We have talked repeatedly about the idea that your level of success with women is primarily determined by your looks, with money and status also having an impact. Of course, this is a bit of an oversimplification as there is another big L, namely location. You will do a lot better if you live in a student town with a large transitory female student population or a degenerate big city with hundreds of thousands of stary-eyed recent female college graduates who think that creating PowerPoint slides is what God put them on this planet for.
As I was folding my clothes recently, I made the association between clothing sizes and the looks, money, status concept. Clothes come in various sizes, and mainstream sizes are small (S), medium (M), and large (L). In some countries, there is surely a lot more clothing in XL and beyond sold than clothing in S or M. Also, I amusingly noticed that a U.S. M can be a lot bigger than a European M. Anyway, in terms of clothing, a large sweater is bigger than a medium sweater, which, in turn, is bigger than a small sweater. You can express this differently: L > M > S.
I was quite amused when I noticed that the ordering L > M > S seems to also reflect the hierarchy of looks, money, and status. I would argue that, in particular for fast hookups, your loooks are of tantamount importance. Money is also important, but it won’t trump looks. You can easily see this: If given the choice between two guys with the same amount of money, the woman would choose the more attractive one. Similarly, when choosing between men of comparable levels of physical attractiveness, the one with more money would win. Thus, money is secondary to looks.
(Article continues below.)
Break: To show your appreciation for this article and ensure the survival of this blog, please consider making a donation.
Status is rather peculiar. The problem is that status itself is realtively worthless. The PUAs of yore claimed that you have to become the most popular guy in your circle of friends, or something along those lines, ignoring that social circles have relatively stable hierarchies, so that is not plausible. If you want to be the big man in your social circle but you currently are not, you basically need to start over. Anyway, once you leave highschool and college behind, your social circle will be relatively loose, so it’s doubtful that popularity among your peers will amount to much when it comes to women.
I think there are several causes for status. If it is tied to “personality”, it normally just means that you are reasonably good looking. Women think you are funny or that you have a great sense of humor because they get wet when they see you. However, status can also be tied to money, i.e. financial success. That may help you get laid, but if you lack looks, you won’t get the kind of experiences Chad has on the regular without making much of an effort. In any case, status follows from either looks or money, so you could just as well ignore it altogether. Can you even imagine not enjoying high status as a good looking man in social settings, just based on looks, or not having status as a consequence of financial success? I can’t. Even guys as ugly as Henry Kissinger were boasting about “power” (= status) being an aphrodisiac.
It would arguably be sufficient to say that looks trump money. Status we can ignore altogether as it is implied by looks and money anyway. Still, the relative ordering, as it is indicated by the clothing-size analogy, is, pun intended, strangely fitting: L > M (> S).
This blog depends on your contributions. So, share your view and comment on this article (comment policy). Then, to ensure the survival of this blog, donate. If you haven’t bought Aaron’s books yet, buy them, all of them. Lastly, if you want tailored and honest advice, book some one-on-one consultation sessions.
39 thoughts on “The Relative Importance of Looks, Money, and Status, and a Strangely Fitting Analogy”
Yes, I remember making these points to a seemingly PUA troll a couple of months ago. He was overinflating the importance of “confidence,” and status. Status is the only variable that is dependent on one or both of the other two variables. And like you said, if you have one of the other two variables, stays comes with it.
I love analogies and this one is so “fitting”;) On a side note, during the Great Depression, boys would wear their fathers pants because the family could not afford new clothing for their children. The fathers could never use clothing that their young boys grew out of So….. The L (large) is the most important size because it is the most useful. Just like the L (looks) is the most important variable for dating.
*status comes with it.
Having status might as well be seen as “being in a position of power or authority”. If your hierarchy is directly corresponding to the size of your paycheck, yes, it may be conflated with “Money”. And I agree that as a man grows older, the roles for which he can get status as a separate feature from money or looks are increasingly rare. Think folk hero of your town or something along those lines.
Status is highly correlated with money because we are still living in a capitalist society (mostly). If we become a communist shithole, it will probably become tied to party membership.
I can confirm that from my sort-of socialist shithole. Party affiliation is big here, though it still correlates with money, since the benefits are mostly related to bigger paychecks, construction contracts etc. It’s what some call “bio-leninism”.
Sounds like Berlin.
Well yeah, status is highly correlated with money, but that’s because the same things that contribute to status contribute to making more money, and vice versa.
Evolutionarily speaking status developed as a proxy for access to resources. Maybe one level of abstraction above raw resources themselves. That’s why (in theory) you can have status without money, and money without status, yet they’re very intertwined.
Status = looks + personality
Personality on balance contributes more to status than looks.
There’s been a good amount of research on this.
