TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Dominant body language attractive at 0 acquaintance...looks like confidence matters boyos - a lot

Ohyarlysmiles

November 10, 2021
51 upvotes
/r/BlackPillScience
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1508932113
Archived from /r/BlackPillScience

r/BlackPillScience is a subreddit dedicated to understanding the realities of human social and sexual behavior.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/BlackPillScience archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Dominant body language attractive at 0 acquaintance...looks like confidence matters boyos - a lot
Author

Ohyarlysmiles

Upvotes 51
Comments 33
Date November 10, 2021 2:14 AM UTC
(4 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/BlackPillScience
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/qqjl51/dominant_body_language_attractive_at_0/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/BlackPillScience/dominant-body-language-attractive-at-0.1084941
https://theredarchive.com/post/1084941
Red Pill terms in post
dominance
Top posts by Ohyarlysmiles

Girls don't do things by accident

1143 upvotes
April 18, 2021
/r/seduction

How to cold approach correctly

1088 upvotes
May 18, 2021
/r/seduction

Update regarding "Are We Dating the Same Guy" Groups: You are FOR SURE being defamed

185 upvotes
May 30, 2023
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

Starting to experience the effects of being posted in an "Are we dating the same guy?" FB group

182 upvotes
May 17, 2023
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

The only way to date as a modern male is to screen hard

138 upvotes
April 28, 2022
/r/PurplePillDebate

Confidence exerts significant and independent effect on male attractiveness: its over boyos

87 upvotes
January 7, 2021
/r/BlackPillScience

Correlation between pretty much every superficial trait valued by the blackpill and mating success = .092 :)

80 upvotes
April 1, 2021
/r/BlackPillScience

Paradox of male dating you need experience to get the experience

78 upvotes
February 10, 2022
/r/PurplePillDebate

Comments

[–]Carkudo 61 points62 points63 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Does not control for physical attractiveness, thus useless.

[–]bilberberbers 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Damn, that's embarrassing. How out of touch with basic study design and study quality does a person have to be to use a study of such low quality as an attempt to derail well established knowledge?

[–]TriggurWarning 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That or they're being intentionally deceptive to push a narrative.

[–]Red_Lancia_Stratos 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not on topic.

[–]Ohyarlysmiles[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

"We tested the influence of nonverbal affiliation and postural expansiveness on an individual’s chances of getting a “yes” response on a speed-date, a critical outcome in speed-dating that measures a person’s intention to see a speed-date partner again. Results indicated that an open, expansive nonverbal display expressed during the date—but not nonverbal cues of affiliation—significantly predicted the odds of getting a “yes” response [t(263) = 6.35, P = 0.01]. Specifically, the odds ratio resulting from the model was 1.76, indicating that for every single SD unit increase in a person’s coded postural expansiveness, that person was 76% more likely to get a “yes” response."

Edit: Anyone claiming that the study address concerns about physical attractiveness did not read the study.

This study is composed of three smaller studies. The first was speed dating study. The other studies involved the same exact confederates in pictures with expansive/confident body language and ones with less confident body language.

If the differences in the speed dating group were a mere matter of attractiveness, then the same very strong association between expansive body language and matches would have failed to appear.

in short --- it's over, boyos.

[–]IronJackk 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

In layman’s terms please?

[–]Ohyarlysmiles[S] 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Acting (body language) confident nearly doubled a man's chances of being selected for another date.

[–]MrUnknownorNobody 34 points35 points36 points 4 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

As someone mentioned before, if a study about attraction doesn't include physical attraction as a main characteristic, the study is worthless. Could just be that the more attractive participants were also more confident and acting accordingly contrary to their unattractive peers.

[–]Blackanda 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Could also be that confidence increases chances of a yes irregardless of looks

[–]Ispirationless 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, but confidence is, in my opinion, multiplicative non additive. Which roughly means that if your physical appearance is shit it’s not going to do much.

I also believe that people can’t suddenly become a different version of themselves. I tried for months and I simply couldn’t keep up the facade.

In the end you are either born and conditioned during your earlier years to behave one way, or you are kinda stuck with what you have.

[–]Ohyarlysmiles[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You should try reading the entire study.

[–]Acceptable_Option_731 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Jeez dude, I don’t think these guys can read.

[–]MrUnknownorNobody 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Yes, most probably

[–]Carkudo 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What makes that probable? From a statistical point of view, you're arguing that two predictors that are known to significantly affect the dependent variable "probably" have no interaction. That seems like a pretty unlikely scenario, but feel free to provide your sources that show it's actually more common than the opposite.

[–]MrUnknownorNobody 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You are delusional if you don't think that healthy confidence, good game, good posture/body language/ talking abilities doesn't impact the mating chances of men in the normie range.

[–]Carkudo 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As someone who went from shy socially anxious boy to a confident man capable of running his own business in a field that relies on networking and maintaining good relationships over all else, I have a very good perspective on how such a personality change did not affect my attractiveness to women.

But that's just my personal anecdote. The problem remains - two predictors known to affect the target variable, you're saying they "probably" don't interact. What makes that probable?

[–]Ohyarlysmiles[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You should try actually reading the entire study.

[–]Carkudo 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why? I read the methodology section and saw it doesn't control for phyiscal attractiveness. This renders the rest of the paper entirely uninteresting.

[–]Ohyarlysmiles[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Cool, then you don't understand despite reading the entire study why your argument is undercut by the other 2 studies. Dope.

[–]bilberberbers 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

most probably

This subreddit is for scientific discussion. Statements on probability require corresponding sources.

Please refrain from making religious or ideological statements about probability. Thanks.

[–]Carkudo 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Could be. The point is that the OP study is useless for arguing either of those points.

[–]Ohyarlysmiles[S] 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Based on assuming the target groups differed in mean attractiveness and then assuming attractiveness was uncontrolled for, yes. Try reading the entire study.

[–]Carkudo 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I have absolutely no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean, and I'm sure neither do you.

[–]Ohyarlysmiles[S] 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Try not to afflict me with your intellectual deficits. Read the entire study and you will understand why this objection holds no water. Or hey, maybe read some of my other comments in this thread. Reading. It's really great.

[–]Carkudo 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No, I'm not reading the whole thing just to find your argument for you.

My point is that the study doesn't control for participants' attractiveness and is thus useless. That's written in the methodology section. You want to refute something - make your case. But I'm sure that as usual, you cannot.

[–]Ohyarlysmiles1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I made my argument in this very thread as well. But hey you're a busy guy, who has time to actually know what they're talking about? Not you.

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry Comfortable_Solid621, your submission has been removed from BlackPillScience because your account is new.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]PopeOfAtheists1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

irregardless

[–]TemperateSloth 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So if the study isn’t designed around your pre-existing belief that physical attraction is everything, it’s totally useless? I’m on this sub too bro, but you should still keep an open mind.

[–]Dustin_Bromain -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Figures

[–]edwin_6264 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What’s the tldr?

[–]YaBoiMarcuss1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"just be confident bro"

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter