Is lack of violence screwing things up too badly?

Especially I want to ask, can females make good judgments in mate-choices when violence is not apparent?

I have heard theories that females are in fact very good lie detectors and judges of characters, because males have always been pretending to be more than they are to females. Females developed this trait of seeing through males who's sales pitches promised much more than were backed up in the real world.

But are females such great lie detectors after all? Or has the situation changed in a few previous generations due to brainwashing and nihilism? Have women lost their natural abilities to detect a lie and a fraud? Now I know that a woman might "go along" with a male's lie (in order to estimate a male's creativity constructing the lie) but being a romance fraud victim and losing thousands of euros or dollars to the "American soldier who's stuck in the Middle-East, needing desperately 10 000 euros/dollars" is not quite that.

Though there are some articles that claim that actually more men than women fall for romance scams. If this is the case, then I suppose women in fact do have a better judgement than males in this overall: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If women are great lie detectors and judges of characters, then can women estimate the value of any given male just by his looks? I mean of course this cannot be done completely by anyone, since in the natural environment we see each other performing physical tasks all the time; we are not statues and we don't perceive each others as such.

But just for a mind game, could an average female pick the winner of a boxing match beforehand more likely than an average male? Could a female tell, intuitively, based on male's looks alone, something about this male's ability to survive and endure physical strain?

Would women be better evaluating such things than males, in nature?
What about today? A quote from Impulso Oscuro:

Impulso Oscuro wrote:: Women having been detached from nature and violence for so long, mistake the physical and behavioral aggressiveness of alpha and nonwhite males as being superior because they have not had to deal with the consequences of their stupidity leading them to starvation or too much attention upon her in a time where being the center of attention was dangerous.

I have posited that i think the way Christianity/Abrahamism destroyed monogamy, is not so much by pairing fit/unfit males/females with eachother, but the social peace it established, which set the precedent by which men would compete with eachother.

In the ancient past, if a man insulted you or slept with your woman, you could challenge him to a duel, and if he was of lower status, you could attack him with impunity.

Despite the complicated circumstances behind the Trojan War, i think the basic principle was that Troy through Paris represented the modern "urban" male who saw no problem in seducing another man's wife and could "hide behind his giant wall" from the consequences, just how modern males who sleep with multiple women hide behind policemen if they happen to piss off the wrong man. Unfortunately, unlike the Greeks, men today aren't able to put modern men like Paris in their place and destroy the very social order that shelters their cowardly seductive nature.

I think Impulso Oscuro might be right here. I see women make a lot of mistakes in their judgments today and they seem to confuse one attribute for another. So women really do suffer from nihilism, would you all agree? Women have no coping mechanisms whatsoever in this environment. They can't "play the game" in such a way that they win anything in the end. Their instincts are of little use in modern society. Or am I wrong?

Today it is unwise to fight over a woman, or challenge a male to a duel where it is decided who gets the female. Also a male can not be violent, protecting what is his (the female) because this male would be constantly in prison for assaults and violent offences. So violence is eliminated. In the past a male could perhaps keep his female and make sure that this female is not available for any other male, by being aggressive towards other males and possessive towards his female. Today this is not possible so even on a theoretical level the responsibility to refuse all the proposals and keeping up the companionship and monogamy is of female's. But if women are sperm samplers and they go strategically for diversity, any responsibility excepted from females about moral matters is very stupid indeed.

Another great quote. From Kvasir:

Kvasir wrote:: The weak are easily intimidated and threatened. A small dog goes crazy and barks at a larger animal because it acknowledges the larger animal's superiority over it, it instinctually knows that animal is stronger and more dangerous, and more intimidating. When one is offended, becomes indignant, becomes angry, they are threatened by something they intuitively know will expose some weakness, or truth about themselves that they cannot have.

Watch real life fight videos between men. There is always an aggressor, instigator, or the one who initiates, or one who is more aggressive than the other. In many cases the one who initiates is the one who ends up losing.

