Good looking introvert v average looking extrovert: which is better?

Resist ZOG · 15-08-2017 05:49PM #1

For meeting women in particular. I used to think introversion in our 24/7 Americanised society was a curse and being out going and confident would make up for any deficiencies in the looks department.

Now I'm not so sure. I hate to say it but I think society has become so shallow, especially with the rise of Tinder, that looks are more important than ever.

So which do you pick? I go for good looking introvert.

Passenger · 15-08-2017 06:02PM

Look around. You'll see all the average looking extroverts hooking up for the simple fact that they're willing put in all the legwork and pursue the opposite sex. Persistence tends to pay off.

Resist ZOG · 15-08-2017 06:27PM

Passenger wrote: »

Look around. You'll see all the average looking extroverts hooking up for the simple fact that they're willing put in all the legwork and pursue the opposite sex. Persistence tends to pay off.

From what I see the average looking introverts just take a faster route to the friendzone.

Addle · 15-08-2017 06:58PM

Are introverts on Tinder?
Not so shy if they are.

Resist ZOG · 15-08-2017 06:59PM

Addle wrote: »

Are introverts on Tinder?
Not so shy if they are.

Tinder and online dating is 100% a looks game.

Addle · 15-08-2017 07:03PM

Are introverts so positive about their looks?

Burial. · 15-08-2017 09:40PM

Good looks helps a tonne but being able to charm and chat the box off anyone also helps a tonne. I firmly believe anyone can learn to talk to girls at a high level and become a very good conversationalist in general if they're so inclined but not everyone is born good looking and a sharp haircut, bleached teeth and being well dressed will only take you so far. I'd take the good looks every day.

alberto67 · 16-08-2017 09:58PM

I think you have to be an all rounder. Good looking and extrovert when needed. One should also be an introvert at certain times... So it's neither one nor the other. Sometimes being average looking can be an advantage.

irishman86 · 18-08-2017 01:03AM

Resist ZOG wrote: »

For meeting women in particular. I used to think introversion in our 24/7 Americanised society was a curse and being out going and confident would make up for any deficiencies in the looks department.

Now I'm not so sure. I hate to say it but I think society has become so shallow, especially with the rise of Tinder, that looks are more important than ever.

So which do you pick? I go for good looking introvert.

Most people aren't actually introvert though, its a modern excuse for not doing anything or having a boring personality. Actual introverts i pity the guys/gals using it saying it because they have no personality annoy the **** out of me
A quiet good looking guy will mostly lose to a average charmer

Passenger · 18-08-2017 01:06AM

irishman86 wrote: »

Actual introverts i pity the guys/gals using it saying it because they have no personality annoy the **** out of me

Define personality.

irishman86 · 18-08-2017 01:39PM

Passenger wrote: »

Define personality.

No :rolleyes:

tigger123 · 18-08-2017 07:55PM

An average looking extrovert is going to be way more successful as they're more than likely more confident. Confidence trumps looks every time.

HalloweenJack · 18-08-2017 09:27PM

Extrovert =/= confidence
Introvert =/= lack of confidence
I wonder if people who believe this have ever had any interactions with people?

A very basic definition that I would work off (and it's far from perfect) is extroverts speak before they think and introverts think before they speak but that's far from definitive, more a simplistic guide.

Being an extrovert seems to be more popular because they are more vocal (its in their nature) while introverts don't tend to go on about things (as is their nature).

Extroversion and introversion has nothing to do with being interesting and/or boring, that's something totally different.

In my experience, a lasting relationship has an extrovert and an introvert. I can't think of any long-lasting relationship that I know of that has two extroverts or two introverts. The ones that have a balance in that department work best.

So to answer the OP's question, I'd go for the extrovert as I'm an introvert myself and it would suit me for a relationship. For a ONS or a fling, I'd go for the hotter one.

lazybones32 · 18-08-2017 10:49PM

The way to a woman's heart/pants is through her ears. Mostly, talking with women is essential for attraction to develop but smouldering good looks override the need for conversation in a loud bar at 12:30.