Game doesn’t exist but personality does.
Neuroticism has a severe negative impact on par with the positive impact looks has.
Extraversion has a similar positive impact independently of neuroticism to looks.
Status is the highest in the hierarchy because it it simply a combination of everything that matters.
Money matters because it enables favorable logistics. Secondarily you can improve your looks greatly with it.
The blackpill lookism defeatism is simply incorrect from an empirical perspective.
Even speed dating research shows confidence (the operalization of it via body language conveying high extraversion and low neuroticism) having a huge positive effect on romantic desirability.
The study had a control group and E group. The E group watched tutorials on confident dominant body language in between two separate SD sessions and showed huge improvement in being picked by women for another date. 2.5:1 odds ratio so in the neighborhood of .7 r.
lol… which pua caved did you come from?
What’s your training in the scientific method and interpreting data and research? And in which field did you obtain it?
Looks is basically personality. You could be the biggest, most humorless asshole in the world but if you have the looks women will tell you that you’ve got a “great personality” and a “great sense of humor”.
“Money is secondary to looks.”
1. In social circle settings, how would a guy recognize whether the woman is interested in his resources vs his looks? Of course, there are women who are bold and ask “what you do”, “where you live” etc. Often, the when the word about my career/financially stability spreads, I often wonder whether these girls are only talking to me because of my financial stability or looks. Sometimes I often downplay my career.
“Social circles have relatively stable hierarchies.”
2. In the past few months, I’ve read on “status and hierarchies.” Some of the research I’ve read highlighted that the hierarchies were the product of agriculture which led social inequality and resources control. It also cited that the human brain is not wired for hierarchies in what we seen in our modern world. Supposedly, this creates higher levels of stress in our modern world since humans evolve to be in small family units.
“personality – it normally just means that you are reasonably good looking.”
3. What about if the guy is not good looking? I’ve often met quite a few girls who have told me that their boyfriends were very unattractive but had amazing personalities. I came to learn that these guys were loaded with money.
2. hunter gatherer societies had hierarchies as well. Even animals have them.
It is just that agriculture amplified it, because now it was possible to accumulate wealth over generations. But the hierarchy itself predates even humans.
3. yeah amazing personality = lot of cash.
But if you think about it, there is also a big correlation here.
You have to be intelligent and hard-working to make a lot of money. So there is actually a strong correlation/causation between personality and success.
Oh and obviously women don’t like to admit being gold-diggers. I think that is an even easier explanation for this. They might even lie to themselves about this.
And also the feedback loop happens to be a huge factors as well. Facelms often makes this one observation, and I happen to agreee with him.
Basically, he observes that a lot of people miss the fact that attractive people are treated well from a young age (positive feedback), which gives them confidence and shapes their personality in attractive ways. That in turns gives them even more positive feedback, and it’s a self-reinforcing loop that started because of their physical attractiveness (or status, if the kid comes from a rich family or happens to have status in another way, he will get positive feedback in the same way).
People treat you also better if you are financially well off. Also, if you gain status in your profession, suddenly the biggest bitches become rather obsequious. It’s quite funny how that works. What some of you probably have experienced is that HR at big companies can be downright rude as long as you’re an applicant but once they make an offer, their entire attitude changes.
@Alek: I think for men this is also a reason why height is such a big factor.
In the kindergarten playground, being physically stronger (and height is highly correlated with that) allows you to become a self confident bully. And the self confidence then also is a benefit later in life, when the competition is not based on physical strength.
So I agree there are a lot of feedback loops here. The causation can go both ways in a lot of situations.
Good looking guys also get more experience with girls early on, so they will be better able to read their body language and so on.
1) I’d say it’s in their behavior. They won’t be all over you if they only want your resources. They will also let you wine and dine them whereas if they ware into you due to your looks, you’ll fuck them quickly.
2) This has been answered very well already. Hierarchies are everywhere in nature and there are different kinds of it as well. On that note, “being alpha” is not necessarily the best strategy in the long run. The alpha ape in some tribe may fuck ape chicks for a few years but he has to continually defend his position. Once he loses, he may even get killed. In any case, if he can remain in the tribe, he’ll get treated extremely poorly by everyone else. I’ve read that some such apes even decide to leave the tribe. There is also a great lesson for the U.S. in this. Sure, you can bully the world for a century but every great power has declined, and I think the U.S. will face a backlash at some point for all the bullshit they’ve pulled off since the early 20th century.
3) You can’t believe anything women tell you about their boyfriends or ex-boyfriends. If she’s with him mainly because of his money, she’ll likely not even admit it to herself. The same is true if she’s with him due to his looks. She doesn’t want to be seen as “shallow”, so she’ll tell you that her drug-dealing ne-er-do-well of a bf “has great potential” etc.
