "I am the more conscious/intelligent one; it is on my opponent to provide the evidence or else I was right." Hope this doesn't trickle over into spirituality lol.

I get the sense that you’re being close-minded and not approaching this in good faith. But I’ll assume the best. First, I already explained why looksmaxxing is new. As for the validity, my claim is basically that attractiveness is objective and can be improved. Here is a video showing how these measurements are objective: This video dives into the eye area using science: How I understand it? The first thing to do is really learning about what makes for an attractive face and body. Then you can make changes accordingly. How do I know that the ideal standard is accurate? From cross-referencing various sources, combined with my own direct experience of what looks good. The science is really just making explicit what we already know subconsciously through our biological programming. And we all have an aesthetic eye. Once you have some knowledge, you can analyze your face and then decide what changes to make. You may decide to make none at all, which is fine. Here’s an example of what this looks like (male perspective). You may find out you lack facial angularity, which contributes to perceived masculinity and attractiveness. A solution to this is getting lean—most people underestimate how lean is ideal and don’t realize their face would be improved from leaning out even if they aren’t conventionally speaking overweight. Getting lean reveals your facial structure. Let’s say you get lean and see some improvement, but it’s still not great. In that case there’s not much you can do, but an easy softmax is growing a beard, which will cover up the lack of angularity in the lower third. Of course, this is still inferior to having good angularity, which is basically just genetic. This is just one example of a possible looksmax, and you would just keep applying this to yourself to whatever extent you want to.

I'm not sure what you mean by "your" data. That's not what data is by definition. Yes it is. It was citing actual studies. This honestly makes me doubt your intelligence. If you actually read the response carefully, you would see that it's an adaptation of research that mostly started in the 70s and became more solidified by the 2000s and 2010s. I'm not. Why are you lacking in openmindedness and critical thinking on this topic? Look, I'm just trying to fill a gap on this subforum. If you're interested, why not research yourself rather than asking me to provide the studies or my thought process so that you can correct it (while assuming you're right from the get-go)? If you don't want to, that's fine too.

I see your point-- I am mostly just theorizing. But it's also disingenuous to say pickup artists were doing genuine science. If they neglect a huge variable (looks), that's not good science in my book. He has a point. The looksmaxxing space is very ideological and gross. But there is a lot of truth behind it too. I think Leo's position is that looks do matter quite a lot, but they aren't changeable. I would disagree with the latter part-- they can be meaningfully changed by just about everyone, and of course some more than others.

I asked claude about the looksmaxxing/attractiveness science timeline. Here's an excerpt of what it said: Anyways, looks are objective not subjective, they are cross-cultural, and recent advancements are actually... well, recent.

I can give a more detailed response later. Essentially, noticing these principles is a recent phenomenon. You didn’t see people analyzing each part of a face scientifically 40 years ago. It’s in part due to gender roles changing, plus survival being easier, contributing to men caring about appearance being actually feasible sociologically. It’s quite easy to see how looks could be objectively studied. What makes men see a woman as hot? (They generally agree). Well, obviously it’s something about the facial features. Same thing with male celebrities. Take an attractive male celebrity and mess around with his face in photoshop. What makes him look worse if you change it? That is a factor in looks. You get the idea.

@Natasha Tori Maru It’s not true that women have been looksmaxxing for ages. Yes, they have done makeup, but looksmaxxing is much more detailed, broad, and extensive than just that. For example: Do you know what the FWHR is? Facial width to height ratio. In males, the ideal is close to two. It signals dominance and untrustworthiness. People with a high FWHR are considered more likely to cheat. This is based on science by the way, not just stuff made up by looksmaxxers? Do you know what the three facial thirds are, and how they should be proportioned and men and women? Looksmaxxers have this down to a science. Do you know what makes a good eye area? Most people think it’s eye color. Really, it’s a combination of features in the eye region— in males, dense and lowset eyebrows, minimal upper eyelid exposure, deep set eyes, narrower rather than round eyes, lack of scleral show (white of the eye underneath the iris), a clear sclera with minimal red, etc. See? This is very detailed, and it 100% is new. People were not talking about these things in 1980.

Not sure what you mean. If you’re saying it’s better to stay in not knowing about whether looks or game is better, that’s fair, but my point is more about taking the looks part seriously as they aren’t mutually exclusive. The balance could be 65% game and 35% looks and it would still be worth paying attention to looks.

Colored contacts are good. Blue often works well, though you have to make sure it looks natural. Gym is good for sex appeal.

Pickup is a good skill to have, but looks are at least as important. It’s honestly a huge gap in understanding on this forum (which is fine because spirituality is the focus) that getting girls is just about doing the correct psychological things. We judge other people’s attractiveness practically instantly. It’s a biologically ingrained mechanism. Pickup will not work well if you’re below average looking. It’s not that hard to do some amount of looksmaxxing, and it has clear benefits.

