“In dating, I do think that looks trump everything — if you want access to more attractive people. The correlation in attractiveness between partners is about .5, while the correlation between a man’s income and the attractiveness of his wife is .12; the correlation between a man’s height and the attractiveness of his girlfriend is also .12.”
Of course attractiveness correlates with attractiveness more than income. Men of higher incomes probably value attractiveness less and socioeconomic status more. Rich and successful guys are more likely to marry a woman of average looks of her class than a hot waitress. It doesn’t mean that rich men couldn’t marry a hot waitress if they really wanted.
Correlation comes from whole population so your conclusion is probably wrong. Rich and successful guys most likely have more attractive wifes but correlation is low because of middle class
I feel he's blown up because he's like a "Chad Nick Fuentes". Most looksmaxxers seem like dull fashion types. But he adds that "authenticity" as you mentioned. It's like seeing Nick Fuentes escape his Chicago home to try and conquer the real world. Despite his similar autistic unapologetic and arrogant demeanor, Clav's had the balls to say the N-word publicly, get girls and gain connections rather than stay home like Nick and just yap about the problems in the world. So forgetting the truth-value and provocativeness of his views, he's a smart young white guy that at least paints a replicable rags to riches story for the average white American in an appealing raw way. How long he'll be able to keep it up the hype, who knows?
I've also pointed out that the rise of looksmaxxing might actually be related to the declining in socioeconomic mobility in the United States.
Like the vast majority of men are better off trying to at least softmaxx as oppose to getting richer, largely because to most men who aren't already economically comfortable, their ideas of getting rich are stuff like crypto scams or sports gambling.
In a society where it's actually very hard to change your socioeconomic class (and we are rapidly barreling towards a de facto caste system), looksmaxxing is probably more effective for most people than classmaxxing or statusmaxxing or moneymaxxing.
Social mobility is not that constrained, and "rapidly barreling towards a de facto caste system" is a wild overstatement, not that you're the only person I've seen assert it.
The US is 27th in the world in class mobility and the level of class mobility has not changed much in over 40 years.
I think we have a pretty clear caste system when it comes to dating - as described in the link below. I think your stats are actually important and actually reflective that the free market economy in America is actually more open to mobility than the preferences of most actual Americans!
COOL TAKE! I myself have recently gotten into researching looksmaxxing and I actually agree with a lot of what you have wrote here especially the idea of a loser epidemic and the fact that Clavicular’s mindset, while effective, is genuinely bleak. I don’t think he’s some shallow looksmaxxing idiot either. He’s obviously well researched, intelligent, and extremely disciplined. That’s part of what makes him compelling and part of what makes him unsettling.
Where I diverge is less on the facts and more on the implications drawn from them. The data about online dating is real, looks dominate selection soooo no argument there, but I think treating that as the primary explanatory variable for dating failure misses something important. What the data really shows is that we’ve built systems where first order filtering is brutal and information poor. In that environment, looks become disproportionately powerful not because they’re everything, but because they’re the loudest signal available.
That’s why I’m wary of extrapolating from “looks matter a lot for access” to “looks trump everything in life.” The same datasets show that once people meet, attractiveness explains very little about subjective experience. Which suggests to me that hardmaxxing is an efficient solution to visibility, not to meaning, stability, or satisfaction.
I also think the age and identity angle matters more than people admit. Starting this at 14 versus arriving at it in your 20s fundamentally changes what’s being optimized. One is a lever you pull; the other becomes the frame through which you learn how to exist. That distinction doesn’t show up in charts, but it shows up everywhere else.
Yesterday I gave my own take on this while talking about Soosh, someone I watched a bit growing up. What struck me there, and what contrasts with Clavicular, is that Soosh feels like someone who aged into experimentation, chaos included. Clavicular feels like someone who was optimized before he had the chance to be anything else. (probably why he is so miserable and has the worst personality </3)
Your analysis here is SO SHARP, and I loved reading this. I personally don’t think Clavicular is proof that looks trump everything. I think he’s proof that in a culture without shared norms, the most legible form of self optimization will always look like the truth, even when it’s only part of it.
