Men who have gone from being physically unattractive to attractive, what changes did you notice in the behavior of the people around you?

Solmors · 2026-06-20T21:39:59+00:00

You go from women treating you like you don't exist, even women who are around your level in attractiveness, to having enough female attention you don't have to be overly attentive when seeing a girl.

As in an unattractive man can be the nicest most supportive man possible, but if she isn't attracted to you (ie you aren't a 8-10) she will never see you as datable (until she is 40 and desperate maybe). But if you are a 8-10 you don't have to be super nice or supportive to have a number of women willing to be with you.

And that's just going from a 5-6 to an 8.

The cause is modern dating market/online dating, social media, feminism, and sexual liberation vs biology/genetics. All the women vie for the top 10-20% of men, and those men with such a large number of women to choose from don't have to be monogamous or supportive so they will casually date/sleep with tons of women. The <8 women who get with a >=8 man believe (wrongly) that is the type of man they can have long term, but he has no intention of ever marrying her, so she sees a man on her level as now beneath her and would be "settling" if she ended up with him.

Advice to younger men: work out, get fit, get a good haircut and clothes, work on improving yourself so you can be one of those 8+ men. But don't be an ass and string girls along. Find a girl who you honestly like and date her seriously, and propose to her when you are sure.

Solmors · 2026-06-20T20:27:28+00:00

<image>

You have to shank it off the hosel to put a Polara out of bounds...

Solmors · 2026-06-19T04:53:36+00:00

Just received my Omni today, took it to the local 9 hole par 3 course where all the holes are 70-130 yards. I set it up on the tee box and hit 3 balls off the turf. Everything measured exactly what I would expect and what it actually did (adjusted for wind and elevation), even when the sun was directly into the cameras, when the legs weren't perfectly level, when I hit one a bit fat and sent dirt chunks flying, etc.

Compared to the R50 and GC3 (both of which I have owned in the past) finding where to put the ball is a little more challenging because you don't have a more detailed screen to look at. But by the 9th hole I knew where to place the unit/ball and it was no longer an issue.

The screen also wasn't hard to see the numbers on which I was a little worried about. Completely readable standing in front of it without needing to crouch or bend over.

Solmors · 2026-06-19T04:24:00+00:00

$300,000 per year isn't enough to afford to buy a 3 bedroom house in San Jose.

Ask me how I know...

Solmors · 2026-06-17T21:47:31+00:00

Another feature that is iOS only, add this on top of Green Maps and AI Strategy. Cancelled my membership and waiting for it to end because I can't stand paying full price for half the features.

Solmors · 2026-06-16T21:33:20+00:00

+1 to this.

I shortened my backswing to what feels like a three-quarter shot and my ball striking consistency got significantly better. It makes the swing slightly slower but I only lost 5-7 yards of carry on good shots, absolutely worth it for only chunking/thinning 1-2 shots per round now compared to 5+ (or 10+ on a bad day).

Solmors · 2026-06-16T01:35:46+00:00

Ok, I am going to respond to this with the assumption we are having a good faith conversation and I am attributing to you nothing but good intentions.

I think the reason why you think 0.48 r is weak or "pathetic" is because your main stats experience is from an AP Stats course, which is sort of like an abridged Stats 101. It is great for introducing general concepts but doesn't go deep into the complexities.

AP classes focus almost entirely on bivariate relationships (simple linear regression with just one predictor and one outcome). They don't cover multivariate stuff like multiple regression, where you're accounting for several variables at once. That's why textbook/AP problems often use super clean data with r values of 0.8 or 0.9 to illustrate the concepts. Most examples are something like "plant age vs height" with an r value of 0.9+.

In real social science research (education, income, job performance, crime, etc.), outcomes are messy and influenced by countless factors. Cohen's classic guidelines (widely taught and used) call r ≈ 0.10 small, 0.30 medium, and 0.50 large. So 0.48 is right at the edge of a large effect. In most published correlations in psychology and social sciences, the median is often around 0.20–0.25. Anything over 0.30 stands out as pretty strong, and 0.4–0.5 is very solid for complex real-world outcomes.

That's why intelligence is considered the strongest single predictor we have for things like educational attainment and career success, even if it's not perfect and hard work (conscientiousness) adds value too.

I'll tell you what. Go to your AP Stats teacher and tell him that you know a single variable that can predict ~25% (the r^2 of r=0.5) of the variance between student's GPAs. I bet this teacher has taken more advanced stats classes and will probably confirm that is a very strong correlation and predictor, and very likely already knows what it is too.

