Post Redpill Studies & articles itt - STUDIES MEGATHREAD

[retroshortfacedsubhuman]

Sth like this : doesnt matter if they already got posted here - i want a thread where we collect all the redpill studies:


bad news for men with lopsided smiles, goofy grins and jug ears: their wives and girlfriends may be fantasising about a fling with someone handsome.
Steven Gangestad and colleagues at the University of New Mexico asked 54 heterosexual women about their dreams, desires and ovulatory cycles. He also submitted their partners to a series of intimate measurements: the size of their ears, wrists, fingers, elbows, ankles and feet.
And then, he reports today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, he compared the statistics of male symmetry with the lascivious dreams of their partners. Women coupled with men whose ears or elbows did not match were more likely, when at their most fertile, to start fantasising about other men. Those partnered with symmetrically proportioned males were more likely to stay faithful, even in their dreams.


https://amp.theguardian.com/science/2005...s.research

---

Both women and their mothers expect potential dating partners to meet a minimum level of physical attractiveness regardless of their personality, new research published in Evolutionary Psychological Science suggests.

In the study, 80 women and their mothers were presented with photographs of three men: an attractive man, moderately attractive man, and unattractive man. Each photograph was also paired with one of three personality profiles. The women were asked “how attractive do you find this person” and “how favorably do you rate his personal description.” They were also asked to rate the person as a potential dating partner for themselves or their daughters.

The researchers found that physical attractiveness took priority over the personality traits. Both women and their mothers preferred the attractive and moderately attractive men to the unattractive man. Even when unattractive men possessed the most desirable traits, the woman and their mothers rarely rated them as good dating partners. But while the women preferred the attractive man slightly more than the moderately attractive man, mothers preferred the moderately attractive man to the attractive man as a partner for their daughter

http://www.psypost.org/2017/04/study-women-moms-finds-physical-attractiveness-takes-priority-personality-48679



This study was conducted to quantify the Tinder socio-economic prospects for males based on the percentage of females that will “like” them. Female Tinder usage data was collected and statistically analyzed to determine the inequality in the Tinder economy. It was determined that the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men. The Gini coefficient for the Tinder economy based on “like” percentages was calculated to be 0.58. This means that the Tinder economy has more inequality than 95.1% of all the world’s national economies. In addition, it was determined that a man of average attractiveness would be “liked” by approximately 0.87% (1 in 115) of women on Tinder. Also, a formula was derived to estimate a man’s attractiveness level based on the percentage of “likes” he receives on Tinder

https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a


rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway.

https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e

[retroshortfacedsubhuman]

In one experiment, the researchers chose 376 men at random from high school yearbooks from 1977 to 1980, rated them by physical attractiveness and found out how long their marriages lasted. The researchers explain, “Each of the photos was rated by two independent female coders on a scale from 1 (very unattractive) to 10 (very attractive).” The men got a score of 3.5 on average. Eesh.

https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/apr/13/dating-attractive-men-women-science-data

[Tommy Lee Sherringham]

In one experiment, the researchers chose 376 men at random from high school yearbooks from 1977 to 1980, rated them by physical attractiveness and found out how long their marriages lasted. The researchers explain, “Each of the photos was rated by two independent fema

[benchpress120kg]

you shouldnt be so negative bro! If she wants to fuck another guy you should let her its not the end of the world its not like you cant fuck an escort :) Cheer up!

[eyeareaoverrated]

why the fuck is the text so big? i cant read this shit.

[Octavian]

Good thread.

Do a summary of this: http://putslab.la.psu.edu/documents/Hill...0Behav.pdf

Also, dig a little deeper into the female reproductive cycle, particularly concealed ovulation and responses to men/testosterone exposure based on the position of a her cycle.

[Britcel]

Thread needs to be stickied IMO, we need as many people contributing as possible

@mods

[Tommy Lee Sherringham]

You mean thread needs to be deleted

@mods delete this thread

[UnmoggableJOCK]

Good thread.

Do a summary of this: http://putslab.la.psu.edu/documents/Hill...0Behav.pdf

Also, dig a little deeper into the female reproductive cycle, particularly concealed ovulation and responses to men/testosterone exposure based on the position of a her cycle.

menstrual cycle alters face preference



https://www.researchgate.net/figure/5358...male-faces

Figure 5: Menstrual cycle alters face preference. While women tend to prefer masculine male faces (a) around ovulation, they have a preference for feminized male faces (b) at the other days of their cycle. This probably indicates an adaptive compromise between interest in males that seem to guarantee reproductive success and males perceived as ‘good fathers’ (Image courtesy: Victor Johnston, New Mexico State University).

[Marin]

Where is that article that proves that women get sexually aroused by dogs having sex?

[retroshortfacedsubhuman]

Wasnt there a study that shows women tend to agree with chad and are more likely to disagree/critic an incels opinion no matter what the subject was?

---

Good thread.

Do a summary of this: http://putslab.la.psu.edu/documents/Hill...0Behav.pdf

Also, dig a little deeper into the female reproductive cycle, particularly concealed ovulation and responses to men/testosterone exposure based on the position of a her cycle.

menstrual cycle alters face preference



https://www.researchgate.net/figure/5358...male-faces

Figure 5: Menstrual cycle alters face preference. While women tend to prefer masculine male faces (a) around ovulation, they have a preference for feminized male faces (b) at the other days of their cycle. This probably indicates an adaptive compromise between interest in males that seem to guarantee reproductive success and males perceived as ‘good fathers’ (Image courtesy: Victor Johnston, New Mexico State University).

Its also interesting how the pill affects that shit

Basically a lot of women are non stop on the pill since 13 - which also has an impact on mating

[retroshortfacedsubhuman]

@poobear @RealRob sticky imho

[CuntDestroyer]

Somebody post that pic study of when women were locked in a room and were only attracted to one guy, while the guys were attracted to different women

[RealRob]

I sticky this. Post more red pill studies ITT.

[averyfriendlydoctor]

It was determined that the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men.

