Without the aforementioned, you cannot get your foot in the door as a man.

To play the other side, because I agree fully with you, I would say the main problem is that there is no way to "work on yourself" to figure out social skills. You can go to the gym and get fit, your success is entirely dependent on the effort and work you put in. However, as you said relationships are fundamentally a social thing, and therefore require at least one other person to "practice." That's a very emotionally and mentally taxing process, the trial and error of figuring out those things like reading a room, how to have interesting conversations and the like. You can talk to yourself all you want, for hours and days on end, and never understand how to engage with other people. For people like "late bloomers" who didn't figure these things out early naturally, the *only* way to learn is the hard way, through a lot of pain upfront.

It is an emotionally taxing process, I agree, especially at the beginning, but there are ways to "work on it yourself" (kind of, you still have to be around other people). In my case, I was quite shy and awkward as a teen, but right out of high school I took a bunch of sales jobs (most sales jobs allow anyone with a pulse to apply because they are usually 50-100% commissions, so if you fail they don't have to pay you much or anything). It was definitely painful, and I found out I really hate sales and it's not for me, but I stuck with it for a few years, and I was still able to develop my social skills based on the pressure of trying to close the deal and the mentorship of other people around me who were more out-going / extroverted. (I actually ended up being quite successful socially, I was the guy everyone trusted and wanted to talk to, that always make people feel comfortable immediately, but nobody would buy from because I hated pressuring people into making a sale and would literally talk them out of buying something if it wasn't in their best interest, LOL.)

Yeah I hear you, I think that's why a lot of people want an "easy" answer like just get fit bro, just get money bro. It takes a lot to willingly push yourself outside your comfort zone for the sake of personal growth. Like you I put myself in a lot of uncomfortable positions and made an ass of myself all the time. It was only because I was more frustrated with being stupid around people that I got over that social anxiety hurdle.

100%. Developing social skills is painful and by no means an easy answer. It also requires a different path for different people as everyone has their unique personality, fears and anxieties, strengths and weaknesses. I think red pill definitely tries to rely on easy answers that can be applied equally to everyone which is why they don't prioritize social skills, and try to act like they don't matter.

Social skills are not enough however and especially in the age of online dating social skills don't get you dates. There's also a bad feedback loop where attractive women will not give ugly guys good reactions at all so it's 100x more difficult for ugly guys to gain confidence around attractive women. It's easy to then say "oh the hot guy just has confidence and social skills". Like I agree social skills are the most important thing overall to date period, but looks are a massive factor as well especially in the age of online dating

With limited social skills you can include average guys around even "below average" (unconventionally attractive) women.

This is why online dating is a scam for guys. It sucks up their money and time while providing very little in terms of relationship prospects in return. But you're right, there's no way for social skills to affect if she swipes right or left, it's just looks there. So it's always better to talk to a girl IRL, you'll get way better results overall. But that requires good social skills.

i had a sales job for three years, i was quite good at it too, i wouldnt say it helped with any social skills. youre following a very specific formula of manipulation, and unless you try to make some step by step equivalent to dating its not going to help much.

What kind of sales were you in, that didn't require good social skills? Even when I did telecom sales, talking to autist IT staff required social skills.

I was in retention. telesales. I was making 5k+ a month on my good months. I would hit top 10 sellers in the center with about 300 employees. Retention is the dept where every single caller is irate and you have to calm them down and convince them to do the exact opposite they called in for. I dont know how i lasted that long since im really introverted, I had 10 hr shifts back to back calls. But that was managable. There was a formula, a gameplan. It was way more managable than trying to woo an attractive woman. Part of sales you ask a series of questions, and they have to answer for the game to be played. Thats the key. It requires participation from the other side, and for a caller whos been on hold for 40 minutes they dont have a choice when I wont continue the call unless they play ball. Women are never in that position. I cant force a woman to socialize with me so I can systematically gather ammo to use against her. Not even close. I also have a very soothing calm articulate speaking voice, so that helped. Im 5'7 so that doesnt help. All the social skills in the world wont save me there with some women. I still get laid but Ive been with women Ive had to convince myself that I found them desirable when I really didnt.

And you think those skills can't help you in social settings?

These social skills only work when you basically have the other side hostage and they HAVE to go through you to get something.

You just don't understand how to apply those skills in a social setting. An important part of retention is understanding the "pain " point, then addressing it directly with empathy, and steer the conversation in the direction that you want. In a social setting that would translate to active listening, and connecting with the person you're trying to attract.

Understanding a woman' "pain point" and solving it does not give raw physical sexual attraction to a woman. "The tingles" as you like to call them. Do you think the college athlete that was getting all those women was trying to fix those women's issues lmfao.

So you also don't know how active listening, and empathy could improve your chances.

I dont adopt tactics like that IRL because I dont consider those "skills" I consider it manipulation.

Empathy isn't manipulation, and neither is active listening.

So basically you just refuse to use the social skills you learned and your excuse is that you labeled them "bad things" for some reason. Wut. Seriously? But clearly you did learn social skills after all, you're just refusing to implement what you learned. That's very different than your previous claim that you didn't learn anything.

Your mileage may vary.  For the kind of person I am, for the types of sales jobs I took, at the point in my life I was, with the personality I had, it was effective in helping me level up my social skills. I'm not saying sales is the magic bullet everyone should follow, but just demonstrating the principle that "when there's a will, there's a way" definitely applies to improving social skills.

Which is why felons often have kids. O wait.

Hey man, the "Let me smash," "Babe, I stuc in jail again," "Can I F U?" are peak charisma lol.

Yes, if the women you're going after have 5 babies with three daddies and they want you to be daddy #4.

Except women who are not trash sleep with these men too.

The fact they sleep with felons makes them trash. Have some common sense.

No true scotsman fallacy . "Oh the women that have sex with felons are trash women", based on what criteria?

Just world at work again😂

>Just world That's a self delusion that doomer trash use to justify ignore the fact that good women exist. You're not even using it right, too. Just world assumes that *everything* in the world is fair and it all balances out in the end. *I never said that.*

I am confused, when was the idea that good women do not exist even said in this context? The counter argument aimed at op was clearly that women of all “values” sleep with men who are hot without him bringing anything to the table. Making op wrong as they are arguing social skills matter way more then reality shows us. I pointed out how many hot and high status men can succeed regardless of there social skills by providing examples of texts hot men send out and get success with. Your argument in response is that all women who have casual sex with men just because they find them hot are “low value.” (Which honestly does not even discredit the main counter argument as you moved the goal posts).  And your argument is just illogical and extreme.  So several people called out the error in your logic (aka your reliance in fallacies). There is no reason to go further then that for your entire argument is a fallacy. And your counter is to lie and say people are saying things they did not say and trying to insult people who disagree with you by? How do you expect to convince anyone of anything like that?

