5 ms·

"[In Tinder,] 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

by stared 8y ago

"[In Tinder,] 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" - from 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... (2015). I dive a bit it that topic in "Dating for nerds (part 2): gender differences" https://p.migdal.pl/2017/09/30/dating-for-nerds-gender-differences.html https://p.migdal.pl/2017/09/30/dating-for-nerds-gender-diffe....

claudiawerner 8y ago
In the article, you write: >If you firmly believe we are blank slates, and the only innate difference between the sexes is body shape, take a look at this thread: But very few people believe this; it's better to characterise the argument as saying that many of the differences we see relating to the dynamics between the sexes are a product of society and culture, and the Reddit thread you linked underneath doesn't really refute that notion. I think it's more important that we try and understand the culture that produces these effects rather than inferring essential traits about humans without consulting the historical record.
- ralusek 8y ago
  You're correct that most sensible people understand that environmental and inherent biological differences both contribute to behaviors. But the pathological mode of thinking that people are becoming increasingly sensitive to is the willingness to assert environmental causes in the absence of biological or nonsociological evidence. It's precisely this having a default position that makes it an ideological way of thinking. The gender wage gap is the clearest example at the moment, which was able to get people riled up on the 77 cents on the dollar figure, as purportedly being not only due primarily to environmental reasons, but specifically due to patriarchal socialization and sexism. The thing is, the initial figure was incredibly irresponsible, as it didn't control for field worked in, let alone specific profession, let alone seniority, output, hours worked, rate negotiated. The more of these figures are controlled for, the more the gap diminishes. But the problem is, people still look at the remainder as "okay well then there's a 7% gap, and that's still a problem." But my question is, "why?" They default back to the assumption that the remainder after what has since been controlled for is specifically the result of patriarchal sexism, simply because of a remaining disparity. That is ideological.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    What?! The gap diminishes if you rule out all the results of the patriarchy (fields open to women; lack of seniority due to bias in promotions; negotiation that's not available to women because there's always a man who can fill the position)??? Its amazing to me that someone can claim "its not due to sexism" and then, in the very same sentence, make a long list of how its due to sexism. But its somehow ok.
    - y4mi 8y ago
      "men" arent forcing "women" to work as nurses etc., nor are they stopping them from negotiating forcefully. how is it sexism that nurses get paid less than office workers? thats wage inequality, not sexism. And honestly, women tend to be more amicable... thats a trait thats hard to have if you want to get higher in the work hierachy, as thats often gained by walking over other people. take a step back and reread his comment. each of his points are valid.
    - Tyrek 8y ago
      Let's break this down a bit in more detail. The most common claim against the 77/79 ratio can be summarized as 'if you control for occupation, seniority (interpreted as "time-in-seat" as opposed to some sort of rank gradation) and preference for reasonable hours/schedule, you effectively reduce the 20%+ gender gap to around 7%.' There are many reasons for this, and the argument is that not all of this can be attributed to direct 'sexist' (bad) practices, but are instead the result of preferences that are more common to women than men (while this is indeed gendered, the accusation of 'discrimination' is more complex - if you somehow convinced all women to share identical preferences to men, these 'preference' differences would effectively disappear) [0] https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bolotnyy/files/be_gendergap.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bolotnyy/files/be_genderga...
    - ralusek 8y ago
      You're doing precisely what I described. If women are not in a field, it must therefore be that the field is not open to women. If there is a lack of seniority, it must therefore be due to a bias in promotions.
- stared 8y ago
  Maybe it is true that few. Though, I used to interact (online and offline) with quite a few such people. In this case, even bringing a possibility that there may be any biological differences was crossing a taboo. If you believe that were are both products of innate biology and culture, we are in agreement.
msamwald 8y ago
It is noteworthy that such statistics are not solely reflecting preferences, they may also reflect effects of the dating app itself! Among the many hidden psychological bugs in Tinder, an especially toxic one is that new users are presented with the most attractive profiles first. So the fact that many men don't get anything while others get a lot might be strongly amplified by a system that simply HIDES AWAY those other people.
- stared 8y ago
  Moreover, online dating is a different market. See "Online Dating and the Death of the 'Mixed-Attractiveness' Couple" https://priceonomics.com/online-dating-and-the-death-of-the-mixed/ https://priceonomics.com/online-dating-and-the-death-of-the-.... And well, it varies from an app to an app, when it comes to the details.
- belorn 8y ago
  It is however not the only data point which points in this direction. Population statistics from both Sweden and Norway show that men are about twice as likely to not have children that women. It would be interesting to see more formal studies on the topic, but as far as I know there is no collaborating data to support the theory that the data we have is an artifact from the dating app.
etiam 8y ago
Interesting stories both. Did you ever get around to writing part 3?
- stared 8y ago
  There are two drafts, ~1.5 year old. "Social skills (not only) for aspies" and "Nice guys, friend zone and creepiness". Though starting is easy, finishing is hard.
  - etiam 8y ago
    I'd be glad to see them finished. But, I know, plenty of claims on limited time.