HOLY FUCK THE 80/20 RULE CONFIRMED AFTER ALL

[retroshortfacedsubhuman]

. A few years ago, neuroscientists at Duke University wired 22 college-aged women to MRI brain scanners, showing each photos of male faces of varying attractiveness, followed by written blurbs about the moral behaviour of the men they had just viewed. Some of the written information was positive (“he saved his sister from drowning”); some not so much (“he raped a little girl”). The researchers then watched to see what parts of the women’s brains lit up as they took in the information. In doing so, they may have pinpointed the physical source of the beautiful-is-good stereotype.

It’s a section of the brain called the medial orbitofrontal cortex—centre of the head, right between the eyes. In the Duke experiments, it surged with neural activity, not only when the women viewed the faces of attractive men, but also when they viewed the positive statements. To the researchers, this suggested overlap in what are supposed to be two distinct functions—judging attractiveness and assessing moral goodness

So, essentially, we appear to be confused, possibly to our own detriment. If our responses to dishy humans occur in some instantaneous jumble of subconscious neural activity, how are we to protect ourselves from the handsome devils and femmes fatales of this world? We’re not, say biologists, because evolution isn’t about right and wrong. At bottom, says Randy Thornhill, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of New Mexico (UNM), it’s about prosaic things like who’s most resistant to disease, or who will sire the healthiest children. “We’re very selective about what we pull into consciousness,” says Thornhill, who has studied the propensity of physically attractive people to cheat on their mates. “Attractiveness judgments are made very, very quickly. These are not rational processes. We’re looking for markers of genetic quality.”

http://www.macleans.ca/society/science/t...ive-people

---

https://theblog.okcupid.com/we-experimen...d9fe280cd5

---

Previous research has shown that women’s mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle in a number of ways. The leading explanation for these changes—the good genes hypothesis—predicts that women should prefer presumed markers of genetic benefits (“good genes”) most strongly when they are fertile and evaluating men as possible short-term mates. Research testing this hypothesis has almost exclusively examined preferences for purported markers of good genes. Little is known about how preferences for men who display traits valued in long-term, investing mates (e.g., warmth and faithful- ness) change across the cycle. The authors had women at different points in their ovulatory cycle rate videotapes of men in terms of how attractive they found each man as a short-term and long-term mate. The authors then examined how women’s preferences for traits typically valued in long-term and/or short-term mates varied according to women’s fertility status. The results supported the good genes hypothesis. Implications of these findings for models of human mating are discussed. 

---

Ovulation has been shown to impact a woman's mating preferences. For instance, women in the fertile phase of their menstrual cycle favor more masculine traits, such as a deep voice or manly face, characteristics associated with the hormone testosterone, studies have found. Other research suggests fertile women are attracted to men with high levels of the stress hormone cortisol, which may be involved in stronger immune systems.

In the new study, researchers tested how women's sexual scent preferences changed depending on men's levels of testosterone and cortisol. Male volunteers were given T-shirts to wear for two consecutive nights, during which time they were prohibited from using scented soaps or detergents; drinking or smoking; or eating garlic, onion, green chiles, strong cheeses and other pungent foods.


Then, female volunteers sniffed the men's shirts and rated the pleasantness, sexiness and intensity of the smells (on scales from 1 to 10). The women also completed a questionnaire about their stage in their menstrual cycles and whether they were using hormonal contraception.
The researchers took saliva samples from the men to measure hormone levels of testosterone and cortisol.
Women who were at the most fertile stage of their menstrual cycles preferred the smell of men with higher testosterone, rating these "manly" shirts as the most pleasant and sexiest, results showed. The women showed no preference for the smells of men with higher cortisol levels. Without taking the women's fertility into account, neither hormone had an influence on how attractive the men smelled.

http://www.livescience.com/28812-women-p...-guys.html

---

"Quantifying the strength and form of sexual selection on men's traits"

http://putslab.la.psu.edu/documents/Hill...0Behav.pdf



and remember these outtakes:

- Men's short-term attractiveness(rated by the women) was negatively associated with mating success. (WOMEN ARE RETARDED FUCKS)

- Height was negatively associated with mating success(despite the women saying they prefer taller men, just as with attractiveness)

- Facial masculinity was slightly negatively associated with slaying (despite women once again saying they liked it in their short term partners).

- Girth was significantly associated with mating success - girth explained as: "We consequently standardized and summed biceps, chest, and shoulder circumference, and weight to produce the composite variable “girth” "


- Perceived fighting success (rated by other men in the frat) was associated with mating success.


Remember this sentence from the authors:

"Nevertheless, perhaps women rate men's sexual attractiveness differently from how they ultimately choose. For example, attractiveness ratings may not adequately capture women's differential resistance to men's seduction attempts."

Conclusion: Women can rate attractiveness logically, but their pussy ultimately decides who it wets for, and this is seemingly a completely primal subconscious animalistic procedure.

[averyfriendlydoctor]

Other research suggests fertile women are attracted to men with high levels of the stress hormone cortisol, which may be involved in stronger immune systems.

jfl @ this cope. incels are far higher cortisol than normies or chads.

---

Other research suggests fertile women are attracted to men with high levels of the stress hormone cortisol, which may be involved in stronger immune systems.

jfl @ this cope. incels are far higher cortisol than normies or chads.

The link between testosterone and hotness was strongest in men with low levels of the stress hormone cortisol, suggesting that stress might take a toll on the immune system, and thus women's ratings of attractiveness.

just clicked the link and it literally says the opposite of your quote claims it says. it actually says cortisol means lower attraction like we would've guessed

[retroshortfacedsubhuman]

The existence of men has long puzzled scientists. Sexual reproduction is inefficient and costly, yet the majority of multicellular species opt for this method to keep their genes going. So why do men exist? Researchers from the University of East Anglia (UAE) believe they may have finally cracked it, suggesting that the evolutionary force known as ‘sexual selection’ plays a key role in improving population health and protecting us against extinction.
The study, published in the journal Nature, looked at Tribolium flour beetles to understand why most multicellular organisms rely on sex to reproduce. Under controlled laboratory conditions, researchers studied 50 generations of beetles over a ten year period and tested the impact of sexual selection. Famously theorized by Charles Darwin, sexual selection is a process whereby males compete for a chance to reproduce and females choose which male to reproduce with.
"Almost all multicellular species on earth reproduce using sex, but its existence isn't easy to explain because sex carries big burdens, the most obvious of which is that only half of your offspring—daughters—will actually produce offspring. Why should any species waste all that effort on sons?” lead researcher Professor Matt Gage, from UEA's School of Biological Sciences, said in a statement. 


