Marriage and the Power of Divorce

Tuco_sl said:

Part of the problem wit hthe profile is I imagine most people quickly find that people are both deceptive and bad at self judging. People will write profiles that represent either what they want people to see, how they want to be seen or what they want to be like.

And this isn't some evil conspiracy. If I made a dating profile would I say shit like, "I'm a lazy nerd who mostly wants to play games and drive robots"

Click to expand...

You should make a profile like that and give us your results. Tell the wife it is for science.

The 10% is a combined bonus from (money + social value) / how far the girl is dating "down". I guarantee it.

The Master_sl said:

Read the latest entry. Your written profile is worth less than 10% of your overall rating by users. Tenks just thought his profile mattered in his success rate, the data don't agree that your profile matters at all, for anyone. I am sure there are exceptions, I read profiles all the time and do/don't message people based on them, but the overall trend is that it doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

IIRC, Tenks didn't say he had a higher success rate with either picture type, he just said he got responses from different types of people based on the picture type (skanks w/ shirt off pic, educated women w/ normal pic). He also said elements of his profile showed up in the messaging; OKC's data doesn't show that people WON'T read the profile, it just says they aren't deterred by lack of profile content if the user is attractive. Hence, his experience still isn't at odds with the data. Having a decent profile just gave them something to talk about when messaging. Theoretically, he would have had the same volume of responses with no profile text.

Unless I misread, OKC's data also doesn't address what effect exceptionally stupid profile text has since it is mathematically hard to analyze that. My guess is, assuming the person is attractive, it has the same effect as shirt off vs normal pics: similar response volume, different quality of responder. They addressed this some in their first message language analysis (summary: if u type liek dis, your response rate plummets).

Tuco_sl said:

Part of the problem with the profile is I imagine most people quickly find that people are both deceptive and bad at self judging. People will write profiles that represent either what they want people to see, how they want to be seen or what they want to be like.

And this isn't some evil conspiracy. If I made a dating profile would I say shit like, "I'm a lazy nerd who mostly wants to play games and drive robots"

Click to expand...

I think the answer is simpler: people don't date people they aren't attracted to. Attraction is an essential part of the dating relationship. If you are attracted to someone, you're likely to give them a chance despite their shortcomings.

I'm digging deep into my academic past here, but when studies were done on what matters when starting a relationship, physical attraction completely blows away every other factor. The rest practically doesn't matter unless you just want to punch the other person in the face every time they open their mouth (like that vet from Frenzied Wombat's story). Maybe Dr. Dabamf can fact-check me.

Tuco_sl said:

The other aspect is that I think people can speciously fill in the holes in someone's profile, focus on what they like and ignore what they don't or interpret it how they like and cut them slack when they want, but they aren't able to easily convince themselves a person is more attractive than how they look.

Click to expand...

Yes. In short, if you really want to bang the other person, you can excuse a bunch of obvious red flags. That won't hold up long-term, but it definitely applies at the beginning.

If you guys are trying to min/max tinder / hook up sites, here's some science:

Changes in Women's Mate Preferences Across the Ovulatory Cycle

Women most attracted to arrogance, confrontative behavior, and musculature for short term relationships

Everybody's been talking about the ovulatory cycle, even mass media articles. So here it is redpill style.

The science is pretty clear. Women go for good genes when they're ovulating and beta resources the rest of the month. Same with short term versus long term relationships. What's interesting is the specific traits and behaviors they're attracted to, and how these traits interact.

This quote for example:

Relative to women low in conception risk, those high in conception risk particularly preferred as >short-term mates men who appeared more confrontative, arrogant, muscular, socially >respected, and physically attractive. When high in conception risk, women were also more >attracted to men who were viewed as lower on faithfulness as short-term mates.

Click to expand...

You heard that right. Women are more attracted to men who they think are unfaithful.

We also tested these effects while statistically controlling for two behavioral display > indicators examined by Gangestad et al. (2004), Social Presence and Direct Intrasexual > Competitiveness. In most instances, interactions remained significant or neared significance, > indicating that the effects reported here are not redundant with the effects reported > previously. For confrontativeness, arrogance, faithfulness, and muscularity, ts = 3.13 >(df = 7986), 2.64 (df = 8081), -2.27 (df = 8057), and 1.85 (df = 7957), > respectively, all ps < .041. For social respect, t(7927) = 1.51 (p = .081). For physical > attractiveness, the effect dropped to nonsiginifance.t(7925) = 1.09, ns. Women rely > on behavioral information when evaluating the attractiveness of men. The results suggest > that fertile women are particularly attracted to these components of physical attractiveness.

Click to expand...

What this quote is saying is that even while controlling for two big traits that were found attractive in a previous study (Social Presence and Direct Intrasexual Competitiveness), the traits in this study were still significance and the one that was most significant was social respect (p = 0.81).

confrontativeness: 3.13 arrogance: 2.64 muscularity: 1.85 faithfulness: -2.27

Basically, women love shit starting cunts.