I think most of you guys hugely underestimate the role of looks. Here’s an excerpt from a looksmax.org post (full post here: https://looksmax.org/threads/why-even-looksmax-guests-and-new-users-please-read.18461/) Pretend you’re a girl (if you aren’t). 1. This guy approaches you and says “Hey, you put that cute outfit on for me tonight?” Now how did that make you FEEL? Probably laugh at his cockiness and reject his pathetic ass right away. “Hey, you put on that cute outfit for me tonight?” Now how did that make you FEEL? A little different hm?

I want to address a simple problem with this post, having to do with the language we use on this forum and Leo uses in his work. The word I want to focus on is “belief.” There are two ways in which the word is used, and conflating them becomes problematic. 1. Layman’s definition- trusting that something is true without evidence/justification/direct experience (substitute in whatever fits your epistemology) 2. Philosophical definition- to think/hold that something is true The problem is that we use the word belief to refer to the layman’s definition exclusively, leaving no room for the philosophical definition. Using the word “belief” is treated as a revelation that the person using it has a poor epistemology. The layman’s definition is fine when we’re talking about religion or limiting beliefs, but for more serious intellectual topics there ends up being no proper word. If we want to say “Leo thinks X is true about politics,” we are forced to say “Leo has X political awakening” or “X political insights.” The problem is those terms come loaded with a lot of baggage—such as that what Leo is saying is true. We could use other words like “think” or “hold-to-be-true,” but they would be clunky or imprecise. I suggest we bite the bullet and use the word “belief.” I know that part of the reason for using the word “belief” in the standard way is the distinction between direct experience and concept. But consider this example— when someone awakens, before they didn’t hold-to-be-true that God exists, but now they do. We can just call this belief. Yes, what they hold to be true exists in an entirely different context than before, but they still hold it to be true. This all comes down to the inability of language to grasp ultimate reality, but we can still be careful with how we use language. Using the word "belief" correctly is one attempt to do so.

I’m asking this because I have sober awakenings about every 3 weeks (give or take)—usually induced by thinking about reality or nothing at all. I’m trying to get a sense of how common this is, and how it relates to others’ experiences.

Are philosophers who existed before science also science-brained then? Take Aristotle as an example. He existed before science (I guess you could argue he kind of invented it). The correct label for him is rationalist. I think what you're really critiquing is rationalism, not science.

Harry Mack is probably the best freestyle rapper alive. He practiced the skill from a young age and eventually monetized through YouTube. You can tell that he actually loves what he’s doing, and he brings joy to audiences whenever he freestyles. A couple lessons stand out to me. First, pick a unique skill to master so that your competition is smaller. Harry Mack’s chosen skill, freestyling, is pretty unique because few people do it and even fewer actually train it. The people who freestyle generally do it for fun because they like rap and don’t methodically practice it like he does. This makes it easier for Harry Mack to be one of, if not the, best at his skill. You also have to find a skill that people care about. Freestyle rapping is almost universally liked as it’s great showmanship. The low competition and universal appeal of Harry Mack’s skill is a recipe for success. Second, develop mastery. This is pretty obvious, but it’s clear that he wouldn’t have become so great at freestyling if not for his many years of deliberate practice. Once you pick your skill, you have to actually work on it. If you care about it enough, it becomes a labor of love.

What is your experience like? I know you claim to have realized everything Leo talks about. I’m earlier on in my path.

@Leo Gura I’m curious why you direct criticism at scientists and not academic philosophers. It’s pretty easy to see the limitations of scientists when debating philosophical issues, and I think most academic philosophers can see this too (although obviously they aren’t God-realized). Why not criticize academic philosophy, which actually attempts to solve philosophical issues? Criticizing scientists is like boxing against a toddler—at least box against a teenager if you have to box below your weight class.

Why do you choose to use the word God instead of Absolute? Both words seem accurate to me. The downside is that “absolute” is more syllables and sounds presumptuous and intellectual. Aside from that though, it does avoid the religious connotations of the word God.

The old style feels more weighty. The new ones feel like a novel.

I’m also contemplating this. The complication is that it’s simultaneously a language issue and something having to do with the actual substance of “belief.” I might come back to the thread if I think of something.

Sorry, don’t buy it. Godliness could easily mean a state of consciousness, way of life, no self realization… who knows. Why assume it’s the same thing as God?

The video only confirms that Osho is attacking a strawman. He tries to differentiate his view from atheism by claiming he’s not a materialist. That differentiates his overall worldview from other atheists, but doesn’t really change his position on God. Then he says that God is not a person, which is a strawman of God. Only uneducated people and evangelical Christians think God is a person. I think the takeaway is that most gurus just aren’t profound philosophers. That’s why there’s more to this work than just pursuing mystical states—understanding self-deception and bias, burning through karma, deconstructing rationality and science, and learning spiral dynamics, to name a few.

Are you going to cover this topic? It seems like your thoughts on morality have changed from a few years ago. Because if absolute Good does affect your behavior, doesn’t that mean morality isn’t actually a complete construct?