"We wanted to understand how Darwinian selection can allow this widespread and seemingly wasteful reproductive system to persist, when a system where all individuals produce offspring without sex—as in all-female asexual populations—would be a far more effective route to reproduce greater numbers of offspring," he added.
The researchers found that when sexual selection was removed and beetles were paired up into monogamous couples, the population's health declined rapidly and the bugs were wiped out by the 10th generation. Conversely, beetles that had a strong influence on sexual selection, where intense competition saw 90 males trying to compete to reproduce with only 10 females, were more resilient to extinction.
"To be good at out-competing rivals and attracting partners in the struggle to reproduce, an individual has to be good at most things, so sexual selection provides an important and effective filter to maintain and improve population genetic health,” saidGage. "Our findings provide direct support for the idea that sex persists as a dominant mode of reproduction because it allows sexual selection to provide these important genetic benefits."
The study suggests that sexual selection plays a crucial role in sifting out harmful genetic mutations, as competition means females are less likely to mate with genetically inferior individuals. Even after 20 generations of inbreeding, the study found that the populations that were strongly influenced by sexual selection had a higher fitness and were able to maintain population health and avoid extinction. 

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/why-do-men-exist/

[The Hideous Cabal]

3. Factors contributing to the attractiveness of a man


Appearance and hygiene (shoulder/hip ratio, muscularity, tan, skin color, odor, clothes)


Hughes&Gallup: Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: Shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios (2003) “We investigated sex differences in shoulder to hip ratios (SHR) and waist to hip ratios (WHR), and their relationships to different features of sexual behavior. Males with high SHR and females with low WHR reported sexual intercourse at an earlier age, more sexual partners, more extra-pair copulations (EPC), and having engaged in more instances of intercourse with people who were involved in another relationship (i.e., having themselves been EPC partners).”


Frederick&Haselton: Why Is Muscularity Sexy? Tests of the Fitness Indicator Hypothesis (2007) “Across three studies, when controlling for other characteristics (e.g., body fat), muscular men rate their bodies as sexier to women (partial rs = .49-.62) and report more lifetime sex partners (partial rs = .20-.27), short-term partners (partial rs = .25-.28), and more affairs with mated women (partial r = .28).”


Broadstock et al. Effects of Suntan on Judgements of Healthiness and Attractiveness by Adolescents (1992) “Results indicate that a medium tan is perceived as healthiest and most attractive, and “no tan” is perceived as both least healthy and attractive.”


Stephen et al. Cross-cultural effects of color, but not morphological masculinity, on perceived attractiveness of men’s faces (2012) “For Caucasian faces rated 255 by Caucasian raters, greater attractiveness was predicted by increased yellowness 256 (b*; β=0.658; p=0.032) and decreased lightness (L*; β=-0.385; p=0.032) of the face”


Lee et al: Genetic Factors That Increase Male Facial Masculinity Decrease Facial Attractiveness of Female Relatives (2013) “However, we also found that masculinity of male faces is unrelated to their attractiveness and that facially masculine men tend to have facially masculine, less-attractive sisters.”


Kerr et al. Odors and the perception of hygiene. (2005) “For example, a hypothetical person whose clothes smell of pine was rated as relatively more successful, intelligent, sociable, sanitary, and attractive than one whose clothes smelled of lemon, onion, or smoke.”


Havlicek et al. Women's preference for dominant male odour: effects of menstrual cycle and relationship status (2006) “Here, we show that women in the fertile phase of their cycle prefer body odour of males who score high on a questionnaire-based dominance scale”


Thornhill&Gangestad: The Scent of Symmetry: A Human Sex Pheromone that Signals Fitness? (1999) “In both sexes, facial attractiveness (as judged from photos) appears to predict body scent attractiveness to the opposite sex. Women’s preference for the scent associated with men’s facial attractiveness is greatest when their fertility is highest across the menstrual cycle.”


Elliot et al. Red, rank, and romance in women viewing men. (2010) “Specifically, in a series of 7 experiments we demonstrate that women perceive men to be more attractive and sexually desirable when seen on a red background and in red clothing, and we additionally show that status perceptions are responsible for this red effect.”


Mautz et al. Penis size interacts with body shape and height to influence male attractiveness (2012) (youtube-videoselostus) "larger penis size and greater height had almost equivalent positive effects on male attractiveness. Our results support the hypothesis that female mate choice could have driven the evolution of larger penises in humans."


Mehrabian&Blum: Physical appearance, attractiveness, and the mediating role of emotions (1997) “Self-care, Masculinity (Femininity), and Pleasantness were positive correlates of male (female) attractiveness.”


Durante et al. Ovulation Leads Women to Perceive Sexy Cads as Good Dads (2012) “Using both college-age and community-based samples, in 3 studies we show that ovulating women perceive charismatic and physically attractive men, but not reliable and nice men, as more committed partners and more devoted future fathers. Ovulating women perceive that sexy cads would be good fathers to their own children but not to the children of other women. This ovulatory-induced perceptual shift is driven by women who experienced early onset of puberty.”


Personality, flirting styles, dominance, humor, intelligence, niceness, warmth/coldness


Markey&Markey: The interpersonal meaning of sexual promiscuity (2007) ”individuals in this sample who were dominant and were either very cold or very warm were more likely to have multiple sexual partners” “results [...] were also consistent with previous research suggesting that extraverted and antagonistic individuals [...] tend to be more sexually promiscuous than introverted or agreeable individuals” [the graphs are very interesting, and  they seem to apply to both genders]


Hill et al. Quantifying the strength and form of sexual selection on men's traits (2013) “Results indicate that dominance and the traits associated with it predict men's mating success, but attractiveness and the traits associated with it do not.”


Urbaniak&Kilmann: Physical Attractiveness and the “Nice Guy Paradox”: Do Nice Guys Really Finish Last? (2003) “Overall results indicated that both niceness and physical attractiveness were positive factors in women's choices and desirability ratings of the target men. Niceness appeared to be the most salient factor when it came to desirability for more serious relationships, whereas physical attractiveness appeared more important in terms of desirability for more casual, sexual relationships.”