That is widely true. Yet, many if not most of the females seem to feel attraction to the loudest and cockiest male; hypermasculated male. The one who doesn't have any substance to his words. One could ask, is this a mistake, a bad judgement on a female's part or not?

Of course I remember that Satyr already explained this quite perfectly:

Satyr wrote:: Soft men dominate within sheltering environments.
Hard men dominate within threatening, challenging environments.

They have the uooer-hand, supported by females who always side with power and the status quo. Once they intuitively perceive a shift, they will change.
Most of them are below average in IQ - due to the same sheltering environments they maintain and demand, due to their reproductive role.
The higher IQ ones have begun to perceive the coming collapse - passing this feeling off on low and median IQ males - dimwits and midwits.
Average and low IQ females are still oblivious. Lower IQ's require more input, more sensory data...they cannot glean from subtle signs.
Midwits need the obvious, and then they will still resist acknowledging it, due to cowardice, until they have no choice.
Dimwits will remain oblivious until the whole thing collapses on their head, or they ae awakened by midwits....they always follow trends, popularity, the majority - sheeple.

I guess I would like to ask, do women (even the average and low IQ females) feel and sense intuitively that this (nihilism) is a bad deal to them? Do they feel this depression in their bones? In a nihilistic era, they can't feel sexually satisfied and many times they feel depressed because they bear inferior children, and all in all they never get to be part of anything that would be appreciated through ages? Or did I just describe a woman with a high IQ? Are the average and low IQ women quite literally happily oblivious?

I asked in this thread, has the lack of violence affected any of this. I would like to ask, do high IQ women have so much more sophisticated and refined judgement, that they really see the actual potential behind any given male, even when some of the information is not available? So they do not make the decision based on who at the first sight seems most able (by being the loudest, the most visible, most aggressive, most hyper masculated...)?

Illiterate wrote:: Especially I want to ask, can females make good judgments in mate-choices when violence is not apparent?

Females are impressionable and adaptable. Environment is crucial in developing their filtering agency - perfect for natural and social filtering of undesirable traits. They can be trained/edumacated to filter anything in and filtering anything out of a population - though they might protest instinctively, repulsed, feeling unhappy, violated, wronged, used....but not really understanding why.
Women tend to know things, not understand them; feel not comprehend.
Power is central to how they respond sexually. Power through association is feminine power.
Whatever exhibits power, or a potential for increasing power, is attractive to them.

Their judgements are malleable.
This is why they easily fall in and out of love - their love/lust has a shelf life, and too much honesty is like too much oxygen to fire - it burns hot and fast.

Illiterate wrote:: I have heard theories that females are in fact very good lie detectors and judges of characters, because males have always been pretending to be more than they are to females. Females developed this trait of seeing through males who's sales pitches promised much more than were backed up in the real world.

They've evolved intuitive bullshyte detectors, so as to not invest in inferior males.
They don't know how or why but they feel another's pretences.

This is also why they require erotic intoxication to submit to the "penetrating intrusions' of a male.
Genes factor in...and when the intoxication subsides they see the truth and are disenchanted....reading themselves for the next charming male to 'sweep them off their feet.' No male is perfect....so no male can ever be final.
Mental and physical signals placing them in this state of readiness to be hypnotized - facilitating penetration and gestation.

Again...attraction is determined by multiple factors, one of which is Weininger's formula...the others are a female's IQ - determining her perception of details and her self-awarness (know thyself); the other being her self-esteem - determining what she considers superior and inferior, relative to herself.
Females are usually subjective...and only in higher IQs can they develop some objectivity. Their sexual role makes them subjective agencies of judging and evaluating others, relative to a given fluctuating environment.
So, manmade environments indoctrinate them and adjust their judgements to specific cultural ideals.

This is the root of their confusion since they've evolved to judge using natural markers; then their minds are easily indoctrinated and trained to judge in accordance with human ideals, i.e., socioeconomic, cultural, markers.
This creates mind/body dissonance... confusing them and the males who are then expected to deal with them.

