9 ms·

All women are going after the same top x% of men, so most men miss out. Men are a lot less picky, but the women they’re interested in are too determined on bein

All women are going after the same top x% of men, so most men miss out. Men are a lot less picky, but the women they’re interested in are too determined on being with the top x% to be interested in them. I think all problems with dating and finding love in general can be shown to stem from this. The obvious solution is to send the top x% of men off to war. Sorry guys ;)

throwaway555443 8y ago
Well, yes, but there are other solutions :) The trick is to raise the baselines (as in, every guy should be reasonably fit (quite easy) and well dressed, etc) while having more dimensions on which to measure men and partners (as in, not just bank account; find niches where you can excel, probably the easiest approach is to combine two separate areas/skills, for example be a specialized lawyer, or learn Chinese if you're American and combine it with your profession).
- Hendrikto 8y ago
  > probably the easiest approach is to combine two separate areas/skills, for example be a specialized lawyer, or learn Chinese if you're American and combine it with your profession No girl I know would be interested in that. I do not know how that could help with dating. I speak 3 languages fluently (German, English, Dutch), and have a biotechnics degree (German BTA) in addition to studying CS atm. Those are specifically the two points you mentioned. Has any girl ever been interested in that? No. What you are describing is a method for getting a job, not a partner.
  - jhwang5 8y ago
    He may have meant his Chinese ability will allow him to widen his dating market to Chinese women.
    - throwaway555443 8y ago
      Not only. I agree the advice is also towards getting a job, but also helps getting a date. Of course, other factors interest women, such as confidence, assertiveness, looks, intelligence, sense of humour and all that. It also depends which age group we're addressing. There's a world of difference between 20, 30 and 40yo. All else being equal, you are more interesting if you speak more languages, for example. Although it depends how you frame/sell it :) Anyway, what I meant to say is that the top X% story is not the whole story. It's not just relative, your absolute status is very important as well.
  - zozbot123 8y ago
    > No girl I know would be interested in that. Not directly or overtly (indeed, absent any evidence to the contrary, you shouldn't expect them to be!). But it absolutely makes a difference compared to not having these points of interest! Everyone - men and women - wants to be with someone who could be considered impressive. Overall, these things that "help you with getting a job" are also things you can leverage to tacitly make the case that, yes, you are impressive too-- even if it be only to some tiny niche.
  - InGodsName 8y ago
    I had many friends but no close friends. I read online that only white rich dudes can get top beautiful girls. I was depressed. When i was young and naive, i just walked to a woman, chat with her a bit then i would ask her, how much would you sell yourself for? I even told her, if you were escort, I'd pay a lot to sleep with you. I was a typical asshole. 7/10 women told me, i am rude and disrespectful and walked away. 3/10 women got mad and told me, "you can't buy a human. What do you think i am?" She asked, "Do you think you can buy everything?". I answered, yes. I explained that i value your time, i don't even have a college degree and based on your looks it seems you must be in very high demand and getting asked out by guys who be 10x better than me. I'd tell them all my insecurities on day one, i thought being honest is very important to connect with her on a higher than superficial level. That too i am from undesirable country and ethinic group in popular opinion. So i am willing to pay for the privilege to be with them. It worked, i became good friend with them. Since, my strategy had a good success rate for a social dsyfucntional being like me, i kept using it. I just talk wayy to much for a guy. On many topics, they had no words to say. I'd even tell them about programming but none of them found it interesting. Then I'd tell them about genetics, psychology and 40% found it interesting. For rest i would talk about how i fooled customers and how i sell them BS, how i avoid taxes using skilled accountants and remaining 50% were interested in these tricks which big boys use but are not available in their girl circle. I'd introduce them to my accountants and lawyers too. Rest 10% liked how i am vegetarian and i practise yoga, i workout 3 times a week. Some also joined me in this lifestyle and yesss they improved their shape and nutritional knowledge too. Later i started playing guitar/flute and I'd play songs for women. I'd take them to rooftop dinner, which each one of them remembered. I wasn't dating anyone rich, just whoever i thought was exceptionally beautiful. I am very slightly above average in looks and body but not that much to be extraordinary. People can neither guess my ethinicity or country from my looks. I just love cooking, so I'd sometimes prepare meals for my girl. Now, after dating 25 women. I finally settled on love of my life. See i had to exclude a lot of women and distance myself because i saw very bad qualities in them, like greed and a few were not loyal. My present girlfriend wouldn't trade me for any sum of money. And now comes the weird bit...the ones who were with me for a while, told me, "you are sweet and you are honest". I always thought i am typical asshole and i am sometimes very insensitive. Most of them wayyy many guys after them but they would either not pick their phone calls, block them or reject their asking out plan.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
