That happens with most women and handsome men, but not all men. A better question is how can men shape up their looks so that it can happen to them. E.g. clothes, muscles, also demeanour, behavior etc.
However attractive, well dressed, confidant you are, you still need to know how to actually approach someone.
A problem is that any attempt to improve attractiveness will lead some people to declare that you are evil or otherwise defective. Its not just PUA stuff, this is far more general: if a guy lifts, that makes him a ‘dickhead’ according to members of my peer group, while a woman not shaving her armpits makes her strong & empowered (does a man not shaving his face make him empowered?). Conversely, some people believe that not taking care of your appearance makes you a slob.
Then there’s the problem that confidence is key. You need to be 110% confident of everything you say, and to truly believe this, you need to internalise it. The problem is then that it spills over into other aspects of life, and you become very badly credence calibrated, potentially leading to serious mistakes because you can’t admit that you might be wrong. When you are in a group containing more than one ‘alpha male’ it becomes impossible to get anything done, even something as simple as choosing a pub to go to, because one alpha male decides to go to one pub, the other decides to go to a different pub, and because they are alpha, they don’t ask anyone else what they want, and so everyone ends up at a different pub.
In fact, its possible that LW rationality is training people to have bad social skills. “How to change your mind” might just be how to look like a weak-willed person who won’t stick to their guns, or if you change your mind about politics, it makes you a traitor.
But if you have too little confidence, you can get stuck in a loop where:
low confidence → little romantic success → low confidence → little romantic success …
Its not just PUA stuff, this is far more general: if a guy lifts, that makes him a ‘dickhead’ according to members of my peer group,
I suggest that you need a better peer group. I don’t know what your options are—this might be worth discussing—but the time you’re spending with your current peer group is time that isn’t available for spending with a better bunch of people.
Actually, I moved away from them a few years ago for various reasons (not feeling on the same wavelength, wanting there to be more to life than alcohol & drugs...), so I don’t spend that much time with them, although there are a few of them I want to stay in contact with, friends who see me as practically family.
I still refer to them as my peer group, because I haven’t really made a new friendship group that lasted. I haven’t really had a social life for over a year, and its quite tranquil in a way. I was starting to get stuck in cycles of social anxiety and I hope this solitude has broken the cycle and given me time to think objectively. For instance, I’ve realised just how many people were attracted to me, but I was not aware of at the time due to a lack of social/romantic confidence and an inability to pick up on any even remotely subtle hint.
When I next move to a new city, I’m going to meet people who have similar interests—for instance at a boardgames club has worked well in the past. And I’m going to display the same level of social confidence as the intellectual confidence I already have, because vicious cycles can run backwards too.
A problem is that any attempt to improve attractiveness will lead some people to declare that you are evil or otherwise defective.
Screw them.
In fact, its possible that LW rationality is training people to have bad social skills. “How to change your mind” might just be how to look like a weak-willed person who won’t stick to their guns, or if you change your mind about politics, it makes you a traitor.
To whom? Screw them.
You can’t please everyone and trying to is a waste of far more than just time.
You worry about that all-important status when you fear losing it.
Want to win? Then focus on winning, not on not-losing. You need to if you want to be seen as high-status, anyway. Fear of loss is low-status, so is worrying about what others think.
Navigate the minefield, sure. But do it from a position of strength, not of weakness.
Of course. There are two relevant terms that I learned in another language, one way to translate them would be to “seek success” or “avoid failure”. Seeking success is pursuing your dream job, avoiding failure is fearing you will not be able to pay bills so accepting any job. Seeking success is far better, but if you are not blessed with sky high testosterone and are thus timid and not driven, you cannot really do much more than avoiding failure. It is not exactly a choice you can make, it is more about what you are. Of course you can try to slowly change what you are i.e. work on developing courage. Wanting to win is in itself a keyword used by the success oriented, who believe they can be / can do better than others. The failure-avoidant want to not prove worse than others, and thus seek to lose, not win. It takes a really lot of working on courage to go from one to another and it is not clear what methods develop this kind of courage best.
Maybe this (courage or self-confidence methods) would deserve a top level.