So, female midlife crisis consist in them trying to 'find themselves' or discover which part of their impulses is genuine and which is fabricated.
It is best - if you are alpha - to get to females in their youth before socioeconomic, cultural indoctrination fuckes-up their judgements - one side compelled to settle for the socioeconomic, cultural, ideal, and their bodies, their nature, compelling them to go for the usual alpha-male.
Alpha designating not only a muscle bound Neandertal but one with comparable mental/spiritual attributes...they call charm.

Illiterate wrote:: But are females such great lie detectors after all?

Definitely...but this doesn't mean that they are immune to being charmed.
Hypnosis and charm is self-induced. It is why I say you must inspire a female to place herself in the state of arousal or erotic lust/love.
With males it is easier since it is mostly physical, but for females it must begin with her mind.

Illiterate wrote:: Or has the situation changed in a few previous generations due to brainwashing and nihilism?

Having evolved to be genetic filters makes them easily adaptable to being memetic filters.
Nihilism is like any world view, another kind of filter - in this case a filter that inverts and adjusts her naturally evolved filtering impulses - a manmade filter over a naturally evolved filter.
Gene/Meme dynamics.

Illiterate wrote:: Have women lost their natural abilities to detect a lie and a fraud?

Sheltering atrophies everything, including a woman's natural intuitions and motherly instincts.
They haven't completely lost it but it has atrophied to the point of being insignificant....for the majority of dimwit, midwit females...and high IQ females with a poor psychosomatic constitution.

Illiterate wrote:: Now I know that a woman might "go along" with a male's lie (in order to estimate a male's creativity constructing the lie) but being a romance fraud victim and losing thousands of euros or dollars to the "American soldier who's stuck in the Middle-East, needing desperately 10 000 euros" is not quite that.

Monogamy is still a memetic factor (technology) - a remnant of Paternalism....but it is deteriorating....so many females are forced to settle for whatever they can get.
Now things are slowly changing - depending on a female's self-esteem, her ego. They are now able to have children with males that already have children with other females.
This means incels are multiplying...and can only serve as nice guy alternatives when the desired male fails to remain committed to them.
Feminism destroyed the traditional family and forced females to return to primal sexual dynamics, multiplied by technologies and institutional effects.
The exhilaration of power soon became a realization of what this means - power has privileged but also duties.
Cost/Benefit.
Fortunately, for females there are plenty of males willing to settle for leftovers.

Illiterate wrote:: If women are great lie detectors and judges of characters, then can women estimate the value of any given male just by his looks?

Not only by "looks" but appearances, including the entire gamut of sensory input: scent, movement, humour, genstures...no detail is left unused.
Physical symmetry and proportionality is but the beginning....not the end.

Illiterate wrote:: I mean of course this cannot be done completely by anyone, since in the natural environment we see each other performing physical tasks all the time; we are not statues.

There are no certainties in nature - no absolutes - all is an approximation; an estimation of probabilities.

Illiterate wrote:: But just for a mind game, could an average female pick the winner of a boxing match beforehand more likely than an average male? Could a female tell, intuitively, based on male's looks alone, something about this male's ability to survive and endure physical strain?

Don't know about that...but there have been experiments where females were given t-shirts worn by random males and they all managed to pick the most attractive male from the scent alone.
Unattractive male sweat stinks; attractive male sweat smells divine.
Attractive male attentions are charming; unattractive male attentions are creepy.

Illiterate wrote:: Would women be better evaluating such things than males, in nature?

Yes, but males also have some intuitive abilities, though more masculine males rely exclusively on reasoning.
But, for males, sex is less risky and costly, so they don't have to overthink it.

[quote="Illiterate"]What about today? A quote from Impulso Oscuro:

Impulso Oscuro wrote:: Women having been detached from nature and violence for so long, mistake the physical and behavioral aggressiveness of alpha and nonwhite males as being superior because they have not had to deal with the consequences of their stupidity leading them to starvation or too much attention upon her in a time where being the center of attention was dangerous.

