>robots seriously believe that women are more shallow tha

>>34933943
>http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/do-looks-really-matter-yes-and-209451

nigga i aint clickin that shit

>>34934014
Just google 'Do looks matter'

>>34933943
Believing biased studies with people from specific regions can represent a demographic accurately.
>psychology
Kek.

>>34933943
Fake news. Next!

>>34934082
I know a lot of psychology studies are flawed, but some of them are totally legit. Also, it makes sense. Robots always complain about how women are shallow, but the truth is that most robots (myself included) are pretty shallow themselves. I've rejected a lot of women in my life who aren't even that unattractive, and I'm sure a lot of robots have too.

>implying that wanting a man with status/money/power is any less shallow than wanting a woman who is physically attractive

If anything this shows women are more shallow because they want the things the man provides rather than the man himself. At least with looks it's still about the person.

All these bullshit studies are always talking about normies. They don't really apply to somebody who is on the very edge of the attractive spectrum.

>>34934181
Not really. Liking somebody merely for how attractive they are is just as shallow as liking somebody only because of their status, wealth, or power.

>>34934181

Sorry what?

1. Prioritising something a man can achieve rather than something a man is born with is less shallow.

2. It's also the better alternative, unless you're Chad Thundercock.

>>34934181

If women want me for my wealth I might have a chance. If they want me for my looks I'm fucked.

>>34934253
>>34934261

Sorry friendos, liking an actual quality about a person themselves is far less shallow than simply liking the wealth and status they can provide for you.

>>34934318
No, it's really not. People have no control over their attractiveness, and there is so much more to people than their looks. Most people have aspirations, ambitions, beliefs, hobbies and many other qualities which shape who they are as a person. Looks are only one part of a person. Also, if somebody, regardless of their gender, was friends with you just because they thought you were attractive, wouldn't you think they were pretty shallow?

>>34934420
>if somebody, regardless of their gender, was friends with you just because they thought you were attractive, wouldn't you think they were pretty shallow?

Not as shallow as if they were only friends with me because I bought them things and they got status and access to things they wanted vicariously through me. I'd just consider that person a degenerate leech and want nothing to do with them.

>>34934499
Well I think we can agree that liking somebody just for their looks and liking somebody just because of their wealth/status are both pretty shallow.

>>34934420
>People have no control over their attractiveness
thats just flat out wrong, fatty.

and frankly, socio-economic status of a person is STRONLY correlated with socio-economic status of that persons parents, so dont fucking tell me that status and wealth are something a man (or woman) has 100% control over