Its not just PUA stuff, this is far more general: if a guy lifts, that makes him a ‘dickhead’ according to members of my peer group, while a woman not shaving her armpits makes her strong & empowered
If I was young again, I would probably try to hang with either multiple different peer groups or none at (I was terrible at it anyway). But these guys sound like a very bad influence for anyone trying to improve dating skills. I also find it really surprising how they are using media language. “Strong and empowered” is a magazine headline. It is media-talk, almost like advertisement-talk, only one step less artificial than politician-talk. 20 years ago in my peer group anything that sounded like a magazine headline was repeated only ironically / cynically. Or even 10 years ago. Anyone remembers “the coalition of the willing?” Yeah, no normal person ever repeated that without a sneer. And now I see young people talk like popular magazine headlines. Weird. Where is the bravely contrarian counter-signalling? :)
Hypothesis: the lack of cynicism in today’s young is due to much of their social life being done on Facebook and other social media, and in this type of medium it is a common, easy and obvious thing to do to share articles.
I don’t think in 1990 anyone brought me a printed paper mag and asked me to read this article. A handful of times, when it was something truly revolutionary and special, but anything even remotely mainstream not. We did not share our media consumption much. I may have been reading the same heavy metal mag as others, but we rarely discusessed it beyond “Seen that interview with Megadeth?” “Yeah, badass.”
It is through article sharing and shared, communal media consumption how the Facebook generation lost its cynicism against official media headline ideas.
Are younger people less cynical? I honestly don’t know, and I’m curious about your evidence.
My impression is that used to be a lot less debunking around, not that all of the debunking is accurate, either. Who’s reading all those “7 Things You’re Entirely Wrong About” articles from Cracked?
My impression is that used to be a lot less debunking around, not that all of the debunking is accurate, either. Who’s reading all those “7 Things You’re Entirely Wrong About” articles from Cracked?
I understand I am dangerously close to a fully general argument now :) But I think there is a lot of debunking going on because the default stance seems to be to believe the mainstream media, and I think 20 years ago the default stance was to be skeptical about it.
How to put it… I would be really surprised if a friend of mine offered a debunking of the abs trainer sold in TV shop because we are not supposed to believe it at all, that is not the default stance… “everybody” understands it is mainly about scamming suckers. And roughly the same about the media in general.
this is far more general: if a guy lifts, that makes him a ‘dickhead’ according to members of my peer group, while a woman not shaving her armpits makes her strong & empowered
A problem is that any attempt to improve attractiveness will lead some people to declare that you are evil or otherwise defective. Its not just PUA stuff, this is far more general: if a guy lifts, that makes him a ‘dickhead’ according to members of my peer group.
#NotAllPeerGroups.
Seriously, though, I feel for you being in a peer group which could be better at encouraging fellow men while still respecting women, rather than hitting some failure mode because of signaling. I know you wrote only some* people will declare you evil or otherwise defective, but I don’t see a reason not to leave them behind, all else equal. John Salvatier is a man I’m acquainted with, a member of this peer group who writes about improving attractiveness (not just sexual attractiveness, but general attractiveness based on fashion. He doesn’t seem the sort who anyone I know accuses of being evil or otherwise defective. He hangs out on r/malefashionadvice, which seems to have an air of being more about becoming “a gentleman” rather than a “pick-up artist”. Whether it’s women or other men who are calling each other ‘dickheads’, I think we can find better peer groups which engender habits of expressing a desire for self-improvement better, and peer groups which won’t punish individuals when desires are expressed.
In fact, its possible that LW rationality is training people to have bad social skills. “How to change your mind” might just be how to look like a weak-willed person who won’t stick to their guns, or if you change your mind about politics, it makes you a traitor.
I agree that’s very possible. It’s an unfortunate trade-off for bad credence calibration. I’m not sure it’s a trade-off worth undoing, though.
*I’m inferring from your comment you’re a man, but pardon me if I’m assuming too much.
I don’t necessarily think that social confidence and credence should be conflated to the extent that a few replies in this thread of posts have conflated them by use of the word “confidence” to refer to both concepts. It is possible to have confident body language, be an active participant in conversations, and even call others out on their overconfidence while still being a well-calibrated individual.
I think the underlying reason for “improving attractiveness is evil” is largely a mixture of egalitarianism and a disconnect from reality. The idea is:
‘I want to believe that everyone is attractive, therefore anyone who tries to become more attractive is evil. Do they think they’re better than us?’
Now, admittedly, if attractiveness is a purely positional good, then this would make sense. But I don’t think this is the case.
Similarly, I’ve heard the idea that universities giving female students advice on personal safety is evil, because in a perfect world no-one would commit violent crime. The fact that we don’t live in a perfect world does not seem to have occurred to them.
I don’t see a reason not to leave them behind, all else equal.
To a large extent I already have, moving away from them a few years ago. Not that I don’t enjoy their company, but they are rather entropic people.
A second possibility is simply adopting a strong mental attitude of independence. Since reading about cogsci and how the mind automatically accepts everything it hears without making a concious effort to question its veracity, I’ve begun consciously marking opinions I hear as “someone else’s opinion”.
I think we can find better peer groups which engender habits of expressing a desire for self-improvement better, and peer groups which won’t punish individuals when desires are expressed.
Well, this is strongly characteristic of LW. I have attended a meetup where we did assertiveness training, which I would think is far more helpful than advice about ‘just be yourself’.
I wonder what other ways there are to find more positive peer groups? Offline, I have found martial arts people (or, other sports people) are a good start. Online, I wonder if other groups similar to LW have organised meatspace meetups—I used to lurk around many H+ organisations, but not for a while.
I looked at r/malefashionadvice, and it seems a little too ‘what is in this season’. I’d rather have clothes that are timeless, rather then having to reappraise my wardrobe every year. Still, I think this:
becoming “a gentleman” rather than a “pick-up artist”
Seems a good idea.
It’s an unfortunate trade-off for bad credence calibration. I’m not sure it’s a trade-off worth undoing, though.
People have raised the possibility of doublethink wrt this sort of thing—simultaneously believing something with absolute certainty for the sake of social confidence or psychosomatic effects, while also having accurate, calibrated beliefs where necessary. I wonder if anyone has actually got that to work.
becoming “a gentleman” rather than a “pick-up artist”
Seems a good idea.
Be careful. A lot of common missteps in personal presentation, especially in geek communities, come from failed attempts to look gentlemanly; the “m’lady” stereotype of Reddit fame is an extreme example, of course, but the rabbit hole goes a lot deeper. I’m only casually familiar with r/malefashionadvice, but I recall its house style being described somewhere as “dressing like a grownup”, which seems like a better objective to start with.
Apparently the problem is that the “m’lady” stereotype is wearing a fedora with a t-shirt, is overweight and is just essentially low-status. A gentleman wearing a suit with some confidence is a different matter.
Now I want to know how to dress as a badass gentleman...
Sure, that’s the stereotype. But the problem is actually that the signaling model is wrong. Our stereotype wants to associate himself with some concept, so he throws on an item that he associates with that concept: a pinstripe fedora if he likes Thirties mobsters, let’s say, or a leather trench if he’s seen The Matrix one too many times. It’s out of context, it clashes, and the outfit ends up looking worse than the sum of its parts (and being overweight and poorly groomed never helps).
The principle is easy to state: clothes should work in context, including the context of your body. But the point is that those cues are not obvious. There’s a whole visual language that needs to be learned before you can reliably present yourself as e.g. gentlemanly, and keeping a laser focus on whatever stereotype you feel like projecting actually isn’t the most efficient way to get there. Better to start with the basics.
I think how to “dress for success” differs radically between different subcultures. In some you want to look like you stepped out of a fashion ad, in others it’s all about worn jeans and tshirts, in yet others fake fur and el-wire rule...
I wonder, in these circles, do women find a bushy beard attractive? Or do they not have a choice of partner? Or do they make a choice based on some other criteria?
Then there’s the problem that confidence is key. You need to be 110% confident of everything you say, and to truly believe this, you need to internalise it.
The average 16 year old doesn’t have high self confidence. That doesn’t mean that he won’t get laid.
It does. When I try to remember my high school class, finding a girlfriend was by far the hardest problem most boys faced. About 75% suffered from this problem. Getting into a university or not flunking the coming test on the natural logarithm or whatever other challenges we faced, they were easier.
It is sort of hard to tell exactly why. Lack of confidence was surely part of the story, but on a more broader sense, relationships are something adults have and we were stuck in half-childhood.
