5 ms·

There was a very detailed article that used data collected in Tinder. It showed something like 80% of women fought for 20% of top men and other way around. Thi

There was a very detailed article that used data collected in Tinder. It showed something like 80% of women fought for 20% of top men and other way around. This basically meant that large number of men are being left out cold in dating scene. This pattern is across all online dating causing steep rise in men who are alone without partners in their 30s. However, there will likely no impact on birth rates significantly because women ultimately bear children for multiple highly desirable men but from small pool (either through multiple marriages or staying single). This is not very different from times before agriculture as DNA analysis shows significant portion of men didn't had offspring as more powerful men had access to larger than their fair share of women. The online dating has made the game as fierce again but this time voluntarily from both genders.

prohobo 4y ago
Power and compatibility doesn't correlate from visual attractiveness, especially in photos where many otherwise attractive people are simply not photogenic. Yes the market (because that's exactly what it is now, which is what sets it apart from the pre-agriculture era) is fierce, and it's based on faulty preferences - it's almost completely about the photos. Statistically, couples who vet each other based on purely visual characteristics like height, body shape, skin colour and facial structure do not fare well in terms of relationship stability. This is a net negative for both women and men. Women do not find powerful or uniquely attractive men, they find conventionally attractive men and push the market towards homogenisation. That's incredibly damaging from a societal growth perspective; it weeds out innovators and eccentrics. It forces people to change their priorities to become more homogeneous, and at the same time be the best at it. This is keeping up with the Jones' on steroids. The technology we made for convenience is incredibly dangerous and potentially harmful in many aspects to both individuals and communities, and trying to rationalize it as weird but acceptable because of some parallels in history does nothing to address valid issues.
- dumpsterdiver 4y ago
  > Statistically, couples who vet each other based on purely visual characteristics like height, body shape, skin colour and facial structure do not fare well in terms of relationship stability. You’re talking about people finding each other physically attractive. What world are you living in where physical attraction isn’t the dominant deciding factor for finding a mate?
  - prohobo 4y ago
    It's not a good basis for a relationship. In traditional courtship couples woo each other and show attractive characteristics besides the way they look - in fact your behaviour changes the way you look to others. That's why "friend of a friend" relationships have always been so common. It was always a safe and appropriate environment for courtship. Dating apps are creating a powerful disincentive against the possibility of creating relationships through communal meetings by changing the rules of courtship through market dynamics. Physical attractiveness may be pretty important, but romantics find a way to create beauty regardless; like the Quasimodo story. It should make it easier to find mates, not be a prerequisite.
Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
> There was a very detailed article that used data collected in Tinder. Survery* OkCupid* and 2011*. > It showed something like 80% of women fought for 20% of top men and other way around. It showed that women rated 80% of men below average. Which is pretty understandable, in okcupid and in 2011. That is an insane sample bias, when women look at men in ACTUAL research they tend to rate in a bell curve, and are actually kinder to age than men that tend to rate older women super low. > This basically meant that large number of men are being left out cold in dating scene. The data from the same survey showed a lot of those women ended up in relationships outside that 20%. Women rate look as the 4th most important thing in a man. It seems like you probably need to check first hand sources instead of parroting whatever youtuber you heard this from cause you extrapolated conclusions from data you never checked and got all the conclusions wrong.
- KronisLV 4y ago
  > That is an insane sample bias, when women look at men in ACTUAL research they tend to rate in a bell curve, and are actually kinder to age than men that tend to rate older women super low. I think that the survey was pretty controversial and has since been quoted to death in all sorts of contexts. It would be nice to see this actual research which paints a different picture, so that folks here might actually discuss the findings. I might have nothing to offer there, but people who work with statistics and whatnot would probably offer a good point or two. > Women rate look as the 4th most important thing in a man. I do think that the problem with most surveys is that there will certainly be biases in self-reported answers. For example, if asked about what I'd prefer in a country, I might claim that I value human rights and liberty really highly, but then turn around and vote for politicians that would promise to lower the taxes instead. I would actually be picking a different set of characteristics/priorities than I had indicated previously - regardless of whether I actually believed my own answers and didn't know, or simply wanted to appear virtuous. (just a made up example, I'm not sure how one would even measure what people actually value outside of asking them, maybe try to classify people based on various indicators)
  - daniel_iversen 4y ago
    Isn’t that the whole “system 1” and “system 2” thinking? One being your logical brain and one being your practical brain. Hence why some supermarkets are testing shelving layouts in VR because if you survey people they’ll tell you one thing but in practice they’d actually do something different :)
mxkopy 4y ago
>because women ultimately bear children for multiple highly desirable men but from small pool (either through multiple marriages or staying single) Source?
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  People as a whole have about double as many female ancestors as they do male ancestors. The last century is a relative abnormality with monogamy and chastity outside monogamy being pushed for the sake of social stability, along with not as much war killing off most young men.
  - dumpsterdiver 4y ago
    When you speak of monogamy and chastity being a rarity in antiquity, you’re talking about men, right? Were the women involved in these polygamous relationships expected to engage with other men freely?
    - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
      Not just men, no. Chastity insists women don't put out easily and vet beyond initial expectations, which is what you see in more traditional "no sex before marriage" type of relationships. Our more savage ancestors couldn't care less about that when they were in heat, be it men or women. Monogamy isn't something you can attribute to just men either, when it requires women to be okay with sharing a guy (either active sharing or the guy monkey branching). Ever noted the stories of men in relationships/married tend to get more attention from women other than their partner than before? If you're going to actively flirt or seduce taken men, you're not just an idle player. On top, women have a fairly large window they could have sex with anyone and be at incredibly low risk of getting impregnated. Even if female ancestor count is double that of male, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be women giving out pity sex for desperate men in exchange for other favors. It takes two to tango chastity / monogamy, just like all (legal) things relationships.
  - mxkopy 4y ago
    >People as a whole have about double as many female ancestors as they do male ancestors. I'll take your word for it, but I don't think that means "women bear multiple children with a small pool of highly desirable men..." or something. It's equally likely that the converse situation makes offspring less successful for some reason. For example, women with multiple partners could have access to more resources by proxy of those relationships, which in a patriarchal society would be greater than the resources a man with multiple partners could access.

