= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
HughRistik comments on More art, less stink: Taking the PU out of PUA - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (616)
Right... the level of social skills that men need to be considered dateable by average women is not the level of social skills that the average guy has. It's something higher; in fact, it might even be above the female average.
Women have the right to whatever preferences they have. But if the above fact is true (that average men aren't good enough for average women), then you quickly realize that it leads to a broken system of supply and demand.
Do you have any rigorous evidence for this, or is it only based on your personal experiences or perceptions? Because it sounds remarkably close to something I hear a lot from women, which is that men have unreasonable expectations re: women's personal appearance, beyond what "real women" can live up to. My answer is the same in both cases: in practice, people adjust their expectations according to what is available. Most people don't see celibacy as a real option, so they're more likely to try for the best available partner than just give up on mating.
On the other hand, women are certainly more willing to go without sex in the short term than are men, on average. Maybe that's what's leading to your perception of a mismatch between supply and demand?
Note that this isn't inconsistent with ev-psych: our preferences weren't evolved for the purpose of making us all happy. Instead, they're tuned to make us want better than whatever the other guy or gal has got.
Note that in both the male and female complaint, the unstated part is that men/women the complainer finds attractive are the ones with the "impossibly high" standard. The reason the other party can have that high standard, is because they themselves are more of a "catch" and can thus be more selective.
IOW, men are saying that the women who meet their unreasonable expectations expect too much of them, and the women are saying that the men who meet their unreasonable expectations expect too much of them. In both cases, this is consistent with the notion that the average guy or gal is looking for an above-average gal or guy, respectively... and suggests that our evolved preference is to look for someone just out of our own (perceived) league.
(I think some experiments have been done to test that idea, but I don't recall the specifics at the moment.)
Yes, but if women are more selective in general, then this situation is not symmetrical: women are more likely to try to date "out of their league." Or they perceive their "league" to be high than men at the same percentile of attractiveness think that their own league is.
My hypothesis is that the difference between minimum or maximum percentile attractiveness of the mates you are aiming for, and your own percentile attractiveness, is greater for women.
For instance, it could be the case that a man in the 50th percentile of male attractiveness views his "league" to be the 45th percentile to the 60th percentile of female attractiveness. Although he might sometimes make a pass at women of higher percentile attractiveness, most of his mating effort occurs in that window.
In contrast, a woman in the 50th percentile of female attractiveness may view her "league" to be the 55th to to 70th percentile of male attractiveness.
If it's the case that such dynamics are in play, they would predict certain problems in the dating world that match up well to my experience in real life. The result is that both sexes are often in a situation where "what you want, you can't get, and what you get, you don't want."
And note, I'm not saying that this broken system is women's fault for being prissy princesses, or something like that. The problem isn't women's preferences and selectivity in a vacuum, the problem is the gap between women's preferences and men's traits, and the gap between female and male selectivity. (PUAs try to solve this problem by changing men's traits to be more in line with female preferences, such that less women are forced to select them out.)
I'm confused. The data you present shows that women are more picky about personality, and men are more picky about looks. But what (of your data) indicates that "the difference between minimum or maximum percentile attractiveness of the mates you are aiming for, and your own percentile attractiveness, is greater for women"? You can break personality into several separate traits, yes, but you can break looks into several separate traits too, so it isn't clear that women have more requirements on more traits.
You're correct, most of my discussion in this case hinges on the proposition that women are more selective in general. I haven't yet presented evidence on that proposition, and it will take me some time to write it up.
For now, people can read my post by assuming for the sake of argument that women are more selective in general.
I am not sure how assuming that women are more selective in general does a better job of explaining observations than assuming that both sexes tend to desire mates who are "out of their league". In both cases, this would create a situation where, as you put it, "what you want, you can't get, and what you get, you don't want." Why do you favor the hypothesis that it's only women who are over-selective?
There is some more research on the subject that I need to write up, but you can start with the OkCupid analysis for now.
Look at the boxes showing the reply rates by race. They have row and column weighted averages, and at the bottom right there seems to be the total weighted average response rate. Men get responses to 27.6% of their messages. Women get responses to 42% of their messages.
On OkCupid, women are more selective in who they respond to. How much does this generalize to more general male-female interaction? That's uncertain, but it show lead us to raise our probability for the hypothesis that women are more selective in general.
I've seen the OkTrends results before, but I'm really not comfortable making any general inferences from them. Are there even roughly equal numbers of men and women on OkCupid? Is that information available anywhere?
I'll be interested to read it.
That would be highly unlikely.
It isn't the sort of thing that I would expect a dating site to advertise. "10:1 ratio of guys to girls" (for example) isn't the kind of message that is well calibrated to attract participants of either sex.
I have seen research done into sex ratios for online dating sites in general, not limited to OkCupid and the balance is far from even.
Trivial understanding of game theory in an evolutionary context, observation of human behavior or accepting the nearly universally acknowledged stereotype (or generalisation) would suggest this hypothesis. Since evolution doesn't 'care' at all about our happiness and given the payoffs for human mating it would be extremely surprising if female instincts were well calibrated for ensuring the individual's wellbeing. The payoffs for males are such that it would be credible to hypothesise from evolutionary reasoning that their selectiveness would any one of too low, just right or too high for the males individual wellbeing.
A slightly less trivial understanding suggests that a human male's selectiveness will be an increasing function of the investment he expects to make in the resulting offspring.
Exactly. This is what allows me to make the claim in the final sentence:
Another instance of DHTP,HTG!
I knew you'd get that acronym.
I don't have evidence that's tested this hypothesis specifically (that the average man isn't good enough for the average woman, particularly in the area of social skills), but there are several lines of scientific evidence that suggest it.
See this study by Berry and Miller for instance:
The finding that female interest in men is loaded on extraversion is consistent with women finding male social skills important. Of course, this doesn't tell us how average male social skills measure up to the requirement of the average female.
In general, women seem to be more selective than men about all traits other than looks.
See Botwin and Buss 1997:
Also, see OkCupid research, which found that women are pickier about race than men.
If it's the case that women are more selective than men in general (even taking into account men's greater selectivity for looks), or require higher levels of certain personality traits than are present in the male population, that could indeed create weird issues of supply and demand. This isn't the fault of an individual women; the difficultly is the weight of aggregate female preferences.
Don't forgot the option of multiple people dating the same person. Humans are considered a mildly polygynous species.
The kind of scenario I'm imagining is if two women of average attractiveness both want a man of slightly above average attractiveness (attractiveness, in this case, means more than just looks). Either they both go out with him, or one of them goes out with him and the other goes out with nobody and lusts for him. Since one man is monopolizing the sexual attention of two women, the supply of women of average attractiveness is choked, leaving less possible partners for men of average attractiveness.
Of course, two men often go after the same woman. Yet if it's true that women are more selective in general, then it's just a lot more likely to see the situation where two women want the same guy and neither of them will settle for an inferior guy. So it's more common for the supply of women at any level of attractiveness to be choked.
OkCupid also found that women rate 80% of men as below average in attractiveness while men have a much more symmetric distribution of attractiveness ratings with pretty much 50% of women rated below average and 50% above. Men on the other hand are much more likely to message the most attractive women while women are actually most likely to message men rated as slightly below average in attractiveness. As OkCupid puts it: