>The study was clear that it's about distribution of swipes, which is a prerequisite of even getting to know the personality of eachother. The author notes tha

>The study was clear that it's about distribution of swipes, which is a prerequisite of even getting to know the personality of eachother. The author notes that the content of the picture itself is highly relevant to judging personality from a picture, and how we perceive people in pictures. Painters, for instance, have known to use this fact for the past two thousand years when portraying people - often, the context the subject is placed in is just as important, if not moreso, than the appearance of the person themselves. >so taking care of appearence got much easier for men in the last decade. Being easy does not mean that it is something that they (in general) follow through with. It is now more easy than ever to watch films, but that does not mean I will dedicate considerable time to learning to appreciate films, or learn what differentiates a good film from a bad one. >Evolutionary biology shows that it's much much deeper within the sexes than just training. I agree, but this just reinforces my point that it is a fallacy to expect a "market" that is so heavily inbalanced in this skill to be anything near equal. Men have to put a lot more effort into the first picture they show, since there is a large body of research showing that women are less stimulated by visual representations than men. Many other variables were ignored in the experiment, all of which directly and importantly influence the charactersitics of the "Tinder economy"; profiles are assigned an ELO on Tinder, such that those who swipe more are pushed down the stack, using the boost/super like functionality dramatically increases the chance of getting a match, women and men both select on the contents of the bio, or whether it has an Instagram link, and how many followers are on the user's page, Tinder shows the mutual connections within social groups, etc. When I'm on Tinder, at least, I scroll through all the pictures, and I don't just look at the first one. It's unclear whether the author even used multiple pictures, forcing people to make decisions based on just the one - decisions they may not have made if there were multiple. Not to mention the extremely small sample size, assuming that women all rate men (and indeed they rate them along the same axes as men rate women, even given just a picture), the use of deception by the author, and the bizarre comparison to real-world economies whose inequality is shaped by a variety of factors, from ownership of capital, unemployment, gender, race (the author even put South Africa on the graph!), etc. "Attractiveness" is left undefined qualitatively (and therefore meaningless to assign any value to its quantiative measurement, as if such a thing were objective, even on Tinder), and it is unclear whether this includes the user's bio or not. A like, on its own, on Tinder doesn't get you anywhere. It opens the potential (and a low potential) to find something (usually sex, in which it is no surprise that people selected based on atractiveness and extrapolate on that atractiveness from personal biases). The currency of Tinder, if anything, sohuld be modelled as "successful" meets.