I think that in recent history the solution has been socially and legally enforced monogamy. Single women had a lot of social pressure to marry and were generally excluded from the workforce, more or less forcing them to marry men they might not have without those pressures. Men also had social pressure to marry, but admittedly it was significantly less. This helped prevent the problem that seems to occur in a more natural group sexual dynamic, which is what you're describing, where there are a bunch of frustrated young men hanging around looking at what that top x% have and wondering what they can do to get a piece of that. Since monogamy led to more societal stability overall it worked out well for everyone, except of course the women. So now in our more egalitarian times, which I think any reasonable person should see as progress, we have undermined this system and caused a bit of a dilemma. Fortunately the internet was invented and internet porn probably does a lot to soften the impact of the changes, but it remains to be seen if it is enough or if we must ultimately devise a new solution.
- watwut 8y ago
  That period of supposed social stability had more violence be it political, non-political or within familly, protest marches turned bad, more crime, more teenage pregnancy etc. We do have problems, especially around financial gap raising between rich and poor, but it is not like the past was some happy panacea.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tvjoyfbhde 8y ago
  It's rare that all men form one coalition and all women form another. If you think about it, the winners under monogamy are low status men and high status women, whereas for polygyny the reverse is true.
- graycat 8y ago
  I know; I know; it's just so horrible that women had children. Now they don't have to! Hurray!! Women are "free at last"! /sarcasm Sure, no doubt in the past most mothers told their daughters that they needed a man to support them and, thus, should get married. Then wonder of wonders (more sarcasm) babies came. Then nearly always she was highly devoted to her babies. Success! Family formation! Darwin was pleased!!! The article was partly about sex: Okay, when I was in high school, the girls knew in strong, stark terms that dating, marriage, sex, physical love making, sexual intercourse, pregnancy, and motherhood were almost certainly the main theme of the rest of their lives -- no doubt. So, I can guarantee you that a LOT of girls from age 12 to marriage before age 20 thought about sex a LOT, often to the exclusion of nearly everything else. In that situation, lots of good family formation happened, and the women didn't have to think strongly, positively, and effectively about family formation. The men didn't have to think strongly, etc. about family formation either, but IMHO what's changed is the thinking of the women and not that of the men. Much of what's changed is that now lots of girls, no doubt from kindergarten on, are told that they can and should have careers and not be dependent on a man. So, the girls no longer believe that they should try hard to be married and, thus, think about school and careers often to the exclusion of dating, sex, etc. But for a good life, family formation remains central. For some good explanations of just why and that haven't changed, see E. Fromm, The Art of Loving, heavily about psychological aspects. Fromm's key point: Being alone is no way to have a good life. Instead, don't want to be alone and want caring, bonding, as in the example in the OP about her bringing soup when he has the flu. IMHO, Darwin is on the case and as usual, with a LOT of experience, will find a solution. In more detail, and from the OP and many more sources, the birth rate now is so low we're rapidly going extinct, literally. Necessarily what will be left are the men and women, from whatever influences and means, are good at family formation. Maybe the influences will not be the same as in the baby boom after WWII and in the 1950s, but there will necessarily be different and effective influences and means. There really are men and women who want to emphasize family formation, and they now are very much in line to be the strong limbs on the tree and nearly the only such limbs. In this way, in the US and the more advanced countries, we're talking some astoundingly rapid and massive pruning of the gene pool of the tree and, thus, some of the fastest change in the gene pool of any species in all of natural history. And it is right in front of us. Or, a birth rate significantly lower than 2.1 per woman, as now, has some no less than monumental effects in just a few generations, i.e., less than 100 years. Or, the strong limbs on the tree will necessarily be thinking and acting differently than now (or as in the OP), differently and effectively enough to do well at family formation. You can bet on it.
imh 8y ago
Citation needed? I'd thought that men tended to have higher levels of agreement on what constituted attractiveness, so I'd expect the focus to be more concentrated on the top quantile of women, since more men agree who that is, but I don't have data. Where'd you find that women are more focused on the top quantile of men than vice versa?
- mdorazio 8y ago
  Thought this was fairly well-known at this point. See [1] and [2] and really any data study on Ok Cupid or Tinder. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/ https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/ [2] https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g...
  - imh 8y ago
    Your first link supports the opposite of your point, I think. >As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. Women seem to be more skewed than men in ratings, but less skewed than men in actual behavior. The second link just seems so methodologically terrible I'm skeptical to learn anything from it.
