In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with making generalizations if they are true. Do note that generalizations, by definition, will have exceptions (which is why they are not called "absolute truths" but rather "generalizations" in the first place.)

For example: I could say that men generally prefer women with hourglass figures. It does not mean that ALL men prefer women with hourglass figures. Some guys like their girls chubby and pear shaped with a nice round b000tay and love to cuddle.

But the generalization holds. Most men really do prefer women with hourglass figures.
Now, you could argue that some guys who have...

*no social life, eats shit, dont exercise, sleeps at 3am everyday, doesnt know how to groom himself, and is emotionally insecure*

...are building relationships with girls who are reasonably attractive and have other options (ie. guys willing to date them).

But it is not the general truth. In reality, the guys with those issues are very likely to have their choice selection of partners (ie. The girls they are interested in are not interested in them). Im not saying that they are doomed to be single all their life...Most people will adjust their standards (the hot girls with options were out of their league) and date/ask-out girls who are willing to go out with them.
Let me start with an analogy. Let's say I were to write a story. "Little Red Riding Hood". You have all the right in the world to comment on my writing style. It is subjective (ie. open to YOUR personal interpretation). If you find that my writing style is boring, then that is your personal opinion. I accept that. And I will try to make it more interesting.

Constructive criticism is different. If you were to say that my story doesnt make sense because "the big bad wolf eats Little Red Riding Hood in the second chapter but she comes back to life in the fourth chapter", then that would be a genuine constructive criticism.

It's not to say that you subjective feedback on writing isnt valued. Believe it or not, it actually is. I have been trying very hard to make the message as politically correct / non-offensive / non-belittling as possible. But there is a limit that I will reach sooner or later.

QUOTE(silverhawk):  I agree. The delivery style is not perfect. I am still trying to figure out a way to not make it a massive wall of text (like my mind map one)...while not offending/belittling/hurting people and their fragile egos. Silver, I hope to meet you in real life one day. Would be an interesting conversation. I wonder how you interpret things the way you do and nitpick on perceived inconsistencies.

QUOTE(jamien): True, my work is not perfect. But im glad that jamien realizes that I cannot stretch my points too much as people would be put off by a wall of text. I am not david deangelo and his sugar coated, feel-good, wrinting style. I am simply more point blank. Some people will be hurt. Hence the disclaimer, and hence the numerous ad hominem responses. I think some people have fragile egos or image issues.

QUOTE(deadlocks): IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, a man's self worth is determined by the factors I have mentioned. Note that all those factors are subjective as well. What is healthy? What is mentally healthy? What is physically healthy? What is emotionally healthy? They are all subjective things. You know what YOUR PERSONAL definition of those traits are. I use the word subjective as it is used in the english language. I am referring to the fact that those traits cannot be measured quantitatively, but rather perceived in the mind of the beholder. I did not define anything. I merely pointed out that IN MY OPINION (yes, i have a right to an opinion too!) "self worth" is a natural consequence of those subjective (non-definable) traits.  If you disagree, fine.

QUOTE(deadlocks): I hold that you are just nitpicking on semantics. Ill leave it up to the other forumers reading this to decide. Anyway. Subjective or not it is irrelevant to the core topics of this article.
This thread is far more straightforward. I realized that if I were to elaborate on every single thing on the mind map, I would need about four posts to do so due to word limits on this forum. Too big wall of text. Not worth the effort. Nobody would read it.

The contents of this thread is pretty much a summary of the mind map in the other one. It boils down to physical, mental and emotional wellbeing.
I want to meet you in  real life one day. TT or something. We would have an interesting conversation.

ANyway, I was not "defining it for people" I was just expressing my opinion. Note I even added "IN MY PERSONAL OPINION" in caps to the sentence. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS A HUMAN RIGHT. If you want to use that kind of an argument, then almost opinion on this forum is wrong.

I have the right to express myself. You have the right not to listen. You have the right to disagree if it means something else to you.

Also, I did not say that physical/mental/emotional health = self worth. I DID NOT SAY THAT. I said that self worth builds as a natural consequence of being in good physical/mental/emotional health.

I DID NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT having self worth WITHOUT good physical/mental/emotional health.

I DID NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT some people having self worth WITHOUT good physical/mental/emotional health.
(yes, i agree some people do have high self worth even though they are in poor physical/mental/emotional health)

Your logic is non-sequirtur!

Dont put words in my mouth laa... If this thread makes you bitter, then dont read it...but ffs stop putting words in my mouth.
^see reply to Deadlocks, and the concept of generalization. Yeah, exceptions do exist...but they are not the norm!

I think that a man's self worth is determined by:

1) Physical well being
2) Mental well being
3) Emotional well being
4) Career and security