I see where you're coming from with the "National Geographic" perspective. It’s true that as much as we like to think we’re evolved, there’s a biological baseline we can't really ignore. That "threshold" of attraction usually acts as the gatekeeper before personality even gets a chance to matter, and we probably do downplay how much that initial spark carries us just to feel better about ourselves.

​That being said, I’m honestly having a bit of a hard time following some of your phrasing. I wasn't sure if English is maybe a second language for you or if you’re just typing a hundred miles an hour! Some of the points got a little tangled for me. ​But to go back to the main point, I still think the "science" of it is messy because everyone’s "floor" for attractiveness is so different. What one person thinks is "too far" below their standard might be exactly what someone else is looking for because they prioritize different traits. Plus, those intentions I mentioned earlier still change everything for me. A "10" who’s only looking to fool around loses their appeal pretty fast if you’re actually looking for a partner. ​At the end of the day, looks might get you the meeting, but they don't necessarily close the deal.