You dont sell your hard worked paintings for 100 bucks because you’re out of luck, and you dont sell your bullshit no talent paintings for 5 grand and get 100,000 in commission work because you’re lucky.

There’s another range of social / dominance intelligence that the study is missing, either on purpose or due to stupidity on the researchers. The social intelligence, aka, game, explains the variations, and in real world, unless the broke painter is rebellious as fuck, the 5 grand painter is eating the cake with women, and it shows in his body confidence and outlook and detachment and opportunity grabbing – followed by the broken entrepeneur.

Then the other artist and then the lame ass herb millionaire. BTW did anyone picture the millionaire even had a lifestyle? fashion sense? any bling any value? maybe he has – but the test doesnt hint you about it, painting him as a miserable fuck with a huge bank account. The kind of guy women like to put as a beta orbiter in the back burner in case they dont find something else. When they marked him as LONG term partner, that also means its going to take a LONG while before that guy gets to the front line with them. Nice guys end last if they end at all.

And the very talented artist selling his shit too cheap speaks volumes about his self worth and confidence.

These studies should be measured against what these women actually pick. Put them in a room all together and watch and measure the reactions. Film this shit. Otherwise we-re just tasting whatever the researchers wanted us to.

In the field M might as well be a street painter while L would be seen as the real artist, the midget Picasso had women literally fighting over him.