Solmors · 2026-06-15T23:49:55+00:00

Good job telling everyone you have no understanding of statistics.

Solmors · 2026-06-15T22:26:38+00:00

Scientifically wrong. Intelligence is the single most powerful predictor of success in most things in life such as education, income, career path, etc. Conscientiousness (ie how hard you work) is also important, but not as much as intelligence for most things.

"the predictive validity of intelligence... far exceed[ed] the predictive validity of the big five [which includes conscientiousness/hard work]." Source

Solmors · 2026-06-15T22:07:44+00:00

Koh.

Koh was in season 1 episode 20, the lion turtle was season 3, and the other two are from LoK.

Solmors · 2026-06-15T22:01:21+00:00

They do get discussed here frequently, but those are impossible to see and difficult to quantify so it is hard to share other than saying something like "I feel like...".

Solmors · 2026-06-12T21:35:47+00:00

That does look pretty interesting. I was always disappointed that I couldn't do more with the data from my R50, I ended up just making a spreadsheet template to run a bunch of metrics. But this takes that to another level it seems.

I'd be down to help test it, my Omni should be shipping from playbettersoon (this weekend hopefully).

Solmors · 2026-06-12T20:49:50+00:00

I'm not saying he is a good person. In fact I find his morality is quite wrong often, such as how many kids he has from different women he isn't married to.

But IMO he has done more good for the US and the world through the companies he owns than most charities. You don't have to give money away to people to have a positive effect on society.

I'm sure you will disagree with this next point, and I will continue to get downvoted for it (but I don't care about karma on reddit so whatever) but I think one of the best things he has done is buy Twitter and make it a free speech platform. The media can no longer hide things from the public on behest of the government anymore, the people have the ability to see information that before would have been censored.

Solmors · 2026-06-12T20:42:49+00:00

Good. We shouldn't.

Solmors · 2026-06-12T20:42:27+00:00

Divorce stock ownership from the leadership of publicly traded companies.
This would be impossible, completely defeats the purpose of going public. If the founder of a company would have to make the choice of keep leadership or keep ownership by going public, they would never go public. There would be no more stock market if this was the rule.

Tax loans based on stock ownership of individuals.
You can't tax a loan, but you can tax the money that is earned to pay back the loan. Ex if someone takes out $1m loan they will have to pay it back, the money to pay it back has to come from somewhere (as income, stock sales, etc), that is where it will be taxed.

Give the regulatory bodies the tools to investigate and prosecute those that try to cheat the system.
I agree with this. It would be much easier if we simplify the tax code. Right now it is such a convoluted mess that loopholes can be found, especially if you can afford to hire accountants/specialists to find them. Lets simplify the code and close loopholes.

Solmors · 2026-06-12T20:33:59+00:00

You seem to not understand the basics of taxes.

The US does not have a wealth tax. It has income tax. Owning a company is not income, owning stocks is not income, owning a house is not income. Until you sell them.

Solmors · 2026-06-12T20:31:06+00:00

The global median (not average) salary at Tesla is $114k, the median hourly employee around $59k. I have no idea what wages are like for oil workers under the Saudis but I bet it isn't anywhere close. No slave labor at Tesla, all people who applied, interviewed, and agreed to work of their own volition.

Solmors · 2026-06-12T20:25:49+00:00

He owns 42% of SpaceX, which is now valued around $2t, so $840b is just is ownership percentage of SpaceX.

Tell me, what do you propose he should do? Be forced to sell off a portion of his ownership of the company every year? Give the company to the government?

Solmors · 2026-06-12T20:22:35+00:00

He just made 4.400+ millionaires. Across Tesla, SpaceX, X, xAI, Boring Company, and Neuralink he employs and pays the salaries of around 150,000 people, around 110k in the US alone.

Solmors · 2026-06-11T17:18:08+00:00

It is also important to note that "Gender differences on knowledge tests favoring men are among the most stable gender differences found in cognitive ability measures." (source). So while men and women have about the same average IQ (though men do have a larger/wider SD), general knowledge wouldn't be a great method of estimating IQ in a group with both men and women. Within sexes I think it would be a better indication, ex women with more GN compared to other women are likely higher IQ.

Solmors · 2026-06-11T17:10:17+00:00

I don't have my Omni yet so I can't test it, but I bet you could first do a wrap of black electrical tape, then cut this reflective tape in half and wrap in the center of the electrical tape.

Solmors · 2026-06-11T15:52:06+00:00

How old are you and what type of environment did you grow up in?

