It's easier to pick up very attractive women than ugly ones if your game is tight because a lot of ugly looking women want handsome men. It makes then look better to others, especially their friends. If you're not Brad Pitt but your game is good you will have more success with the hotties.

I think this is what less attractive people tell themselves. If you're 'handsome' women period will be more interested in you from the get-go, 'hot or not'. Its equally plausible that 'ugly' women want lesser attractive men to feel less self-conscious.

The reality is that attractive women want attractive men. That said, looks aren't the end-all-be-all and regardless of your gender if it is then that's indicative of a lack of self-acceptance and something you ought to work on before pursuing any sort of a relationship (apart from the one with yourself).

Most attractive women when they hit their mid 20's attach much more
importance to what's inside a man than what is outside.


There's no basis in this assertion, just anecdotal at best. This says more about her level of maturity than anything else. A woman stuck on attraction generally comes across as vapid and narcissistic; probably somebody who wants an attractive partner for the reason you alluded to that ugly girls want an attractive man - to FEEL more attractive (e.g. having an attractive mate means i am more attractive)

Personality, sense of humor and most importantly CONFIDENCE


I agree confidence is a very attractive quality, if we can call it a quality. Of course it doesn't trump everything else, but that said a good looking guy will turn-off many women if he's stuttering and comes-off as needy in his approach - though there will be some girls who'll be persuaded enough by his good looks to go out with him often-times passing-off his nervousness as 'cute'.

If you have the balls to go direct on an HB10 and laugh of her shit tests whilst holding an iron frame and not even caring if she blows you out then you're showing supreme confidence. It's a big attraction trigger for her.

DIRECT (not to be confused with crass) is always good. Wastes least amount of time and polarizing neutral women (credit Mark Manson), weeds-out the ones who weren't interested to begin with from the ones who were decidedly interested in you.

Lots to be said about being direct. Really. A lot of guys would save themselves from a lot of heartache and energy if they just grew a pair and engaged with a simple "hello". It's a number games, you WILL get rejected, but if you're looking for the woman of your dreams you really only need just the 1, not dozens or hundreds so what's the worst that can happen with a flat-out rejection? Too many guys personalize rejection and their egos are predicated upon weak self-esteem so if they hear anything that remotely smacks of rejection they shatter. If that's where you are right now in your life, I say good. Let it be shattered, your ego isn't doing you any favours anyway.



Dragulas bang on when he says the attractive ones get more attention but it tends to be the wussy indirect attention that they're sick and tired of such as hoverers and orbiters.

True. Most guys are wallflowers in Western culture - a different thing altogether in other parts of the world particularly Latin and certain Asian cultures.

When a real man comes along they can go quite strange. Last month in Tenerife I approached a stunning girl from Finland having a smoke outside one of the bars with some drunken Scottish guys she had ended up chatting too. Went in totally direct to the amazement of all the orbiters. Turned out she had just got married but half an our later in the next bar she introduced us to all her lovely friends.

I think this is what less attractive people tell themselves. If you're 'handsome' women period will be more interested in you from the get-go, 'hot or not'. Its equally plausible that 'ugly' women want lesser attractive men to feel less self-conscious.

The reality is that attractive women want attractive men. That said, looks aren't the end-all-be-all and regardless of your gender if it is then that's indicative of a lack of self-acceptance and something you ought to work on before pursuing any sort of a relationship (apart from the one with yourself).

When choosing a man, women will compromise regarding emotional stability or neediness if their potential partner is very attractive physically. Alternatively, they will accept a less attractive partner if they are exceptionally stable, emotionally sound and demonstrate alpha male characteristics.

That's why I said "most women". Remember: for us as men we're hardwired to find beauty attractive on a large scale, we want the healthy genes for our children. Whereas women don't put as much weighting on physical attractiveness as we do as their primary remit (protector/provider) is different.

Ugly girls don't have the healthy genes or "genetic bank balance" of their more attractive peers so they are more unconsciously attracted to handsome men as it will increase their childrens "genetic credit score" if they become pregnant and also increase their status within their own group.

The proof of the pudding is: It's rare to see a handsome guy with an ugly girl but quite common to see a stunning women with an average or even ugly guy.

The proof of the pudding is: It's rare to see a handsome guy with an ugly girl but quite common to see a stunning women with an average or even ugly guy.

Again, you ask the same question to women they'll often say the inverse is true (ugly girl with a hot guy). This is just a cognitive bias you, and a lot of guys hold which isn't reality based.

So what you're saying is that:

1. Ugly women want handsome guys, but handsome guys are rarely with ugly girls.

2. It's easier for an average guy to get attractive women than the handsome guys.

3. It is common for average/ugly guys to be seen with attractive women.

But the odd times the pua sees Shrek with a stunner, they automatically get inspired without grasping any other facts that this guy could some important music producer for all they know or a photographer. Just assume it's some cold approach conjecture.

Music producer, rockstar, millionaire or a guy with solid game and good psychology who understands what attracts a woman and can exhibit the traits which do so.

Naïve realism is very common in the community with lots of self proclaimed experts giving conflicting advice but from an evolutionary psychology perspective it's well established that men are way more influenced by looks than women.

"well established that men are way more influenced by looks than women" - I am well familiar with evolutionary psych having a doctorate in Psychology, and unless there's some current research I've yet to see, there is no study that makes such an assertion. There are various fitness cues men and women seek in one another, but there's no quantitative methodology that's conclusively stated that men are more influenced PHYSICALLY then women. Women may take more intangibles into account (e.g., intelligence, resourcefulness etc), but to say one is more influenced than the other is simply not known and purely conjecture and anecdotal at best. But if you have some research that suggests to the contrary I would be more than interested in reading it.

My dissertation was on the use of cognitive bias as a global workspace transcription vector, which means I'm more resistant to holding them myself purely through all the work I've done on them in the past.

Fanciful way, or "academese" way of stating that your cognitive biases form out of the context(s) most familiar to you. Which makes sense.

Although, I do like to have my beliefs challenged so I'm going to do a null hypothesis on this one...I could be wrong after all.
Yes.

This isn't a null hypothesis. A null hypothesis would assume no relationship between the two groups.
If the average guy is alpha with desirable traits and good game and the attractive guy isn't then yes also.

The desirable traits can outweigh the other guys looks. Really hot women have their pick of handsome men and there's no scarcity dynamic for them, They've upped their "selection game" to an even more scarce resource. The confident challenging guy.

Don't get me wrong: Handsome needy guy will beat average needy guy every time but the attraction utility of a confident challenging guy is greater than an average handsome guy.

"Attraction utility"? Hey I can be verbose too, but why bother sounding like Spock it's like so 1960 bro-dude!
Do now you digress from 'the research' and speak anecdotally. it's common because that's what your mind has filtered.

It's not common because most guys don't have good game and alpha traits but it is common when the guy does have solid game and rocksolid confidence.
Music producer, rockstar, millionaire or a guy with solid game and good psychology who understands what attracts a woman and can exhibit the traits which do so.