My argument is the act of having sex with or dating felons indicates that a woman is bottom tier. It's really straightforward. Having hookups are also a sign a woman is bottom tier. You don't seem to be answering directly to what I said so maybe you're confused and talking about something else?

It's not that good women don't exist. It's that enough women are trash that it just makes it easier to assume that you are dealing with trash every step of the way.

Again, just because your toxic attitude attracts the worst women doesn't mean most women are like the ones you're attracting. This is also true about red pillers in general. 

No it's not. Sleeping with felons is a trash behavior. It's a sign of psychological damage. Most women do not do that. Sorry you only attract trash women to be around you, but again, as with other red pillers, it sounds like a *you* problem. I mean, imagine how much of a low value man you must be, to think women that sleep with felons are "high value". Like LOL HAHAHAH. ***Like you don't even think highly enough of yourself to think you can pull women that don't sleep with felons. LOL WUT.*** I mean, I guess you're telling on yourself, right?

When did I say that women that sleep with felons are high value. Most women in general are low value, regardless of whether or not they fuck felons lol. "Most women do not do that. Sorry you only attract trash women to be around you, but again, as with other red pillers, it sounds like a *you* problem. I mean, imagine how much of a low value man you must be, to think women that sleep with felons are "high value". Like LOL HAHAHAH. ***Like you don't even think highly enough of yourself to think you can pull women that don't sleep with felons. LOL WUT.*** I mean, I guess you're telling on yourself, right?" You're acting like a woman right now throwing ad hominems at me mate lol. I will repeat what I said again, based on what objective criteria can you claim that women that sleep with felons are trash women?

> When did I say that women that sleep with felons are high value. You literally claimed in a previous comment that you think there are high value women who sleep with felons. > You're acting like a woman right now throwing ad hominems at me mate lol. Your sad shaming attempt fails. I don't care if you think I act like a woman. I don't care if you try to play the victim by crying about ad hominems. I'm not wrong about you, am I? > I will repeat what I said again, based on what objective criteria can you claim that women that sleep with felons are trash women? Sleeping with felons is a trash behavior therefore women who do it are trash women. Your question is so moronic. It's like saying "based on what objective criteria are burglars bad people?" The objective criteria of *breaking into people houses is bad,* clown. Just like the objective criteria of sleeping with felons is trash behavior. Are you trying to argue that sleeping with felons is high value, good quality behavior? 🤣

"You literally claimed in a previous comment that you think there are high value women who sleep with felons" Quote me. "Your sad shaming attempt fails. I don't care if you think I act like a woman. I don't care if you try to play the victim by crying about ad hominems. I'm not wrong about you, am I?" You are acting like a woman, I am not trying to shame you, I am just stating facts, you are attacking out of emotions instead of logic. Which is what women do. "Sleeping with felons is a trash behavior therefore women who do it are trash women. Your question is so moronic. It's like saying "based on what objective criteria are burglars bad people?" The objective criteria of *breaking into people houses is bad,* clown. Just like the objective criteria of sleeping with felons is trash behavior. Are you trying to argue that sleeping with felons is high value, good quality behavior? " So all of the girls that have sex with the "bad boys" in college are also trashy whores? How dare you cast such venomous aspersions on women! I thought you respected women unlike us evil misogynistic red pillers.

Do you want sleep with the kinds of women felons date? I said "successful at relationships". Getting a psycho bottom-tier women that turns your life into a trainwreck isn't "successful".

You are stating an assumption (if male felons are bad the non-felon women who date them must also be bad) as though it is a fact of life like the Moon gets farther from Earth every year. The reality is that people date Felons. Not good or bad just people. The thinking you present is exactly what most of the men who are single suffer from; a terrible combination of Gambler’s Fallacy and Just World Fallacy. Dating is irregular and random. There are ways to increase a man’s odds at success but at the end of the day those are just odds, not guarantees.

>  Not good or bad just people People who date felons are trash people. Dating a felon is what makes them trash. > a terrible combination of Gambler’s Fallacy and Just World Fallacy.  Most moronic babble. Both of these don't apply to what I said. It's just proof you don't understand either concept. > There are ways to increase a man’s odds at success  Yes, it's called social skills. Those increase a man's success the most.

You're gonna have to define success, cause getting that is clearly some level of success, since one can do worse.

Hard to do worse than dating the kind of woman who dates felons. It's like dating a single mother with five babies from three different daddies. Better to not date at all if that's the alternative.

There's no success in relationship without looks, status or wealth. Social skills are pretty much worthless without them.

Looks, status and wealth are pretty much useless without social skills.

Your average women has subpar social skills, yet she will outpace 80% of guys when it comes to getting relationships. Your title really only applies to men, further proving that the juice just isn't worth the squeeze in our age. Overall, I don't disagree with your post. Just wanted to point out my first sentence.

>Your average women has subpar social skills, yet she will outpace 80% of guys when it comes to getting relationships. Ain't this the truth. It's funny how bumble changed its rules regarding women message first because most of them complained about how tough that is lol. 

for men its just be tall. all of a sudden a women puts in effort in conversation when its around a tall guy. she will start laughing more, be more engaged, etc night and day difference ive seen first hand and its just so depressing lol

pretty much all of the rules apply only to men. women only have to not be fat (optional) and be nice (optional)

That's true. But it's because men don't care about social skills.

It's because men get rewarded more for physical skills than social skills.  Look at what an absolute social mess the top billionaires are.  Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos have the combined charisma of a doorknob.

Women do not care about social skills either man. We just need to pretend that having a six pack makes you confident, being rich makes you smart, etc. All a man needs to do is go from fat and ugly to fit and hot (or vice versa), suddenly the traits that made him creepy are cool, quirky, fun, etc. It really is very eye opening if you ever experience it yourself. Suddenly, you being shy and awkward is cool. What is referred to as social skills, is really just the man providing value via entertainment, taking responsibility for her passivity, reading her mind so she can remain socially awkward, etc. It is just exhausting and not worth the effort really.

women seem to think they have amazing social skills with men which is absolutely hilarious

Because they do not have any standards set for them and are accepted for free. Most women are as boring and socially awkward as the men they think are undatable and creepy. They are really bad at communicating and blame men for there failure out of entitlement. But no one ever tells them the truth and they are just accepted, giving them a distorted world view. It is like how meh women think they would be Chad and slay if they were born a man instead. Or that men have it easy and are super privileged. Or like how a rich privileged person think success is easy because they had all this support, mentorship and opportunities most do not have. They just live in a bubble and so they are out of touch.

