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

Study: Mindfulness found to be better predictor of Attractiveness than Physical Appearance

trafficon87
March 17, 2019
7 upvotes
/r/BlackPillScience
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 Study: Mindfulness found to be better predictor of Attractiveness than Physical Appearance
Author

trafficon87
Upvotes 7
Comments 23
Date March 17, 2019 7:05 PM UTC
(7 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/BlackPillScience
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/b28nsq/study_mindfulness_found_to_be_better_predictor_of/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/BlackPillScience/study-mindfulness-found-to-be-better-predictor-of.222349
https://theredarchive.com/post/222349
Top posts by trafficon87

Social Dominance, not physical attractiveness predicts male mating success in primates

67 upvotes
August 18, 2019
/r/BlackPillScience

Study: Be relaxed. Women prefer "chill" guys.

61 upvotes
March 17, 2019
/r/BlackPillScience

Confidence and Self-Esteem predicts attractiveness in males

57 upvotes
July 24, 2019
/r/BlackPillScience

Physical Attractiveness and the “Nice Guy Paradox”: Do Nice Guys Really Finish Last?

35 upvotes
August 18, 2019
/r/BlackPillScience

Testosterone levels correlate with the number of children in human males, but the direction of the relationship depends on paternal education

27 upvotes
March 18, 2019
/r/BlackPillScience

Personality Matters? Big Five Traits Related to Short-Term Mating: From Personality to Promiscuity across 46 Nations

8 upvotes
March 17, 2019
/r/BlackPillScience

Change my view: women dont like NSA sex. They only want relationships.

0 upvotes
February 28, 2019
/r/askTRP

Social Dominance, not physical attractiveness predicts male mating success in primates

0 upvotes
August 18, 2019
/r/BlackPillScience

Comments

[–]bcat12416 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

2 problems here :

  • the title is a lie. The research sought the effect of mindfulness beyond physical appearance, as in they do acknowledge that research found attractiveness to be a key predictor, and seek any other predictors after correcting for physical attractiveness. Nowhere do they put the two side by side.

  • All the data was collected from the self-reported answers of the participants with no follow up study to see if anything came of it. JUST FUCKING LOL. literally noting down femoid virtue signalling and calling it data. I'll let ylou lurk this sub and read all the plethora of research that shows women's ACTUAL preferences are so far apart from their stated preferences.

Delete this giga-low IQ meme of a research paper, and ur lying ass cliclbait title.

[–]trafficon87[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'll let ylou lurk this sub and read all the plethora of research that shows women's ACTUAL preferences are so far apart from their stated preferences.

Also, I know all about this

Let's take another thing into consideration.. have you ever considered that perhaps women don't have infinite options? I'll give you an example in the opposite sex. A guy is asked for his 'stated preference.' He says "I want an amazingly beautiful blond with sexy hips big eyes and a smile that lights up the room." But that man only has a SMV of 6/10, so the girls that he actually wants likely won't go for him. So the women he actually dates? They're Meh.

Now let's look at the female equivilant. A woman says she wants a guy with a good job, is handsome, is nice, respected in the community, but she only has a SMV of 4/10. So while she does want that, in reality she dates Tyrone the crack-selling thug because that's the best she can do.

Does that potentially add a confounding factor to these statistics and difference between the men they actually date and who they say they want to date? Does it mean the man and woman are necessarily lying?

[–]trafficon87[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

the title is a lie. The research sought the effect of mindfulness

beyond

physical appearance, as in they do acknowledge that research found attractiveness to be a key predictor, and seek any other predictors

after

correcting for physical attractiveness. Nowhere do they put the two side by side.

Yes they do. They directly compare the two in the paper. https://imgur.com/lq1kvYV

It says it right here:

dispositional mindfulness predicted initial romantic attraction, beyond the effects of physical attractiveness in a speed-dating setting. This hypothesis was partially supported. High female physical attractiveness predicted higher male attraction, but female mind- fulness did not reliably predict male attraction beyond the effects of physical attractiveness. Male physical attractiveness did not reliably predict female attraction, but higher male mindfulness predicted higher female attraction beyond the effects of physical attractiveness.

In other words, "Mindfulness outpredicted attraction more than (beyond) Physical Appearance." It says it in plain english. But your bias blindspot made you misread that. Let this be a lesson.

Using this screenshot in a lecture on Conf Bias.

[–]bcat1242 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You didn't reply to my second comment, which by itself cancels the conclusion of this research, since it solely relied on women's stated preferences with no follow up with their actual preferences and real life behaviors.

Proof that this whole paper with its faulty methodology belongs to the trash is that, in your excerpt, it says that male physical attraction did not predict female attraction, which is in clear contradiction with the very abstract where the paper acknowledges that much research before it confirms that male physical attractiveness is actually a very reliable predictor for female attraction.