I wouldn't waste time trying to change my basic personality type. Especially not to appear more attractive to someone else.

Wibbs · 19-08-2017 09:21AM

HalloweenJack wrote: »

A very basic definition that I would work off (and it's far from perfect) is extroverts speak before they think and introverts think before they speak but that's far from definitive, more a simplistic guide.

Eh.. that's the usual "introverts are more thoughtful" and just as lazy a definition as the confidence/no confidence angle(though usually suggested by introverts). You do realise one can talk and think at the same time?

Being an extrovert seems to be more popular because they are more vocal (its in their nature) while introverts don't tend to go on about things (as is their nature).

Again with the "introverts" idea of extrovert = bad/not so good, introverts better.

as I'm an introvert myself

You don't say...

Extroversion and introversion has nothing to do with being interesting and/or boring, that's something totally different.

I'd agree there.

For me the introvert/extrovert definitions are self diagnostic, lazy and inaccurate. If I was to look for a broad "definition"? I would say extroverts get energy from other people, introverts are drained of energy by people. Even there it's not accurate. EG most people who know or have met me would call me an extrovert, even an extreme example of same. However I need me time to recharge. I can't be around people 24/7, a few hours is about my limit and then I'm drained. On the definition above I'd be an "introvert".

As for which is better? Well if someone is so "introverted" they rarely interact with other people then they're on a hiding to nothing. Especially with men as they do most of the approaching in the dating/mating game. That's the extreme though. What is better in general? Not really giving a care about how individual interactions with a particular woman goes. If it works out the fine, but no harm no foul if it doesn't. Ever wonder why men seem to see more attention from women when they're already in a relationship, or when they've say just broken up with someone and they really couldn't be arsed? That's mostly why. The guy isn't so outcome focussed.

HalloweenJack · 19-08-2017 11:25AM

I agree that my definitions are simplistic and lazy, I don't think there is a definitive description, it's just something we understand. I don't mean to suggest one is better than the other either, they're just different.

The energy one is one I've heard before and I somewhat agree with but it also changes depending on the people you're around. Some people can be draining, regardless of extroversion/introversion, and similarly others can be quite enjoyable.

People are very complex and pigeon-holing them and giving everyone labels is something I hate. People are multi-faceted, you can't define them in a general way by one specific thing.

Airyfairy12 · 19-08-2017 04:37PM

Resist ZOG wrote: »

From what I see the average looking introverts just take a faster route to the friendzone.

There is no such thing as the friendzone, someone is either into you romantically/sexually or theyre not. Pretending to be someones friend or being 'nice' to them in the hopes you'll get rewarded with sex or relationships is creepy. You can't blame someone else for your actions. If you know someone isnt into you and you dont want a genuine friendship with them then move on, dont pretend youre fine with it then hang around them as a fake friend hoping they'll change their mind then get annoyed and throw your toys out of the pram when you dont get your 'rewards' for being fake nice.

Eric Cartman · 20-08-2017 10:20PM

even by the sheer time spent socially interacting with others, the success rates for extroverts are going to be higher. Confidence is a winner and sadly I have met confident introverts who often just come across as arrogant / know it alls when they cling on to something they're interested in, intimidates and annoys people a lot. A confident extrovert is going to do well by sheer design. Not all extroverts are confident but even a moderate extrovert with moderate confidence levels is going to outperform an introvert in getting a woman.

Theres things people more on the introverted side can do, toastmasters, a debate club etc.. to get your confidence and social skills up and get used to being around people a lot more.

marcus001 · 20-08-2017 10:26PM

Do you wanna know the single best way to get women?

Tried and tested, 100% of men increase their success rate with this one neat trick...

Lose the ego and go for women who are in your league. Done.

Bambi985 · 23-08-2017 10:14AM

marcus001 wrote: »

Lose the ego and go for women who are in your league. Done.

In "your league" on what grounds though? Looks, personality, social status? This implies people can choose who they're attracted to which is entirely not the case.

One eyed Jack · 23-08-2017 11:16AM

marcus001 wrote: »

Do you wanna know the single best way to get women?

