8 ms·

If you're single, you could reverse engineer this to have a higher chance of getting a date. Look for attractive girls who have pictures with all the attributes

by nhebb 17y ago

If you're single, you could reverse engineer this to have a higher chance of getting a date. Look for attractive girls who have pictures with all the attributes that get poor responses, and it should lead to less competition and better odds for you.

pohl 17y ago
Maybe I read too much Roissy, but my first reaction to this idea was that competition-avoidance is more of a beta trait than an alpha one, so while your suggestion may be useful, it might be a good idea to bring some game along anyway. But if you had game to bring, then why would you have to pick off stragglers around the herd's periphery in the first place?
- lionhearted 17y ago
  Increased competition =/= increased quality. Increased quality = increased quality. I had a life changing experience at age 22. A manic crazy group of Peruvian girls brought me home from a nightclub to their party. Okay, we had a nice night, but in the morning - seeing the girls without their hair, makeup, looking hungover - it's like, wow, highly sexualized doesn't mean beautiful. It just means highly sexualized, which comes from a lot of work on her part. But as you saw in the Okcupid article, highly sexualized draws men's attention - "flirty face", the Myspace pose, etc. But getting one of those flirty, sexualized girls doesn't mean higher quality! It just means you got a girl who put work into appearing highly sexualized, which if anything, is the sign of maybe a fun fling but not a quality girlfriend. Me, I stopped looking for that, and started looking more for just decent quality skin, a walk with some energy in it, awareness in her eyes, and so on. You can always teach a girl how to dress and make herself up to your tastes, which I did for my last serious girlfriend who was getting her PhD in physics. Too much jeans and sneakers when I met her, lots of skirts and dresses and leather boots and heels when I moved out of the USA. But I like a lot of other things that most men don't - I prefer taller women, and I prefer women who are built strong with good musculature, athletes, and girls with wider hips and shoulders. It always amazes me when I meet a girl who is an athlete and she's getting so much less attention from men than a girl who is on the alcohol + cigarettes + no food diet. But I digress, quality is quality, and if you can find quality with less competition, that's absolutely worth going and getting. Going for a girl who is equal or lower quality but more highly chased doesn't make your life better, it's headache for (at best) ego-gratification, at worst a waste of time.
  - pohl 17y ago
    I agree with the general spirit of what you're saying, but I disagree with a few tacit assumptions: that you can automatically equate highly-sought-after with lower quality, that quality women are more forgiving of beta traits, and that quality women don't know their sexual market value.
    - lionhearted 17y ago
      Hey mate - I actually went to your profile to look for an email to write you. This other comment you made was so subtly funny I laughed quite a bit when I saw it: "Hmm...if I were a botanist, I think I'd get a bit weary of always having to interrupt a high-bandwidth dialogue with a peer to insert sufficient fawning to appease those who might otherwise judge us for the things we did not say." I was going to drop you a line to let you know I laughed out loud, and to ask if you got the botanist reference from Feynman, which summed things up incredibly well for me the first time I read it. > I agree with the general spirit of what you're saying, but I disagree with a few tacit assumptions: that you can automatically equate highly-sought-after with lower quality, Ah, you're right, I was a little unclear on that. I guess I could more accurately like this - some things that are desirable to men don't indicate quality. Obviously some other things do too. The key is finding out which are actually well suited for you - just because a woman is desirable to most men doesn't make her a higher quality gal for you. (What's with the guy who doesn't like the word "quality" by the way? Maybe he's from somewhere else, I just got introduced to a fellow with my friend saying, "This is so-and-so, he's a really high quality guy, I think you guys are going to get along great.) > that quality women are more forgiving of beta traits, Disagree. Hmm, how shall I put this. I don't believe in the alpha/beta dichotomy. Well, there's some truth in it, but among my friends, we actually jokingly talk about "alpha male types" who are kind of loud, and crass, and things. I have read Roissy though, and think he's hilarious once you get over the initial shock and rawness of the guy. But alpha/beta I don't so much agree with. For me, I usually think of things as strong/average/weak, where strength is of character, internal strength so to speak. So you could be strong (of character) in an area, or average, or weak. On that notion, I don't believe that quality women are more forgiving of weakness - just the opposite actually. > and that quality women don't know their sexual market value. This is the most thought provoking part of your comment for me. And I had to think about it for a minute, and you know what? I really think girls who aren't extroverted and sexualized are often less confident than they should be about their prospects, and due to men's ignorance and short sightedness, they do get less attention than they objectively ought to get. Really, I don't think extroversion and hyper-sociality and sexualization makes a girl a better long term companion for most men. But it's interesting to think about either way, cheers for the discussion.
- icefox 17y ago
  Hmm but that would be a 'fun' conversation to have later on when talking about how you met and why you sent the first message.
- nhebb 17y ago
  > it might be a good idea to bring some game along Like a wild boar or some venison? Really? Do chicks dig that? Seriously, though, it depends if you're talking marriage or sex. Most guys will use any tactic for sex. I've never used one of these sites, so I'm just speculating. (I met my wife the old fashioned way - in person.)
- GFischer 17y ago
  I didn't know the Roissy blog. Thanks to pointing it out (though I try not to be what he advocates, I can see his point - and very often wonder why I bother :P ).

