Looksmaxxing: does it work? is it dangerous?

Like most old people, I assume everything young people do is foolish and faddish, but unlike most old people, I try to understand from the horse's mouth before judging. I don't go by the New York Times or the Atlantic. Here are some observations and thoughts about looksmaxxing.

Looksmaxxing is a growing movement among primarily young men. Its’ thesis is: society provides tremendous benefit to people who look good. Looking good means being tall, muscular, lean, tan, having a good haircut, smelling fresh, dressing well. These men are able to date attractive women and more likely to gain favorable employment.

Looksmaxxing accepts the fact that society values other things too, like being rich and powerful. Yet, the corollary thesis of looksmaxxing is: hour for hour, dollar for dollar, the best use of your time is to improve your looks.

For example, no one doubts that a neurosurgeon has a better lot in life than a barista. But the looksmaxxing philosophy would note that to become a neurosurgeon, you must commit at least 15 years, and at least a quarter million dollars, and, for a fraction of that energy, one could achieve a modest improvement in looks, with a better (effort to reward) payoff.

Looksmaxxing believes looks has a larger ROI than money, status, prestige or power.

Looksmaxxing is divided into softmaxxing and hardmaxxing. The soft thesis involves the use of skin care products, the shower, hitting the gym, getting some sun, avoiding alcohol, good rest, good nutrition, a slight caloric deficit to get lean, etc. The hard thesis involves the use of plastic surgery, injectable, collagen, Botox, retatrutide and other cosmetic enhancements.

Looksmaxxing makes no claim to the secret of having a long-term steady partner, and children, but instead focuses on maximizing short-term relationship and sexual goals, and being treated well at work.

All of the above is not a judgment— not yet— but an honest attempt to summarize the thesis.

Recently I heard Arthur Brooks, a Harvard happiness researcher, whom I generally appreciate, criticize looksmaxxing.

His first point was although looks provide some value early on in a relationship, women are most attracted to stability, character, working hard for long-term relationships.

Sure, but as far as I can tell that is not relevant to the looksmaxxing thesis. They don't claim that looks are the ticket to having a wife, a house in the suburbs and 2.5 kids. Arthur Brooks criticizes a straw man. Ironically he accepts their claim that looks is important ‘early on’— which is, as far as I can tell, the only claim they make and largely uncontroversial.

Arthur Brooks's next criticism and the perennial criticism in the media is that this movement is leading many to dangerous cosmetic surgery or to hammer on their bones in an effort to have the bones grow, etc.

I tried to verify this fear. It appears largely anecdotal. There is no empirical evidence there is an increase in bone smashing hospital visits etc. I would not just look at bone smashing but a composite endpoint of dangerous home cosmetic procedures over time.

My view:

I suspect the reason the movement has ignited is that the core premises are rather uncontroversial.

It is better to be thin, tan, and showered. Diet exercise, weightlifting, avoiding alcohol probably— are all helpful to look better.

Complicated and expensive skin care regimens maybe supplanted by cheaper ones. But these are largely not harmful.

Looksmaxxing and dermatology are at odds about the sun. A lot of sun exposure increases the risk of lifetime squamous and basal cancer with disputed effects on melanoma. But that tells you nothing about the value of getting sun which includes improved mood, vitamin d, and better appearance. For me, I am team sun.

A lot of plastic surgery makes people look worse, particularly repeat surgery. I suspect the same as true for injectable solutions. These are likely not needed for young people, and misused. At the same time, there is no and empirical evidence that there's an epidemic of bone smashing or jaw surgery. These claims are likely hyperbolic.

It is probably also the case that the return on investment is better from these things than from career achievement.

Far more interesting than looksmaxxing is the much more common philosophy where many people clearly neglect their health and appearance in pursuit of work — long hours, poor food, no exercise, leading to weight gain, premature balding, and shortening of life for a job of dubious value. I have seen colleagues deteriorate in pursuit of running an unethical clinical trial.

I continue to believe that most things young people do are foolish and faddish, but I don't get too excited about looksmaxxing. Sitting on the couch, being unemployed, playing video games, eating processed foods, binge drinking, wallowing in your misery are probably much worse.