“Game doesn’t exist but personality does”.
“Looks is basically personality. You could be the biggest, most humorless asshole in the world but if you have the looks women will tell you that you’ve got a “great personality” and a “great sense of humor”.”
Wasn’t Sleazy a 6ft 3 good looking guy who lost his virginity at 27? Shouldn’t he have lost his virginity at least 10 years earlier cuz he had a “great personality”?
What he was missing, is the thing you say doesn’t exist: game. Which is showing her through your words and actions (non-verbals) that you’re a guy who gets it. Then lead her to your place (or to one of the club’s bathroom stalls lol ).
You have no idea how laughable your claim that I was “missing game” is. I have a hard time believing that this isn’t a troll post, to be honest. I went out of my way to avoid women in my teens and early twenties, which you may find hard to believe. I considered women a distraction. The pay-off, among others, was that I ended up attending some of the most prestigious universities in the world on generous scholarships. Surely that is worth more than partying away your teens. As a teenager I was already observant enough to notice that women can lead you to ruin so I stayed clear of them. One of the biggest teenage Chads I know, by the way, thought it was great to party hard from 16 onwards. As a consequence, he achieved nothing in his life and ten years later he was an alcoholic. I did a simple risk/reward calculation and concluded that there are more important things to focus on in your teens than pussy.
behavior obviously matters.
this is easy to prove, as you can behave in a way to not get laid (Aaron calls this “anti game”). the easiest way is to never talk to women and never leave your apartment.
so this is not the point. only an idiot would claim it doesn’t matter at all.
but it is not a very significant factor.
if you are a balding manlet with a minimum wage job, no behavior will get you laid with supermodels.
and the “game” advocates are claiming exactly that, that “game” is the most important factor.
nope. I’m of fan of your work. but you’ve been out of the game (meaning ur married and not actively pursuing hookups with non-prostitutes) for too long and it shows.
and ya i find it hard to believe you avoiding women during that time cuz your teens and early 20s is when you’re at your horniest.
….ok read further, i see you were a nerd back then. so i buy it.
How does it show and why do you think I visit prostitutes? Your chances of being allowed to continue commenting on this blog are quite slim already. You’d increase them somewhat by making more substantial claims. It’s not that you will be able to substantiate them. I’d just like to see you make a bit of an effort.
I’ve always been a “nerd”. After I had figured out how to get laid, which wasn’t overly difficult, I began to “speedrun” seduction. With my personal best being less than five minutes from initial contact to P in V.
“you can behave in a way to not get laid (Aaron calls this “anti game”)”.
ya. so either you get it or you don’t. you don’t = no game. you do = game.
inb4, “oh so ur saying if ur a balding manlet with a minimum wage job, you’ll get laid with supermodels, if you get it, huh?”
no. you need to first be someone who she can see herself fucking after a couple of seconds of noticing/interacting with you. face, height, frame.
doesn’t disprove the fact that game isn’t a significant factor tho.
Will here I just disagree. It is not a significant factor because it doesn’t matter in which way the balding manlet behaves, we will not get laid with the supermodel.
on the other side, if you are a rich and good looking guy, you have a lot of “room” how to behave and still get laid.
Also it is a basic logic fail.
If there was a behavior that could get every man laid with supermodels….. we would all have learned this behavior long ago, in such a highly competitive field.
It doesn’t make any sense, basically you make the claim here that evolution is wrong.
…and in that case, the competitive advantage of game would have been lost as everybody would be running game. How would men then compete for women? Oh, that’s right: it would be looks, money, and status.
Also, “game” is historically a very recent thing.
Men who lived pre 1900, they didn’t need game. They just got arranged marriages and prostitutes.
How could women have selected for “game” when game was not a thing for 99.9% of our evolution.
Basically if you told a man from the roman empire (or any other non-cucked society) that you need to “game” your wife/woman, they would look at you if you are a fucking retard.
The reason “game” doesn’t feel natural to most men, is because it isn’t. It is a side effect of our gynocentric society, that you now need to become a part time fitness model and clown to have success with women. Nothing “natural” about it.
They would have no idea what you are even talking about. Quite frankly, I had a hard time trying to grasp how game can make any sense and as it just didn’t make any sense, I concluded that it’s all a sham. What helped me getting attention in the olden days of the community was that I got results. I did not just write about my exploits, I also met up with a bunch of guys who could then see me in action. However, you could have concluded that game is nonsense even without laying chicks left and right. Yet, that is more difficult as, for some reason, we live in a society in which the person making up a bunch of nonsense is absolved from proving that they are right. Occam’s razor alone is enough to demolish PUA arguments.
