Thats the point. Its not some rating system written on tablets. If I say my ex was a 8, it just tells you how attractive I found her. Thats it.

Now, if I tell you.."BECAUSE she was an 8, I had to xyz to get her" thats kinda silly because I'm using a subjective rating as if it were cast in stone. So me saying, Casino Royale is a perfect 10/10 movie is just my opinion. Me saying 10/10 movies should have Daniel craig in them or should be like Casino Royale is silly because I'm saying my rating is a real thing.
In PU theory, the more attractive a girl, or more attractive compared to other girls there, the more difficult it is to get her. So the "hottest" girl in the bar, would be more difficult to get than the other girls. Rating system is often used in this context to describe the difficulty in "gaming" her. Do I agree with this? Hmm....kinda...sorta...maybe tbh. I'd say there are some women who are highly attractive that most men would rank highly collectively. Now, this is an international forum, so there are alot of different preferences. But in your state, city, or the bar, men's taste and what the hottest girls are, will be more constant. I think you need to be a better man to get these women interested, or at least can make less mistakes. Now to me, that doesnt mean treating them differently, I'd assume I can get those women and treat the same way as another chick. Are chick's attracted to the same things? Yeah. But a chick who finds you more attractive than her physically will often give more interest off the bat than a chick who thinks you're not as attractive.

So just total bullshit in reality. Basically my point from the get-go.

_________________
Likes attract likes. All comments are geared towards generating lasting attraction for the purpose of a relationship with a well-rounded female (attractive, well educated and cultured, plus knows what she wants in her work and personal life).

It's not anybody is disagreeing on this thread...

It's just the new lady being devil's advocate with a sprinkle topping of Galist's creepy perceptions of things

_________________
USER HAS BEEN BANNED FOR REPEATEDLY IGNORING MOD WARNINGS AND MULTIPLE RULE VIOLATIONS

That's where you're basically making things up. Unless you're talking extremes... women who carry universally un-appealing traits: (such as obesity, deformities, etc) or situation-based extremely high "attractiveness" (for example... one celebrity at an event that revolves around him/her somehow) are the only ones that will have any real "collective" high ranking.

In real world settings, those 'ranks' as you call them will be a mixed bag, again, short of obvious extremes.

_________________
Likes attract likes. All comments are geared towards generating lasting attraction for the purpose of a relationship with a well-rounded female (attractive, well educated and cultured, plus knows what she wants in her work and personal life).

I'm not even arguing with anyone and yet? Talk about lasting impressions LOL.

Guys, let's stop picking on Galist. He's just a schmuck down on his luck. I don't think the guy's as bad as some of you might perceive him to be.

No.

If you go to a bar in your city, there are women who most guys there will find highly attractive and will rank about the same. For eg, when I lived in Atlanta, a shapely woman with long hair and a pretty face, most guys heads would turn and they'd say she's gorgeous. In the midwest, a tall blond blue eyed chick with a bit of boobs was the head turner. Sure there are many guys in the bar who will not consider the chick gorgeous, but the majority would. Hence why at most bars, you can see how certain chicks just get the majority of the attention. There are features in any localized area, that the people living in that area find highly attractive. Not ALL people, but a good amount.

Globally, sure there is diversity in what guys find attractive. Across the US, yes there is diversity in tastes. That gets really slim when you're talking about cities, and even smaller when you're talking about your local area.

Girls know how attractive they are. A "highly attractive" girl in a city knows shes a highly attractive girl in that city. She doesnt get the same attention as other women. Ive been with girls who got some attention, and girls who got MUCH MUCH MORE attention. There is a difference in attractiveness that most people in an area can agree upon. Have you never gone to a bar and seen a girl who is a "head turner"? I mean, come on...I know you dont like the system, but it comes from somewhere. Some girls just get way more attention day to day. Its not this mixed bag where every body type, every face shape is getting the same attention from the guys who like those features.

You walk into a bar...There are going to be a few girls there that MOST guys go damn. Do you know what you're saying when you say this mixed bag thing? I have guy friends, who if a chick asks for a friend for her friend, I send her his pic, he is about 80% likely to get set up. Then I have guy friends who if I sent their pic, maybe 10% they'd get set up. Sure, the first guy isn't attractive to all women, and the 2nd guy is attractive to fewer women and women would rate them differently. But consistently the first guy would be rated an 8 and the second a 6. Its subjective, but consistently subjective.