The guys who managed to find a GF looked and acted like young adults already at 16. Part of it is biological—some of them were already shaving daily even though they weren’t even 18. Puberty ran its full course on them, testosterone working fully. But even the guys who didn’t, and yet were able to find girlfriends, they had this adult demeanor already. For example and uncle could ask them to help in repairing a car and they would approach it like an adult, cautiously, competently and efficiently. Now the guys who were unable to find a GF approached it like a child. Mamaaaah I don’t want this I want to go back to playing videogames, well I guess if I have to do it I will half-ass the tools with one hand and play on the Nintendo with the other, maybe they’ll let me go then, that kind of attitude.
Growing up is seriously hard when people lack the kind of challenges that would make them, and this is why it is extremely hard for many young men to get laid.
Mamaaaah I don’t want this I want to go back to playing videogames
The person who spends their time playing video games instead of going to parties where people get drunk is less likely to be hookup even if he’s confident.
I think in general ‘it just happens’, which generally means alcohol.
That happens with most women and handsome men, but not all men. A better question is how can men shape up their looks so that it can happen to them. E.g. clothes, muscles, also demeanour, behavior etc.
However attractive, well dressed, confidant you are, you still need to know how to actually approach someone.
A problem is that any attempt to improve attractiveness will lead some people to declare that you are evil or otherwise defective. Its not just PUA stuff, this is far more general: if a guy lifts, that makes him a ‘dickhead’ according to members of my peer group, while a woman not shaving her armpits makes her strong & empowered (does a man not shaving his face make him empowered?). Conversely, some people believe that not taking care of your appearance makes you a slob.
Then there’s the problem that confidence is key. You need to be 110% confident of everything you say, and to truly believe this, you need to internalise it. The problem is then that it spills over into other aspects of life, and you become very badly credence calibrated, potentially leading to serious mistakes because you can’t admit that you might be wrong. When you are in a group containing more than one ‘alpha male’ it becomes impossible to get anything done, even something as simple as choosing a pub to go to, because one alpha male decides to go to one pub, the other decides to go to a different pub, and because they are alpha, they don’t ask anyone else what they want, and so everyone ends up at a different pub.
In fact, its possible that LW rationality is training people to have bad social skills. “How to change your mind” might just be how to look like a weak-willed person who won’t stick to their guns, or if you change your mind about politics, it makes you a traitor.
But if you have too little confidence, you can get stuck in a loop where:
low confidence → little romantic success → low confidence → little romantic success …
I suggest that you need a better peer group. I don’t know what your options are—this might be worth discussing—but the time you’re spending with your current peer group is time that isn’t available for spending with a better bunch of people.
Thanks for your advice.
Boring personal details:
Actually, I moved away from them a few years ago for various reasons (not feeling on the same wavelength, wanting there to be more to life than alcohol & drugs...), so I don’t spend that much time with them, although there are a few of them I want to stay in contact with, friends who see me as practically family.
I still refer to them as my peer group, because I haven’t really made a new friendship group that lasted. I haven’t really had a social life for over a year, and its quite tranquil in a way. I was starting to get stuck in cycles of social anxiety and I hope this solitude has broken the cycle and given me time to think objectively. For instance, I’ve realised just how many people were attracted to me, but I was not aware of at the time due to a lack of social/romantic confidence and an inability to pick up on any even remotely subtle hint.
When I next move to a new city, I’m going to meet people who have similar interests—for instance at a boardgames club has worked well in the past. And I’m going to display the same level of social confidence as the intellectual confidence I already have, because vicious cycles can run backwards too.
Screw them.
To whom? Screw them.
You can’t please everyone and trying to is a waste of far more than just time.
Yes, but it is pissing against the wind of a huge part of human biology where status withing the tribe is all-important. Don’t expect this to be easy.
You worry about that all-important status when you fear losing it.
Want to win? Then focus on winning, not on not-losing. You need to if you want to be seen as high-status, anyway. Fear of loss is low-status, so is worrying about what others think.
Navigate the minefield, sure. But do it from a position of strength, not of weakness.
Of course. There are two relevant terms that I learned in another language, one way to translate them would be to “seek success” or “avoid failure”. Seeking success is pursuing your dream job, avoiding failure is fearing you will not be able to pay bills so accepting any job. Seeking success is far better, but if you are not blessed with sky high testosterone and are thus timid and not driven, you cannot really do much more than avoiding failure. It is not exactly a choice you can make, it is more about what you are. Of course you can try to slowly change what you are i.e. work on developing courage. Wanting to win is in itself a keyword used by the success oriented, who believe they can be / can do better than others. The failure-avoidant want to not prove worse than others, and thus seek to lose, not win. It takes a really lot of working on courage to go from one to another and it is not clear what methods develop this kind of courage best.