The most interesting part was this chart:

Womens standards of attractiveness do not change across the cycle in general for all mate > traits. Standards associated with particular traits perceived systemically change. This > pattern is consistent with the good genes hypothesis. This hypothesis however makes an > even more specific prediction. about which male traits should be most attractive to fertile > women. Fertile women should be especially drawn to men who possess traits typically values > in short term mates.

Figure 1 shows the results of these tests. As can be seen, the extent to which male traits > were preferred in short-term mating contexts strongly predicted the extent to which this > was particularly true of fertile versus infertile women. indeed the correlation is close to > perfect .93.

Click to expand...

And thus the arrogant confrontational douchebag wins the girl while the warm faithful beta stays home and faps into his sock

Click to expand...

Tuco_sl said:

Waiting on this reply, Bromeo.

Click to expand...

Why exactly? Did you miss the post right above you where I posted a link to an article from an academic journal?

Looks like Ronald earned his Red Wings.

Himeo_sl said:

If you guys are trying to min/max tinder / hook up sites, here's some science:

Changes in Women?s Mate Preferences Across the Ovulatory Cycle

Click to expand...

OK so you read 1 article after I asked you how many. Meaning you have no education in evo psych. And you are still arguing that you have enough expertise in evolutionary psych to confidently say everyone else has it all wrong?

I skimmed that article. It was a dense read even for me, who is in the field. It's an incredibly complicated study design. I'm talking top 5% complicated, so I'm kinda shaking my head at redpill dudes cherry picking quotes out of it. Especially that graph.

JPSP is a very good journal, so you can be pretty safe in taking the author's conclusions mostly at face value without pouring over the methods (which is a nightmare due to study design + surprisingly poor writing). However, the effect sizes are quire small, and the authors' statements that "these effects mostly remain when controlling for the 2 factors [past lit has said we must control for]" are not entirely true because in several cases p is barely under and sometimes even over .05. With the sheer number of analyses they're doing, they have no justification in calling a p over .05 "almost significant." In fact, they should be doing adjustments to their alpha due to the number of analyses (basically, more analyses means that false positive rate skyrockets, so good practice is to do some kind of adjustment). This isn't a knock on them; that's just how things are done right now. But it does mean that the take-home of the results is "interesting, but not all that compeling."

The graph with r=.93 is weird and their writing is so bad it makes it hard to follow. It looks like its a correlation between the 2-way interaction and the 3-way interaction, presumably suggesting the same thing (evolution-based contextually-dependent mate preference) drives both? That's potentially true but very speculative based on these data. It also seems tautological, and an r=.93 is preposterously high for a psychology study, suggesting it is tuatelogical. Even the absolute best predictor in psychology is lucky to get an r of .7

Anyway, it's an interesting study, and my understanding is that this finding is now well accepted in the evo psych lit. However, and most importantly, like everything in psychology, the effect sizes appear quite small. They didn't report them and I'm in no mood to do the math in a multilevel modeling study, but with degrees of freedom in the 8000s and pS of anything greater than .001, they're bound to be small to miniscule.

In other words, there is a real difference in preference of mates when talking of short term vs long term and whether or not the woman is ovulating, but it doesn't explain even a fraction of female attraction.

Since the thread has taken a detour into edating land and in the interests of giving brother Himeo a break from going full retard, I will throw my hat into the ring for some bro-vise.

Decided to try online dating for the first time this week. Got to messaging with a girl who was appealing, last note from her was that she is out of the town this weekend but do I want to get together for some yoga/tea (actually a pretty ideal first date for me) next weekend. I messaged her back something to the effect of "drop me a message when you are back in town with your # so we smooth out the details on time, etc." (we had already talked about day / area). Left it at that, no open questions to fish out another response.

This is the correct play, sirs of rr? This was like the 4th or 5th message so I figure it's time to meet up and see if we vibe, and there is no point in any more online chit-chat. Not sure if there is anything to the school of thought of keeping the convo running until we meet in person instead. At this point, though appealing, she is just a random girl on the internet. I continue to message with other girls, as I am sure she does with other guys.

I find this scene way more fascinating from a market standpoint than I thought I would. My background is in economics, but the stuff that Master is linking regarding psychology is interesting as well. It was a grad professor's anecdote last semester about the online dating market and banging women on tinder when he travelled that made me decide to try it out.

Not sure if any background helps, but I am good looking enough to get women but I don't have a shirtless ab pic that is going to make the strippers and single moms masturbate until they squirt (I mean pee) when they see it. I'll leave it at that, but if any other deets are relevant I can fill in.

Dabamf_sl said:

OK so you read 1 article after I asked you how many. Meaning you have no education in evo psych. And you are still arguing that you have enough expertise in evolutionary psych to confidently say everyone else has it all wrong?

