Article: Attraction inequality and the dating economy
#1
Very interesting article on the dating economy based on dating app stats: https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/attract...g-economy/
 

Some quotes:

"A data scientist representing the popular dating app “Hinge” reported on the Gini coefficients he had found in his company’s abundant data, treating “likes” as the equivalent of income. He reported that heterosexual females faced a Gini coefficient of 0.324, while heterosexual males faced a much higher Gini coefficient of 0.542. So neither sex has complete equality: in both cases, there are some “wealthy” people with access to more romantic experiences and some “poor” who have access to few or none. But while the situation for women is something like an economy with some poor, some middle class, and some millionaires, the situation for men is closer to a world with a small number of super-billionaires surrounded by huge masses who possess almost nothing."

Quartz reported on this finding, and also cited another article about an experiment with Tinder that claimed that that “the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men.”

-->Men who know the dating game in the west knew this already, but it's nice to see it in stats. Few men get it all, while the rest are mainly chumps fighting for a small piece of the cake.

"Yet another study, run by OkCupid on their huge datasets, found that women rate 80 percent of men as “worse-looking than medium,” and that this 80 percent “below-average” block received replies to messages only about 30 percent of the time or less. By contrast, men rate women as worse-looking than medium only about 50 percent of the time, and this 50 percent below-average block received message replies closer to 40 percent of the time or higher."

-->If you are ugly, you don't stand a chance on online dating sites basically.

"Just as much, consider that we live in a monogamous culture, and so the 20 percent of men who are regarded as attractive can only be in committed relationships with at most 20 percent of women. We may just as well pity the rest of the women, who are destined to be in committed relationships, if they pursue a relationship at all, with someone who they regard as unattractive."

-->Maybe 20 years ago, I don't think this represents current society anymore. 

"The only villain in this story is nature, which has molded our preferences so that this tragic mismatch of attraction and availability occurs."

-->This is the red pill lessons as always, learn about the rules of nature, learn how to use em in your favor and see through societies attempts to blur these realities. 

"The relative perceived attractiveness of younger women vs. older can be explained by the higher fertility of younger adult women. The libido gap can be explained by the different mating strategies instinctively pursued by the distinct sexes."

"The revealed preference among most women to attempt to engage romantically only with the same small percentage of men who are perceived as attractive is consistent with the social system called “polygyny,” in which a small percentage of males monopolize the mating opportunities with all females, while many other males have no access to mates. Again, this will not come as a surprise to scientists. The evolutionary biologist David P. Barash wrote an article in Psychology Today titled “People Are Polygynous,” citing extensive biological and historical evidence that throughout most of history, our species has practiced “harem polygyny,” a form of polygamy."

-->Interesting facts here, didn't know that term, but indeed this has been the standard throughout history and still is the standard in most of Africa. 

"Young people enter the equality-inducing institution of monogamy later and later or not at all, spending more time in a chaotically unequal polygynous dating world. Monogamy itself is weaker, as divorce becomes easier and even married people often report encountering “dead bedrooms” in which one or both spouses feel no obligation to give a partner who they do not regard as sufficiently attractive access to sexual experiences. Religious belief is in constant decline, and with it declines the belief in the dignity of celibacy or the importance of anything other than hedonism (sexual or otherwise). Even fairy tales that for centuries helped us understand how to live charitably with each other are disavowed and cultural tastemakers like Time Magazine and the BBC denigrate them as sexist."

-->The author knows what's up. Possible forum member right there.

Check the comments as well, there are some interesting remarks there.

Thoughts?
Reply
#2
Its a good article. I think the 80/20 rule is becoming quite well known at this stage.

I don't think theres anything anyone can really do to change the state of affairs, its primarily a result of female psychology, male thirst, and the new dating market on apps interacting together. The best thing to do is to accept how things are, and work out how best to succeed despite that. There are only two real solutions in my mind:

1) get out there and make approaches in real life, where the divide isn't quite so stark, because average women don't get so many guys throwing themselves at them.
2) make damn sure you're in the top 20% of the dating market in at least one niche. Better yet, make it the top 5%, and preferably in a couple of niches.

For 2) I don't think it matters hugely which niche(s) you pick. Some of them you can't really change, like height, or facial looks. But lots of them you can - wealth, muscularity, fashion sense, social status etc. If you can dominate a packed room in one regard you'll always find a subset of women who're into you sooner or later.