He's popular because he's shattered the online perception that cosmetic surgery and steroids etc.. inevitably look obvious and desperate and don't actually make you look better. Most people that have these procedures done to them successfully don't talk about it in an attempt to act like it's all natural.
He's actually attractive and openly says, this is how I did it, this is what works, this is what doesn't, here are my results...
Reasonable and measured take. On the topic of facial attractiveness: do you think there is a noticeable difference in messages per week between a fit man with a 99th percentile face and say, a fit man with a 99.99th percentile face, all else being equal?
I think that there are diminishing returns to attractiveness (in common tongue: 9s are hotter than 10s), and they hit in when people check all of the mainline boxes (fit, good teeth, symmetrical face, proper bone structure, good skin, good hair). Beyond that I think attraction becomes more of a function of personal taste.
I suspect you're right. It also seems like bone structure and eyes are the bedrock of male attractiveness, with most other traits being "cherries on top."
You kinda predicted clavicular and his ilk in “20 predictions for the future”
I think, without further fact-checking, that he might've exaggerated how much the treatments did for him. What do his parents and siblings look like? It's easy to find a terrible pic of someone at 14 and then a very different looking one at 21 or so. Even many famous good looking people legitimately looked odd or awkward young, and without much or any surgeries or modifications.
I spent a relatively small amount of time looking for a persuasive before-and-after set of photos and didn't see one. A pre-puberty photo from the worst angle possible isn't satisfying my requirements. So yes, I agree.
His parents are both professional body builders, lol. And the before/after pictures you see are before and after PUBERTY. That makes it hard to tell how much his interventions actually changed things; it's common to lose baby fat and acquire more jaw line definition as a result as you age from 14 (first pic) to 20 (second pic).
Many grifters pretend their "transformation" is self-attained, when often most of it is not or was done through different means than the stated ones. I know a kid who is quite wealthy and did Tate-style videos for a while, then confessed to being born rich, then claimed the family lost its fortune( which isn't true).
His face is sort of the ultimate expression of the American Dream. Like, no matter where he started from he put the work in (or rather got the work done) to get to where he is now. I think he is pretty insane but I think people probably like him because they want to believe that the radical transformation of the self you mention is possible - that exterior really can change interior
It seems like engaging in this kind of extremely expensive preening is in-itself going to be a big turn off to many women, even if they initially find him attractive. I guess it depends what his goal here is.
His rejection of "charismamaxxing" does raise an interesting question. For a mildly autistic guy with family wealth like Braden here, is changing his appearance more achievable than improving his personality?
Several studies don't seem to be aware of or investigate threshold effects.
Most men are over 5'5. For men who are 5'5 or below, I guarantee the attractiveness of their gf is severely throttled by their height, for example.
Just like the wealth correlation. Most men are ridiculously poor compared to men who are legitimately wealthy. I guarantee the attractiveness of the gfs of wealthy men is much boosted by that extreme wealth.
This might be a completely disconnected take, but he is not uniquely attractive; he doesn't particularly stand out, and he himself has said he is not as attractive as many men. The part they play is overblown to me. I think his rise is based on a lot of things, but his persistence, media shock value, and weird, socially disconnected way of acting stand out to me particularly. Not to mention the fact that he is open about meth and coke use, but actively opposes marijuana and preaches alt-right ideals—he is a complicated, contradictory personality, and social media gives that attention too.
“In dating, I do think that looks trump everything — if you want access to more attractive people. The correlation in attractiveness between partners is about .5, while the correlation between a man’s income and the attractiveness of his wife is .12; the correlation between a man’s height and the attractiveness of his girlfriend is also .12.”
Of course attractiveness correlates with attractiveness more than income. Men of higher incomes probably value attractiveness less and socioeconomic status more. Rich and successful guys are more likely to marry a woman of average looks of her class than a hot waitress. It doesn’t mean that rich men couldn’t marry a hot waitress if they really wanted.