prohobo 4y ago

Power and compatibility doesn't correlate from visual attractiveness, especially in photos where many otherwise attractive people are simply not photogenic. Yes the market (because that's exactly what it is now, which is what sets it apart from the pre-agriculture era) is fierce, and it's based on faulty preferences - it's almost completely about the photos. Statistically, couples who vet each other based on purely visual characteristics like height, body shape, skin colour and facial structure do not fare well in terms of relationship stability. This is a net negative for both women and men. Women do not find powerful or uniquely attractive men, they find conventionally attractive men and push the market towards homogenisation. That's incredibly damaging from a societal growth perspective; it weeds out innovators and eccentrics. It forces people to change their priorities to become more homogeneous, and at the same time be the best at it. This is keeping up with the Jones' on steroids. The technology we made for convenience is incredibly dangerous and potentially harmful in many aspects to both individuals and communities, and trying to rationalize it as weird but acceptable because of some parallels in history does nothing to address valid issues.

dumpsterdiver 4y ago
> Statistically, couples who vet each other based on purely visual characteristics like height, body shape, skin colour and facial structure do not fare well in terms of relationship stability. You’re talking about people finding each other physically attractive. What world are you living in where physical attraction isn’t the dominant deciding factor for finding a mate?
- prohobo 4y ago
  It's not a good basis for a relationship. In traditional courtship couples woo each other and show attractive characteristics besides the way they look - in fact your behaviour changes the way you look to others. That's why "friend of a friend" relationships have always been so common. It was always a safe and appropriate environment for courtship. Dating apps are creating a powerful disincentive against the possibility of creating relationships through communal meetings by changing the rules of courtship through market dynamics. Physical attractiveness may be pretty important, but romantics find a way to create beauty regardless; like the Quasimodo story. It should make it easier to find mates, not be a prerequisite.

Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago

> There was a very detailed article that used data collected in Tinder. Survery* OkCupid* and 2011*. > It showed something like 80% of women fought for 20% of top men and other way around. It showed that women rated 80% of men below average. Which is pretty understandable, in okcupid and in 2011. That is an insane sample bias, when women look at men in ACTUAL research they tend to rate in a bell curve, and are actually kinder to age than men that tend to rate older women super low. > This basically meant that large number of men are being left out cold in dating scene. The data from the same survey showed a lot of those women ended up in relationships outside that 20%. Women rate look as the 4th most important thing in a man. It seems like you probably need to check first hand sources instead of parroting whatever youtuber you heard this from cause you extrapolated conclusions from data you never checked and got all the conclusions wrong.

KronisLV 4y ago
> That is an insane sample bias, when women look at men in ACTUAL research they tend to rate in a bell curve, and are actually kinder to age than men that tend to rate older women super low. I think that the survey was pretty controversial and has since been quoted to death in all sorts of contexts. It would be nice to see this actual research which paints a different picture, so that folks here might actually discuss the findings. I might have nothing to offer there, but people who work with statistics and whatnot would probably offer a good point or two. > Women rate look as the 4th most important thing in a man. I do think that the problem with most surveys is that there will certainly be biases in self-reported answers. For example, if asked about what I'd prefer in a country, I might claim that I value human rights and liberty really highly, but then turn around and vote for politicians that would promise to lower the taxes instead. I would actually be picking a different set of characteristics/priorities than I had indicated previously - regardless of whether I actually believed my own answers and didn't know, or simply wanted to appear virtuous. (just a made up example, I'm not sure how one would even measure what people actually value outside of asking them, maybe try to classify people based on various indicators)
- daniel_iversen 4y ago
  Isn’t that the whole “system 1” and “system 2” thinking? One being your logical brain and one being your practical brain. Hence why some supermarkets are testing shelving layouts in VR because if you survey people they’ll tell you one thing but in practice they’d actually do something different :)

mxkopy 4y ago

>because women ultimately bear children for multiple highly desirable men but from small pool (either through multiple marriages or staying single) Source?

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
People as a whole have about double as many female ancestors as they do male ancestors. The last century is a relative abnormality with monogamy and chastity outside monogamy being pushed for the sake of social stability, along with not as much war killing off most young men.
- dumpsterdiver 4y ago
  When you speak of monogamy and chastity being a rarity in antiquity, you’re talking about men, right? Were the women involved in these polygamous relationships expected to engage with other men freely?
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    Not just men, no. Chastity insists women don't put out easily and vet beyond initial expectations, which is what you see in more traditional "no sex before marriage" type of relationships. Our more savage ancestors couldn't care less about that when they were in heat, be it men or women. Monogamy isn't something you can attribute to just men either, when it requires women to be okay with sharing a guy (either active sharing or the guy monkey branching). Ever noted the stories of men in relationships/married tend to get more attention from women other than their partner than before? If you're going to actively flirt or seduce taken men, you're not just an idle player. On top, women have a fairly large window they could have sex with anyone and be at incredibly low risk of getting impregnated. Even if female ancestor count is double that of male, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be women giving out pity sex for desperate men in exchange for other favors. It takes two to tango chastity / monogamy, just like all (legal) things relationships.
- mxkopy 4y ago
  >People as a whole have about double as many female ancestors as they do male ancestors. I'll take your word for it, but I don't think that means "women bear multiple children with a small pool of highly desirable men..." or something. It's equally likely that the converse situation makes offspring less successful for some reason. For example, women with multiple partners could have access to more resources by proxy of those relationships, which in a patriarchal society would be greater than the resources a man with multiple partners could access.