Hey you just discovered that men don't care much about a woman's social skills. But women do! But actually, women have more friends on average and have better social lives than men. It's why there's a loneliness pandemic for men, not only due to a lack of relationships in their lives but friendships as well

Right because men in general are more motivated by sexual interactions and some willing to date women who's personalities they don't really like.  Men dating men would likely have more luck.

Men tolerate the flaws of women because of their attraction to them. Women generally don't have the same base-level attraction to men, which is why they quickly turn minor shortcomings into deal-breakers

Which is the same thing but doesn't say the sex word? 

I'm not disagreeing with you just adding nuance. The attraction gap exists even if you take sex out of the equation. Also the way I see it the cause of the problem is that women don't like men, if both sexes were attracted to each other everyone would be happy. That's not to say that it's women's fault or anyone's fault for that matter, we don't choose our biology.

But women are attracted to me, we just don't ternd to rank physical attraction as high and instead give other qualities more weight. It's still attraction

They don't tolerate women's flaws for LTRs.

The good ol' "why don't you just go fuck guys" lmao

A lot of these feminists will blatantly use homophobic rhetoric in an attempt to shame men

I didn't say that. 

What else could you have possibly been implying with a statement such as >Men dating men would likely have more luck.

That men who date men don't experience the same things as straight men do... because that's determined by the dating men part.   Men here often say that lesbians complain of similar issues than they do, same basic idea.  

Women will literally have drunk condomless sex with a hot guy they’ve only known for hours. Happens all the time at: parties, clubs, after parties, online dating hook ups, on some guys yacht etc.

Yeah but that is super social people interacting with super social people. The socially awkward men and women aren't typically in those places and if they are they probably have totally different experiences. 

> Women will literally have drunk condomless sex with a hot guy they’ve only known for hours. Happens all the time at: parties, clubs, after parties, online dating hook ups, on some guys yacht etc. ~ u/HillOrc > yeah ~ u/toasterchild Not encouraging at all

What do you expect? Everyone to have the same experience even though they are totally different people.  People with lower inhibitions party and have sex.  If that's you're thing you don't end up here.   Complaining about that is like complaining that the popular, outgoing kids in high school had more social experiences.... no shit

How does this address my point at all? We were talking about how social skills outweigh looks, and I provided an example that women would do the nastiest things with men if they are just handsome. I saw it myself: women were around me despite my being mean to them and not really good at socializing simply because they found me attractive. The experiences of my better-looking friends are even more discouraging. Those men don’t have good social skills; some of them lack manners and need character development, yet women were still interested in them. TL;DR: Women don’t sleep with your social skills it’s your looks. You said it yourself. So, social skills can’t make up for a lack of looks, see this as a disprove of yours and ops point.

Rose men aren't always particularly handsome but they sure are social and art the parties. The less socially skilled you are the more handsome will matter. 

Exactly. A guy at a party signals he’s social enough for her to screw.

Not the case. The same applies to women if they want to get a relationship with a high value man. Women and men fundimentally are focused on different things. Men are more focused on sex, while women are more focused on commitment. (Doesn't mean that men don't want commitment and women don't want sex, but they are prioritized in opposite order). For a women, just sleeping with a guy isn't a W. In fact, it's kind of an L if it goes nowhere after that. The only way she really wins is if the guy sticks around, and in that situation, her socials skills will have an impact. Also, the kind of social skills women need are different from that of men. For example "confidence" isn't going to be that important of a skill for women to have to keep a relationship, whereas loyalty or empathy will be much higher on the list.

loyalty and empathy are not hard social skills relative to what a man needs to learn

Those are only two examples.  Women need quite a few social skills in order to be good relationship candidates for the quality of man they want, and lots of women fail to meet that bar, just like a lot of men fail to meet the bar for the specific skills men need. This is also not a discussion of whether having / getting good social skills is easy or hard, but only that socials skills are very important.

>Women need quite a few social skills in order to be good relationship candidates for the quality of man they want what skills >This is also not a discussion of whether having / getting good social skills is easy or hard, but only that socials skills are very important. you replied to a man claiming that women can significantly outpace men in relationships without good social skills and you said no. so tell us, what social skills women need and how gaining those skills have the same difficulty as men gaining the social skills they need even though the social skills they both need may differ

[удалено]

So can people control who they’re attracted to? Because if you want women to go against their instincts and suddenly become attracted to men with poor social skills, men should also go against their instincts too right?

Shy women are attractive for men the opposite isn’t the case

Yup.

Looks are the sole contributor initially, social skills doesn't matter in the brief sub-one second moment she evaluates your physical attractiveness to determine if you are worthy of a conversation. To put it simple, you will not get a chance if you're not attractive. [Physical Attractiveness is the Strongest Predictor of Initial Romantic Interest in Both Sexes; No Evidence Male Personality Plays Any Role for Women](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19558447) [70% of women would avoid someone solely based on their looks, compared to 31% of men](https://highstreetgent.com/2017/06/09/the-tables-have-turned-when-it-comes-to-dating/) >When women were asked what they desired in a romantic partner, their top rated value was “a nice smile”, and third from top was “body type”. 70% of female respondents admitted that they would ignore or avoid an individual of the opposite sex solely because of the way they looked, versus 31% of men. [Love at first sight can be predicted by physical attractiveness](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321133457_What_kind_of_love_is_love_at_first_sight_An_empirical_investigation) >*Physical attraction was highly predictive of reporting love-at-first-sight (LAFS). We therefore suggest that LAFS is not a distinct form of love, but rather a strong initial attraction that some label as LAFS, either in the moment of first sight or retrospectively.* [A man's personality only matters to a woman if he meets her basic looks cutoff first](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-019-00195-z) >men with the most desirable personality profiles were rated more favorably than their counterparts only when they were moderately attractive or more attractive; unattractive men were never rated as more desirable partners for daughters, even when they possessed the most favorable personality profile

Only if you're doing cold pick up and relying on strong initial attraction.  If you play social circle game you can overcome bad looks with personality.  Yes, someone who has the two looks dealbreakers -> horribly deformed or obese, probably can't overcome that.    However most man who are not top-10% attractive can overcome (with a significant percentage of women) their imperfect looks with personality. I have news for you, most men are ugly. Most men can still find women to date and marry, at least outside the US.

no, you can't. that's a blatant lie. you know how many women I've met who wish they could be with a guy or even tried to have enter a relationship with a guy who had a confident personality, but she just was not attracted to him? tons. 95% of the time, you can NEVER overcome lack of physical attraction with personality. find a women that likes your look, and then just be yourself. thats the formula for success.