How about you screenshot this comment too, faggot.

[–]trafficon87[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Speed dating isn't 'stated preference'... you actually date the people you choose. This isn't some 'what do you think is attractive' questionaire. They find which guys were actually chosen to continue communication, and then run analytics off this. But it's interesting the anger that comes from the cognitive dissonance when peoples confirmation bias are threatened. So yes, definitely screenshotting.

[–]Carkudo0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The bolded statement is self-contradictory and would have gotten ghis paper rejected had it gond through actual peer review.

[–]trafficon87[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

gond through actual peer review.

What are you talking about dude? This study was published in Personality and Individual Differences which is definitely a peer-reviewed journal. It's published by Elsevier. Everything published by Elsevier is peer-reviewed

[–]Carkudo0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, and since the peer review failed to stop a paper with such a glaring (and likely willfully inserted) error from getting published it necessarily means that the peer review process is either compromised or not conducted at all.

Seriously, dude, this is going beyond black pill versus blue pill and gender ideologies. This is an issue of basic academic integrity. This paper is compromised, and by extension so is the whole journal it is published in.

[–]trafficon87[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Ahhhhh, the beauty of confirmation bias. Thank you for helping me win a bet. But I was just telling a friend "I'm going to post this thread on BlackPill subreddit... and since it disconfirms their views, let's see how long before someone comes in finding nonexistant flaws that they would have never found if it was a paper supporting their views"

Thank you sir, you just made me 50 bucks.

[–]bcat1244 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

How the fuck is relying solely on self reported preferences after a fuckin speed dating session with no consequences after the session a "non-existant flaw" you smug piece of shit ?? Especially after all the research that shows, again and again and again, that women's stated preferences are far apart from their actual preferences and real life behaviors??

You're the one ignoring a major methodological flaw and ignoring other research posted in this sub to keep your "women are wonderful" effect going.

[–]trafficon87[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

fuckin speed dating session with no consequences after the session a "non-existant flaw" you smug piece of shit

Also that's quite interesting considering that the top most upvoted thread in this entire sub is a speed dating experiment saying that 'personality doesnt matter'.. but i'm sure you have no issues with that since they fit your confrmation already.

[–]bcat1242 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If you took the time to read it, it was after TEN speed dating sessions, and the participants were real life adults that had PAID to be there, they were seriously looking for a life partner and there was a follow up after each session.

In this experiment however, they were undergraduate students that were told beforehand that this was a research on psychology (they were not seriously looking for a life partner, probably had to do this as part of their curriculum), and there was only one session with no follow up.

When you put the two side by side, it is crystal clear why the results are different, and which one is more accurate. You are the one suffering from cognitive bias.

[–]trafficon87[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

When you put the two side by side, it is crystal clear why the results are different, and which one is more accurate.

and I'm not even joking or trying to be mean, you're literally an idiot if you believe that. They were asked which guys they found attractive, then ran the correlations on the personality test and found mindfulness to be a predictor. They weren't asked 'do you find mindful guys attractive,' you dumb little cuck.

And I do agree that looks matter. They just don't matter as much as personality. And most of the reason that looks matter so much is the amount that your personality shines through your body language (confidence, etc)

lrn2science

[–]trafficon87[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

PAID to be there

your mom was paid to be there
you know.. when you were conceived

[–]trafficon87[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why are you so angry sir? Shall I call a therapist?

Having girl trouble, perhaps? I know, they can be so mean right.

[–]MundaneLine7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What do they wanna say by mindfulness ?

[–]trafficon87[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

repeat that? i don't understand.

They explain in this summary article:

https://www.businessinsider.com/mindful-men-are-more-attractive-to-women-2015-11

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

TL;DR Cope.

[–]trafficon87[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What? They were found to be more attractive.

[–]Redchad004 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Self reported JFL

I have a 12 inch cock

[–]BluBlaDe0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Close to the truth.

When you do meditation all the time you easily gain female interest. They all look at you thinking " Who is this guy?"

Since you carry yourself completely stress free and without any care as if nothing could faze you.

This is how Aaron Sleazy became one of the world best seducers.

[–]trafficon87[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is how Aaron Sleazy became one of the world best seducers.

Do you have a link or more info describing his journey?

[–]trafficon87[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I just looked at one of his books... LOL:

"You cannot reasonably expect more than ten percent of the women you approach to be interested in you. If you have sex with five girls a year, you are doing fine. If you get ten girls a year, you are outstanding by normal standards."

This is one of the world best seducers? I literally have friends who walk up to whatever hot girl they see, and take them home within 15 or 20 minutes. It's pretty much a 96% success rate. "10 girls a year" .. i literally have friends that pull that in a week. This guy's advice is solid, but he is NOT a master seducer by any stretch.

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