Sheltering means humans are placed in manmade environments, governed by controlled, regimented intentional factors...shaping their world-views.
Yet, their body's still remain rooted in natural selection.
Gene/Meme dynamics.
Other than the factors already mentioned, time is another factor.
So, older females are more indoctrinated and so more prone to adopt social norms and morals and ideals; even if some high IQ ones know it and experience this as being insufferable.
IQ in males determines how low they will be able to go to expunge their libidinal energies - purge their sperm sack.
Blacks will, usually, fuck anything that moves.

Illiterate wrote:: I have posited that i think the way Christianity/Abrahamism destroyed monogamy, is not so much by pairing fit/unfit males/females with eachother, but the social peace it established, which set the precedent by which men would compete with each other.

All forms of paternalism - whether Aryan or nihilistic, e.g., Abrahamic - impose a limit on male and female promiscuity.
Christianity also promotes Utopian peace and brotherhood, making males particularly feeble (emasculated), necessitating more female settling.
Even an inferior male among Aryan tribes was powerful when compared with Christians and their peace and altruistic world-views....emasculated spirits. God is, among Abrahamics, the ideal male....no biological males can ever compare.

Illiterate wrote:: I think Impulso Oscuro might be right here. I see women make a lot of mistakes in their judgments today and they seem to confuse one attribute for another. So women really do suffer from nihilism, would you all agree? Women have no coping mechanisms whatsoever in this environment. They can't "play the game" in such a way that they win anything in the end. Their instincts are of little use in modern society. Or am I wrong?

Females easily adapt to environments - even manmade environments based on nihilistic ideals.
They adapt consciously, but their bodies have evolved in different more challenging, more threatening, more uncertain environments.

Illiterate wrote:: Today it is unwise to fight over a woman, or challenge a male to a duel where it is decided who gets the female. Also a male can not be violent, protecting what is his (the female) because this male would be constantly in prison for assaults and violent offences. So violence is eliminated. In the past a male could perhaps keep his female and make sure that this female is not available for any other male, by being aggressive towards other males and possessive towards his female. Today this is not possible so even on a theoretical level the responsibility to refuse all the proposals and keeping up the companionship and monogamy is of female's. But if women are sperm samplers and they go strategically for diversity, any responsibility excepted from females about moral matters is very stupid indeed.

Feminization implies that males are forces to adopt feminine methods of attracting and seducing mates.
Metrosexuality, Dandyism...

Even bodybuilding is an exaggeration of masculine proportions. I heard that Schwarzenegger had to lose muscle mass to play Conan, because he could not swing the words, due to his size.
This means that muscles are so out of proportion to what is necessary....an overinflating, compensating for a degree of socially imposed emasculation.

Illiterate wrote:: That is widely true. Yet, many if not most of the females seem to feel attraction to the loudest and cockiest male; hypermasculated male. The one who doesn't have any substance to his words. One could ask, is this a mistake, a bad judgement on a female's part or not?

Hypobole - self-handicapping - was always a male method of standing apart, and being noticed.
Males lie, so do females, in the erotic game....females evolved a lie radar, but this does not make them immune to male natural signals of health and virility. Hypobole simply accentuates them so that they can be easily noticed among the cultivated uniformity of manmade systems.

Illiterate wrote:: I guess I would like to ask, do women (even the average and low IQ females) feel and sense intuitively that this (nihilism) is a bad deal to them?

No...women rely on their gut feeling, their intuition, and need not understand what it is, nor why it is.
This need to know is a male thing.
This makes females more easily indoctrinated. They don't question their desire to submit to power, they surrender to the feeling - give themselves to it.
This is why male love is trustworthy and long lasting - agape - whereas female love/lust is ephemeral and untrustworthy - eros.
Agape is based on reasoning; eros on hormones and emotions and impulses...lust, experienced as surrender, submission, total and complete identification.

