There are some things that are generally attractive, like lifting. In general, for most people, if you lift weights, you'll be hotter.

There are other things that are mostly about compatibility. For instance, if you're a neat freak, you want to date someone else who's neat; if you dream of being a stay-at-home parent, you want to date someone successful; if you're a little bit of a scaredy cat, you want to date someone who'll help you get out of your shell; if board games are your favorite thing in the world, you want to date someone who'll get out the Settlers of Catan set with you.

As an advice sub, of course TRP emphasizes the first set, because "some people like neat freaks and some people don't" doesn't provide any actionable advice.

However, I think for most people compatibility-traits are much more important than general-attractive-traits in LTR selection. (For STRs, general-attractive-traits are more important.) A woman who's a 6 on general attractiveness may only be able to get a 6 man, but if he's a neat high-openness board game geek who wants her to stay home with the kids, she'll probably be really happy in the relationship-- far more so than she would be with an 8 who's messy low-openness hiker who believes that women should work outside the home. (And vice versa, of course, for a messy career woman hiker.)

I think this harms TRP's analysis in several ways. First, they use SMV models, despite their limited applicability (i.e. people may prefer 6s over 8s in many circumstances). Second, several core TRP concepts (the alpha widow, the Chad) depend on women primarily caring about general-attractiveness-traits. Third, it seems to cause men to either deemphasize compatibility-traits in their own partner selection, or to universalize them without evidence into general-attractiveness-traits.