Rosenbaum J: Sexual behavior in juveniles with psychopathic traits (2010) “A promiscuity score was calculated as the number of sexual partners reported by the participant divided by the number of years of sexual activity. [...] promiscuity was negatively related to agreeableness (r = -.274, p<.05) [...] In the female sample, promiscuity was positively related to APSD [antisocial personality disorder] total score (r = .498, p<.05)”


Giebel et al. Female Attraction to Appetitive-Aggressive Men is Modulated by Women’s Menstrual Cycle and Men´s Vulnerability to Traumatic Stress (2013)


Yao et al. Criminal offending as part of an alternative reproductive strategy: Investigating evolutionary hypotheses using Swedish total population data (2014) “Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense. Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders. [...] We conclude that criminality appears to be adaptive in a contemporary industrialized country, and that this association can be explained by antisocial behavior being part of an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy.”


Sadalla et al. Dominance and Heterosexual Attraction (1987) “All four experiments indicated an interaction between dominance and sex of target. Dominance behavior increased the attractiveness of males, but had no effect on the attractiveness of females”


Xu et al. Human vocal attractiveness as signaled by body size projection. (2013) “The results show that male listeners preferred a female voice that signals a small body size, with relatively high pitch, wide formant dispersion and breathy voice, while female listeners preferred a male voice that signals a large body size with low pitch and narrow formant dispersion. Interestingly, however, male vocal attractiveness was also enhanced by breathiness, which presumably softened the aggressiveness associated with a large body size.”


Guéguen N: Men's sense of humor and women's responses to courtship solicitations: an experimental field study.


Tracy&Beall: Happy guys finish last: the impact of emotion expressions on sexual attraction. (2011) “happiness was the most attractive female emotion expression, and one of the least attractive in males. In contrast, pride showed the reverse pattern; it was the most attractive male expression, and one of the least attractive in women”


Campbell et al. Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: Do nice guys really finish last? (1995)

Wilbur&Campbell: What do women want? An interactionist account of women’s mate preferences (2010)

Botwin et al. Personality and mate preferences: five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. (1997) “Women expressed a greater preference than men for a wide array of socially desirable personality traits.”

Prokosch et al. Intelligence and mate choice: intelligent men are always appealing (2009)

Niceness and Dating Success: A Further Test of the Nice Guy Stereotype “One hundred and ninety-one male college students completed a computerized questionnaire to assess their levels of agreeableness and aspects of their dating history. Twenty college-aged women rated the men’s photographs for attractiveness. Results supported the nice guy stereotype. Lower levels of agreeableness predicted more less-committed, casual, sexual relationships.”

Herold&Milhausen: Dating Preferences of University Women: An Analysis of the Nice Guy Stereotype (1999) “The findings indicate that nice guys are likely to have fewer sexual partners but are more desired for committed relationships.”

McDaniel A: Young Women's Dating Behavior: Why/Why Not Date a Nice Guy? (2005) “The results of the present study suggest that reasons for dating (i.e., not wanting physical contact, wanting stimulating conversation, and wanting an exclusive relationship) and perceived personality traits (i.e., sweet/nice and physically attractive) influence a young woman's desire to date a nice guy”

Halpern et al. Smart teens don't have sex (or kiss much either). (2000) “Higher intelligence operates as a protective factor against early sexual activity during adolescence, and lower intelligence, to a point, is a risk factor.”

---

Snyder et al: The dominance dilemma: Do women really prefer dominant mates? (2008) “Our findings suggest that women prefer potential mates who obtain status through prestige-based strategies over potential mates who obtain status through dominance-based strategies”


Berg et al. Personality and long-term reproductive success measured by the number of grandchildren (2014) “Higher extraversion, lower conscientiousness, and lower openness to experience were similarly associated with both higher number of children and grandchildren in both sexes. In addition, higher agreeableness was associated with higher number of grand-offspring only.” [”Surely these results would be more interesting if they were divided by sex.”]


Mate choice copying (preselection)


Eva&Wood: Are all the taken men good? An indirect examination of mate-choice copying in humans (2006) “The mean attractiveness rating assigned to the 10 male images was greater when the males were labelled as being married (mean 3.65 [...] relative to when they were labelled as being single (2.96 [...]”


Waynforth D: Mate Choice Copying in Humans (2007) (a ugly man is seen with a beautiful woman -> the ugly man becomes suddenly more interesting to other women)


Bowers et al. Generalization in mate-choice copying in humans (2011)  “Each of the above experiments replicates earlier findings (Place et al. 2010) that one's assessment of another's appeal is heightened upon acquiring social information indicating that person as a successful mate.”


Place et al. Humans show mate copying after observing real mate choices (2010) “The strength of the mate copying effect was found to be similar in men and women, but the pattern of rating changes producing the effect differed: Men showed an increase in relationship interest in all conditions, whereas women exhibited a decrease after seeing a date where the individuals were not interested in each other and an increase only if the individuals were mutually interested.”


Graziano et al. Social influence, sex differences, and judgments of beauty: Putting the interpersonal back in interpersonal attraction. (2012) "In Study 2, women evaluated physical attractiveness after seeing ratings supposedly made by same-sex peers."


Galef et al. Evidence of mate choice copying in Norway rats, Rattus norvegicus (2008)


Stanik et al. Rejection Hurts: The Effect of Being Dumped on Subsequent Mating Efforts (2010) “We tested the hypothesis that impressions of a person as a candidate for a romantic partner would decrease after people learned that the target had been dumped by his or her last partner. Results supported this hypothesis and revealed that people quickly change their opinions of potential partners when they receive this information [...] Interestingly, we found that female participants reported an increased desire to have a sexual relationship with a potential partner after learning he had rejected his last partner.”


Hill&Buss: The Mere Presence of Opposite-Sex Others on Judgments of Sexual and Romantic Desirability: Opposite Effects for Men and Women (2008?) “Study 1 (N = 847) documented that women rated men more desirable when shown surrounded by women than when shown alone or with other men (a desirability enhancement effect). In sharp contrast, men rated women less desirable when shown surrounded by men than when shown alone or with women (a desirability diminution effect).”