    - mdorazio 8y ago
      Yes, but that was only for OkCupid. For Tinder, the overwhelming strategy for most men is to swipe right on any woman that is even mildly attractive since it's a pure numbers game in most cases [1]. I agree the methodology on #2 is poor, but it's better than nothing and certainly better than anecdote. The other ad hoc "studies" I can find mostly point to more or less the same outcome, though, so I'm not sure it's worth wholly dismissing. If you have a counterexample with actual data I'd love to read it. [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/from-53-matches-to-4-dates-what-a-month-on-tinder-is-really-like-2018-03-13 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/from-53-matches-to-4-dates...
lkrubner 8y ago
It is difficult to reconcile your theory with the stat that 90% of women have married at least once by the time they are 40 years old. Assume 4% of women are lesbian or queer, and that 5% have either congenital disabilities or long term illnesses, and 1% have served long prison terms, and you end up with the fact that very nearly 100% of healthy non-criminal heterosexual women get married to a man. So in what sense are women being picky? They marry all kinds of men.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  I would think the population being affected by these changes hasn’t yet reached age 40 yet.
  - lkrubner 8y ago
    Can you suggest a test for the hypothesis that dating apps are driving changes? What percentage of marriage do you expect at age 30, and how do you account for the negative economic circumstances following the crisis of 2008, which must have pushed the marriage rate down somewhat for those who are currently 30? I think we all understand that social systems are multi-variate and so it is difficult to assert absolutes. But you must have in mind some statistics that you expect to see in the evidence, and if you don't see them you'll agree that the theory is probably disproven? I've previously emphasized economics over dating apps. Following the theory that males wages, relative to rent/mortgage, have a big impact on the formation of heterosexual couples, please see what I wrote in "Do men become warlike if they do not have women?" http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/do-men-become-warlike-if-they-do-not-have-women http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/do-men-become-warlike...
    - michaelt 8y ago
      how do you account for the negative economic circumstances following the crisis of 2008 The economics might have changed, but the biological clock for women who want children hasn’t.
      - 8y ago
empath75 8y ago
There’s no such thing as a top x% of men, what an absurd notion. Nobody judges their mates on the same criteria. For every woman that ends up in a heterosexual membership, a man also does, so the idea that women are pickier than men in who they end up in a relationship with is provably false on its face.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  If there are a few preferences shared by so many people, then you can effectively say top % in those, such as height, income/wealth, education, attractiveness.
  - empath75 8y ago
    Vanishingly few people are in the top percentiles in all those metrics, and you still haven’t accounted for personality, interesting hobbies, similar interests and cultural backgrounds, etc. I was no where near the top percentage in any of those metrics except for being 6 feet tall and I had no problem at all hooking up on okcupid when I was still using it. Personality accounts for a lot and I think a lot of people who bomb out on those apps want to focus on superficial attributes because they don’t want to work on hard personality issues that are really causing their issues. I was a late bloomer who lost my virginity in my early 20s and it took a lot of work to realize that the only thing preventing me from dating was my own toxic personality. Once I started doing fun things and being a fun person to be around, dating started happening naturally.
    - BonesJustice 8y ago
      ding ding ding The number one rule in dating is “be attractive”, and I mean that in the broadest sense: be someone that other people want to be around. It doesn’t mean you have to be devastatingly good looking (lord knows I’m not), but if you are comfortable with yourself, have a sense of humor, have compelling things to say, and can demonstrate that in your online dating profile, then you won’t have a hard time finding dates. At least that was my experience 4+ years ago on OkCupid (where I eventually met my fiancée). Granted, I think the move towards Tinder-style swiping puts too much emphasis on looks for first impressions. I’m disappointed by the path OkC has taken since being acquired by Match. Addendum: In light of the trend towards Tinder-style swiping, it's probably worth touching on looks and appearances. Keep in mind that this goes far beyond natural good looks (or lack thereof). Part of the whole 'confidence' thing is showing that you care about yourself. In your photos and on your dates, you should be well groomed. That means being clean cut: a nice haircut, and if you are partial to facial hair, make sure it's well maintained. Wear clothes that look good and feel comfortable. If style isn't your forte, take a trip to Nordstrom -- they have personal stylists that can help you put together a classy wardrobe. Take advantage of their holiday and anniversary sales. Take good photos. If you have a friend who's a hobbyist photographer, bribe them with a bottle of their favorite beverage to take some quality shots. If you don't, consider hiring a professional. Selfies and poorly-lit indoor shots do not go over well. And unless you're at the beach in your photos, for heaven's sake wear a shirt. Lastly, get some feedback. There's a pretty supportive OkCupid subreddit[1] where people will generally be willing to give you feedback on your profile and photos, but you have to be receptive and genuinely want to improve. I've seen the difference it can make, and it's really quite astonishing. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/OkCupid/ https://www.reddit.com/r/OkCupid/