Tried and tested, 100% of men increase their success rate with this one neat trick...

Lose the ego and go for women who are in your league. Done.

Sounds like a bad clickbait headline.

It's not at all proof of anything either because even if you're going for women whom you think are in your "league", that's still no guarantee that they'll be thinking you're in their "league". Your hypothesis is still based upon your ego.

As for which is better or worse between a good looking introvert and an average looking extrovert - there's simply no way to quantify any measure of a success rate, particularly if one is thinking that by lowering their standards and settling for what they think is "the low hanging fruit" as it were, that they will be guaranteed any more successful interactions than they weren't having before - women have minds of their own too and it's they who will determine whether or not you're attractive to them, depending upon what qualities they find attractive in a guy.

Middle Man · 24-08-2017 01:13PM

marcus001 wrote: »

Do you wanna know the single best way to get women?

Tried and tested, 100% of men increase their success rate with this one neat trick...

Lose the ego and go for women who are in your league. Done.

Why do men have to 'get women'??? This to me is a clear sign of the typical weaknesses present in Irish men - it's little wonder that women can manipulate them. I for one have not got in touch nor do I intend to fall for the trap of laying seed. Do Irish men not realise that in having children, they become second class citizens (legally at the mercy of) to their other halves! Wake up guys - turkeys don't vote for Christmas...

One eyed Jack · 24-08-2017 05:07PM

Middle Man wrote: »

Why do men have to 'get women'??? This to me is a clear sign of the typical weaknesses present in Irish men - it's little wonder that women can manipulate them. I for one have not got in touch nor do I intend to fall for the trap of laying seed.

I wouldn't see being attracted to women as a weakness? Why do you see a men wanting to have relations with women as a sign of what you refer to as "the typical weaknesses present in Irish men"?

I won't attempt to speak for anyone else either but the only reason I need to give is that I enjoy the company of women. What justification or reason other than that does there need to be exactly?

Middle Man wrote: »

Do Irish men not realise that in having children, they become second class citizens (legally at the mercy of) to their other halves! Wake up guys - turkeys don't vote for Christmas...

Again, not going to attempt to speak for anyone else, but no, that never occurred to me, probably not least because of the fact that it simply isn't true, unless you have some other concept of being an Irish citizen than I do. I've noticed that "second class citizen" stuff becoming a bit of a cliche amongst people who assume that their perceived rights trump every other citizens rights though, while failing to recognise their own responsibilities as citizens of this country.

I don't plan on instilling some victimhood complex in my son either tbh.

Wibbs · 24-08-2017 05:32PM

He had me at the "trap of laying seed" part. Bejeeebus. Normal man/woman relationships reduced to that? Ooookay...

Middle Man · 24-08-2017 05:38PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn't see being attracted to women as a weakness? Why do you see a men wanting to have relations with women as a sign of what you refer to as "the typical weaknesses present in Irish men"?

I won't attempt to speak for anyone else either but the only reason I need to give is that I enjoy the company of women. What justification or reason other than that does there need to be exactly?

Again, not going to attempt to speak for anyone else, but no, that never occurred to me, probably not least because of the fact that it simply isn't true, unless you have some other concept of being an Irish citizen than I do. I've noticed that "second class citizen" stuff becoming a bit of a cliche amongst people who assume that their perceived rights trump every other citizens rights though, while failing to recognise their own responsibilities as citizens of this country.

I don't plan on instilling some victimhood complex in my son either tbh.

There's nothing unreasonable about what you're saying, but the main point is that relationships should happen naturally instead of the current ideological ethos that practically compel men to enter relationships. Relationships and responsibilities/rights therein should be 50/50 and I don't feel that ordinary decent men get a fair deal - certainly not in legal terms.

irishman86 · 24-08-2017 09:14PM

marcus001 wrote: »

Do you wanna know the single best way to get women?

Tried and tested, 100% of men increase their success rate with this one neat trick...

Lose the ego and go for women who are in your league. Done.