Jones et al. Social transmission of face preferences among humans (2007) “Here, we show that observing other women with smiling (i.e. positive) expressions looking at male faces increased women's preferences for those men to a greater extent than did observing women with neutral (i.e. relatively negative) expressions looking at male faces.”


Special skills (music, sports, dance etc)


Guéguen et al. Men’s music ability and attractiveness to women in a real-life courtship context (2013) “In the guitar case condition, 31% of the women gave their phone number to the confederate, compared to 9% in the sports bag condition and 14% in the no bag control condition.”


Tifferet et al. Guitar Increases Male Facebook Attractiveness: Preliminary Support for the Sexual Selection Theory of Music (2012)


Faurie et al. Student athletes claim to have more sexual partners than other students (2003) “Both male and female students who compete in sports reported significantly higher numbers of partners than other students, and within the athletes, higher levels of performance predicted more partners.”


Neave et al. Male dance moves that catch a woman's eye (2010) “Nineteen males were recorded using the ‘Vicon’ motion-capture system while dancing to a basic rhythm; controlled stimuli in the form of avatars were then created in the form of 15 s video clips, and rated by 39 females for dance quality. Initial analyses showed that 11 movement variables were significantly positively correlated with perceived dance quality. Linear regression subsequently revealed that three movement measures were key predictors of dance quality; these were variability and amplitude of movements of the neck and trunk, and speed of movements of the right knee. In summary, we have identified specific movements within men's dance that influence women's perceptions of dancing ability. We suggest that such movements may form honest signals of male quality in terms of health, vigour or strength, though this remains to be confirmed.”


Romantic interest, neediness, aloofness


Birnbaum&Reis: When does responsiveness pique sexual interest? Attachment and sexual desire in initial acquaintanceships. (2012) [“[W]omen are less attracted to men who seem too caring on a first date, according to research in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. In the study, women were less likely to want to sleep with male acquaintances who expressed concern when they opened up than with men who were less emotionally responsive. It’s another case of nice guys finishing last. “The ‘too-nice stranger’ may come across as desperate,” says lead study author Gurit Birnbaum, Ph.D., a lecturer at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya in Israel. Rather than trying to empathize with a new interest, “just really listen, without interrupting,” says Birnbaum.”]


Whitchurch et al. “He loves me, he loves me not . . . ": uncertainty can increase romantic attraction. (2011)


Jonason&Li: Playing Hard-to-Get: Manipulating One’s Perceived Availability as a Mate (2012)


Dai et al. When Does Playing Hard to Get Increase Romantic Attraction? (2013)


Money, status


Shuler&McCord: Determinants of Male Attractiveness: “Hotness” Ratings as a Function of Perceived Resources (2010) [“In one study, men were rated as more attractive when standing in front of an expensive car (believed to be theirs) as compared to when standing in front of a less expensive car.”]


Sundie et al. Peacocks, Porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: Conspicuous Consumption as a Sexual Signaling System (2011) “Furthermore, conspicuous purchasing enhanced men’s desirability as a short-term (but not as a long-term) mate.”


Guéguen&Lamy: Men’s social status and attractiveness: Women’s receptivity to men’s date requests. (2012) [“In a recent study, male confederates (guys in cahoots with the researchers) approached over 500 young women who were walking in a city. To test whether a males’ car affected women’s likelihood of sharing their digits, the male confederates waited in one of three cars (high, medium, or low value) before getting out and approaching the women. Men with a high status car were more likely to get a number (23.3%) than men with middle (12.8%) or low status cars (7.8%).”]


Rudman&Heppen: Implicit Romantic Fantasies and Women’s Interest in Personal Power: A Glass Slipper Effect? (2003) “In each experiment, women’s implicit romantic fantasies were dissociated with their conscious beliefs. More important, implicit (but not explicit) romantic fantasies negatively predicted women’s interest in personal power, including projected income, education goal, interest in high-status jobs, and group leadership appeal. By contrast, men’s implicit romantic fantasies were not routinely linked to their interest in personal power. In concert, the findings are consistent with positing a “glass slipper” effect for women that may be an implicit barrier to gender equity”


Traditional gender ideologies


Pleck&Sonenstein: Masculinity Ideology: Its Impact on Adolescent Males' Heterosexual Relationships (2010) “With sociodemographic and personal background factors controlled, males who hold traditional attitudes toward masculinity indicate having more sexual partners in the last year, a less intimate relationship at last intercourse with the current partner, and greater belief that relationships between women and men are adversarial”


Flirting styles, self-esteen, self-confidence, body language


Hall et al. Individual Differences in the Communication of Romantic Interest: Development of the Flirting Styles Inventory (2010) “The physical, sincere, and playful styles correlated with more dating success. The physical and sincere styles correlated with rapid relational escalation of important relationships with more emotional connection and greater physical chemistry.”


Craig Roberts et al. Manipulation of body odour alters men's self-confidence and judgements of their visual attractiveness by women. (2009) “Our results demonstrate the pervasive influence of personal odour on self-perception, and how this can extend to impressions on others even when these impressions are formed in the absence of odour cues.”


Renninger et al. Getting that female glance: Patterns and consequences of male nonverbal behavior in courtship contexts (2004) “It was found that males who successfully made contact courtship initiation with females exhibited different body language in this precontact phase than did males who did not make contact with females, including significantly more glancing behaviors, space-maximization movements, intrasexual touching, and less closed-body movements.”

---

Walsh A: Self-esteem and sexual behavior: Exploring gender differences (2011) “The present study found that high self-esteem males and females had a significantly greater number of sexual partners than low self-esteem subjects. The relationship is particularly strong for males. The greatest difference in self-esteem levels was found between male virgins and nonvirgins.”


Back et al. Why are narcissists so charming at first sight? Decoding the narcissism-popularity link at zero acquaintance. (2010) (pdf) “Three main findings were revealed: First, narcissism leads to popularity at first sight. Second, the aspects of narcissism that are most maladaptive in the long run (exploitativeness/entitlement) proved to be most attractive at zero acquaintance. Third, an examination of observable verbal and nonverbal behaviors as well as aspects of physical appearance provided an explanation for why narcissists are more popular at first sight.”