Illiterate wrote:: Do they feel this depression in their bones?

This is another issue.
Depression has to do with declining virility, power, hope....the estimation of diminishing probabilities.

Illiterate wrote:: In a nihilistic era, they can't feel sexually satisfied and many times they feel depressed because they bear inferior children, and all in all they never get to be part of anything that would be appreciated through ages? Or did I just describe a woman with a high IQ? Are the average and low IQ women quite literally happily oblivious?

Females are subjective...their doubts precede copulating; their indecisions precede impregnation.
Once they've committed and invested, they are all-in, and when the hormonal lust/love erotic effect subsides they seek another investment.
0% - to 100%

Illiterate wrote:: I asked in this thread, has the lack of violence affected any of this. I would like to ask, do high IQ women have so much more sophisticated and refined judgement, that they really see the actual potential behind any given male, even when some of the information is not available? So they do not make the decision based on who at the first sight seems most able (by being the loudest, the most visible, most aggressive, most hyper masculated...)?

Sheltering atrophies....body and mind; spirit and judgement.
When there's no big cost to having inferior children why be stringent and exact about who the father is?
Cost/Benefit.
When the severity of the consequences is reduced - due to collective, institutional interventions, there is no need to develop whatever you've inherited....neither physical and mental.

Especially in Americanism, denying race and now sex/gender...all consequences concerning a child's mental and physical potentials become accusations against systemic racism or sexism. All is reduces to language - exchange codes...money.
There's no natural cost to female promiscuity - not only because of modern policing and medical interventions, but because of institutional interventions imposing equality...and more recently imposing equity.
A females filtering mesh becomes wider or more socially/culturally, determined. She need not worry about any consequences.
Her promiscuity impulses are liberated from naturally limiting risks/costs.

Why do you think they so vehemently deny free-will?
They do not want to acknowledge any human, any personal, factor in determining anything...including the quality of their own offspring.
Their sexual choices are not the issue, for their degenerate minds...it's all fate....or the consequence of some evil agency, like systemic racism/sexism.
Their judgements and choices have nothing to do with it, you see?
They did not participate, in the slightest, in what followed.
Even their judgements and choices were inevitable - determined. They never made any error in judgement....never made a single mistake.

Understand now?
It's all tied together.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν

if a women try to demean, mock or use some kind of "femdom" strategies on you,
just say that pure heroin is better than her puss,
watch how she reacts, and smile,

The Feminine always attacks using sexuality. It is her only source of power.
This is especially true for lower IQ females...
When a female cannot deal with a male rationally she attacks using what is most intimate to her.
Even female to female competitiveness is expressed as social status, or her sexual power within a group.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν

When will to life declines it is replaced with will to death - will to power - moving towards omnipotence - becomes will to powerlessness - moving towards impotence.
Existential fatigue - existence experienced as need/suffering, is multiplied as one wills growth, empowerment, expansion of control.
Existential fatigue surrenders to fate - gives itself to power - seeking peace, comfort...innocence.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν

Illiterate wrote:: Especially I want to ask, can females make good judgments in mate-choices when violence is not apparent?

I have heard theories that females are in fact very good lie detectors and judges of characters, because males have always been pretending to be more than they are to females. Females developed this trait of seeing through males who's sales pitches promised much more than were backed up in the real world.

But are females such great lie detectors after all? Or has the situation changed in a few previous generations due to brainwashing and nihilism? Have women lost their natural abilities to detect a lie and a fraud? Now I know that a woman might "go along" with a male's lie (in order to estimate a male's creativity constructing the lie) but being a romance fraud victim and losing thousands of euros or dollars to the "American soldier who's stuck in the Middle-East, needing desperately 10 000 euros/dollars" is not quite that.

Though there are some articles that claim that actually more men than women fall for romance scams. If this is the case, then I suppose women in fact do have a better judgement than males in this overall: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If women are great lie detectors and judges of characters, then can women estimate the value of any given male just by his looks? I mean of course this cannot be done completely by anyone, since in the natural environment we see each other performing physical tasks all the time; we are not statues and we don't perceive each others as such.

