The correct use of the Tea app hack isn't doxxing ugly users. It's scrutinizing the faces of the PRETTIEST users for consistent visual tells of unpleasant character, so you can avoid such women in the future. What common elements do you notice in these faces?
While I wouldn't say it's very consistent, to me the combination of disdain and egotistical pride seems to stand out disproportionately on these faces. I've pointed out in DISPELLING BEAUTY LIES that this genre of expression is an unseductive red flag.
I explain in more detail here:
Here are some better examples:
When I've written about facial details and facial expressions in the past, I've found that some men are unable to distinguish the differences, whereas others distinguish them easily.
While I wouldn't want to exaggerate the accuracy of facial tells, inability to distinguish subtle differences in faces undoubtedly increases the likelihood that you'll unsuspectingly walk into trouble!
I'm not saying my analysis above explains everything about these Tea app faces by any means. Happy to hear other observations about what they have in common.
If you want to read more of my writing on facial expressions and seductiveness, you'll find it in this section of DISPELLING BEAUTY LIES:
WHY “HYPERGAMY” IS THE WRONG DIAGNOSIS FOR TODAY'S RELATIONSHIP DROUGHT
“Average men can't get laid today. Why? Because girls only want the best.” It's a story I've now heard over and over. And in this thread I'm going to explain why it's the wrong diagnosis.
For starters, let me make a simple observation. Everyone wants the best they can get. They always have, they always will. That's pretty much what “the best” means. How many men will pick right over left here? None. Men: the original hypergamists.
When you're looking for a vacation rental on the beach, you're looking for the best one that fits your budget. Same thing when you're shopping for a car, or boat, or laptop, or house. And when you're looking for a girlfriend, you're looking for the best one you can get too.
The idea that popularity doesn't matter is a case of reverse snobism. It matters a great deal. Take my proposal to expand low-density housing. Can the relevant policies be implemented in the absence of popularity? No--popularity is precisely what decides whether it will happen!
By contrast, the fact that a small number of smart and open-minded people agree with some unconventional idea is totally insufficient to change society or even meaningfully increase the number of people who encounter that idea.
There's a temptation to extend a true idea--that you, as an individual, don't need to adopt conventional beliefs, and shouldn't judge their value by their popularity--into the social realm. Doesn't work, because in the social realm popularity is often a prerequisite for change.
For reasons I don't understand, fertility experts routinely talk past an elephant in the room: the declining birthrate is downstream of declining relationship formation. I suppose "selfish couples who hate babies" are a more respectable topic than the death of romance (and sex)?
Why does no one care about bringing back romance and seduction? These would be good things even if the birthrate weren't a concern at all. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Possibly mediating all social interaction through a six-inch block of plastic and metal was not as great an idea as it first seemed...
FOUR REASONS AI COMPANIONS ARE THE MOST PROFITABLE USE-CASE FOR LLMS
1. You can lock-in customers by holding their saved chat history hostage. This makes it hard for them to cancel their subscriptions, so you can juice them for more money.
2. Each chat history is known only to one company. If it accumulates more histories than its competitors, it can use them to better improve the experience. This allows it to accumulate more users, which means more chat histories. As the gap widens, it can charge a premium.
3. Other LLMs are basically interchangeable, with no lock-in. This makes competition stiff and allows for only very small profit margins. Points #1 and #2 above allow the winning AI-companion company to lock-in users AND have a quality moat that other companies can't touch.
AGGRESSIVE INDIFFERENCE WILL HAND VICTORY TO AI GIRLFRIENDS
In this thread I'll explain why most real women today won't even do the simplest, easiest things to make themselves more exciting than AI girlfriends.
A convergence of bad trends has led today's women to poison their own powers of seduction. They've become convinced that not caring about men's desires is the ideal feminine attitude, which they ought to pursue DELIBERATELY.
How can we explain the fact that the ideal relationships in romance novels have large gaps even though most women choose small gaps? Consider a comparison to racehorses...👇
The expected value of racehorses diverges as a race goes on, giving late leaders higher value than early favorites and late trailers lower value than they had to start.
This explains why MOST men lose value with age, but the HIGHEST-value men are older.
Of course it's not quite so simple, but this is a good starting point for understanding. The variance in men's value increases over time.