Brand et al. What is beautiful is good, even online: Correlations between photo attractiveness and text attractiveness in men’s online dating profiles (2012) “- Women rated men’s internet dating photos independently from their profile texts. -> Men with attractive photos wrote texts that were rated as more attractive. -> Perceived confidence seemed to play a mediating role.”


Other (similarity, digit ratio etc)


Little et al. Investigating an imprinting-like phenomenon in humans Partners and opposite-sex parents have similar hair and eye colour (2003) “Parental characteristics were found to correlate positively with actual partner characteristics for both men and women.”


Perrett et al. Facial attractiveness judgements reflect learning of parental age characteristics (2002) “We found that women born to ‘old’ parents (over 30) were less impressed by youth, and more attracted to age cues in male faces than women with ‘young’ parents (under 30). For men, preferences for female faces were influenced by their mother’s age and not their father’s age, but only for long-term relationships”


Manning et al. The 2nd:4th digit ratio, sexual dimorphism, population differences, and reproductive success: evidence for sexually antagonistic genes? (2000)


Hughes SM: Sex differences in romantic kissing among college students: An evolutionary perspective (2007) "females place more importance on kissing as a mate assessment device" “As evidence for just how biologically important this exchange can be, one of us (Gallup) recently completed an unrelated survey which included the question “Have you ever found yourself attracted to someone, only to discover after kissing them for the first time that you were no longer interested?” Out of 58 male respondents, 59% answered “yes,” and 66% of 122 female respondents also answered in the affirmative.”


Implicit vs. Explicit preferences


Eastwick et al: Implicit and Explicit Preferences for Physical Attractiveness in a Romantic Partner: A Double Dissociation in Predictive Validity (2011) “Specifically, explicit preferences predicted the extent to which attractiveness was associated with participants’ romantic interest in opposite-sex photographs but not their romantic interest in real-life opposite-sex speed-daters or confederates. Implicit preferences showed the opposite pattern.”

[retroshortfacedsubhuman]

and mating success.

just LDAR, hand grip strength is everything

http://evp.sagepub.com/content/8/2/14747...7.full.pdf

Highly heritable, HGS is indicative of blood testosterone levels and levels of fat-free body mass. In this study, we investigated whether HGS was related to measures of body morphology [shoulder-to-hip ratio (SHR), waist-to-hip ratio, and second-digit-to-fourth-digit ratio (2D:4D)], aggressive behavior, and sexual history in 82 male and 61 female college students. Results showed that HGS was correlated with SHRs, aggressive behavior, age at first sexual intercourse, and promiscuity in males but not in females. HGS appears to be an honest signal for genetic quality in males.

http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5...9/abstract

[The Hideous Cabal]

8. Social status and hierarchies


Shariff&Tracy: Knowing who's boss: implicit perceptions of status from the nonverbal expression of pride. (2009) “Results suggest that the pride expression strongly signals high status”


Tracy et al: Pride: The Fundamental Emotion of Success, Power, and Status (in press) “[...]these studies
suggest that pride is a fundamental emotion in the biological and evolutionary sense, and in the social and interpersonal sense. It plays a major role in interpersonal and, in all likelihood, intergroup functioning, and also importantly shapes each individual’s self-concept and self-esteem. Perhaps most important, pride is the single most important emotion underpinning the attainment and maintenance of social status; pride experiences motivate status striving in a variety of ways, and pride displays communicate status-relevant information to others.”


Martens et al: Status signals: Adaptive benefits of displaying and observing the nonverbal expressions of pride and shame (2012) “We argue that both pride and shame expressions function as social signals that benefit both observers and expressers. Specifically, pride displays function to signal high status, which benefits displayers by according them deference from others, and benefits observers by affording them valuable information about social-learning opportunities. Shame displays function to appease others after a social transgression, which benefits displayers by allowing them to avoid punishment and negative appraisals, and observers by easing their identification of committed group members and followers.”


Gilbert P: Evolution and social anxiety. The role of attraction, social competition, and social hierarchies. (2001) “this article has suggested that socially anxious people are highly attuned to the competitive dynamics of trying to elicit approval and investment from others but that they perceive themselves to start from an inferior (i.e., low-rank) position and, because of this, activate submissive defensives when attempting to present themselves as confident, able, and attractive to others. These submissive defenses (which evolved to inhibit animals in low-rank positions from making claims on resources or up-rank bids) interfere with confident performance, leading to a failure cycle.”


Romero-Canyas et al. Paying to Belong: When Does Rejection Trigger Ingratiation? (2010) “This research illuminates circumstances under which people are willing to ingratiate to gain acceptance from those who have rejected them. The ability to put effort into being helpful to others and accommodating to their needs can be highly adaptive [...] Persistence in efforts to meet the needs of a group or person who was initially rejecting can turn the situation around, leading to ultimate acceptance. However, such efforts can become maladaptive when they subvert other important personal goals or lead to socially harmful behavior. Preventing rejection or escaping from a state of rejection may be one of the underlying motives that drive people to a course of action that may render them susceptible to manipulation and abuse by others”


Mead et al. Social Exclusion Causes People to Spend and Consume Strategically in the Service of Affiliation (2011)


London et al. Social Causes and Consequences of Rejection Sensitivity (2007) “Being liked by peers, irrespective of level of dislike, predicted a reduction in anxious rejection expectations in both boys and girls”

[averyfriendlydoctor]

and mating success.

just LDAR, hand grip strength is everything

http://evp.sagepub.com/content/8/2/14747...7.full.pdf

Highly heritable, HGS is indicative of blood testosterone levels and levels of fat-free body mass. In this study, we investigated whether HGS was related to measures of body morphology [shoulder-to-hip ratio (SHR), waist-to-hip ratio, and second-digit-to-fourth-digit ratio (2D:4D)], aggressive behavior, and sexual history in 82 male and 61 female college students. Results showed that HGS was correlated with SHRs, aggressive behavior, age at first sexual intercourse, and promiscuity in males but not in females. HGS appears to be an honest signal for genetic quality in males.

http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5...9/abstract

yep. this proves it. HGS only matters because it's indicative of genes and natty T levels. roiding and gymcelling won't help you.