doctorpangloss 8y ago
College educated single women outnumber college educated single men in nearly all places except 6 communities: San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, a part of Los Angeles, Austin and a part of Manhattan. Certainly not Chicago or Miami, or surprisingly not even Seattle! The difficulty of college educated single women to find partners in most places in the US is legendary.0 No, what you’re observing is a uniquely tech industry, predominantly California phenomenon. Look at those cities soberly. On the other hand, among the non college educated, single men outnumber single women everywhere, at practically all ages. There is no logical root of this problem. It doesn’t arise naturally from the math, or some innate human behavior. Most demographers studying this believe the education gap is responsible for a feeling of not living up to social standards of companionship. That’s where the data leads. See http://labs.time.com/story/see-the-ratio-of-single-men-to-women-where-you-live/ http://labs.time.com/story/see-the-ratio-of-single-men-to-wo... for a simple version, or read Date-o-nomics or Dataclysm for more discussion on the matter.
- lazyjones 8y ago
  Your mistake is that you assume "top x%" equals "college-educated". Education is lower in the list of preferred attributes for women than you think, at least for dating.
  - InGodsName 8y ago
    Exactly, i didn't attend any college and I've been into business for long time. I've no shortage of girls who want to date me. You need to be good looking and independent. I am somwhat typical asshole type (i am improving), yet it works fine:) None of the women i dated were richer than me.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    > Education is lower in the list of preferred attributes for women than you think, at least for dating. The data does not agree (as it relates to college-educated women). https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/10/dating-gap-hook-up-culture-female-graduates https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/10/dating-... https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-college-educated-women-cant-find-love https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-college-educated-women-can... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2017/07/20/how-i-realized-it-was-okay-to-date-a-man-less-educated-than-i-am/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2017/07/20/ho... The TLDR is that men date down, women prefer not to.
slothtrop 8y ago
I think those on the market are more pragmatic than that. Obviously most women aren't going to get the top 10% (in terms of serious dating as opposed to hookups) and vice versa. My experience is such that I think at a certain stage in life, if there's enough intersectionality in values and personality, along with sexual interest, people will entertain a date.
apsec112 8y ago
Over 90% of men eventually marry: http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/09/ST-2014-09-24-never-married-17.png http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/0... I agree that dating is hard, but it's not true that "most men miss out".
- fromthestart 8y ago
  You're conflating marriage with dating during adolescence and adulthood.
aphextron 8y ago
>All women are going after the same top x% of men, so most men miss out. Men are a lot less picky, but the women they’re interested in are too determined on being with the top x% to be interested in them. Sounds a lot like job searching too. But really though, dating is just a market like any other. And these new apps have done nothing but facilitate "price discovery" at a level of efficiency we're not used to. For attractive heterosexual men, it's literally the greatest thing ever. I can turn on Bumble and be messaged by dozens of women within hours. But the flip side of that is what it does to people. Everyone becomes flakey, and treats others as disposable in a way that never existed before. You see it everywhere in society now.
- lisper 8y ago
  > dating is just a market like any other No, it's not like any other. Dating is inherently a barter transaction. Also, the thing you're exchanging (time spent in someone else's company) is not transferrable. If you trade a sheep for a goat you can then turn around and trade the goat for something else. Not so with dating. The "product" you're exchanging is necessarily consumed at the time the transaction takes place.
  - ivrrimum 8y ago
    If you turn the word dating into a "service", all your arguments become false.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bambax 8y ago
> The obvious solution is to send the top x% of men off to war How would that solve the problem? Wouldn't that simply move the top down? ;-) The real solution is monogamous marriage, which prevents the top males from getting all the females, in effect rationing females for them (to at most one), so that there's more left for the others. Polygamy is usually perceived as being detrimental to women, but it could be argued that the whole point of making polygam illegal is to let men who don't belong to the top x%, find a mate. But in a modern society I'm not sure there's only one dimension against which to measure people's desirability (there are many different domains; the dater's job is to position themselves in a domain where they belong to the top). Regarding the relation between dating success and pickyness, Larry David says it best in that clip: https://youtu.be/ug02cqP69V4?t=125 https://youtu.be/ug02cqP69V4?t=125