To put it in the nerdiest way possible, and tie it back into the maths: if you're only in the 60th percentile for facial attractiveness, but you get yourself to the 96th in wealth, 95th in muscularity and 90th for fashion sense for example you'll average out well into the top 20% of men. Male attractiveness is a multidimensional thing, thankfully.

The important part is just sitting down and rationally deciding what things about yourself you can improve on, then going out and doing it. Almost nobody is condemned to staying in the sexless 80% permanently, unless they have a major physical or mental disability.
Reply
#3
(02-18-2020, 07:56 PM)Rottenapple Wrote: Very interesting article on the dating economy based on dating app stats: https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/attract...g-economy/
 
...

Thoughts?

We're familiar enough with these themes and the dating app data is interesting and not surprising. 

However, I'm not entirely convinced that the data points captured from online behavior convert neatly into real world behavior.

Quite a lot of mismatched couples meet and hook up through social circles and I suspect there are a good number of romantically cautious women who, in reality and not in app world, go with the safe option more often than the exciting one.

The porn we jerk off to isn't how things actually go down in the bedroom. Smile

To the extent that inequality in attraction exists, I've always wondered how much of it is genetic/natural vs. structural/cultural. 

I imagine there could be a more even distribution if:
  • Men lived in societies that encouraged, developed, favored, and celebrated their strengths. 
  • There was a more robust culture of seduction and men were more acutely and instinctively aware of the subtle behaviors and mannerisms that make girls wet. 
  • Guys were socialized differently with less shame and guilt and a true DGAF attitude toward mass society  
  • Female sentiments, opinions, and thoughts were widely taken as whimsical, unimportant, and ridiculous but amusing (while also acknowledging the rare exceptions for those that actually are clever or brilliant). 
For now, the collective consciousness around women and their natures is dim enough that the guys who 'get it' are going to reap disproportionate rewards, but maybe not so lopsided as suggested by the article. 

But, we're in strange times, and maybe so...
Reply
#4
Women are being artificially lifted up from all the money and benefits government, corporations, and their fathers give them. Modern white women are the most comfortable, provided-for demographic in human history.

They dont have to do shit and their value is naturally at a high level. Its why even that church dating shit is severely in their favor.

They can be meek, passive, quiet, insecure, weird, and they will still have dating options far beyond what most men have to work hard for.

Thats without even getting into how marriage lopsidedly benefits them. Its a transaction and theyre hard-wired to extract the most from men will giving little to nothing in return.
Reply
#5
At one point I made a fake profile on OK Cupid. It was a cute but not stunning woman age 44. Just wanted to see what the competition looked like and how things worked in my general age group.

As you might guess, she got lots of likes and messages from thirsty males across all age groups. The majority were obvious chodes. There were tons of compliments, like "Hey beautiful." There was no hint of anyone being game-aware in the least.

I think dating apps exaggerate women's worst impulses. You're putting them in a position where just about all they can go on is looks -- so why be surprised when they only choose the best-looking guys? Some guys in my experiment had good aesthetics. But many others had obvious poor style, beta posture, poor grooming, shitty photos -- some loaded their photos horizontally, so you had to turn the screen. Most had only one photo and it was often grainy. Why choose those chodes, and why blame a woman for skipping them?

What do you guys think of the "looks are everything" black pill viewpoint?
Reply
#6
(02-18-2020, 11:32 PM)WombRaider Wrote: ...

What do you guys think of the "looks are everything" black pill viewpoint?

It's a particular virulent strain of internet groupthink that's overly pessimistic and a denial of reality.

Certain guys will be hopeless cases, but I think many could change various aspects of their style, fitness, grooming, influence, authority, lifestyle, reputation, posture, and demeanor to have a good deal more success.

Yes, relatively stylish good looking guys in anonymous settings (bars, clubs, festivals, etc.) will sometimes provoke initial visceral physical lust and one night stands from these venues happen will happen more often for them. 

Good looking dudes also get a more favorable reception on the dating apps, which is a primarily visual medium. 

However, there are other spheres where not-so-good looking men can gain pole position.

I've seen no shortage of "ugly" guys — from small art gallery owner, to dance instructor, to sleazy club promoter, to hostel manager, to bass guitarist in a decent band, to fun good ol' boy with a successful career, to grungy bartender — who've had very pretty girls wrapped around their finger.

IMO, the black pill viewpoint is right to recognize the looks advantage and wrong to assume that it's ironclad and insurmountable.
Reply
#7
I think the online stuff just exaggerates whats actually a historical norm. Most men didnt have the 'fitness' to reproduce throughout history.