But just for a mind game, could an average female pick the winner of a boxing match beforehand more likely than an average male? Could a female tell, intuitively, based on male's looks alone, something about this male's ability to survive and endure physical strain?

Would women be better evaluating such things than males, in nature?

I guess I would like to ask, do women (even the average and low IQ females) feel and sense intuitively that this (nihilism) is a bad deal to them? Do they feel this depression in their bones? In a nihilistic era, they can't feel sexually satisfied and many times they feel depressed because they bear inferior children, and all in all they never get to be part of anything that would be appreciated through ages? Or did I just describe a woman with a high IQ? Are the average and low IQ women quite literally happily oblivious?

I asked in this thread, has the lack of violence affected any of this. I would like to ask, do high IQ women have so much more sophisticated and refined judgement, that they really see the actual potential behind any given male, even when some of the information is not available? So they do not make the decision based on who at the first sight seems most able (by being the loudest, the most visible, most aggressive, most hyper masculated...)?

Given Satyr's insights, I'd only like to offer an expounding of a previous point i made. Women are naturally submissive. Their nature is submission. Women want men to guide them, to lower their defenses, to make them open to receive him. She never actively, deliberately, or consciously looks for deception or lies in his mannerisms, but only knows when she feels threatened by him in some way, only knows when something is not right with him, at which point she will be put off. She will become open and submissive to him when she feels he is not a threat to her. This is precisely why women swoon and gush incessantly about men who are charming or most of all, "humorous". Humor is a trait that eases inhibitions and anxiety; a natural euphoric biochemical drug. A man who exudes a humor disposition, is a man who is able to suppress his natural masculine abrasiveness, and makes himself less aggressive, less rigid, less closed off, and so he becomes to her more dynamic, interesting, complex, mysterious, all the attributes that stimulate her attraction and willingness to be his property. This is why incel males cannot get laid. They are everything women hate: socially awkward, overly-reserved, stoic, guarded, intellectually bland etc. Females are naturally dull and boring for a reason. They are meant to receive, not to give. Thus, it is the man's purpose to be ebullient, to offer versatile personality traits, be likable, be interesting, be amusing. He has to bring the goods.

Women are extremely sensual and primitive, and so they respond well to the release of inhibitions. Therefore, charm/humor is a form of pleasurable pretension that they embrace. A man can lie all he wants when he is charming and funny you see, because the seductive artistic effect of the way he presents his pretense will mask any underlying deceptive motive, which his most obvious one would be to get laid. Courtship is all about pretension afterall. Women love the game of it, because they are childish and foolish. They enjoy pretension, which is why they excel and are so good at it when it comes to every area of social interaction.

So, if a man is capable of making himself less of a threat to her, she will be more open to him. However, he cannot do it at the expense of his dominance, authority or confidence. He himself cannot become submissive, otherwise the female will have a field day exposing all of his weaknesses. And its up to him to know how not to be submissive, how not to be feminized. He must always be leading, guiding her, in control.

Satyr wrote:: Understand now?

Well you've certainly opened it up for me. Thank you.

Especially this was well said:

Satyr wrote:: Sheltering atrophies....body and mind; spirit and judgement.
When there's no big cost to having inferior children why be stringent and exact about who the father is?
Cost/Benefit.
When the severity of the consequences is reduced - due to collective, institutional interventions, there is no need to develop whatever you've inherited....neither physical and mental.

As everything goes in cycles in life, does that mean that every time there must be the decline? So there will be "drop-outs" in declined times who would nevertheless be genetically "good material" in most measurable ways?
So it is absolutely not possible that the Spartan physique and Hellenic mind would ever be the STANDARD of humans, and these states can not be maintained for long periods of time, as the decline happens?

