Going to go over some black pill videos, since we’ve gone over some of the more RP ones with Roommates, Alexander Grace and Casey Zander. Wheat Waffles (WW) seems to be one of the biggest YT black pill creators.
Instead of classifying men according to a number scale, he opts for 3 categories named sub5, normie, and chad. The following 2 videos analyze the different characteristics between these categories.
The first one is supposedly classifying yourself to sub5, normie, or chad depending on how women react to you with their facial expressions. The second video focuses on 40 different ways women react differently to men within these categories.
I watched a few more videos aside from these and it’s worth noting that the “sub 5” population that he says generally gets negative feedback right off tends to be < 10-15% of the population and generally has some type of large physical defect. Chad generally falls into > 10-15% of the population. So normies are approximately 70-80% of the population and on the number scale range from about 5-7 or so with some of these men being more attractive than others but not enough to jump to Chad status.
Here is his face rating guide if you wanted to know more about how he does it. While I agree with the overall theme, I do think he does underrate some faces that many would think are more attractive, and you can tell that at least in the 4-6ish range there will definitely be some women interested in some of the specific looks.
He also has a Looksmaxxing guide which if one is not doing many or all of these things he asserts can add 1-1.5ish points to a man’s looks. So a 3.5-5ish man (originally sub 5) might be able to go to a normie, but if a man was < 3.5 to begin with especially with significant facial issues then he’s likely to stay sub5 according to him.
It’s also worth noting that he believes if you are sub5 and obese even if you had a 2-3 type of face the lost facial fat can sometimes boost a man into the normie or even Chad range depending on the underlying facial genetics once the fat is lost.
He also has a flow chart on what you should do in your dating life depending on if you are sub5, normie, or Chad.
Aside from “looksmaxxing” there’s also the potential for other things like moneymaxxing (career that increases money to catapult you to another status level), surgerymaxxing (plastic surgery to improve looks like women do), or traveling to other countries where your status would be higher. He also advocates for warm approach and daygaming, but mainly for Chads since it works best for them. Maybe for normies but not for sub5.
Thoughts
I tend to agree with him in the general theme of things, but I think overall it’s a bit too simplistic and nihilistic. Given that approximately 10-15% of men are “sub5” according to him, there’s probably a decent to large portion of these are likely self inflicted (e.g. obesity, not even close to “looksmaxxing,” etc.). It’s likely most men (probably 95% or so) can get themselves to the normie range barring some type of facial deformity or anything like that.
Like I’ve stated in the How attraction works and misconceptions, there exists a statistical framework in what someone finds attractive. Based on my high school appearance when I was significantly underweight (16-17 BMI) looking back in my memories I had maybe 1-2 women all 4 years that I would say were attracted to me just because. Once I gained a bunch of muscle in college and starting doing things where I could stand out in terms of sports and hobbies I garnered much more attraction from women. I don’t think it’s a surprise that most of the sub5 and normie Christian leaders in college groups all had girlfriends either contrary to popular belief. For myself the interest was there despite being in the solid “normie” range. If I randomly go out in public I pretty much get all normie looks from women according to WW videos.
Similar to my teaching assistant (TA) stories — even though I get mostly normie looks from women — once you get into a status/teaching position and engage everyone effectively you start to generate a lot more interest as PSALMs (power, status, athleticism, looks, money) and masculinity start to shine through more. Leadership, independence, assertiveness, etc.
This is the biggest flaw of the black pill IMO. Although (L)ooks is a large component of attraction, there are definitely other ways to induce attraction. For the black pill or at least most of the black pill creators, they would just give up if a woman isn’t initially attracted or categorize themselves into some sort of self defeating or nihilistic mindset once they’ve placed themselves there. This translates to defeated body language and is a self-reinforcing downward spiral.
Yes, not everyone is going to be interested unless you’re a Chad per se, but you’re not aiming to get everyone interested in you. You’re aiming for a subset of the population that can find you attractive. There’s a few cases where escaping the friend zone is possible, and those tend to have women see you in a new light because of a change in personality or exhibited masculinity. Statistically, your chances with the overall population of women increases as PSALMs and masculinity increases. Maybe it’s 1% of the population if you’re sub5 on the outset. But with putting on 20-30 pounds of muscle it jumps 5-10% to 6-11%. Style, skincare, good haircut, grooming, and all such things maybe adds some 3-5% to 9-17%. Then being athletic, having a good job, being a leader in Church, being charismatic, and all such things can increase the percentages more. Unless you’re “Chad” you’re probably not going to hit 30-50%+ rates, but even single digit rates are enough if you work on expanding your influence and social network especially within Christian circles.
You only marry 1 person, so you only need 1… but improving your situation to increase the percentages will help the vast majority of men that aren’t Chad. Even the supposed “sub5s.”