throwaway555443 8y ago

Well, yes, but there are other solutions :) The trick is to raise the baselines (as in, every guy should be reasonably fit (quite easy) and well dressed, etc) while having more dimensions on which to measure men and partners (as in, not just bank account; find niches where you can excel, probably the easiest approach is to combine two separate areas/skills, for example be a specialized lawyer, or learn Chinese if you're American and combine it with your profession).

Hendrikto 8y ago
> probably the easiest approach is to combine two separate areas/skills, for example be a specialized lawyer, or learn Chinese if you're American and combine it with your profession No girl I know would be interested in that. I do not know how that could help with dating. I speak 3 languages fluently (German, English, Dutch), and have a biotechnics degree (German BTA) in addition to studying CS atm. Those are specifically the two points you mentioned. Has any girl ever been interested in that? No. What you are describing is a method for getting a job, not a partner.
- jhwang5 8y ago
  He may have meant his Chinese ability will allow him to widen his dating market to Chinese women.
  - throwaway555443 8y ago
    Not only. I agree the advice is also towards getting a job, but also helps getting a date. Of course, other factors interest women, such as confidence, assertiveness, looks, intelligence, sense of humour and all that. It also depends which age group we're addressing. There's a world of difference between 20, 30 and 40yo. All else being equal, you are more interesting if you speak more languages, for example. Although it depends how you frame/sell it :) Anyway, what I meant to say is that the top X% story is not the whole story. It's not just relative, your absolute status is very important as well.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  > No girl I know would be interested in that. Not directly or overtly (indeed, absent any evidence to the contrary, you shouldn't expect them to be!). But it absolutely makes a difference compared to not having these points of interest! Everyone - men and women - wants to be with someone who could be considered impressive. Overall, these things that "help you with getting a job" are also things you can leverage to tacitly make the case that, yes, you are impressive too-- even if it be only to some tiny niche.
- InGodsName 8y ago
  I had many friends but no close friends. I read online that only white rich dudes can get top beautiful girls. I was depressed. When i was young and naive, i just walked to a woman, chat with her a bit then i would ask her, how much would you sell yourself for? I even told her, if you were escort, I'd pay a lot to sleep with you. I was a typical asshole. 7/10 women told me, i am rude and disrespectful and walked away. 3/10 women got mad and told me, "you can't buy a human. What do you think i am?" She asked, "Do you think you can buy everything?". I answered, yes. I explained that i value your time, i don't even have a college degree and based on your looks it seems you must be in very high demand and getting asked out by guys who be 10x better than me. I'd tell them all my insecurities on day one, i thought being honest is very important to connect with her on a higher than superficial level. That too i am from undesirable country and ethinic group in popular opinion. So i am willing to pay for the privilege to be with them. It worked, i became good friend with them. Since, my strategy had a good success rate for a social dsyfucntional being like me, i kept using it. I just talk wayy to much for a guy. On many topics, they had no words to say. I'd even tell them about programming but none of them found it interesting. Then I'd tell them about genetics, psychology and 40% found it interesting. For rest i would talk about how i fooled customers and how i sell them BS, how i avoid taxes using skilled accountants and remaining 50% were interested in these tricks which big boys use but are not available in their girl circle. I'd introduce them to my accountants and lawyers too. Rest 10% liked how i am vegetarian and i practise yoga, i workout 3 times a week. Some also joined me in this lifestyle and yesss they improved their shape and nutritional knowledge too. Later i started playing guitar/flute and I'd play songs for women. I'd take them to rooftop dinner, which each one of them remembered. I wasn't dating anyone rich, just whoever i thought was exceptionally beautiful. I am very slightly above average in looks and body but not that much to be extraordinary. People can neither guess my ethinicity or country from my looks. I just love cooking, so I'd sometimes prepare meals for my girl. Now, after dating 25 women. I finally settled on love of my life. See i had to exclude a lot of women and distance myself because i saw very bad qualities in them, like greed and a few were not loyal. My present girlfriend wouldn't trade me for any sum of money. And now comes the weird bit...the ones who were with me for a while, told me, "you are sweet and you are honest". I always thought i am typical asshole and i am sometimes very insensitive. Most of them wayyy many guys after them but they would either not pick their phone calls, block them or reject their asking out plan.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