Anti-game is NOT no game. To the contrary, it is believing they need game to get girls. Say the right thing, have “confidence” tell jokes, entertain her etc. This just fucks men up. Confidence matters only to the extent of looking good and knowing the power of their looks. Guys with anti-game don’t know that when a girls shows that she thinks he’s hot, he shouldn’t worry about what to say. He simply needs to physically escalate.
With anti-game the “game” is already won. The guy just hasn’t taken the trophy.
If she decides right away that she wants to fuck you, then why do you need game anymore? You only need to not mess it up by, for instance, being awkward.
“It is not a significant factor because it doesn’t matter in which way the balding manlet behaves, we will not get laid with the supermodel.
on the other side, if you are a rich and good looking guy, you have a lot of “room” how to behave and still get laid”.
bro all you gotta do is step away from the keyboard. Visit a high-end venue and you’ll see for yourself rich good looking guys dudes fuck it up with girls that were down to fuck them, after a minute or two of conversation. Guys who don’t get it.
“If there was a behavior that could get every man laid with supermodels….. we would all have learned this behavior long ago, in such a highly competitive field”.
First you need to have access to venues with supermodels (if that’s the kinda girls you like) Then you do the same: show up. approach the girls you like who are also interested in you. show em’ you get it then take em’ home.
Thing is you can get girls who are just as hot or hotter than supermodels, at trendy no-cover venues.
“It doesn’t make any sense, basically you make the claim here that evolution is wrong”.
In this post: Velasco explains to us that “game” is enough to bang supermodels. I feel as if I’ve stepped in to a time machine. The only thing missing is a non-white person sitting in the White House. Oh, wait…
Dude, I’ve been to some of the most exclusive venues on this planet when I partied with rich clients on the French Riviera. You have no idea what you are talking about. Those clubs have a surplus of women who are selected on looks, and the relatively few men are all balling (well, with the exception of hangers-on like me, obviously). Let this sink in: those clubs turn away girls. The average girl they turn away would be in the top 10% in a regular club. Now, let’s work out that little brain of yours for a bit: What do you think happens if you’re in a place where guys are presumed to be wealthy and the chicks are all hot and in a majority? As a guy, you do not need to approach in those places. In fact, women will come to you. You can sit down and within a few minutes you’ll have a chick to your left and one to your right, and they are trying to get your attention.
Also, ONS don’t play much of a role in this scene as the girls want to get a dude with mad buxx.
Of course. And if I teach you my investment strategy you can become the next Warren Buffet as well. I will sell it to you for just 10000 USD. It is all up to you my friend.
What’s with all the puatards all appearing at the same time. Maybe some puatard blog linked here?
“How does it show”
comments like this:
“Looks is basically personality. You could be the biggest, most humorless asshole in the world but if you have the looks women will tell you that you’ve got a “great personality” and a “great sense of humor”.”
Which is exactly the kind of comment someone whose watched too many LMS incel videos would make.
” and why do you think I visit prostitutes?”
“After I had figured out how to get laid, which wasn’t overly difficult, I began to “speedrun” seduction. With my personal best being less than five minutes from initial contact to P in V”.
“If she decides right away that she wants to fuck you, then why do you need game anymore? You only need to not mess it up by, for instance, being awkward”.
Socially awkward 25+ year old virgin asking for advice with girls that like him: “dude just don’t be awkward. lol”. v helpful.
“In this post: Velasco explains to us that “game” is enough to bang supermodels”.
Velasco: First you need to have access to venues with supermodels (if that’s the kinda girls you like) =/= game.
Velasco: approach the girls you like who are also interested in you =/= game.
Velasco: show em’ you get it then take em’ home = game.
“Let this sink in: those clubs turn away girls. The average girl they turn away would be in the top 10% in a regular club”
ya so does this place:
Good looking boring dudes (guys who don’t get it. (but then you’ll say “well of course those guys don’t get laid, its cuz they’re boring! but then that contradicts your previous statement here saying that good looking = great personality/sense of humor) in suits getting rejected. Same thing I’ve seen in other clubs, in and outside of New York.
Anyway ya. Been fun tho.
How about you drop a link to your PUA channel? That would speed up the process.
The statements you take offense with are based on my experience. You may of course find this hard to fathom, seeing that you lack experience. For instance, I’ve told chicks that I didn’t like their name so I’ll call them by a different one. They giggled and went along with it. How do you explain that?
Your rooftop lounge is not a high-end venue. In places like St. Tropez or St. Barth you have multi-millionaires and billionaires show up with their private yachts etc., and they bring models with them. You get into those places by paying 2,000 Euros for a table and they may still reject you if they don’t like how you look. There are also crass millionaires with poor behavior. Those are not wanted there.