by stared 8y ago

claudiawerner 8y ago

In the article, you write: >If you firmly believe we are blank slates, and the only innate difference between the sexes is body shape, take a look at this thread: But very few people believe this; it's better to characterise the argument as saying that many of the differences we see relating to the dynamics between the sexes are a product of society and culture, and the Reddit thread you linked underneath doesn't really refute that notion. I think it's more important that we try and understand the culture that produces these effects rather than inferring essential traits about humans without consulting the historical record.

ralusek 8y ago
You're correct that most sensible people understand that environmental and inherent biological differences both contribute to behaviors. But the pathological mode of thinking that people are becoming increasingly sensitive to is the willingness to assert environmental causes in the absence of biological or nonsociological evidence. It's precisely this having a default position that makes it an ideological way of thinking. The gender wage gap is the clearest example at the moment, which was able to get people riled up on the 77 cents on the dollar figure, as purportedly being not only due primarily to environmental reasons, but specifically due to patriarchal socialization and sexism. The thing is, the initial figure was incredibly irresponsible, as it didn't control for field worked in, let alone specific profession, let alone seniority, output, hours worked, rate negotiated. The more of these figures are controlled for, the more the gap diminishes. But the problem is, people still look at the remainder as "okay well then there's a 7% gap, and that's still a problem." But my question is, "why?" They default back to the assumption that the remainder after what has since been controlled for is specifically the result of patriarchal sexism, simply because of a remaining disparity. That is ideological.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  What?! The gap diminishes if you rule out all the results of the patriarchy (fields open to women; lack of seniority due to bias in promotions; negotiation that's not available to women because there's always a man who can fill the position)??? Its amazing to me that someone can claim "its not due to sexism" and then, in the very same sentence, make a long list of how its due to sexism. But its somehow ok.
  - y4mi 8y ago
    "men" arent forcing "women" to work as nurses etc., nor are they stopping them from negotiating forcefully. how is it sexism that nurses get paid less than office workers? thats wage inequality, not sexism. And honestly, women tend to be more amicable... thats a trait thats hard to have if you want to get higher in the work hierachy, as thats often gained by walking over other people. take a step back and reread his comment. each of his points are valid.
  - Tyrek 8y ago
    Let's break this down a bit in more detail. The most common claim against the 77/79 ratio can be summarized as 'if you control for occupation, seniority (interpreted as "time-in-seat" as opposed to some sort of rank gradation) and preference for reasonable hours/schedule, you effectively reduce the 20%+ gender gap to around 7%.' There are many reasons for this, and the argument is that not all of this can be attributed to direct 'sexist' (bad) practices, but are instead the result of preferences that are more common to women than men (while this is indeed gendered, the accusation of 'discrimination' is more complex - if you somehow convinced all women to share identical preferences to men, these 'preference' differences would effectively disappear) [0] https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bolotnyy/files/be_gendergap.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bolotnyy/files/be_genderga...
  - ralusek 8y ago
    You're doing precisely what I described. If women are not in a field, it must therefore be that the field is not open to women. If there is a lack of seniority, it must therefore be due to a bias in promotions.
stared 8y ago
Maybe it is true that few. Though, I used to interact (online and offline) with quite a few such people. In this case, even bringing a possibility that there may be any biological differences was crossing a taboo. If you believe that were are both products of innate biology and culture, we are in agreement.

msamwald 8y ago

It is noteworthy that such statistics are not solely reflecting preferences, they may also reflect effects of the dating app itself! Among the many hidden psychological bugs in Tinder, an especially toxic one is that new users are presented with the most attractive profiles first. So the fact that many men don't get anything while others get a lot might be strongly amplified by a system that simply HIDES AWAY those other people.

stared 8y ago
Moreover, online dating is a different market. See "Online Dating and the Death of the 'Mixed-Attractiveness' Couple" https://priceonomics.com/online-dating-and-the-death-of-the-mixed/ https://priceonomics.com/online-dating-and-the-death-of-the-.... And well, it varies from an app to an app, when it comes to the details.
belorn 8y ago
It is however not the only data point which points in this direction. Population statistics from both Sweden and Norway show that men are about twice as likely to not have children that women. It would be interesting to see more formal studies on the topic, but as far as I know there is no collaborating data to support the theory that the data we have is an artifact from the dating app.

etiam 8y ago

Interesting stories both. Did you ever get around to writing part 3?

stared 8y ago
There are two drafts, ~1.5 year old. "Social skills (not only) for aspies" and "Nice guys, friend zone and creepiness". Though starting is easy, finishing is hard.
- etiam 8y ago
  I'd be glad to see them finished. But, I know, plenty of claims on limited time.