I think that in recent history the solution has been socially and legally enforced monogamy. Single women had a lot of social pressure to marry and were generally excluded from the workforce, more or less forcing them to marry men they might not have without those pressures. Men also had social pressure to marry, but admittedly it was significantly less. This helped prevent the problem that seems to occur in a more natural group sexual dynamic, which is what you're describing, where there are a bunch of frustrated young men hanging around looking at what that top x% have and wondering what they can do to get a piece of that. Since monogamy led to more societal stability overall it worked out well for everyone, except of course the women. So now in our more egalitarian times, which I think any reasonable person should see as progress, we have undermined this system and caused a bit of a dilemma. Fortunately the internet was invented and internet porn probably does a lot to soften the impact of the changes, but it remains to be seen if it is enough or if we must ultimately devise a new solution.

watwut 8y ago
That period of supposed social stability had more violence be it political, non-political or within familly, protest marches turned bad, more crime, more teenage pregnancy etc. We do have problems, especially around financial gap raising between rich and poor, but it is not like the past was some happy panacea.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tvjoyfbhde 8y ago
It's rare that all men form one coalition and all women form another. If you think about it, the winners under monogamy are low status men and high status women, whereas for polygyny the reverse is true.
graycat 8y ago
I know; I know; it's just so horrible that women had children. Now they don't have to! Hurray!! Women are "free at last"! /sarcasm Sure, no doubt in the past most mothers told their daughters that they needed a man to support them and, thus, should get married. Then wonder of wonders (more sarcasm) babies came. Then nearly always she was highly devoted to her babies. Success! Family formation! Darwin was pleased!!! The article was partly about sex: Okay, when I was in high school, the girls knew in strong, stark terms that dating, marriage, sex, physical love making, sexual intercourse, pregnancy, and motherhood were almost certainly the main theme of the rest of their lives -- no doubt. So, I can guarantee you that a LOT of girls from age 12 to marriage before age 20 thought about sex a LOT, often to the exclusion of nearly everything else. In that situation, lots of good family formation happened, and the women didn't have to think strongly, positively, and effectively about family formation. The men didn't have to think strongly, etc. about family formation either, but IMHO what's changed is the thinking of the women and not that of the men. Much of what's changed is that now lots of girls, no doubt from kindergarten on, are told that they can and should have careers and not be dependent on a man. So, the girls no longer believe that they should try hard to be married and, thus, think about school and careers often to the exclusion of dating, sex, etc. But for a good life, family formation remains central. For some good explanations of just why and that haven't changed, see E. Fromm, The Art of Loving, heavily about psychological aspects. Fromm's key point: Being alone is no way to have a good life. Instead, don't want to be alone and want caring, bonding, as in the example in the OP about her bringing soup when he has the flu. IMHO, Darwin is on the case and as usual, with a LOT of experience, will find a solution. In more detail, and from the OP and many more sources, the birth rate now is so low we're rapidly going extinct, literally. Necessarily what will be left are the men and women, from whatever influences and means, are good at family formation. Maybe the influences will not be the same as in the baby boom after WWII and in the 1950s, but there will necessarily be different and effective influences and means. There really are men and women who want to emphasize family formation, and they now are very much in line to be the strong limbs on the tree and nearly the only such limbs. In this way, in the US and the more advanced countries, we're talking some astoundingly rapid and massive pruning of the gene pool of the tree and, thus, some of the fastest change in the gene pool of any species in all of natural history. And it is right in front of us. Or, a birth rate significantly lower than 2.1 per woman, as now, has some no less than monumental effects in just a few generations, i.e., less than 100 years. Or, the strong limbs on the tree will necessarily be thinking and acting differently than now (or as in the OP), differently and effectively enough to do well at family formation. You can bet on it.

imh 8y ago

Citation needed? I'd thought that men tended to have higher levels of agreement on what constituted attractiveness, so I'd expect the focus to be more concentrated on the top quantile of women, since more men agree who that is, but I don't have data. Where'd you find that women are more focused on the top quantile of men than vice versa?