[retroshortfacedsubhuman]

[Razzer35]

Extremely redpilled study on why ugly people with weak genes still exist :

Why isn’t everyone beautiful, smart and healthy? Or, in a less-polite formulation, why haven’t ugly, stupid, unhealthy people been bred out of the population—ugly people because no one will have them as mates, meaning they don’t get the chance to pass their ugliness to the next generation; stupid people because they’re outgunned in the race to financial success (that is, acquiring resources needed to survive and reproduce); unhealthy people because they die before they get a chance to reproduce?

Evolutionary theory predicts that the unfeeling hand of natural selection would lead to a culling of disadvantageous traits—or, as biologists more delicately phrase it, “depletion of genetic variation in natural populations as a result of the effects of selection.”
But look around, and you’ll see that that has not happened—not in people, and not in wild animals where homely and infirm offspring are born all the time.
Evolutionary geneticists try to explain this paradox by positing that mutations for disadvantageous traits keep popping up no matter how hard natural selection attempts to wipe them out, but in their more honest moments the scientists admit that in real life undesirable traits are way more common than this mechanism would account for; “ugly” mutations just don’t occur that often. In a groundbreaking study, biologists at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland have figured out why, at least in one species: genes that are good for males are bad for females and, perhaps, vice versa.
The scientists studied red deer, 3,559 of them from eight generations, living on Scotland’s Isle of Rum. They carefully noted each animal’s fitness, who mated with whom, how many offspring survived, which offspring mated and with what results. Bottom line: “male red deer with relatively high fitness fathered, on average, daughters with relatively low fitness,” Edinburgh’s Katharina Foerster and her colleagues conclude in tomorrow’s issue of the journal Nature. “Male red deer with a relatively high lifetime [fitness, which includes their reproductive success, the only thing evolution cares about] sired, on average, daughters with a relatively low [fitness].” The reverse also holds. Males that were relatively less successful in their reproductive success and fitness had daughters that were extra successful.

The reason is that any particular gene-based trait may have very different effects on males than in females. Extrapolating to humans (and oversimplifying, sorry) you might imagine that a particular shape of the nose or turn of the chin would look drop-dead hunky on a male, but horsey on a woman; dad got to mate because his looks attracted a female, but the result of their togetherness produced daughters whose pulchritude was less than obvious. Traits that evolutionary psychologists tell us make women unfit for mating (having the “wrong” shape) remain abundant in the human race because the DNA for the traits, when inherited by sons, confers a selective advantage; when those sons have daughters, presto—more females with less-than-hourglass shapes. Or as the Edinburgh biologists put it, “optimal genotypes differ between male and female red deer, because a genotype that produces a male phenotype with relatively high fitness will, on average, produce a phenotype with lower fitness when expressed in a female.”

This discovery reminds me of other seminal studies that contribute to our understanding of why “bad” genes persist. The best know is the gene for sickle-cell disease, which is prevalent through the Mediterranean region and much of Africa. Why wouldn’t natural selection get rid of it? Because, it turns out, carrying one copy of the gene increases your resistance to malaria (this is explained well here), which is prevalent—surprise!—in the exact same regions.

Much of the theorizing about fitness in human biology has been undermined by empirical studies (see, for instance, “Adapting Minds” by David Buller[url=http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10471][/url]). The study of red deer provides one more cautionary tale for those who would be tempted to weed out “undesirable” traits in the human population. On a less lofty note, it should make us think twice before we reject as a mate someone who does not conform to the “fitness” stereotype promulgated by evolutionary psychologists (such as a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7 for women, and alpha-male behavior for men). You may think, subconsciously, that you’re choosing someone who will transmit “good genes” to your kids, but just ask yourself how that perky little nose will look on your son or those rippling pecs on your daughter

[Razzer35]

Another mega redpill study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ial_traits
If you have two faces with the exact same fwhr, the taller skull will be perceived as more trustworthy, less agressive and more feminine:
Discussion
Our results show that vertical and horizontal components of fWHR play different roles in the
formation of social impression. The methodology employed in this study allowed us to disen-
tangle the facial impression induced by the vertical component from that produced by the hor-
izontal one. We also measured the whole effect of fWHR to assess if the contribution of one
component (i.e., vertical) was dependent or independent from the other component (i.e.,
horizontal).
For judgements of trust, the vertical component strongly affected the attribution of trust-
worthiness for both male and female faces. Changes in perceived trustworthiness were func-
tion of the amount of vertical manipulation: faces with smaller height were perceived as less
FWHR and social traits
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0172739 February 24, 2017 7 / 12
[/url]
[url=publication/314023775_How_components_of_facial_width_to_height_ratio_differently_contribute_to_the_perception_of_social_traits#pf6][/url]
[url=publication/314023775_How_components_of_facial_width_to_height_ratio_differently_contribute_to_the_perception_of_social_traits#pfa][/url]
[url=publication/314023775_How_components_of_facial_width_to_height_ratio_differently_contribute_to_the_perception_of_social_traits#pfa][/url]
[url=publication/314023775_How_components_of_facial_width_to_height_ratio_differently_contribute_to_the_perception_of_social_traits#pf8][/url]
[url=publication/314023775_How_components_of_facial_width_to_height_ratio_differently_contribute_to_the_perception_of_social_traits#pf8][/url]
[url=publication/314023775_How_components_of_facial_width_to_height_ratio_differently_contribute_to_the_perception_of_social_traits#pf9]