Average male has also deteriorated. Fatter, more feminine, and less ambition. They're soft. I dont blame women for only wanting to date the top 20%.
Reply
#8
(02-18-2020, 09:13 PM)zatara Wrote: To put it in the nerdiest way possible, and tie it back into the maths: if you're only in the 60th percentile for facial attractiveness, but you get yourself to the 96th in wealth, 95th in muscularity and 90th for fashion sense for example you'll average out well into the top 20% of men. Male attractiveness is a multidimensional thing, thankfully.

The important part is just sitting down and rationally deciding what things about yourself you can improve on, then going out and doing it. Almost nobody is condemned to staying in the sexless 80% permanently, unless they have a major physical or mental disability.

This pretty much sums it up. The "looks are everything" crowd just doesn't acknowledge the many examples that show that men are not judged purely on physical attractiveness.

In addition to choosing what to improve upon and doing it, men need to be more cognizant of what arena they are most likely to be successful in and where they are not. If you aren't facially attractive, don't rely on online. If you're not in good shape, don't expect to smash girls at a pool party. If you don't have strong physical presence and comfort in a loud environment, don't try to pull in crowded bars. Sometimes it comes down to just following logic and playing to your strengths.

Thankfully we still live in a world where you can meet women from good ol' approach. I was recently talking to a coworker in his mid40s about the new online dating apps (he's been married for years and has barely even heard of Tinder). When I explained it to him, he asked if the technology has improved enough to where you can swipe on women at a specific bar that both of you are at. I told him that doesn't exist as of now, and thank goodness. I hope that doesn't start becoming a thing for another few decades.
Reply
#9
I sometimes wonder if/when there is/will be a self-improvement "arms-race" among a few women, to the same extent there has been a self-improvement arms-race among a few men.

Is self-acceptance mostly a female thing, while self-improvement is mostly a male thing? Should most men who actually try expect to invest more but get less as time goes on?

Or is all this just how it looks from my perspective?
Reply
#10
The more that women date online, the worse this is going to get.

I follow a few female forums, and even with the tsunami of dicks, they *still* aren't happy.

Lot of these chicks go un-fucked. A lot of them get pumped and dumped. And even if she's hot enough to snag some commitment, the guy ends up being unable to conform to her behavioral standards within a relationship.

It's basically not enough to be a good-looking guy in their eyes.

I foresee some science fiction shit at this point. Artificial insemination and covens of women and children living together, while men are largely satisfied by AI fembots and Chinese cloned and raised bitches.

If you guys are curious, a proto female PUA/Red Pill group for and by women is on Reddit called female dating strategies.

It reads like a black women's dating support group, lol, but it's surprisingly diverse.

Their tactics to deal with poor behaving and noncommittal men will enrage mouth breathers, but if you're sharp you'll realize that the things they protest are really key vulnerabilities that plenty of "fuck boys" have exploited.

I'm reading stuff and thinking damn, I didn't even know that was an option.
Reply
#11
^
If you want to get really pissed off, google #wastehistime2016
Reply
#12
In my country there's not an abundance of hot women on dating apps, its like 1 in 15 or 1 in 20. With massive male competition. I'm getting girls on dates from daygame that would NEVER swipe me on dating apps. I recommend cutting out dating apps completely if you're not in the top 5% of looks with god-tier pics. It just lowers your self esteem
Reply
#13
Though I imagine they'll never do it, I wish they'd release the actual swiping stats on one of these apps.

It has to be something like 20-1 in terms of amount of right swipes men make compared to women.

I imagine Tinder is like 100 million swipes per day by men, and maybe 5 million by women.
Reply
#14
(02-19-2020, 02:43 PM)captain_shane Wrote: Though I imagine they'll never do it, I wish they'd release the actual swiping stats on one of these apps.

It has to be something like 20-1 in terms of amount of right swipes men make compared to women.

I imagine Tinder is like 100 million swipes per day by men, and maybe 5 million by women.

I don't think they've released stats on swipes, but the stats for the gender ratios are pretty horrifying:

Quote:A recent study by Mobile Journey Marketing cloud provider Ogury reveals a massive gender imbalance amongst dating app users in various countries. This imbalance was greatest in Italy – where 91% of dating app users are male.

Key findings include:

85% of the UK’s dating app user base is male. On Tinder this figure is even higher, with roughly one female user for every nine male users.

American women are slightly more likely than those in Europe to use dating apps, but still only make up 27% of users overall.