by nhebb 17y ago

pohl 17y ago

Maybe I read too much Roissy, but my first reaction to this idea was that competition-avoidance is more of a beta trait than an alpha one, so while your suggestion may be useful, it might be a good idea to bring some game along anyway. But if you had game to bring, then why would you have to pick off stragglers around the herd's periphery in the first place?

lionhearted 17y ago
Increased competition =/= increased quality. Increased quality = increased quality. I had a life changing experience at age 22. A manic crazy group of Peruvian girls brought me home from a nightclub to their party. Okay, we had a nice night, but in the morning - seeing the girls without their hair, makeup, looking hungover - it's like, wow, highly sexualized doesn't mean beautiful. It just means highly sexualized, which comes from a lot of work on her part. But as you saw in the Okcupid article, highly sexualized draws men's attention - "flirty face", the Myspace pose, etc. But getting one of those flirty, sexualized girls doesn't mean higher quality! It just means you got a girl who put work into appearing highly sexualized, which if anything, is the sign of maybe a fun fling but not a quality girlfriend. Me, I stopped looking for that, and started looking more for just decent quality skin, a walk with some energy in it, awareness in her eyes, and so on. You can always teach a girl how to dress and make herself up to your tastes, which I did for my last serious girlfriend who was getting her PhD in physics. Too much jeans and sneakers when I met her, lots of skirts and dresses and leather boots and heels when I moved out of the USA. But I like a lot of other things that most men don't - I prefer taller women, and I prefer women who are built strong with good musculature, athletes, and girls with wider hips and shoulders. It always amazes me when I meet a girl who is an athlete and she's getting so much less attention from men than a girl who is on the alcohol + cigarettes + no food diet. But I digress, quality is quality, and if you can find quality with less competition, that's absolutely worth going and getting. Going for a girl who is equal or lower quality but more highly chased doesn't make your life better, it's headache for (at best) ego-gratification, at worst a waste of time.
- pohl 17y ago
  I agree with the general spirit of what you're saying, but I disagree with a few tacit assumptions: that you can automatically equate highly-sought-after with lower quality, that quality women are more forgiving of beta traits, and that quality women don't know their sexual market value.
  - lionhearted 17y ago
    Hey mate - I actually went to your profile to look for an email to write you. This other comment you made was so subtly funny I laughed quite a bit when I saw it: "Hmm...if I were a botanist, I think I'd get a bit weary of always having to interrupt a high-bandwidth dialogue with a peer to insert sufficient fawning to appease those who might otherwise judge us for the things we did not say." I was going to drop you a line to let you know I laughed out loud, and to ask if you got the botanist reference from Feynman, which summed things up incredibly well for me the first time I read it. > I agree with the general spirit of what you're saying, but I disagree with a few tacit assumptions: that you can automatically equate highly-sought-after with lower quality, Ah, you're right, I was a little unclear on that. I guess I could more accurately like this - some things that are desirable to men don't indicate quality. Obviously some other things do too. The key is finding out which are actually well suited for you - just because a woman is desirable to most men doesn't make her a higher quality gal for you. (What's with the guy who doesn't like the word "quality" by the way? Maybe he's from somewhere else, I just got introduced to a fellow with my friend saying, "This is so-and-so, he's a really high quality guy, I think you guys are going to get along great.) > that quality women are more forgiving of beta traits, Disagree. Hmm, how shall I put this. I don't believe in the alpha/beta dichotomy. Well, there's some truth in it, but among my friends, we actually jokingly talk about "alpha male types" who are kind of loud, and crass, and things. I have read Roissy though, and think he's hilarious once you get over the initial shock and rawness of the guy. But alpha/beta I don't so much agree with. For me, I usually think of things as strong/average/weak, where strength is of character, internal strength so to speak. So you could be strong (of character) in an area, or average, or weak. On that notion, I don't believe that quality women are more forgiving of weakness - just the opposite actually. > and that quality women don't know their sexual market value. This is the most thought provoking part of your comment for me. And I had to think about it for a minute, and you know what? I really think girls who aren't extroverted and sexualized are often less confident than they should be about their prospects, and due to men's ignorance and short sightedness, they do get less attention than they objectively ought to get. Really, I don't think extroversion and hyper-sociality and sexualization makes a girl a better long term companion for most men. But it's interesting to think about either way, cheers for the discussion.
icefox 17y ago
Hmm but that would be a 'fun' conversation to have later on when talking about how you met and why you sent the first message.
nhebb 17y ago
> it might be a good idea to bring some game along Like a wild boar or some venison? Really? Do chicks dig that? Seriously, though, it depends if you're talking marriage or sex. Most guys will use any tactic for sex. I've never used one of these sites, so I'm just speculating. (I met my wife the old fashioned way - in person.)
GFischer 17y ago
I didn't know the Roissy blog. Thanks to pointing it out (though I try not to be what he advocates, I can see his point - and very often wonder why I bother :P ).