trustworthy, less feminine and more aggressive compared to faces with bigger height which
were perceived as more trustworthy, more feminine and less aggressive. The effect on trust
judgement was not affected following horizontal modification while it did when participants
judged aggressiveness and femininity. Both the vertical and the horizontal components per-
ceptually affected judgments of femininity and aggressiveness, and this was found for both
female and male dataset, although the effect of the vertical component for male faces yielded
more significance.
Hence, these results demonstrate that the modulation of the upper facial height is a relevant
cue affecting several types of social judgments. In fact, as shown by the size of the eta square,
across all experiments and conditions, the vertical effect always better explained participants’
judgments than either the horizontal or the effect of the combined component. This result was
also confirmed by the inter-subject reliability analysis, which showed a higher agreement
across participants while judging vertically modulated faces.
Why would the vertical component play a more significant role in social judgments?
One explanation may be that upper facial height (and not facial breadth) is a potential target
of selection during evolution, as previously argued[17]. In fact, Weston and colleagues (2007)
reported that the relationship between bizygomatic width and the usual skull size does not dif-
fer between males and females whereas the relationship between upper facial height and skull
size significantly differs between the sexes. Therefore, facial height can unambiguously distin-
guish an adult male from a female faces, whereas the facial width may fluctuate with variation
in body size. Therefore, this component may be crucial for judging the face femininity. Despite
signaling sex differences, this cue may also reveal other characteristics (S2 Text,S5 Fig). In
fact, faces with smaller upper height have been shown to display more bite force which may
play a crucial role in survival[18,19]. As a consequence, it is possible that faces with such char-
acteristics may be perceived and judged as more aggressive. Here, coherently with this litera-
ture, we demonstrated that participants strongly relied on the vertical dimension and that faces with small upper facial height have been judged as more aggressive and less feminine but also less trustworthy compared to all other stimuli.
[/url]
[url=publication/314023775_How_components_of_facial_width_to_height_ratio_differently_contribute_to_the_perception_of_social_traits#pfc]
[/url]
[url=publication/314023775_How_components_of_facial_width_to_height_ratio_differently_contribute_to_the_perception_of_social_traits#pfb]
[/url]
[url=publication/314023775_How_components_of_facial_width_to_height_ratio_differently_contribute_to_the_perception_of_social_traits#pfc]
[/url]
Another possible explanation for the advantage of the vertical component over the horizon-
tal one may be that the upper facial height is less variable than facial width in humans[26,27].
In fact, facial width but not upper facial height may greatly vary with change in skin quality
related to oldness, body size or fat variation. Indeed, it has been already argued that the pres-
ence of fat facial tissue in cheekbones makes fWHR difficult to measure[13]. Hence, upper
facial height would be a less variable feature and thus easier to perceive from a face than facial
width.
In agreement with previous studies, we also found that faces with larger width were judged
as more aggressive and less feminine, regardless the sex identity. These results are coherent
with previous literature showing that during puberty under the influence of testosterone,
males would get larger facial width [17,28] and that, in return, the faces with larger width
would be perceived as more aggressive [29]. Hence, testosterone can be considered as a poten-
tial modulator of both physical (width of the face) and behavioural aspects. This step forward
was important to clarify the role of biological constraints exert on facial metrics which are rele-
vant for femininity and aggressiveness judgments. Following this reasoning, while taking
Fig 5. Vertical effect. average of participants’s agreement for the vertical component (modulation ofupper
facial height) and the horizonthal component (modulation of the bizygomatic width). Sign test showed a strongadvantage of our results, future studies may assess the influence of neuromodulators relevant for trustworthiness like oxytocin [30] or those important for aggressiveness such as serotonin
[url=publication/314023775_How_components_of_facial_width_to_height_ratio_differently_contribute_to_the_perception_of_social_traits#pfc]
[/url]
[url=publication/314023775_How_components_of_facial_width_to_height_ratio_differently_contribute_to_the_perception_of_social_traits#pfc]
[/url]
[url=publication/314023775_How_components_of_facial_width_to_height_ratio_differently_contribute_to_the_perception_of_social_traits#pfc]
[/url]
[url=publication/314023775_How_components_of_facial_width_to_height_ratio_differently_contribute_to_the_perception_of_social_traits#pfc]
[url=publication/314023775_How_components_of_facial_width_to_height_ratio_differently_contribute_to_the_perception_of_social_traits#pf7][/url]
[31] on upper facial length.
In all three experiments we did not observe a significant interaction between the vertical and
horizontal components when judging female faces on trust, aggressiveness and femininity. This
lack of interaction was also observed when judging male faces on aggressiveness. In other
words, in most conditions, the effect of the vertical dimension was completely independent
from the effect of the horizontal component. Again, this observation is coherent with the
hypothesis that selection pressure exerted on facial height is independent from facial width[17].
As a consequence, for future studies, these results strongly support a methodology where
the measure of the vertical component per se is favored over the complex and less fine-grained
measure of fWHR. There are different ways to modulate fWHR, but as it has been shown in
this work, it is important to determine which of these two variants enable faces’ first impres-
sions to occur. Based on a previous literature, faces with higher fWHR tout court are judged as
less trustworthy, more aggressive and less feminine [3,10]. Our findings rather demonstrate
that it is possible to determine which component of fWHR is more relevant in the formation
of these social impressions. Future studies may continue to use our methodology to investigate
other differences in social traits that are not been considered in the present work. Nonetheless,
our findings draw attention on the need to control for these two components when discussing
the impact of the fWHR as an integrated measure.
Finally, contrary to previous results that threaten the validity of fWHR as they did not
report significant effects using female faces [3,9,12,20] we observed that the vertical effect for
trust and the horizontal effect for aggressiveness and femininity were sex-independent.
This study shows that each component of the fWHR is useful to search differences in social
perceptions and male-female facial disparities. Altogether our findings suggest that face height
(vertical component) and face width (horizontal components) should be tested independently.
This method may reduce the ambiguity of using the ratio between these two components.

[MrsTitusCrum]

Sildenafil Citrate (VIAGRA) Improves Erectile Function in Elderly Patients With Erectile Dysfunction: A Subgroup Analysis
https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontolo...113/563357

[retroshortfacedsubhuman]

Self perception:

https://lookism.net/Thread-Red-Pill-Dail...your-looks


Why balding is linked to inferior genes:

https://lookism.net/Thread-Scientific-ex...attractive

---

Thread on estrogen:

https://lookism.net/Thread-Lono-s-thread-on-estrogen

Thread on testosterone:

https://lookism.net/Thread-Lono-s-compil...d-subjects

[diculo]

good thread.

[JustTheWayYouAre]

Nobody is going to read the disorganized mess full of cherrypicked papers and studies.

Fail.

[faceface666]

Nobody is going to read the disorganized mess full of cherrypicked papers and studies.

Fail.

agreed