I skimmed that article. It was a dense read even for me, who is in the field. It's an incredibly complicated study design. I'm talking top 5% complicated, so I'm kinda shaking my head at redpill dudes cherry picking quotes out of it. Especially that graph.

JPSP is a very good journal, so you can be pretty safe in taking the author's conclusions mostly at face value without pouring over the methods (which is a nightmare due to study design + surprisingly poor writing). However, the effect sizes are quire small, and the authors' statements that "these effects mostly remain when controlling for the 2 factors [past lit has said we must control for]" are not entirely true because in several cases p is barely under and sometimes even over .05. With the sheer number of analyses they're doing, they have no justification in calling a p over .05 "almost significant." In fact, they should be doing adjustments to their alpha due to the number of analyses (basically, more analyses means that false positive rate skyrockets, so good practice is to do some kind of adjustment). This isn't a knock on them; that's just how things are done right now. But it does mean that the take-home of the results is "interesting, but not all that compeling."

The graph with r=.93 is weird and their writing is so bad it makes it hard to follow. It looks like its a correlation between the 2-way interaction and the 3-way interaction, presumably suggesting the same thing (evolution-based contextually-dependent mate preference) drives both? That's potentially true but very speculative based on these data. It also seems tautological, and an r=.93 is preposterously high for a psychology study, suggesting it is tuatelogical. Even the absolute best predictor in psychology is lucky to get an r of .7

Anyway, it's an interesting study, and my understanding is that this finding is now well accepted in the evo psych lit. However, and most importantly, like everything in psychology, the effect sizes appear quite small. They didn't report them and I'm in no mood to do the math in a multilevel modeling study, but with degrees of freedom in the 8000s and pS of anything greater than .001, they're bound to be small to miniscule.

In other words,there is a real difference in preference of mates when talking of short term vs long term and whether or not the woman is ovulating, but it doesn't explain even a fraction of female attraction.

Click to expand...

That's interesting.

When you get a chance read the other articles I posted. You seem like a smart guy, I'd like your take on them.

Bob Book_sl said:

Since the thread has taken a detour into edating land and in the interests of giving brother Himeo a break from going full retard, I will throw my hat into the ring for some bro-vise.

Decided to try online dating for the first time this week. Got to messaging with a girl who was appealing, last note from her was that she is out of the town this weekend but do I want to get together for some yoga/tea (actually a pretty ideal first date for me) next weekend. I messaged her back something to the effect of "drop me a message when you are back in town with your # so we smooth out the details on time, etc." (we had already talked about day / area). Left it at that, no open questions to fish out another response.

This is the correct play, sirs of rr? This was like the 4th or 5th message so I figure it's time to meet up and see if we vibe, and there is no point in any more online chit-chat. Not sure if there is anything to the school of thought of keeping the convo running until we meet in person instead. At this point, though appealing, she is just a random girl on the internet. I continue to message with other girls, as I am sure she does with other guys.

I find this scene way more fascinating from a market standpoint than I thought I would. My background is in economics, but the stuff that Master is linking regarding psychology is interesting as well. It was a grad professor's anecdote last semester about the online dating market and banging women on tinder when he travelled that made me decide to try it out.

Not sure if any background helps, but I am good looking enough to get women but I don't have a shirtless ab pic that is going to make the strippers and single moms masturbate until they squirt (I mean pee) when they see it. I'll leave it at that, but if any other deets are relevant I can fill in.

Click to expand...

She asked you if you want to meet up? Whatever you're doing, chances are you're fine. If a girl asks you, or messages you first, then you're fine. The only thing you can do at that point is mess it up.

In online dating there is a really lopsided perception of supply and demand. Depending on population density even average looking girls can get hundreds of visitors per day and dozens of messages. So girls feel like they can be picky. Which in real life is something I see all the time with really hot girls, but in online dating it applies to the majority of girls. So if they are messaging you first or asking you out, despite what is no doubt a massive amount of attention otherwise, you're already doing well with that girl.

If your background is economics, think of online dating as a sexual market place. It'll get you like 95% of the way there. Unless you have an interest in human sexuality just for the pleasure of understanding it, you really don't need more than that.

mkopec_sl said:

I understand the red pill theory and what its all about. I have read much into it. But that shit is just painted so black and white and does not really represent reality in the real world. Yeah women intrinsically are hypergamous, but not all of them act on it, or even feel the urge to do so.

Click to expand...

The thing with redpill is that it should be taken as a generality. You can't possibly account foreveryvariable, especially with how deep the human psyche runs.

Tuco_sl said:

And if you're an employed financial professional, realize that the opportunity cost of dating is higher than paying for hookers, so go balance a spread sheet and get on craigs list on the weekends.

Click to expand...

Not that I would know from experience, but AFAIK the super-hot, highly expensive hookers demand quite a few references from "entry-level" hookers before they'll see you, in order to avoid being arrested or murdered. So you have to factor that into the calculation too.