Sounds like a group-think perpetuated circle jerk that starts with one guy ogling at one girl, and then his friends following suit. Like the loud girl that is also wearing a tight dress that just walked through a frat party and got the attention of a drunk group of guys. Get real, man.

_________________
Likes attract likes. All comments are geared towards generating lasting attraction for the purpose of a relationship with a well-rounded female (attractive, well educated and cultured, plus knows what she wants in her work and personal life).

Oh...you're on of those who will bring up theory, instead of sharing their experiences. Look man, I cant debate your theories of parties and the bar. Lol...so a girl walking through a party with a tight dress...guys look because of GROUP THINK? You could have said they'd look because of the sex appeal, but if you think guys check out skimpy dresses due to group think lol, then damn...


Group think...wow. Honest question: are you researching for a blog or paper? Or like 16 or something? I mean no offense, just now it just sounds like its all theory if you dont get why guys would look at a woman.

Wow, you're totally clueless.

You're spinning quite the tale here. I can share experiences, but that's just my word against yours. Part of what I said is in fact based on my experience, and the theory part is my explaining to you what you think you're seeing. I wouldn't assume my sole experience has any practical value, on a forum with a broad audience. One guy's "experience" and opinion (mostly pure conjecture) is LOADED with biases.
The groupthink point went way over your head it seems. My point was this so-called “high consensus opinion” (from a small handful of guys you were with – where you are no doubt basing your opinion) of “a few girls” who were deemed to be the most desirable at some venue is perpetuated with groupthink and possibly purely situational due to her choice of dress/makeup/etc. In other words, she wouldn’t deemed to be that attractive all the time. Why is this important? You claimed: …trying to point out that there’s some difficulty in “gaming” “more attractive” girls. I’ll assume gaming = generating attraction between you and her. Well of course more attractive girls are more selective – what else is new? The real issue is where the practical cut offs are and therefore the utility of “rating” girls or whatever. After reaching some level of attractiveness, which is still arbitrary and completely subjective (except for obvious flaws, I’ve said this before) – is there really any practical difference to how selective she’s going to be?
And then dropped this seemingly random non-sense:

Sorry man, but the world of male/female romance doesn’t revolve around bars and situational attractiveness, hate to break it to you. Not what you want to hear on a PUA forum, perhaps? Basing overall desire for a female from the opposite gender and her reactions to this solely on her looks and night-game is myopic at best.
I agree that there are some cultural preferences for various body shapes, traits, and what not, but these differences are more noticeable across widely varied cultures. There’s some good research on this. That being said, are there really any meaningful, practical take-aways here? I’m not so sure. But that’s on an international level. Claiming that some local preferences will *significantly* affect attraction between the genders is pure conjecture.
And even further conjecture on your part is you claiming that:
Seriously, this only applies in the most extreme cases. I think a girl is more likely to know if she’s NOT attractive because even the desperate, horny guys that think with their dick avoid them. I’m laughing… how does a girl “know how attractive she is”? What’s the system? Do tell! I’ll say again, at some point of attractiveness, there’s no *meaningful* difference in how selective these girls are when it comes to mate selection. There’s just NO science, research or anything that can be helpful to a broad audience, unfortunately. That’s all.

_________________
Likes attract likes. All comments are geared towards generating lasting attraction for the purpose of a relationship with a well-rounded female (attractive, well educated and cultured, plus knows what she wants in her work and personal life).

it comes down to options and how men react to her

_________________
If I was ya man, baby, you'd
Never worry bout what I do
I'd be coming home back to you
Every night, doin' you right

Never said there some practical difference, hence I said "In PU theory..." And then gave my take on it. So i said PU theories says there is a practical difference, then said where I agree with it is that more attractive girls are more selective. You ask for why PU uses something and then when I tell you what the theory is, you act like Im saying its 100% correct. Where on earth did I say there is a practical difference?