Maybe this (courage or self-confidence methods) would deserve a top level.
I applaud this attitude, and I think the first step should be for people to get enough self-confidence to say “screw them”!
Where will the self-confidence come from? I prefer the Nike slogan: “Just do it.”
If I was young again, I would probably try to hang with either multiple different peer groups or none at (I was terrible at it anyway). But these guys sound like a very bad influence for anyone trying to improve dating skills. I also find it really surprising how they are using media language. “Strong and empowered” is a magazine headline. It is media-talk, almost like advertisement-talk, only one step less artificial than politician-talk. 20 years ago in my peer group anything that sounded like a magazine headline was repeated only ironically / cynically. Or even 10 years ago. Anyone remembers “the coalition of the willing?” Yeah, no normal person ever repeated that without a sneer. And now I see young people talk like popular magazine headlines. Weird. Where is the bravely contrarian counter-signalling? :)
I’m not sure anyone actually verbally said “Strong and empowered”, this would have been in a clickbait article someone shared on facebook.
… and then I became enlightened.
Hypothesis: the lack of cynicism in today’s young is due to much of their social life being done on Facebook and other social media, and in this type of medium it is a common, easy and obvious thing to do to share articles.
I don’t think in 1990 anyone brought me a printed paper mag and asked me to read this article. A handful of times, when it was something truly revolutionary and special, but anything even remotely mainstream not. We did not share our media consumption much. I may have been reading the same heavy metal mag as others, but we rarely discusessed it beyond “Seen that interview with Megadeth?” “Yeah, badass.”
It is through article sharing and shared, communal media consumption how the Facebook generation lost its cynicism against official media headline ideas.
Are younger people less cynical? I honestly don’t know, and I’m curious about your evidence.
My impression is that used to be a lot less debunking around, not that all of the debunking is accurate, either. Who’s reading all those “7 Things You’re Entirely Wrong About” articles from Cracked?
I understand I am dangerously close to a fully general argument now :) But I think there is a lot of debunking going on because the default stance seems to be to believe the mainstream media, and I think 20 years ago the default stance was to be skeptical about it.
How to put it… I would be really surprised if a friend of mine offered a debunking of the abs trainer sold in TV shop because we are not supposed to believe it at all, that is not the default stance… “everybody” understands it is mainly about scamming suckers. And roughly the same about the media in general.
You need a better peer group.
#NotAllPeerGroups.
Seriously, though, I feel for you being in a peer group which could be better at encouraging fellow men while still respecting women, rather than hitting some failure mode because of signaling. I know you wrote only some* people will declare you evil or otherwise defective, but I don’t see a reason not to leave them behind, all else equal. John Salvatier is a man I’m acquainted with, a member of this peer group who writes about improving attractiveness (not just sexual attractiveness, but general attractiveness based on fashion. He doesn’t seem the sort who anyone I know accuses of being evil or otherwise defective. He hangs out on r/malefashionadvice, which seems to have an air of being more about becoming “a gentleman” rather than a “pick-up artist”. Whether it’s women or other men who are calling each other ‘dickheads’, I think we can find better peer groups which engender habits of expressing a desire for self-improvement better, and peer groups which won’t punish individuals when desires are expressed.
I agree that’s very possible. It’s an unfortunate trade-off for bad credence calibration. I’m not sure it’s a trade-off worth undoing, though.
*I’m inferring from your comment you’re a man, but pardon me if I’m assuming too much.
I don’t necessarily think that social confidence and credence should be conflated to the extent that a few replies in this thread of posts have conflated them by use of the word “confidence” to refer to both concepts. It is possible to have confident body language, be an active participant in conversations, and even call others out on their overconfidence while still being a well-calibrated individual.
I think the underlying reason for “improving attractiveness is evil” is largely a mixture of egalitarianism and a disconnect from reality. The idea is:
‘I want to believe that everyone is attractive, therefore anyone who tries to become more attractive is evil. Do they think they’re better than us?’
Now, admittedly, if attractiveness is a purely positional good, then this would make sense. But I don’t think this is the case.
Similarly, I’ve heard the idea that universities giving female students advice on personal safety is evil, because in a perfect world no-one would commit violent crime. The fact that we don’t live in a perfect world does not seem to have occurred to them.