This trend was even noticeable amongst more “female-friendly” apps like Bumble, (where female users have to send the first message), whose user base is over 80% male.

http://www.netimperative.com/2019/04/onl...diversity/
Reply
#15
(02-19-2020, 12:31 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote: Lot of these chicks go un-fucked.  A lot of them get pumped and dumped.  And even if she's hot enough to snag some commitment, the guy ends up being unable to conform to her behavioral standards within a relationship.  

It's basically not enough to be a good-looking guy in their eyes.  

It seems to me that betas are falling all over themselves to commit. 

I suppose you mean that it's hard for them to secure commitment from the top X% that they actually desire (and feel entitled to). And even when it happens, they find it hard to be satisfied. Perhaps male commitment is, in itself, a killer of female libido.
Reply
#16
The irony is society still blames men for all of this. Churches, priests, governments, parents, it's constant screaming of "man up" and "YOU need to be better, YOU need to improve, YOU just aren't putting in enough effort". Men beat themselves up way too much over this too, like if they constantly improve maybe they can get some tail.

The vast majority of men would be happy with an average looking girl who was sweet and interested in him, would call and text him, and show concern. Most men in relationships or marriages are just with the one girl who happened to show interest in him. Girls do the choosing. Men aren't the problem here. For most men it's like pulling teeth trying to generate and maintain interest from a young woman.

I knew female nature years ago but I still learn nuances about all the subtle ways they tilt things in their favor. Everything is a transaction to them, there's no middle ground with them. They have a brutal darwinian psyche about judging power and men. Everything you do or don't do, they view it as an angle to exploit, it's just how they're wired.
Reply
#17
(02-19-2020, 12:31 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote: The more that women date online, the worse this is going to get.  

I follow a few female forums, and even with the tsunami of dicks, they *still* aren't happy.  

Lot of these chicks go un-fucked.  A lot of them get pumped and dumped.  And even if she's hot enough to snag some commitment, the guy ends up being unable to conform to her behavioral standards within a relationship.  

It's basically not enough to be a good-looking guy in their eyes.  

Looks were never enough. We all know that's only part of what makes a guy attractive. The problem is that online dating strips away everything else. The only thing a chick can judge from your Tinder profile is what you look like. Maybe she gets a glimpse into who you are - status, wealth, strength, social proof, etc. but it's not the same as her experiencing who you are in real life.

So of course girls aren't happy. They're swiping on an app that takes away almost everything that makes men attractive to them. The future isn't online dating, or artificial insemination, or fembots. And it isn't feminism. Because in the end, none of that will make girls happy.
Reply
#18
(02-18-2020, 11:32 PM)WombRaider Wrote: What do you guys think of the "looks are everything" black pill viewpoint?

Its a dead give away that dude aint getting any stinky on his pinky
Reply
#19
(02-18-2020, 11:01 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote: Women are being artificially lifted up from all the money and benefits government, corporations, and their fathers give them. Modern white women are the most comfortable, provided-for demographic in human history.

I always wondered, what are all these government benefits that women get that I always see referenced?

From my vantage point, the corporate world is more suited to women in many ways.  Women are naturally oriented towards politics, defined hierarchies, following rules, etc.  They are generally also more suited to roles that require multi-tasking rather than intense focus (project manager vs. engineer, for example).  For every dumb girl I encounter in business, there seems to be another taskmaster type that is running some big team.  In other words, nowadays they're out earning, not just getting provided for.

I think their increase in earning power has a nonlinear relationship with their leverage in the sexual marketplace.  Even a modest increase in baseline earnings can fund a city lifestyle for a long time, allowing them to delay commitment.  It's not until they reach their later years that many of them realize they won't be able to fund the lifestyle they envisioned along with children, and they try to supplement their income.

As for artificial lifting up, I think there's no denying that the relentless bull market of the last 10 years and cheap Fed money has definitely exacerbated this dynamic by funding businesses that shouldn't exist.  Women have been big winners from this I would say.  Things could change in a downturn, although male dominated industries tend to get hit first (construction, manufacturing), and it's possible female dominated roles could be more resilient.  We haven't really seen the Tinder dynamic in poor economic times.
Reply
#20
Its artificial because every one of those modern corporate positions was invented/built by a man first.
Their job with a computer that directs goods and currencies only exists to the extent men built and maintain those systems.

If white men werent so nice as to allow women into this in the first place, they wouldn't have these jobs anyways.

Its like how medical doctors are basically following a template and diagnostic algorithms that were invented and refined decades ago.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)