Lol come on man. You asked why PICK UP uses a rating system...I tell you the theory relates to dynamics in bars and clubs...then you come say that "the dating world doesnt revolve around bars and clubs" Lol. Read my words again, Starting with "IN PICKUP THEORY." The theory says that the hotter a girl is in a bar/club or situation, more difficult the approach and tigher game needed. Thats the point. How are you acting like if I explain what a theory means, that my view must be xyz?
Lol again. Dude, a woman can look at another chick and has an idea where she stands in relation to other chicks. There is no system, and hence why ive kept saying its subjective. Same way you or I have an idea how attractive we are in relation to other men. Does that mean a guy who you see as less attractive than you will be seen as such by every chick. No. But if you're just being realistic you'll have an idea where you stack up.

There is no definitive looks scale. But people have an idea how attractive they are in relation to others generally. A chick has an idea if she's being honest with herself where she falls on the looks scale in the room. There are women who will consistently get more attention in the room. Thats all. And the reason I use the room to speak about, is because you asked abt PU's use of the rating system, which is describe the women in the near environment to strategize...not to describe women over the world.

You valiantly defended the horseshit-based theories created by self-styled “Monets of Muff” (excellent marketers?!) even though you yourself think it’s worthless in practice? Thanks for the effort, I suppose? Alright, moving on…
The only bit where I agree with this is in the obvious extremes, I don’t know how many times I have to repeat that.
Fit female > obese female, normal face > severe acne, etc.
Fit guy > beer belly, normal face > severe acne, etc.
Do you want to argue that the extreme cases are the norm, therefore judgment is easy?
If not, then rest of it is just NOT that obvious to anyone, short of someone grossly exaggerating their own ability to judge themselves vs. others, or others vs. others on things which you yourself are calling “subjective.”
Women in various venues will receive varying levels of attention. Bears shit in the woods. I’m willing to wager: same women, different place/time… different level of attention. Take away here for the audience? This babble from the Monets of Muff is useless in practice?

_________________
Likes attract likes. All comments are geared towards generating lasting attraction for the purpose of a relationship with a well-rounded female (attractive, well educated and cultured, plus knows what she wants in her work and personal life).

Never defended anything. Lol...You asked a question and I answered. Funny you talk about biases, and when someone says the truth for something they dont even agree with, you act like its weird. For eg, Im not a peacocking guy. If you ask why does stupid Mystery Method advocated peacocking? I say "well MM says peacocking gets more attention, and at the bar you appear more confident for wearing a boa. I kinda agree with it but to the pt that you should dress well." You would take that statement and tell me that I'm defending peacocking and the world is bigger than the bar. When I'm just explaining someone elses theory.

Cant say the rest of what you say is true. I've known, fucked, dated chicks who consistently get more attention. At the bar. At work. At the gym. She's seen as and called gorgeous repeatedly in most places she goes. Sure, if she went to sri lanka, she may not get that attention. But she's not seeing that. They know they're highly attractive because of the level of attention they get. Do you think a girl doesnt know where she stacks up overall in relation to her friend? She has eyes, she can judge that her face is prettier, that her eyes are nicer. That her body is better. She can judge based on the difference in attention that she and her friend get. Could be 2 hot chicks, they know which one is going to be seen as hotter, consistently.

You keep falling back on the subjectivity, as if that means that overall the majority of people cant rate something highly. Movies are subjective. There are movies that are rated 9/10 that most would agree its a great movie. Not everyone, but most.

I don't really bother reading Autoregressive's posts as after a seeing a few of his before I knew what he was all about.

Honestly he sounds like me after my 1st year as a psych undergraduate, trying to impress the world with my new-found knowledge, arm chair theoretics, and verbose 'academees'.

He's for the most part taking a very Dawkin's/Darwinian stance to something that deals with a lot of subjectivity and can't in and of itself be fully captured through theories based on evolutionary psychology - which is still an area of psych in its infancy. A subject which our understanding is still very limited, and instead basing it on a lot of pseudo science. That said there is some validity to evolutionary psych when discussing attraction, but there's also a lot it can't answer such as extra-individual factors (e.g., a person's history, attachment style, etc) which play a huge role in attraction.

Anyway Neo you're probably better off just living this one alone as it's just going to be a Ego-besting match which is pointless.