To a large extent I already have, moving away from them a few years ago. Not that I don’t enjoy their company, but they are rather entropic people.
A second possibility is simply adopting a strong mental attitude of independence. Since reading about cogsci and how the mind automatically accepts everything it hears without making a concious effort to question its veracity, I’ve begun consciously marking opinions I hear as “someone else’s opinion”.
Well, this is strongly characteristic of LW. I have attended a meetup where we did assertiveness training, which I would think is far more helpful than advice about ‘just be yourself’.
I wonder what other ways there are to find more positive peer groups? Offline, I have found martial arts people (or, other sports people) are a good start. Online, I wonder if other groups similar to LW have organised meatspace meetups—I used to lurk around many H+ organisations, but not for a while.
I looked at r/malefashionadvice, and it seems a little too ‘what is in this season’. I’d rather have clothes that are timeless, rather then having to reappraise my wardrobe every year. Still, I think this:
Seems a good idea.
People have raised the possibility of doublethink wrt this sort of thing—simultaneously believing something with absolute certainty for the sake of social confidence or psychosomatic effects, while also having accurate, calibrated beliefs where necessary. I wonder if anyone has actually got that to work.
Be careful. A lot of common missteps in personal presentation, especially in geek communities, come from failed attempts to look gentlemanly; the “m’lady” stereotype of Reddit fame is an extreme example, of course, but the rabbit hole goes a lot deeper. I’m only casually familiar with r/malefashionadvice, but I recall its house style being described somewhere as “dressing like a grownup”, which seems like a better objective to start with.
(Failed attempts to look badass are even worse.)
Apparently the problem is that the “m’lady” stereotype is wearing a fedora with a t-shirt, is overweight and is just essentially low-status. A gentleman wearing a suit with some confidence is a different matter.
Now I want to know how to dress as a badass gentleman...
Sure, that’s the stereotype. But the problem is actually that the signaling model is wrong. Our stereotype wants to associate himself with some concept, so he throws on an item that he associates with that concept: a pinstripe fedora if he likes Thirties mobsters, let’s say, or a leather trench if he’s seen The Matrix one too many times. It’s out of context, it clashes, and the outfit ends up looking worse than the sum of its parts (and being overweight and poorly groomed never helps).
The principle is easy to state: clothes should work in context, including the context of your body. But the point is that those cues are not obvious. There’s a whole visual language that needs to be learned before you can reliably present yourself as e.g. gentlemanly, and keeping a laser focus on whatever stereotype you feel like projecting actually isn’t the most efficient way to get there. Better to start with the basics.
I think how to “dress for success” differs radically between different subcultures. In some you want to look like you stepped out of a fashion ad, in others it’s all about worn jeans and tshirts, in yet others fake fur and el-wire rule...
It’s also mugging the competition :-D
In certain circles it does—“there’s a word for people without a beard: women”, etc.
I wonder, in these circles, do women find a bushy beard attractive? Or do they not have a choice of partner? Or do they make a choice based on some other criteria?
The average 16 year old doesn’t have high self confidence. That doesn’t mean that he won’t get laid.
It does. When I try to remember my high school class, finding a girlfriend was by far the hardest problem most boys faced. About 75% suffered from this problem. Getting into a university or not flunking the coming test on the natural logarithm or whatever other challenges we faced, they were easier.
It is sort of hard to tell exactly why. Lack of confidence was surely part of the story, but on a more broader sense, relationships are something adults have and we were stuck in half-childhood.
The guys who managed to find a GF looked and acted like young adults already at 16. Part of it is biological—some of them were already shaving daily even though they weren’t even 18. Puberty ran its full course on them, testosterone working fully. But even the guys who didn’t, and yet were able to find girlfriends, they had this adult demeanor already. For example and uncle could ask them to help in repairing a car and they would approach it like an adult, cautiously, competently and efficiently. Now the guys who were unable to find a GF approached it like a child. Mamaaaah I don’t want this I want to go back to playing videogames, well I guess if I have to do it I will half-ass the tools with one hand and play on the Nintendo with the other, maybe they’ll let me go then, that kind of attitude.
Growing up is seriously hard when people lack the kind of challenges that would make them, and this is why it is extremely hard for many young men to get laid.
The person who spends their time playing video games instead of going to parties where people get drunk is less likely to be hookup even if he’s confident.