It also doesn’t work unless you’re already handsome and then the gains are marginal and negative once you factor in the opportunity cost
12 is greater than 5. It has two digits. What is this bullshit?
Correlation comes from whole population so your conclusion is probably wrong. Rich and successful guys most likely have more attractive wifes but correlation is low because of middle class
I feel he's blown up because he's like a "Chad Nick Fuentes". Most looksmaxxers seem like dull fashion types. But he adds that "authenticity" as you mentioned. It's like seeing Nick Fuentes escape his Chicago home to try and conquer the real world. Despite his similar autistic unapologetic and arrogant demeanor, Clav's had the balls to say the N-word publicly, get girls and gain connections rather than stay home like Nick and just yap about the problems in the world. So forgetting the truth-value and provocativeness of his views, he's a smart young white guy that at least paints a replicable rags to riches story for the average white American in an appealing raw way. How long he'll be able to keep it up the hype, who knows?
I've also pointed out that the rise of looksmaxxing might actually be related to the declining in socioeconomic mobility in the United States.
Like the vast majority of men are better off trying to at least softmaxx as oppose to getting richer, largely because to most men who aren't already economically comfortable, their ideas of getting rich are stuff like crypto scams or sports gambling.
In a society where it's actually very hard to change your socioeconomic class (and we are rapidly barreling towards a de facto caste system), looksmaxxing is probably more effective for most people than classmaxxing or statusmaxxing or moneymaxxing.
Social mobility is not that constrained, and "rapidly barreling towards a de facto caste system" is a wild overstatement, not that you're the only person I've seen assert it.
The US is 27th in the world in class mobility and the level of class mobility has not changed much in over 40 years.
I think we have a pretty clear caste system when it comes to dating - as described in the link below. I think your stats are actually important and actually reflective that the free market economy in America is actually more open to mobility than the preferences of most actual Americans!
https://performativebafflement.substack.com/p/america-has-already-differentiated
COOL TAKE! I myself have recently gotten into researching looksmaxxing and I actually agree with a lot of what you have wrote here especially the idea of a loser epidemic and the fact that Clavicular’s mindset, while effective, is genuinely bleak. I don’t think he’s some shallow looksmaxxing idiot either. He’s obviously well researched, intelligent, and extremely disciplined. That’s part of what makes him compelling and part of what makes him unsettling.
Where I diverge is less on the facts and more on the implications drawn from them. The data about online dating is real, looks dominate selection soooo no argument there, but I think treating that as the primary explanatory variable for dating failure misses something important. What the data really shows is that we’ve built systems where first order filtering is brutal and information poor. In that environment, looks become disproportionately powerful not because they’re everything, but because they’re the loudest signal available.
That’s why I’m wary of extrapolating from “looks matter a lot for access” to “looks trump everything in life.” The same datasets show that once people meet, attractiveness explains very little about subjective experience. Which suggests to me that hardmaxxing is an efficient solution to visibility, not to meaning, stability, or satisfaction.
I also think the age and identity angle matters more than people admit. Starting this at 14 versus arriving at it in your 20s fundamentally changes what’s being optimized. One is a lever you pull; the other becomes the frame through which you learn how to exist. That distinction doesn’t show up in charts, but it shows up everywhere else.
Yesterday I gave my own take on this while talking about Soosh, someone I watched a bit growing up. What struck me there, and what contrasts with Clavicular, is that Soosh feels like someone who aged into experimentation, chaos included. Clavicular feels like someone who was optimized before he had the chance to be anything else. (probably why he is so miserable and has the worst personality </3)
Your analysis here is SO SHARP, and I loved reading this. I personally don’t think Clavicular is proof that looks trump everything. I think he’s proof that in a culture without shared norms, the most legible form of self optimization will always look like the truth, even when it’s only part of it.
He's popular because he's shattered the online perception that cosmetic surgery and steroids etc.. inevitably look obvious and desperate and don't actually make you look better. Most people that have these procedures done to them successfully don't talk about it in an attempt to act like it's all natural.