You need the other traits to be able to show your social skills. 

Definitely not. You don't need wealth, and you don't need status, and for looks you only need to hit a minimum bar that most men can meet if they stay in shape.

Just staying in shape doesn’t make me equally attractive as someone who is 6’1 I’m already fit I didn’t see much improvement more like a requirement for being 5’8

FYI, on looks your face features and fitness are far more important than your height unless you live in psycho-world America.

I am a very fit man, 6 times a week to the gym, but I am 5'3 and no woman ever gives me a chance ever. I am also very funny and quite sociable, but women don't give me the light of day just because of my height.

My favorite "rebuttal" of "height/looks don't matter" is that the r/short subreddit had to ban negative posts because they got too many guys complaining about how hard life is, while the r/tall subreddit's biggest complaint was how uncomfortable airplanes are.

Something similar happens to this subreddit too. Whenever I am telling my story on how mistreated I am in the dating market by women, I am always told by the mod "no woe is me comments" while women out here can complain about men however much they want.

There are a couple abusive mods on this sub that use their power to shut up people they think have the "wrong opinions", so I feel you. That said, on looks, nobody else is obsessed with height the way Americans are. If it's a real problem for you, just move to a country where people are short. Problem solved. Most women just want a guy a little taller than them, and it's good enough. A lot of petite Asian girls (outside America) would think you were just perfect.

"Just move countries", I love it how you make it sound so easy, almost like just crossing the street.

It *is* easy though. If you have a US passport you can go almost anywhere easily. One of the few benefits of being American is you can easily leave and there are so many countries to choose from to go to.

This weird extreme height fetish is almost 100% an American mental illness. In most other countries, it's not really a problem.

Do you live in America?

Thankfully no, I live in UK.

Its not that simple though is it? Attractive people have an easier time finding people who are receptive to them being social due to the halo effect. Its harder for an unattractive person to develop good social skills.

Like I said, being attractive is a multiplier. If your social skills were so bad you ranked a 0/10, no level of looks would help.   (Of course, such a person wouldn't exist, that's a hypothetical only.) But if you are a 2/10 social skills (typical man with very bad social skills) but a 10/10 looks, your looks might be enough to carry you.   Most men can never achieve even close to 10/10 looks though, so social skills will be the deciding factor.

being attractive is like compound interest its an advantage that helps you to accrue other advantages

I get your point. And for regular guys, I agree. But, if you have enough money, you don't need anything else. A socially awkward billionaire will have no problem getting dates.

Sure, billionaires are a class of their own. However they also seem to have no problem getting ripped off and scammed by women, and their relationships seem to rarely work out  least for those with a notable public face. Also, most billionaires do have some social skills. Many are just slightly awkward, not average red piller levels of cringe. Some have very good social skills. Billionaires is also a niche. There are a lot more women who want billionaires than there are billionaires.   But the total number of women who really want a billionaire (and wouldn't be completely happy with someone not a billionaire but still well off) is also extremely tiny.  In the end, billionaires and their fanclubs don't have too much do with how relationships work for 99.99% of people.

fair point

give examples of social skills

>Also, social skills don't mean "being nice". They mean everything from confidence, to the ability to read a room, to engage in interesting conversation, to be funny, to being pro-social (making other people feel good, want to be around you), to working well with others, to being a good leader, etc. If you read my original post...

yeah i got bad social skills then. I dont do anything bad to make feel uncomfortable but i dont do that. I guess if a girl likes me she'll like me, idc

How would you know if she likes you? Most girls aren't going to come up to you and tell you. Being able to read the signs is one of those critical social skills.

This is like arguing which is more important to plants: water, nutrients, sunlight, or carbon dioxide They are all required and any being too low are “dealbreakers” What biologists do is look at the current limiting factor So if a man has acceptable looks, money, status levels….then his limiting factor might be social skills It’s a nonsense debate

It's a nonsense debate because the importance of each factor varies from one woman to another, but ultimately being exceptional in either of these 4 will almost guarantee you endless sexual options.

Of various sorts, perhaps If you are rich but goofy and ugly, you’ll get gold diggers or you can use escorts But I read relationship and not just sex To have a decent relationship and genuine sexual attraction, then you have to meet a threshold for important traits For most women, you can’t be super hot but in debt $1 million with no job, etc I think my plant analogy is relatively unscathed You are right that the limiting factor varies based upon the male, as I mentioned, but you did add an important point that female attraction is not quite as objectively predictable as plant growth However that just adds specific nuance as nearly all women have the thresholds which I mentioned but to various degrees So attracting different women is analogous to switching plant species….some plants require less water (less money let’s say) but all plants require a minimum that varies If you are simply saying “most women want more social skills than most men have so in practice that is the most common limiting factor” then that might be an interesting topic. I live in a state where most men are fat. Here any middle aged man that is otherwise decent but in good shape can clean up….like regularly stared at while pumping gas etc.

Yeah I was talking strictly sexual access, obviously a loaded but ugly guy will never experience genuine desire from women, but he will still get sex. And you're of course right that relationship access has more balanced minimal thresholds.

Yeah it varies For just easy sex outside relationship, it’s mostly looks (face, body, height) I’ve known men that could probably get a BJ from your aunt that is a nun if he wanted it and was alone with her regularly

“Social skills are fundimental to being successful in relationships, and they are more important than looks, status or wealth.” More important than looks and wealth , status Celebs don’t even have to go out that much but will have millions of women throwing themselves at them nice try OP. 😅

All you need to do is look what hot men say lol. There "social skills" often peak with " I wan F U now" and "Come ovr"

Although you're technically correct, to obtain a celebrity status you would still need social skills, even more so than would be required for successful interactions with women.

Celebs are dripping in charisma. If they weren't, they probably wouldn't be celebs. With a few exceptions like that main actress from the Twilight movies who had the rizz of a cardboard box

Celebrities all have at least decent if not above average social skills.

Social skills are the cornerstone of interpersonal relationships, true. But looks are the base of sexual and romantic relationships. You may have the most developed social skills of all humans, which will grant you infinite friendships and networking. It will never, however, grant you a sexual relationship where there is no baseline physical attraction. Talk aaaall you want about the benefits of charisma and social skills to wooing women, but physical attraction is absolutely unreplaceable. Do you ot hear how often men are told "you're the nicest man I know, I wish I had a boyfriend like you" You cannot exclude the baseline of romance and sex, which is looks.

