@Belacqua
Yes, attractiveness is not 100% down to physical aspects. But I'd argue that a large proportion of it is. Consider how many of the things you listed are connected to physical body/face appearance: it is much easier to look good/stylish if you're tall, slim and pretty than if you're short and fat and ugly. There's a reason why most models and actors are the way they are. Confidence comes from being treated a certain way and from prior success; people bullied or rejected from childhood for being fat or ugly etc are far less likely to have confidence. Even grooming and hygiene can often be tied to mental health, and if someone has body image issues or depression through loneliness and bullying they're far less likely to groom adequately.
And, on top of all this, there's the halo effect, where positive personality traits are ascribed with bias based upon physicality - height is connected to authority and confidence, like a deep voice; creepiness or evil is connected to facial shape or disability; and so on. Sometimes when people think they're being attracted to someone's confidence they're mistakenly attributing their attraction away from the unconscious bias towards height, health, slimness, facial symmetry and the like.
As for people like Satre who was not exactly a looker to say the least, we are talking about outliers who overcompensated for their looks by being a world class talent and having unapproachable status, as well as likely unearthly charisma. And it was in a previous less image saturated age.
In short, I agree that looks aren't everything. But I do think they are vital in terms of a minimum threshold (no one dates someone they find physically repulsive), and they are far more influential than many suppose. Looks aren't the be all end all, but they are likely the single most determinant factor in someone's dating life, and likely important in life success in general (promotions, friendships, interpersonal judgements, opportunities, etc).
Yes, attractiveness is not 100% down to physical aspects. But I'd argue that a large proportion of it is. Consider how many of the things you listed are connected to physical body/face appearance: it is much easier to look good/stylish if you're tall, slim and pretty than if you're short and fat and ugly. There's a reason why most models and actors are the way they are. Confidence comes from being treated a certain way and from prior success; people bullied or rejected from childhood for being fat or ugly etc are far less likely to have confidence. Even grooming and hygiene can often be tied to mental health, and if someone has body image issues or depression through loneliness and bullying they're far less likely to groom adequately.
And, on top of all this, there's the halo effect, where positive personality traits are ascribed with bias based upon physicality - height is connected to authority and confidence, like a deep voice; creepiness or evil is connected to facial shape or disability; and so on. Sometimes when people think they're being attracted to someone's confidence they're mistakenly attributing their attraction away from the unconscious bias towards height, health, slimness, facial symmetry and the like.
As for people like Satre who was not exactly a looker to say the least, we are talking about outliers who overcompensated for their looks by being a world class talent and having unapproachable status, as well as likely unearthly charisma. And it was in a previous less image saturated age.
In short, I agree that looks aren't everything. But I do think they are vital in terms of a minimum threshold (no one dates someone they find physically repulsive), and they are far more influential than many suppose. Looks aren't the be all end all, but they are likely the single most determinant factor in someone's dating life, and likely important in life success in general (promotions, friendships, interpersonal judgements, opportunities, etc).