mdorazio 8y ago
Thought this was fairly well-known at this point. See [1] and [2] and really any data study on Ok Cupid or Tinder. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/ https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/ [2] https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g...
- imh 8y ago
  Your first link supports the opposite of your point, I think. >As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. Women seem to be more skewed than men in ratings, but less skewed than men in actual behavior. The second link just seems so methodologically terrible I'm skeptical to learn anything from it.
  - mdorazio 8y ago
    Yes, but that was only for OkCupid. For Tinder, the overwhelming strategy for most men is to swipe right on any woman that is even mildly attractive since it's a pure numbers game in most cases [1]. I agree the methodology on #2 is poor, but it's better than nothing and certainly better than anecdote. The other ad hoc "studies" I can find mostly point to more or less the same outcome, though, so I'm not sure it's worth wholly dismissing. If you have a counterexample with actual data I'd love to read it. [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/from-53-matches-to-4-dates-what-a-month-on-tinder-is-really-like-2018-03-13 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/from-53-matches-to-4-dates...

lkrubner 8y ago

It is difficult to reconcile your theory with the stat that 90% of women have married at least once by the time they are 40 years old. Assume 4% of women are lesbian or queer, and that 5% have either congenital disabilities or long term illnesses, and 1% have served long prison terms, and you end up with the fact that very nearly 100% of healthy non-criminal heterosexual women get married to a man. So in what sense are women being picky? They marry all kinds of men.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
I would think the population being affected by these changes hasn’t yet reached age 40 yet.
- lkrubner 8y ago
  Can you suggest a test for the hypothesis that dating apps are driving changes? What percentage of marriage do you expect at age 30, and how do you account for the negative economic circumstances following the crisis of 2008, which must have pushed the marriage rate down somewhat for those who are currently 30? I think we all understand that social systems are multi-variate and so it is difficult to assert absolutes. But you must have in mind some statistics that you expect to see in the evidence, and if you don't see them you'll agree that the theory is probably disproven? I've previously emphasized economics over dating apps. Following the theory that males wages, relative to rent/mortgage, have a big impact on the formation of heterosexual couples, please see what I wrote in "Do men become warlike if they do not have women?" http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/do-men-become-warlike-if-they-do-not-have-women http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/do-men-become-warlike...
  - michaelt 8y ago
    how do you account for the negative economic circumstances following the crisis of 2008 The economics might have changed, but the biological clock for women who want children hasn’t.
    - 8y ago

empath75 8y ago

There’s no such thing as a top x% of men, what an absurd notion. Nobody judges their mates on the same criteria. For every woman that ends up in a heterosexual membership, a man also does, so the idea that women are pickier than men in who they end up in a relationship with is provably false on its face.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
If there are a few preferences shared by so many people, then you can effectively say top % in those, such as height, income/wealth, education, attractiveness.
- empath75 8y ago
  Vanishingly few people are in the top percentiles in all those metrics, and you still haven’t accounted for personality, interesting hobbies, similar interests and cultural backgrounds, etc. I was no where near the top percentage in any of those metrics except for being 6 feet tall and I had no problem at all hooking up on okcupid when I was still using it. Personality accounts for a lot and I think a lot of people who bomb out on those apps want to focus on superficial attributes because they don’t want to work on hard personality issues that are really causing their issues. I was a late bloomer who lost my virginity in my early 20s and it took a lot of work to realize that the only thing preventing me from dating was my own toxic personality. Once I started doing fun things and being a fun person to be around, dating started happening naturally.
  - BonesJustice 8y ago
    ding ding ding The number one rule in dating is “be attractive”, and I mean that in the broadest sense: be someone that other people want to be around. It doesn’t mean you have to be devastatingly good looking (lord knows I’m not), but if you are comfortable with yourself, have a sense of humor, have compelling things to say, and can demonstrate that in your online dating profile, then you won’t have a hard time finding dates. At least that was my experience 4+ years ago on OkCupid (where I eventually met my fiancée). Granted, I think the move towards Tinder-style swiping puts too much emphasis on looks for first impressions. I’m disappointed by the path OkC has taken since being acquired by Match. Addendum: In light of the trend towards Tinder-style swiping, it's probably worth touching on looks and appearances. Keep in mind that this goes far beyond natural good looks (or lack thereof). Part of the whole 'confidence' thing is showing that you care about yourself. In your photos and on your dates, you should be well groomed. That means being clean cut: a nice haircut, and if you are partial to facial hair, make sure it's well maintained. Wear clothes that look good and feel comfortable. If style isn't your forte, take a trip to Nordstrom -- they have personal stylists that can help you put together a classy wardrobe. Take advantage of their holiday and anniversary sales. Take good photos. If you have a friend who's a hobbyist photographer, bribe them with a bottle of their favorite beverage to take some quality shots. If you don't, consider hiring a professional. Selfies and poorly-lit indoor shots do not go over well. And unless you're at the beach in your photos, for heaven's sake wear a shirt. Lastly, get some feedback. There's a pretty supportive OkCupid subreddit[1] where people will generally be willing to give you feedback on your profile and photos, but you have to be receptive and genuinely want to improve. I've seen the difference it can make, and it's really quite astonishing. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/OkCupid/ https://www.reddit.com/r/OkCupid/