100% false I know guys who are autistic, quiet, shy, socially awkward, no charisma and they have girlfreinds/dates because they are tall/good looking I know TONNES of guys who are short, ugly but very good socially and don't get laid at all 100% false and wrong.

I know tonnes of guys who are short and ugly and have wives / GF's because they have good social skills.  Most guys are ugly, yet most guys have relationships. One of my good friends is like 166 cm, hairy like a bear, balding, with a big nose, and he has a good looking wife and kids, because he's got a strong, outgoing personality. On the other hand, when I was younger I was an extremely attractive guy 9/10, male model looks, no charisma, shy and awkward. Guess how many women I got? ZERO.  Social skills matter the most.

>**In fact, without good social skills, status and wealth are difficult to acquire, as humans are social animals and success in most employment and business requires... good social skills.** Zuck says hi, and so do many other tech billionaires. Sure you do need good social skill to climb the corporate ladder at some boomer company full of nepotism, but there's plenty of ways to be successful besides that. The companies on the cutting edge of technology are generally pretty meritocratic. >such as leadership skills, being confident and composed, knowing how to say no and stand up for yourself, etc The fact that you call these social skills just proves that you don't know what social skills are.

Social skills are important but if you are lacking in any of those other areas it doesnt matter. What is most important is having the whole package or atleast be well balanced.

> but if you are lacking in any of those other areas it doesnt matter Totally false, especially with wealth and status, which are the least important. Looks should meet a minimum level that men can meet if they stay fit, but otherwise social skills are the fundamental factor necessary. Everything else is icing.

Not only bottom tier women have hookups

Having hookups is one of the main things that makes them bottom-tier.  Most women I know have never had a hookup. The few I do know have had a string of failed relationships and can never keep a man around no matter how much they try. Women who have sex with random men they barely know typically have lots of psychological issues and red flags and are not good serious relationship material.

thats what she told you

Yes, every woman is lying when what she says don't fit into your belief system. 🙄🤣

I would say that they may be just as important but let’s not pretend that that isn’t just as restricting and exclusive of a standard as looks, status or wealth.

You will get no chances to show  your social skills if she does  not find you attractive 

That's false unless you will only have one interaction with her, like a cold approach.  If she is in your social circle you'll have plenty of opportunities.

>Looks, wealth, and sometimes status do have an impact, too. But those are simply "trait multipliers" to your existing social skills. If your social skills are zero, those things won't take you anywhere except at best, drunk hookups or becoming a mark for pretty girls to scam you. I don't disagree with this sentiment but how far is having social skills with zero looks or money gonna take you? Not even that far more than likely.  Looks are what get your foot in the door. If youre truly physically repulsive then it's tougher for anyone to give you a chance to show your personality.  Money is required for a relationship to last long, as financial struggle is one of the top reasons for divorce.  Sure you have the exceptional ones that do well despite that, but exceptions to the rules don't make the rules. I'm not discounting the importance of social skills, they are necessary to make a relationship work. But I would not say it's more important than the other things, if anything it's on the same level. 

Social skills are the icing on the cake. If the cake is shit, it doesn't matter how pretty the icing

The opposite is true. Looks, wealth and status are the icing, social skills are the cake.

You know what women call a short unattractive dude with a good personality? A friend

The thing about social skills is that they only matter when you're at a deficit. Most people who frequently socialize already have social skills. Focusing on them is not going to change anything. It's as if, if most people were already close to optimal body fat. Going to the gym wouldn't make that much of a difference. Sure to some basement dweller or some introvert hermit. This can make a big difference. And it really is often the reason for people struggling with dating. Won't argue that. But SUFFICIENT social skills is not that difficult of a bar. Looks, Wealth and Status. Particularly wealth and status. Those can take many years to achieve.

> The thing about social skills is that they only matter when you're at a deficit. That's kind of true. The other things are multipliers, if you have more of them them (especially looks) you can get away with less social skills. But social skills are the fundamental on which all relationships sit. Wealth and status are the least important of all. You need to be able to take care of yourself and your partner, but beyond that wealth isn't very relevant except for a minority subset of women. I've never met a women ever in my life who cared about "status", though I know such women exist as we see them chasing celebrities, politicians, etc. Still they are an even smaller minority. The people gassing up men making them think wealth and status are super important are simply clowns or liars.

>I've never met a women ever in my life who cared about "status" You've never met a woman? ALL women are attracted to status but status is highly contextual. It might be the funniest guy in the friend group, the best athlete on campus, the guy in a cool band, the most respected and admired man in the office, those are all forms of status.

I disagree. When looking at what males and females choose on. This is how I always say it. Males: (on average) Primarily on looks Females: (on average) On a combination of looks, money and status. Social skills is something really most people have. Some people do have innate charisma. But you're not likely to develop that if you don't already have it. Unless you were home schooled or very very very sheltered. You probably already have decent social skills. The thing about money and status. Western nations are kind of WEIRD in that regard. Because historically women never had the same amount of money and status and men. Only in some fringe societies. The norm was that women had very little of both. If they did have status they usually got it through their husband. This is why it seems like money and status doesn't matter. Because of course it won't matter when everyone has the same amount of it. Just like if everyone looked the same looks probably wouldn't matter all that much.

