do you think this sentence is true?

I think it's not reasonable to analyze both as isolated form one another.

Our personalities are shaped massively by the type of response our social risks recieve. If you took a risk once, and found moderate success, you're most likely to try again, and if that patterns repeats itself, your psyche will adopt that trait as part of your personality. Same with body language, most of use human take on certain gestures performed by people around us, but the reaction they get from those in our environment determines how likely we are to keep them.

Maybe as a kid you imitated someone scratching their head as a sign of confusion, and since you didn't receive a negative response from that gesture you were allowed to take it into your life. Others maybe took biting their nails, bit because of the response they got in their environment, they were made to feel ashamed and started doing it secretly. So while the first person can have a gesture of pacification done publicly, the other needs to manage their emotions until they can extinguish them privately.

Being attractive makes it more likely that you'll get socially rewarded for certain behaviors that will seem unacceptable if you weren't attractive. Which in turns shapes your personality.

At this point of my argument however I'd like to draw a distinction between looks and appearance, i believe looks are objective, determined by bone structure and such, appearance however is cultural.

For example, you cab be a very good looking middle eastern person, or asian person, or Caucasian person, or black person; however your attractiveness will be associated with different kinds of sentiments depending on the moment in history you're in and the culture in which you are.

That's where a huge point that's never addressed in the media comes from, even if you're good looking, culturally you're still only rewarded for adopting markers of appearance which are tightly determined by the upper classes.

I believe it can be illustrated in The great Gatsby. Gatsby is supposed to model himself on relation to the appearance of the ideal male by western standards, however his social standing made him an usurper in Daisy's eyes. I believe that happens a lot in modern dating.

If you're ugly and you try to adopt characteristics which are percieved as beautiful, you'll find two things:

• firstly that your personality won't match the ones you find in the social circle in which you're trying to enter ( because even though you're mimicking the appearance, your personality wasn't shaped by the feedback your looks would have given you initially)

• secondly, you'll be percieved as a deceiver and an usurper. They'll tell you you're trying to hard, or that it doesn't suit you, or in general they'll tell you have to be yourself in order to be loved. Which is always a way to say without taking on the moral responsibility of rejecting you (don't trick me into liking you because I don't want to desire you, i want to desire what is deemed commendable by others)I think this is also why our levels of affection for someone else will massively depend on how much we believe others will find our partners attractive or acceptable.

So I think this idea that personality is the decider in attraction masks a more perverse reality, which is that you're meant to have a personality which is neutral and alligns to successful people personality in order to be judged solely by your appearance.

Let's look at our models, most people which are deemed very attractive by most people tend to be public figures, and those public figures for the most part tend to have a bland and unremarkable personality. Even supposed outliers like harry Styles, who for all his supposed subversiveness still has a lifestyle befitting of his appearance. Another example is Billie Eilish, she became famous on the premise of being n outlier, but once she was accepted into affluent social circles she started to adopt traits of their personality into hers (liberal ideology, individualism, fair world mentality, fake togetherness, etc)

It can be seen by how both sexes, when talking about the personalities they're into will name a bunch of characteristics that actively suppresses personality itself. They'll tell you they want a passionate person, but is everyone allowed to be pationate in our society? Is a person working two jobs and in debted to despair as passionate as the guy who was born into wealth and spends loads on summer trips to Italy? Can you be compassionate when you've been neglected and abuse your entire life? Or can you be interesting when you never had any free time because you had to work since childhood?

When you start asking questions on how people came into being percieved as attractive and what factors played a part in shaping their character you'll see that it mostly comes down to social status and luck with your genes. If you're attractive but were born in the wrong environment you're fucked, if you have a great personality but life gives you the short end of the stick you're fucked as well.

For being percieved as attractive you need free time, access to intellectual and cultural life, ample resources, and to fit the standard of beauty mandated by the rich and powerful. Of you're born with good looks you can be hypergamous and somewhat modify slightly the standards of beauty, but if you're ugly and born middle class or lower class you're fucked.