~ archived since 2018 ~

Is there any difference between SMV and consensus on attractiveness?

AshleyYakeley · 2014-01-27T05:22:03+00:00

Some people are more attractive to you than others. Furthermore, there is a considerable degree of consensus within your culture/subculture/social scene about...

AshleyYakeley

January 27, 2014

2 upvotes

/r/PurplePillDebate

Archived from /r/PurplePillDebate

r/PurplePillDebate is a neutral community to discuss sex and gender issues, specifically those pertaining to /r/TheBluePill and /r/TheRedPill.

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

/r/PurplePillDebate 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

Post Information

Title	Is there any difference between SMV and consensus on attractiveness?
Author	AshleyYakeley
Upvotes	2
Comments	26
Date	January 27, 2014 5:22 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1w99lr/is_there_any_difference_between_smv_and_consensus/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/is-there-any-difference-between-smv-and-consensus.286308 https://theredarchive.com/post/286308

Comments

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AshleyYakeleyFlying Purple Pill Debater[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AerobusThe Red Pill is Truth0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]AshleyYakeleyFlying Purple Pill Debater[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]AshleyYakeleyFlying Purple Pill Debater[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMuRP0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]AshleyYakeleyFlying Purple Pill Debater[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AshleyYakeleyFlying Purple Pill Debater[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMuRP0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]myfriendscantknowAgent Orangered (BP Man)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SigmaMuRP0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shw3nn 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I'm really just trying to figure out why TBP objects to it.

First, I am NOT saying TRP is a cult. If you want to object that TRP is not a cult, reread what I wrote first.

My objection to "SMV" is identical to my objection to "hamstering" and "HB#" and "alpha/beta". We already have a robust language that allows us to discuss all of this shit clearly, in detail...in accurate, attentive detail.

So why create a new vocabulary to talk about this topic?

Because it constricts thought. We think in language. Words are the tools of thought. If I take 1000 tools from you and replace them with only 20, you will make a much shittier bench than you did before.

If I encourage you to describe a person and most of their behavior as either alpha or beta, you will actually stop having elegant thoughts about people's behaviors. You might think it is because you have finally seen the light and you now understand that behaviors truly fall under one of these two categories but that isn't the case. You actually just stopped thinking well.

And your friends describe other people generally as alpha or beta or white knight or what have you so you stop really knowing what the people around you are saying. You will start just having cartoonish ideas in your head when your friends talk about other people.

That is why cults do it. Check out the Loading the Language section here.

It was a huge part of the basic mind control propaganda techniques in 1984 where it was called "newspeak".

What attracts us to other people is a highly complex and rich subject that is impossible to really relate to other people. There is no way to convince somebody you understand it if you don't first shut down their ability to think in a complex way.

[–]AshleyYakeleyFlying Purple Pill Debater[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]shw3nn 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AshleyYakeleyFlying Purple Pill Debater[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]shw3nn 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I am saying that calling it "SMV" or "attractive" do an equal job of implying this.

Being attractive means that your chances of hooking up with any given person is greater than the chance a less attractive person has of hooking up with any given person.

The fact that this, in turn, means that people who are themselves more attractive are now more available to you is a consequence of the fact that all manner of people are more available to you when you are more attractive than are available to you when you are less attractive. That is the meaning of the word.

See, it is such an obvious, dead simple idea that I am amazed that we are having such a long conversation about it. Maybe that is the purpose of this vocabulary. You take a completley obvious dead simple idea and try to make it seem like you came up with it.

Whaveter it is, I find it annoying.

[–]AshleyYakeleyFlying Purple Pill Debater[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I am saying that calling it "SMV" or "attractive" do an equal job of implying this.

Implying, consequentially, yes.

Being attractive means that your chances of hooking up with any given person is greater than the chance a less attractive person has of hooking up with any given person.

Yes.

The fact that this, in turn, means that people who are themselves more attractive are now more available to you is a consequence of the fact that all manner of people are more available to you when you are more attractive than are available to you when you are less attractive.

Yes.

That is the meaning of the word.

No. It's a consequence of being attractive. It's not the definition of attractive. Being attractive has a number of consequences; in the context of dating, this is one of them. "SMV" helps to focus on that particular consequence.

[–]shw3nn 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link