4 ms·

That correlates with the data Okcupid published a while back where women rated 80% of men as below-average.

by causi 4y ago

lvass 4y ago
I'm trying to picture a distribution where this holds true and holy crap, dating apps should display a "Abandon all hope ye who enter here" warning to every man who falls below or near median ELO scores.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  I wonder though, what kind of distribution heterosexual men would provide if scrolling through registered as a woman. My guess? Pretty similar. A lot of guys, especially younger guys, just don't have a good idea of self presentation, chasing images that are very unappealing to a lot of women. Either lacking self confidence or just filling their profile with red flags.
  - confidantlake 4y ago
    Not like women's profile's are on average much better. They are simply much more in demand.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      It's still a relevant question. The narrative so many men champion is that women are too picky and it's not fair. If men would be equally picky trying to find worthy men on these platforms, it's a very different story.
kibwen 4y ago
That's somewhat misleading. Here's the original post: https://web.archive.org/web/20091121080804/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2009/11/17/your-looks-and-online-dating/ https://web.archive.org/web/20091121080804/http://blog.okcup... It says that women rate most men as less attractive than average, yes. But then women are quite willing to message men who are rated as less attractive than average. Meanwhile, the men rank attractiveness on a shockingly mathematical-looking curve. However, at the same time, men overwhelmingly refuse to message any but the most attractive of women. Thus, if you're an average-looking man, your odds of getting messages are actually greater than they are for an average-looking woman.
- causi 4y ago
  Thus, if you're an average-looking man, your odds of getting messages are actually greater than they are for an average-looking woman. Untrue. If you're an average-looking man your share of female-to-male messages is greater than an average-looking woman's share of male-to-female messages. The woman is still getting a far larger number of messages.
  - kibwen 4y ago
    Sure, adjust for the fact that 80% of users are men. That doesn't change the fact that talking about attractiveness alone is misleading, because men and women use that data in very different ways. Despite ranking most men at 2/5, women message those men at the same rate that men message women ranked 4/5.
    - causi 4y ago
      Despite ranking most men at 2/5, women message those men at the same rate that men message women ranked 4/5. No, they don't, or at least it isn't shown in that data. Those graphs refer to the proportions of messages for each gender, not raw numbers. Each male user sends 3.5 times as many "first contact" messages as each female user, according to their 2016 data. average-looking women are disadvantaged because men appear to be far more selective than women are: Absolutely agree. But they're disadvantaged against other women, not against men, if you're measuring by, as you specified, "the odds of getting messages". An average man will receive fewer messages than an average woman.
      - kibwen 4y ago
        I'm not sure how that changes anything? Divide the all raw numbers by 3.5, the rates will stay the same. The point is, while average-looking men are disadvantaged by the sheer number of men on these apps, average-looking women are disadvantaged because men appear to be far more selective than women are: "2/3 of male messages go to the top 1/3 of women. When it comes down to actually choosing targets, men choose the modelesque. Someone like roomtodance above gets nearly 5 times as many messages as a typical woman and 28 times as many messages as a woman at the low end of our curve. Site-wide, two-thirds of male messages go to the best-looking third of women. So basically, guys are fighting each other 2-for-1 for the absolute best-rated females, while plenty of potentially charming, even cute, girls go unwritten."

That correlates with the data Okcupid published a while back where women rated 80% of men as below-average.

by causi 4y ago

That correlates with the data Okcupid published a while back where women rated 80% of men as below-average.

I'm trying to picture a distribution where this holds true and holy crap, dating apps should display a "Abandon all hope ye who enter here" warning to every man who falls below or near median ELO scores.

spywaregorilla 4y ago
I wonder though, what kind of distribution heterosexual men would provide if scrolling through registered as a woman. My guess? Pretty similar. A lot of guys, especially younger guys, just don't have a good idea of self presentation, chasing images that are very unappealing to a lot of women. Either lacking self confidence or just filling their profile with red flags.
- confidantlake 4y ago
  Not like women's profile's are on average much better. They are simply much more in demand.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    It's still a relevant question. The narrative so many men champion is that women are too picky and it's not fair. If men would be equally picky trying to find worthy men on these platforms, it's a very different story.

kibwen 4y ago

That's somewhat misleading. Here's the original post: https://web.archive.org/web/20091121080804/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2009/11/17/your-looks-and-online-dating/ https://web.archive.org/web/20091121080804/http://blog.okcup... It says that women rate most men as less attractive than average, yes. But then women are quite willing to message men who are rated as less attractive than average. Meanwhile, the men rank attractiveness on a shockingly mathematical-looking curve. However, at the same time, men overwhelmingly refuse to message any but the most attractive of women. Thus, if you're an average-looking man, your odds of getting messages are actually greater than they are for an average-looking woman.

causi 4y ago
Thus, if you're an average-looking man, your odds of getting messages are actually greater than they are for an average-looking woman. Untrue. If you're an average-looking man your share of female-to-male messages is greater than an average-looking woman's share of male-to-female messages. The woman is still getting a far larger number of messages.
- kibwen 4y ago
  Sure, adjust for the fact that 80% of users are men. That doesn't change the fact that talking about attractiveness alone is misleading, because men and women use that data in very different ways. Despite ranking most men at 2/5, women message those men at the same rate that men message women ranked 4/5.
  - causi 4y ago
    Despite ranking most men at 2/5, women message those men at the same rate that men message women ranked 4/5. No, they don't, or at least it isn't shown in that data. Those graphs refer to the proportions of messages for each gender, not raw numbers. Each male user sends 3.5 times as many "first contact" messages as each female user, according to their 2016 data. average-looking women are disadvantaged because men appear to be far more selective than women are: Absolutely agree. But they're disadvantaged against other women, not against men, if you're measuring by, as you specified, "the odds of getting messages". An average man will receive fewer messages than an average woman.
    - kibwen 4y ago
      I'm not sure how that changes anything? Divide the all raw numbers by 3.5, the rates will stay the same. The point is, while average-looking men are disadvantaged by the sheer number of men on these apps, average-looking women are disadvantaged because men appear to be far more selective than women are: "2/3 of male messages go to the top 1/3 of women. When it comes down to actually choosing targets, men choose the modelesque. Someone like roomtodance above gets nearly 5 times as many messages as a typical woman and 28 times as many messages as a woman at the low end of our curve. Site-wide, two-thirds of male messages go to the best-looking third of women. So basically, guys are fighting each other 2-for-1 for the absolute best-rated females, while plenty of potentially charming, even cute, girls go unwritten."