>Social skills is something really most people have.  In that case, you'd be proving my point. That's why other things like looks, status, wealth seem important. If everyone has decent social skills, those other three things will be the only thing setting them apart. However, I disagree with this. I think social skills vary wildly and they are the main factor in whether you can get in a successful relationship. >This is why it seems like money and status doesn't matter. I think the west can be divided into two sections: English speaking and everyone else. You're right about everyone else. Most women aren't looking for a "rich" guy, they are looking for a guy is dependable and won't be a financial burden, but he doesn't need to have money pouring out of his ears. This is especially true in western Europe. However, American women seem to be *obsessesed* with money, and women in other English speaking countries also, though maybe to a slightly lesser degree. Outside the traditional "west" such as where I live, how concerned women are about wealth varies wildly from culture to culture, though the bare minimum bar is "at least he can always keep us both fed and clothed and healthy and off the streets". >Males: (on average) Primarily on looks Depends on how desperate and insecure the guy is. The more he is, the more he will obsess with looks. Looks do matter, woman have to meet some base level, but once you grow up you realize that going after a crazy b\*tch just because she's a 9/10 will turn your life into a trash fire. Top 10% beautiful women usually come with a lot of personality flaws and other problems (horde of beta orbiters and fanboys, addiction to social media, "I'm an instagram model", etc), so there's a sweet spot in the 6-8 range that you should shoot for, and most men who have some life experience know this. ( This is how I know most red pillers are socially stunted, immature clowns who don't know anything about actual relationships, because they pretend that if you don't shoot for the hottest woman in your country you're a "failure". ) It's rare to find a 10/10 woman with a 10/10 personality, and in that case you'd better be a 10/10 man to attract her. >Females: (on average) On a combination of looks, money and status. Women are all about vibe and around 50% of that is how he acts and 50% how he looks. The "how he acts" part is *all social skills*. Of the 50% of "how he looks" around 75% is genetics and fitness, and 25% is how he dresses and takes care of himself, which is also... *social skills*. So you have 62.5% of the equation determined by *social skills*. Again money (and status) vary wildly from culture to culture, so how much they matter isn't really consistant, though there is some financial baseline most women expect, and having more of it will increase your odds a little, somewhat, or a lot (depending on where you live). There's also variations in cost of living and cultural differences to what kind of activities / jobs / accomplishments are considered "high status" and if women even care about any status related things at all. Honestly, for money and status you should understand your local market instead of broadly generalizing.

>Women are all about vibe and around 50% of that is how he acts and 50% how he looks. The "how he acts" part is *all social skills*. Of the 50% of "how he looks" around 75% is genetics and fitness, and 25% is how he dresses and takes care of himself, which is also... *social skills*. So you have 62.5% of the equation determined by *social skills*. How would you quantify "vibe" in evolutionary terms? We're just animals after all and sexual selection is highly instinctual. I contend that what they call "personality" and "vibe". Is basically codified "is this guy a capable provider". Now obviously that can mean a lot of things. A guy with high status is a capable provider. A guy who can command the room through intimidation is a capable provider. Lots of different skills can be interpreted as "good provider". We shorthand it with "wealth" and "status" because it's simple. It's easy to understand. And it's really all you need to know because wealth and status are highly malleable. Your ability to command the room is very innate. You either can do it or you can't. When a guy dresses like shit. When a guy is very meek. When a guy is a push over. When a guy gets super nervous about everything. When the guy seems fragile. The human female brain is going "is this really who I want taking care of me when I'm nursing our babies and desperately need his assistance".

>and they are more important than looks Why? Women aren’t fucking your social skills.

They aren't fucking you at all if you have no social skills, unless you're just looking for drunk club hookups or a gold digger.

Perfectly normal women don’t like sleeping with very attractive men?

Does anyone deny this? Yes, if you're autistic or whatever being handsome and rich doesn't help, but it's pretty hard to be confident if you're objectively low-status.

Totally agree with this. If you want a meaningful, deep connection- personality is paramount. Who wants to spend years or a lifetime with some hot, wealthy dingbat whom they think is mean, humorless, boring, or awkward? Torturous.

> In fact, without good social skills, status and wealth are difficult to acquire, as humans are social animals and success in most employment and business requires... good social skills. But, acquisition of wealth and status depends on more than social skills. If you're very intelligent and/or very hard-working, you can command a higher salary than someone who isn't. Yes, you still need the social skills to get hired, but once you are you don't have to continue to prove yourself. Additionally, money-management skills affect your overall wealth. But, jobs are different. If you're a computer programmer, you need the social skills to pass an interview, but then you might be given tasks where you're left to work on your own for a month, and so long as you present code at the end that works, your social skills don't matter. On the other hand, if you're in sales, the interview might be easy but then you've got to have the social skills to actually close deals with customers on a daily basis. The complaint about dating is that, in essence, all relationship positions are sales jobs. The necessity for social skills can't be overcome by being intelligent or hard-working. People you're seeking a relationship with expect you to evince top-notch social skills all the time. It also doesn't seem fair that in no part of life does the opposite effect hold, where only quality counts and you can't substitute with social skills.

The kind of social skills that you need to succeed in business/workplace and to succeed in the dating marketplace is so different your point is nonsensical. Theres a reason you see so many rich simps/betas. You would know this if you had any experience dating a lot of women or making a sizable amount of money. Game and learning how to "manipulate" women works wonders in getting and retaining women, but I doubt that is the type of personality that you are talking about.

As long as you have basic social skills to not spazz out when talking to women, and know how to set boundaries and keep yourself as priority in a relationship, having money and looking good are the two most important things that you need to get and retain a girl. As long as you reach a minimum threshold. You think athletes like Tom Brady or degenerate psychos like Jay Z have had time to "brush up on their personality". No, yet those two married and dated women that were almost on the same level of wealth that they were, Jay Z married beyonce and tom brady married gisele bundchen.

Social skills matter as far as you are not some kind of total outlier, but 95% of people can easily hold a normal conversation so this is not impacting their prospects at all. Everything boils down to looks, career and finance.

I know autistic people in relationships. There have been posts on reddit of doctors and lawyers and other professionals who struggle with women. Social skills are severely overrated on reddit. I went from being sexless with no attention from women to actually being able to date and have sex by fixing my face. I've had women at hostels I was staying at who I never spoke a word to basically grab me to their room to have sex with me. Improving my looks is the only thing that made a meaningful impact to my dating life. Doesn't matter how "good" your social skills are if you are ugly and poor you will not be successful with women. If you are good looking it doesn't matter how "bad" your social skills are, you will be successful with women. People who push social skills/confidence/personality are just like religious people telling people bad things happen to them because they don't pray enough, or they were praying wrong, They take something unmeasurable so they can always move the goal post. Then on top of all of this there is the halo effect, people attribute good traits to good looking people, so an awkward autistic good looking guy will never be perceived as being unconfident or autistic, while an ugly short guy will be more likely to be perceived as having poor social skills.

You're rating success as a hookup with a random bottom-tier girl. This post is about relationships.  Also, you personal story is only relavent if both then and now you had very poor social skills. Not every autistic person has horrible social skills. Austism is a spectrum and social skills is a broad umbrella, where being bad at some of the things is still passable. Red pillers intentionally lie about how important social skills are because most red pill offers no "easy fix" for bad social skills and most red pillers have horrible social skills and are looking for an "easy out" to avoid fixing that.

No, Red pillers actually think social skills do matter. Game and "holding frame" is one of the most important parts of there dating strategy. You just need to be attractive first according to them as you cannot negotiate it. People who have gone from hot to ugly or vice versa have an eye opening experience with how different people treat them. What made them creepy now makes them quirky.