He's actually attractive and openly says, this is how I did it, this is what works, this is what doesn't, here are my results...
Reasonable and measured take. On the topic of facial attractiveness: do you think there is a noticeable difference in messages per week between a fit man with a 99th percentile face and say, a fit man with a 99.99th percentile face, all else being equal?
I think that there are diminishing returns to attractiveness (in common tongue: 9s are hotter than 10s), and they hit in when people check all of the mainline boxes (fit, good teeth, symmetrical face, proper bone structure, good skin, good hair). Beyond that I think attraction becomes more of a function of personal taste.
I suspect you're right. It also seems like bone structure and eyes are the bedrock of male attractiveness, with most other traits being "cherries on top."
You kinda predicted clavicular and his ilk in “20 predictions for the future”
No. What matters is game. Can you dance with her (or whatever)
No. What matters is game. Can you dance with her (or whatever)
I think, without further fact-checking, that he might've exaggerated how much the treatments did for him. What do his parents and siblings look like? It's easy to find a terrible pic of someone at 14 and then a very different looking one at 21 or so. Even many famous good looking people legitimately looked odd or awkward young, and without much or any surgeries or modifications.
I spent a relatively small amount of time looking for a persuasive before-and-after set of photos and didn't see one. A pre-puberty photo from the worst angle possible isn't satisfying my requirements. So yes, I agree.
His parents are both professional body builders, lol. And the before/after pictures you see are before and after PUBERTY. That makes it hard to tell how much his interventions actually changed things; it's common to lose baby fat and acquire more jaw line definition as a result as you age from 14 (first pic) to 20 (second pic).
Many grifters pretend their "transformation" is self-attained, when often most of it is not or was done through different means than the stated ones. I know a kid who is quite wealthy and did Tate-style videos for a while, then confessed to being born rich, then claimed the family lost its fortune( which isn't true).
His dad is too? He mentioned his mother i recall but his dad?
His face is sort of the ultimate expression of the American Dream. Like, no matter where he started from he put the work in (or rather got the work done) to get to where he is now. I think he is pretty insane but I think people probably like him because they want to believe that the radical transformation of the self you mention is possible - that exterior really can change interior
My question is, how were this guy’s parents on board with this? Disorganized pro bodybuilders who didn’t notice stuff going missing?
iirc he said his parents were not on board with the steroid stuff and were really mad at him when he got kicked out of uni for abusing steroids.
How much is just growing older?
It seems like engaging in this kind of extremely expensive preening is in-itself going to be a big turn off to many women, even if they initially find him attractive. I guess it depends what his goal here is.
His rejection of "charismamaxxing" does raise an interesting question. For a mildly autistic guy with family wealth like Braden here, is changing his appearance more achievable than improving his personality?
I dont understand why he spends so much time and energy obsessing about his looks. Makes sense for a woman but men usually are not as insecure.
My suspicion is that he's autistic and landed on a strange hyperfixation lol
Several studies don't seem to be aware of or investigate threshold effects.
Most men are over 5'5. For men who are 5'5 or below, I guarantee the attractiveness of their gf is severely throttled by their height, for example.
Just like the wealth correlation. Most men are ridiculously poor compared to men who are legitimately wealthy. I guarantee the attractiveness of the gfs of wealthy men is much boosted by that extreme wealth.
TL;DR
Women are usually disappointed by their first date, including with attractive guys; men are usually happy with their first dates.
This might be a completely disconnected take, but he is not uniquely attractive; he doesn't particularly stand out, and he himself has said he is not as attractive as many men. The part they play is overblown to me. I think his rise is based on a lot of things, but his persistence, media shock value, and weird, socially disconnected way of acting stand out to me particularly. Not to mention the fact that he is open about meth and coke use, but actively opposes marijuana and preaches alt-right ideals—he is a complicated, contradictory personality, and social media gives that attention too.
wtf is melatonin megadose for