doctorpangloss 8y ago

College educated single women outnumber college educated single men in nearly all places except 6 communities: San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, a part of Los Angeles, Austin and a part of Manhattan. Certainly not Chicago or Miami, or surprisingly not even Seattle! The difficulty of college educated single women to find partners in most places in the US is legendary.0 No, what you’re observing is a uniquely tech industry, predominantly California phenomenon. Look at those cities soberly. On the other hand, among the non college educated, single men outnumber single women everywhere, at practically all ages. There is no logical root of this problem. It doesn’t arise naturally from the math, or some innate human behavior. Most demographers studying this believe the education gap is responsible for a feeling of not living up to social standards of companionship. That’s where the data leads. See http://labs.time.com/story/see-the-ratio-of-single-men-to-women-where-you-live/ http://labs.time.com/story/see-the-ratio-of-single-men-to-wo... for a simple version, or read Date-o-nomics or Dataclysm for more discussion on the matter.

lazyjones 8y ago
Your mistake is that you assume "top x%" equals "college-educated". Education is lower in the list of preferred attributes for women than you think, at least for dating.
- InGodsName 8y ago
  Exactly, i didn't attend any college and I've been into business for long time. I've no shortage of girls who want to date me. You need to be good looking and independent. I am somwhat typical asshole type (i am improving), yet it works fine:) None of the women i dated were richer than me.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > Education is lower in the list of preferred attributes for women than you think, at least for dating. The data does not agree (as it relates to college-educated women). https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/10/dating-gap-hook-up-culture-female-graduates https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/10/dating-... https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-college-educated-women-cant-find-love https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-college-educated-women-can... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2017/07/20/how-i-realized-it-was-okay-to-date-a-man-less-educated-than-i-am/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2017/07/20/ho... The TLDR is that men date down, women prefer not to.

slothtrop 8y ago

I think those on the market are more pragmatic than that. Obviously most women aren't going to get the top 10% (in terms of serious dating as opposed to hookups) and vice versa. My experience is such that I think at a certain stage in life, if there's enough intersectionality in values and personality, along with sexual interest, people will entertain a date.

apsec112 8y ago

Over 90% of men eventually marry: http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/09/ST-2014-09-24-never-married-17.png http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/0... I agree that dating is hard, but it's not true that "most men miss out".

fromthestart 8y ago
You're conflating marriage with dating during adolescence and adulthood.

aphextron 8y ago

>All women are going after the same top x% of men, so most men miss out. Men are a lot less picky, but the women they’re interested in are too determined on being with the top x% to be interested in them. Sounds a lot like job searching too. But really though, dating is just a market like any other. And these new apps have done nothing but facilitate "price discovery" at a level of efficiency we're not used to. For attractive heterosexual men, it's literally the greatest thing ever. I can turn on Bumble and be messaged by dozens of women within hours. But the flip side of that is what it does to people. Everyone becomes flakey, and treats others as disposable in a way that never existed before. You see it everywhere in society now.

lisper 8y ago
> dating is just a market like any other No, it's not like any other. Dating is inherently a barter transaction. Also, the thing you're exchanging (time spent in someone else's company) is not transferrable. If you trade a sheep for a goat you can then turn around and trade the goat for something else. Not so with dating. The "product" you're exchanging is necessarily consumed at the time the transaction takes place.
- ivrrimum 8y ago
  If you turn the word dating into a "service", all your arguments become false.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

bambax 8y ago

> The obvious solution is to send the top x% of men off to war How would that solve the problem? Wouldn't that simply move the top down? ;-) The real solution is monogamous marriage, which prevents the top males from getting all the females, in effect rationing females for them (to at most one), so that there's more left for the others. Polygamy is usually perceived as being detrimental to women, but it could be argued that the whole point of making polygam illegal is to let men who don't belong to the top x%, find a mate. But in a modern society I'm not sure there's only one dimension against which to measure people's desirability (there are many different domains; the dater's job is to position themselves in a domain where they belong to the top). Regarding the relation between dating success and pickyness, Larry David says it best in that clip: https://youtu.be/ug02cqP69V4?t=125 https://youtu.be/ug02cqP69V4?t=125