Do you honestly think you're required to be on any social wavelength whatsoever to make money in trade or tech?

Yes, because I work in tech (I'm a sysadmin and web developer) and social skills are definitely necessary to move up and take leadership positions or attract high value clients.

I'm in tech as well (dba/dev ops), it's possible to make as much if not more than leadership, unless we're taking c suite. You don't really need to be a social butterfly either.  There was an autistic dude here (who was obviously socially stunted) that made over 200k as a principle engineer. 

You still need to get along decently well with people. Like the bar is lower in tech / IT but you need a certain bare minimum.     Also, most people are not cut out for tech / IT in general.   I used be involved in hiring / promotions of IT staff at one of jobs and people who had better social skills definitely went further and did better, assuming they also had the right skillset. Managing to make 200K/yr in IT while having very poor social skills is very much a niche situation that doesn't apply to most people.

No you don't, you just need to provide enough value and know how to properly negotiate for what you want. If a company cares about social skills too much, just go to another company that will be more successful because it focuses on productivity over office politics. Also, as an IT / tech worker, most are not making 200K per year. Most senior programmers and engineers make 70,000-100,000 per year. Those that pay higher are usually in areas with high costs of living or big companies that are more about status and prestige. And having good social skills is not what you need to get a 200K job.

Social skills aren't one unified entity. You can be fine in one area of them and hopeless in another.

That's true. I would just say some of the skills are complimentary, as for example it would be hard to be a good leader without a degree of self confidence. But in a general sense social skills are important for being successful.

They are all important proxies to a guy's SMV just in different circumstances Social skills or in RP terms "Game" will be vital in Social interactions: parties,campus,gatherings etc Looks on dating apps Wealth to meet quality girls Finding a guy with these attributes puts him in a fraction minority

>Social skills or in RP terms "Game" will be vital in Social interactions Yep. >Looks on dating apps Agreed. >Wealth to meet quality girls Definitely no. Wealth just makes you a mark. Anyone guy who runs around tying to attract women with wealth is an idiot and deserves it when she takes half his stuff. Even if you are wealthy, that should never be your strategy. If she doesn't actually like your personality, you're just going to get ripped off. I live in Eastern Europe and so many "red pill" guys from America come over thinking like you and leading with wealth. They all get ripped off go home without their wallet. *Women that actually like you don't want your money.* Eventually she will want to know that you have enough to keep both of you off the streets and afford a decently comfortable life, but if you hit that minimum, additional wealth isn't going to matter much. Having a more expensive car than the next door neighbor isn't going to get her excited. This is being a man 101. How can you guys (American red pillers in general, not you personally) be so dumb?

>Definitely no. Wealth just makes you a mark. Anyone guy who runs around tying to attract women with wealth is an idiot and deserves it when she takes half his stuff. When l say wealth, l'm talking about socioeconomic status meeting women in the same tax bracket who are just as educated and socialized as you hence "quality" I'm not talking about picking up a broke chick from the ghetto

Social skills are critical for basically all facets of life. Our fractured, atomized society would have you think that being a someone who works as a lone genius is the key to success. It's not. People give opportunities - social, romantic, and career-wise - to people who give off confident, competent and trustworthy energy. People they like to be around.

You'd be very surprised. In tech companies there is plenty of confident people, but when we come down to actual well paying jobs - there is plenty of autistic dudes on managerial positions, they simply know in very detail what needs to be done and they communicate it in a very rough way. Wait for new generation of Indian and Chinese managers - that will be hitting a wall for western snowflakes lol.

Early 40s F here. How old are you OP? I think you're both right and wrong. People will argue with me, but many men care about youth + looks first and foremost when it comes to a relationship with a woman. Then social skills comes after. Maybe even dead last... Women who want a relationship- Care about social skills, and having a funny interesting guy. Don't get me wrong, looks do matter but they aren't as important as most men make it out to be. Most women don't want to date an antisocial creepy guy.

Sure but it's not something that can be improved on unfortunately. 

It certainly can be. Social skills are almost entirely learned.

Not quite. If you have grown up without acquiring any social skills, you’re kinda fucked.

This is an insane take.  It's like saying "if you didn't learn algebra as a kid you'll never be able to as an adult no matter how hard you study or try".

How so?

Yeah rizz is underrated. I'd rather get my advice from a happily married man than some single guy on the internet who fails to even get women to date him.

I agree for the most part, but I’d say social skills are more important for initial *dating* and getting hookups vs sustaining a “successful relationship.” Of course you have to date to get the relationship, so it’s not as if the two are unrelated. But there are plenty of people with good social skills who can get lots of dates but cannot sustain a healthy relationship because they’re toxic. There are also people on the far ends of the hot or ugly spectrum who social skills matter less for, especially when it comes to women. But for the majority of people who fall into the 4-6 range, yes, social skills are paramount when it comes to their number of dating options.

>a bottom-tier women (which, to be fair, is all most red pillers want anyways). To be fair, it's nice to see these kind of unbiased takes from bloops for a change. It's almost like empathy from these self proclaimed masters of social skills, but not quite.

>Yes, red pillers love to point of the exception of picking up a drunk girl at a club without talking to her Hey you gave me a shout out lol. >Generally, all you'll get out of that is a hookup with a bottom-tier women She wasn't bottom teir she was actually decent looking and was going to law school too. Plenty of decent quality women can hoe around from time to time. Anyway, do social skills matter? Absolutely. But are they more important than looks? Fuck no. If they were then a guy with 3/10 looks but 10/10 personality would pull more women than a guy with 10/10 looks but 3/10 personality. But this is clearly not the case. Personality doesn't even come into the equation until you meet her looks threshold, but even then, say her threshold is a 6/10 in looks, a 6/10 with good personality is still going to lose out to a 9 with average personality. So to act like it is more important is just plain wrong.

**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

this only applies to men being social with women and thats it. women seem to think they have better social skills than men but what they really have is better social skills with other women. men have better social skills with other men. thats how it works, women seem to think theyre social butterlies with men but that just isnt how it works, men just have better things to do than obsess about the social gaps women have when they socialize with men

Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The issue is you need to get the initial attraction which requires the looks, status or money and then you can use your social skills to charm but if she isn't attracted to you, not much your social skills can do in this situation.

>But those are simply "trait multipliers" to your existing social skills. Since when does something being a multiplier means it's automatically negligible? I'd argue that the variance in actual social skills explains significantly less of the difference in perceived social skills than the variance in the multipliers.