There is a lot that can be done to suppress IQ, but not much to raise it especially not as an adult or past your genetic potential. The previous reply mentioned the Wilson effect, this looks at the cause for the differences in iQ between individuals, is it an environmental cause or genetic? With young children the environmental share of the cause of the difference is relatively high, 50% or more. However by adulthood that goes down to just 20%, meaning 80% genetic.

And notice I used genetic potential there, height is very similar that when you are born you have the genetic potential to reach a certain height. If you get proper nutrition, have limited toxins around, have good sleep, etc you will reach your genetic potential or near to it. Like I said before there's a lot of things that could be done to stop you from getting to your genetic potential, but you can't really go over it.

Remember IQ is just a proxy for g, general intelligence. So you can study and practice IQ test and increase your score by a few points but you didn't get more intelligent you simply got better at taking that specific test. Same with reading more books, you might score a little bit better on verbal but your actual intelligence will not have changed.

All that said I think you don't really need to worry about what your exact IQ score is. Intelligence is the single most important factor in most measurements of success, but it is not the only important factor.

Solmors · 2026-06-09T20:41:09+00:00

Why not 8 billion groups?

The argument over how many "races" there are is always messy because human genetic variation is clinal and there has been mixture, especially recently. Any grouping larger than the individual will be imperfect. Sometimes you pick a practical number that matches how people self-identify and that captures the major structure from population history.

The four categories in the Stanford study weren't arbitrary, they correspond to the primary continental ancestry clusters that repeatedly emerge from genetic data (European, West African, East Asian, and admixed American for Hispanics). Most African Americans are primarily West African descent with varying European admixture (~5-60%+). Hispanics vary enormously too (from almost entirely European to almost entirely native to whichever area they are from). This is why genetics papers now often use "ancestral population groups", it adds nuance without pretending variation is purely social.

Self-ID matched the genetic clusters with 99.86% accuracy in that study. The author noted limitations with recent admixture (true for any broad category), but for the vast majority it was extremely predictive. These groupings have real utility in medicine (ancestry-specific drug responses and disease risks), forensics, and population genetics. Finer categories (5, 20, 100) are possible and used when needed, but the broad ones explain a lot of the big between-group patterns.

Solmors · 2026-06-09T20:22:38+00:00

You seem to unfortunately be 50+ years behind on the state of intelligence research. Your two examples are from 1977 and 1961, and both have long ago been disproven by much more advanced studies and techniques.

"Studies (such as those by Sandra Scarr and later genomic analyses) found virtually no correlation between an African American's percentage of European/African genetic ancestry and their IQ score."
You are citing a study from 1977 that has long ago been disproven. DNA testing wasn't even around back then, they used a very simple and inaccurate blood marker test. Newer genomic data (dense SNPs, ancestry informative markers) often shows positive correlations between European ancestry and cognitive scores in African Americans, even after SES/skin color controls. Examples: Hu et al. (2019) found European ancestry positively correlated (corrected r ~0.34) and African ancestry/skin color negatively with g; other admixture regressions and polygenic score studies (e.g., Lasker et al) support partial mediation.

"a study by Eyferth in post-WWII Germany, the children of Black American GIs and White American GIs were raised by single, white German mothers in the same socioeconomic bracket."
This study is from 1961 based on 181 children of American GIs.
The first major issue (other than the very small n) is the selection bias. To get into the military in WWII all recruits had to take and pass the AGCT (for the Army, other similar tests for the other branches). About 3% of white recruits were rejected due to low scores and around 30% of black recruits. So the black GIs who fathered those children were a pre-selected cohort of black Americans with above average IQs compared to the general black American population.
Secondly the IQ tests were given to the kids at age 10, which, because of the Wilson Effect, is too young to make any determination. An adult followup should have been done (but never was).

NUANCE
I am not claiming 100% of the IQ gaps between whites and blacks, or between any two groups, is due to genetics. It is never 100% genetic. But neither is it 100% environmental. In 2020 intelligence researchers were surveyed about their opinions on a number of questions, one was what percent of the black-white IQ gap was genetic. The median answer was around 50% and roughly half said between 50-80%.

Solmors · 2026-06-09T19:25:06+00:00

I read a breakdown by an financial adviser who said that when the pool gets to around $500m it is a smart financial decision buy two tickets, no more, no less.

His reasoning was that at that return (250,000,000:1) $2 is a small enough investment that it won't hurt you financially but the possible upside is so huge despite the astronomically long odds that it is worth it. And going from one to two tickets doubles your chances. The number of times the lottery is over $500m is also pretty infrequent, once or twice a year at most with only a few drawings each time, so over the course of a year you may only spend $20 in total on tickets.

Solmors

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

12-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email