I for one am very happy i didnt go that route :pac:
What about when women in your "league" think they are above your league which happens more than you think
Do you then go down a league

Dial Hard · 25-08-2017 08:36AM

irishman86 wrote:

I for one am very happy i didnt go that route

There's no such thing as "leagues" anyway. You see couples every day where there's a huge disparity in looks.

It's like the friendzone, just another concept made up by people who've been knocked back to try and make themselves feel better.

Wibbs · 25-08-2017 09:37AM

Dial Hard wrote: »

There's no such thing as "leagues" anyway. You see couples every day where there's a huge disparity in looks.

Maybe, though a fair few studies would tend to disagree. The usual way they run the test is to take individual photos/videos of a selection of people in relationships and get others to rate them for attractiveness. The usual result is you get a 6 is with another 6, an 8 is with another 8* and so forth. Large disparities in attractiveness are the minority and when they occur other factors like the status/wealth of the man are in play. Looking back at my own relationships(anything beyond a flingette) we were pretty equal in the looks/attractiveness department. No outliers involved. Looking at friends relationships the same general principle was in play too. With flingettes it varied more alright. I have observed - and more with men - that they see their partner as "out of their league", but that's love for you.

To outsiders not so much. I knew one guy and one gal in my time where they did do better than expected. On the looks front anyway(they were both very charismatic types), but they were the only ones.

It's like the friendzone, just another concept made up by people who've been knocked back to try and make themselves feel better.

Well I suppose it's a label attached to people who are being friends with the object of their affection in the hope of a romantic relationship and the object of their affection doesn't want that. So in that sense it exists.

*NB I don't like the out of ten rating system at all, but for the want of a better alternative..

marcus001 · 25-08-2017 02:12PM

irishman86 wrote: »

I for one am very happy i didnt go that route :pac:
What about when women in your "league" think they are above your league which happens more than you think
Do you then go down a league

Those women tend to enter their 30s as single women.

Anyway, chances are if they're in your league you can get them. Just because they might test you a bit doesn't mean they think they're out of your league.

Airyfairy12 · 25-08-2017 06:49PM

irishman86 wrote: »

I for one am very happy i didnt go that route :pac:
What about when women in your "league" think they are above your league which happens more than you think
Do you then go down a league

marcus001 wrote: »

Those women tend to enter their 30s as single women.

Anyway, chances are if they're in your league you can get them. Just because they might test you a bit doesn't mean they think they're out of your league.

'Test you a bit' Maybe theyre just not into you and 'leagues' dont come into it. You seem to have notions about women thinking they're above men trying to test and manipulate them. That isnt true, also most women really dont mind being single into their 30's, 40's + ..its far better than settling for someone youre not interested in and dont feel compatible with.
These women that youre assuming thought they were out of your league, it sounds like they just weren't into you, for whatever reason.. and youve twisted it into some fault in the women.
Have you never had a woman attracted to you but you didnt feel the same way about her? Now imagine that woman held a grudge against you for not requiting those feelings. Made up notions about you having standards too high?

And to be fair Ive often heard average men criticise very attractive girls for having boobs too small, too much makeup, not enough makeup, not curvy enough, too fat, too skinny. Women are expected to look like Barbie dolls and Kim Kardashian lookalikes for men who can't even be bothered to shave.

marcus001 · 26-08-2017 02:44AM

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

There is no such thing as the friendzone, someone is either into you romantically/sexually or theyre not. Pretending to be someones friend or being 'nice' to them in the hopes you'll get rewarded with sex or relationships is creepy. You can't blame someone else for your actions. If you know someone isnt into you and you dont want a genuine friendship with them then move on, dont pretend youre fine with it then hang around them as a fake friend hoping they'll change their mind then get annoyed and throw your toys out of the pram when you dont get your 'rewards' for being fake nice.

That's not what I think of when I think of friendzone. Of course there are men who hang around a particular girl trying to be her friend when she's not interested, but I think the popularisation of the term friendzone has lead to most of these men being more self aware and learning moving on.

When I think of friendzone it just means when a woman has decided she's doesn't see you as a potential partner, you've been "friendzoned" whether you continue to hang around her or not.

Good looking introvert v average looking extrovert: which is better?

Comments