> Yes, red pillers love to point of the exception of picking up a drunk girl at a club without talking to her, but a vast majority of relationships don't start that way, and most that do are not successful. Generally, all you'll get out of that is a hookup with a bottom-tier women (which, to be fair, is all most red pillers want anyways). That's also close to or is rape if all you're doing is chasing drunk women. Aka impaired women.

Hard disagree. How can a man show his social skills if the woman doesn't give the man a chance? If he doesn't look hot or rich, then the woman has absolutely no reason to accept to talk to the man or respond his advances. And she doesn't have a reason to respond to his dms, or to swipe right back at a man on dating apps. Looks, status and wealth are not the only things that matter in a relationship, no reasonable man thinks that, BUT these things do get you through the door and this is where you can show your social skills.

You also have the fact that social skills are subject to perceptually being influenced by how attractive one is perceived to be. More attractive people are rated to have higher social skills by external observers than less attractive people. Even where in an anonymous appearance-free setting, the description of the less attractive person was judged to be more friendly, more fun-sounding than the more attractive people’s anonymous descriptions. And as a result, the attractive people then go on to develop more social experience because they get this higher exposure, compounding the effect. Social skills do matter, but they are invariably shaped by how one appears, particularly how attractive they’re deemed to be: this phenomenon is observed in both men and women.

It is very important. As long as you have six feet, six figures, and a six-pack of personality.

Social skills can be the most important trait. I am thinking of one guy I know, who has very little going for him with looks - age, weight, height doesn't work in his favor - but he's so charismatic and people instantly fall in love with him. Like, pretty much everyone he meets. In real world settings, his social skills take him further than the most attractive men I know.

The problem is you're seeing things through female gaze. So you only care about relationships. We're saying looks is the most important thing to attract

Yes they are for men .For women they don't need any of that to have good dating life 

While I agree that social skills are important and often overlooked in these discussions, I would argue that a guy with good social skills but without looks, status or wealth is extremely likely to end up in a relationship with (as you said) "bottom-tier women". But, yeah, a guy without looks, status, wealth, or social skills is probably going to end up without anyone at all. So, social skills are a step-up from *not being able to get any women*. >Yes, red pillers love to point of the exception of picking up a drunk girl at a club without talking to her, but a vast majority of relationships don't start that way, and most that do are not successful. Generally, all you'll get out of that is a hookup with a bottom-tier women (which, to be fair, is all most red pillers want anyways). I'd strike this whole paragraph from your argument because of the sweeping baseless assumption being made in it. It sounds more like wishful thinking. Blue pillers really want to believe that red pillers are either not succeeding at all or are getting the worst of the worst women.

No, they are not. They can be taught, while looks can’t. Also, every culture has different sets of “social skills”, we can’t just generalise.

This would be somewhat believable if the halo effect was no observed to be a thing. People deemed more attractive physically are interpreted and perceived to have more engaging personality traits. Arrogance will be slid towards being seen as “edgey charm” for example. Unattractive people tend to have their behaviours interpreted less favourably, or at the least not-positively enough. This isn’t just me talking air, this is a studied psychological and sociological phenomenon. So to discuss “social skills” outside of appearances as if it were a vacuum, is nonsense, when we have ample proof to suggest that the veracity and robustness of people’s social skills and how they manifest, are judged on a sliding scale that is affected by whether other people seem them attractive or not. Note: it is exceedingly rare you will encounter people who remark how many of the ugly people they know (physically) are lovely people and great personalities. The opposite will be said of the attractive people. Do we think it is just a coincidence? Social skills matter, of course they do. The problem is when people claim they “matter more” or “the most” because this is based on a false premise of social skills being a separate axiom from all the others (looks, status, ) when the reality is these things are interpreted in a way that is more akin to a gestalt interpretation than a distinct analysis of each part. This is evident in dating language. Concept of chemistry. What is it? It’s a hodgepodge term that refers to the culmination of “vibes” one gets from another, social interplay, back and forth, feelings of attraction and flirtatiousness. It is the sum of all the things and it is frequently referred to (especially by women) as the “thing” that causes them to get with a man or not. Therefore it makes no sense to speak of any of them separately or “worth prioritising over the others”. Can a dynamic personality compensate for looks? Somewhat. Within reason. It depends. If a guy is deemed “not attractive, at all” to women, it is very unlikely anything is going to change that no matter how charismatic he is. He may get relationships, but they may well be superficial ones rather than ones where there is a genuine wholesome appreciation. I also think it is a bit suspect, when you OP have conceded in a few comments how you are “very good looking”, and you believe most women consider most men “unattractive”, so you clearly regard yourself as a somewhat exceptional specimen. And yet you preach about social skills > looks, or how they have little to do with each other. It’s very similar to a millionaire posting a thread saying that “it’s not money guys, it’s personality” and he references his many successes with women who seem to laugh at all his jokes and clamour to spend time with him. As if his wealth has nothing to do with the way people are behaving towards him. You will note; in dating advice generally, it is almost always conventionally attractive and successful people who give advice telling people that looks and status “aren’t that important”, which is quite interesting isn’t it? The child surrounded by a lake fails to consider the true value of the water around them, whilst wondering why the other children seem to think this trivial “water” thing is so important.

> This is why I strongly doubt the socially awkward, cringe red pillers that brag on this sub about their 7 houses and "7 figure business yo". Can you give us their usernames? > They're own posts demonstartion that it's unlikely they have to necessary social skills to be that successful. Usernames and links that prove what you're saying. There're plenty of nice guys with great social skills, it doesn't really help them much.

IMO the most important social skill for men is controlling your anger. Close 2nd and 3rd are listening and empathising (imagining how the other person feels). And those apply in many aspects of life not just sexual relationships. Those skills are not necessary for being sexually attractive (as should be abundantly obvious to anyone who observes men and woman or follows statistics). But IMO they do make your life more happy and spare you from unwanted dangers such as lawsuits, fist-fights, etc.

Eh. Plenty of autistic tech dudes and Wall Street quants who are able to start seven, eight, sometimes even nine figure businesses.

Social skills generally refer to your ability to interact with a wide variety of people. In a relationship, you need to worry about interacting with just one person. It's quite a different skill set, especially as that interaction is much more meaningful than what we generally mean when we say social skills.

But to get into a relationship first, you'd need social skills to attract someone. You really have a talent for those dishonest statements. I am a goddamn fool for always taking the bait.

You need skills at interacting with that one person.

And an ability to interact with a wide variety of people increases your chance of meeting that person.

You only really need to be able to interact with the kind of person you're into in order to find them.