Kvasir wrote:: Women are extremely sensual and primitive, and so they respond well to the release of inhibitions. Therefore, charm/humor is a form of pleasurable pretension that they embrace. A man can lie all he wants when he is charming and funny you see, because the seductive artistic effect of the way he presents his pretense will mask any underlying deceptive motive, which his most obvious one would be to get laid. Courtship is all about pretension afterall. Women love the game of it, because they are childish and foolish. They enjoy pretension, which is why they excel and are so good at it when it comes to every area of social interaction.

So, if a man is capable of making himself less of a threat to her, she will be more open to him. However, he cannot do it at the expense of his dominance, authority or confidence. He himself cannot become submissive, otherwise the female will have a field day exposing all of his weaknesses. And its up to him to know how not to be submissive, how not to be feminized. He must always be leading, guiding her, in control.

Nicely formed insights. Thank you.

But I suppose this applies there too?

Satyr wrote:: Attractive male attentions are charming; unattractive male attentions are creepy.

Satyr wrote:: Even bodybuilding is an exaggeration of masculine proportions. I heard that Schwarzenegger had to lose muscle mass to play Conan, because he could not swing the words, due to his size.
This means that muscles are so out of proportion to what is necessary....an overinflating, compensating for a degree of socially imposed emasculation.

What do you think of Olympic weightlifting? Do you think the same principle applies; it's fundamentally overcompensating for emasculation? I have heard someone saying that males going to the gym is in general, overcompensating and a reaction to some psychological issue.

Personally I sympathize Olympic weightlifters. Like Ivan Chakarov. He doesn't look like much, but here he squats 270kg triple. And no belt and no knee wraps. That's more than Arnold could dream of.

So I could ask, would the females see the potential that is behind Ivan Chakarov, even though he doesn't look as impressive as Arnold? In my experience, many women would go for Arnold, which is externally hyper masculated type, yet Chakarov's potential in physical strain is probably much higher, though it is not maybe apparent just by looks. But is it so that females are easily fooled by big muscles, or does the lie detecting quality work well here too?

The difference is focus - one is on performance, whatever offers some advantage, the other is on whatever looks like it can promise performance.
Practice/Theory.

It's all related to connection of words/symbols with actions or to other words theories.

Illiterate wrote:: As everything goes in cycles in life, does that mean that every time there must be the decline? So there will be "drop-outs" in declined times who would nevertheless be genetically "good material" in most measurable ways?
So it is absolutely not possible that the Spartan physique and Hellenic mind would ever be the STANDARD of humans, and these states can not be maintained for long periods of time, as the decline happens?

Cycles do not imply that what is true in nature is suddenly untrue when it is within manmade, artificial, environments.

Humans are products of thousands of years of evolution - societies are no more than 4-5 thousand years.
Nihilistic ones no more than a thuosand.

Divisions occur among the strong and the weak. the weak are seduced and attracted to the artificial....easier, more certain, more exaggerated.
The athletic build is still irresistible to all females - the hypermasculine to feeble females.

Illiterate wrote:: What do you think of Olympic weightlifting?

Weightlifting is about performance, within a specific range.
Bodybuilding is about appearances.

Illiterate wrote:: Do you think the same principle applies; it's fundamentally overcompensating for emasculation? I have heard someone saying that males going to the gym is in general, overcompensating and a reaction to some psychological issue.

It depends on the objective.
The objective exposes value and motive.

Illiterate wrote:: So I could ask, would the females see the potential that is behind Ivan Chakarov, even though he doesn't look as impressive as Arnold?

Some would...because his feat would also be accompanied with a certain demeanour, attitude, presence.

Illiterate wrote:: In my experience, many women would go for Arnold, which is externally hyper masculated type, yet Chakarov's potential in physical strain is probably much higher, though it is not maybe apparent just by looks. But is it so that females are easily fooled by big muscles, or does the lie detecting quality work well here too?

Women follow fashion trends...icons, idols....whomever is popular, is valued highly by a the collective they belong to.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν