Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

matt8 comments on Interpersonal Entanglement - Less Wrong

44 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 January 2009 06:17AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (160)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: matt8 20 January 2009 07:56:51AM 0 points [-]

I think online dating and pick-up artist techniques attempt at combating this problem.

Comment author: diegocaleiro 24 November 2010 05:35:41PM 1 point [-]

For one side of the equation.

From the male perspective, Pick-up-artistry increases likelihood of getting as many, and as awesome girls as you wish, from the female perspective, it makes guys more fun to hang out with for, say, one or two months (after which the guys will be kind of, well, tired of all the effort of attracting, and will just let go).

From this point of view, that is good.

But there is no such thing as a promising technique for women.

Girls select us for reasons we can understand, and fake until we make.

We are lucky, they are not lucky, it costs a lot to have as many plastical surgeries http://www.google.com.br/images?um=1&hl=pt-br&safe=off&biw=1428&bih=763&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=before+later+surgery&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= as would be necessary to significantly change your status among your peers.

They cheat as much as they can with make up. But it is harder to pretend feminility and hotness than it is to pretend extroversion and status.

Comment author: Articulator 13 June 2013 09:21:53PM 4 points [-]

Let's not even pretend that physical attractiveness, especially facial, doesn't factor just as highly, if not more-so, in the female perspective. That's about the hardest thing to cheat, especially for guys, who can't make use of make-up as easily, both social-acceptability-wise, and simply never being taught how, in most cases.

Furthermore, for many people, sociability and 'faking it' are by no means easy. For instance, I have Aspergers, and let me tell you, sociability for me is likely a lot harder than wearing a push-up bra, just as an example.

Even if none of the above was true, or mattered, women are just plain pickier, because evolutionarily, it makes sense.

And lastly, they don't need a technique. The only reason it would become a problem for 90% of women (random made up rhetorical statistic disclaimer) is if they're aiming high. Men don't even bother aiming high, in general, unless they're so low down that the only direction is up. In modern society, sexual and to a lesser extent, romantic relations conventions are largely dictated by the woman. On equal footing, attractively, what is the likelihood a man is going to turn down a woman?

Maybe women have slightly less mobility, but they start with a massive offset, in my experience.

Comment author: diegocaleiro 14 June 2013 03:52:03AM -1 points [-]

Facial attractiveness does not factor highly for women. This is a factual issue, there is no pretending. Evidence is that women go for other stuff before that and "pay more" for other stuff. Read Mating Intelligence.

Asperger is very bad for a male, I'll give you that. Obviously, in attraction, as in life, use the paretto principle. Whatever is 80% of benefit from 20% effort given you are asperger is your best shot.

If your claim is that "they are pickier therefore it is harder for males" I disagree. They are indeed pickier, but males can more easily reach what they'd consider "acceptable" than women, exactly because for the evolutionary reasons you mentioned, even when women are following my advice and discounting as hard as they can for ignoring genes which won't end up in their children, they still are a lot pickier. The claim is not that having sex being a male is easier, that one is false. The claim is that for nearly any level of accomplishment "acceptable" "good" "great" and "unbelievable" finding of a sex partner, males are more likely to hit that threshold with training etc...

Comment author: Articulator 14 June 2013 06:24:56AM 1 point [-]

I'll concede the first point, but bear in mind that as I said, it is harder for men to change their facial appearance than women, so while I couldn't comment on the magnitudes involved, I'd estimate it somewhat cancels out, at the very least. I also daresay, examining my understandings that lead to this point that my mistake was implying a direct causation where a slightly finer touch was necessary. Because let's not pretend that more facially attractive men don't have an easier time of it. Of course, this presumably increases their self-confidence, etc.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure 20% effort is too low to yield anything at all. I'll let you know if I ever find a point where a given amount of effort pays off.

Hmm, I see what you're saying. However, my counterargument, as I said previously, is that males start at a disadvantage, so even if they have an easier time evening the playing field, that still requires work I would broadly define as 'harder'. Perhaps that is partially my individual biases talking, but I'm not the only person I know who has expressed similar sentiments.

My claim, to paraphrase yours, is that while men are more likely to hit the threshold with training, women are more likely to without. To be honest, I think I'd take that offset over mobility any day.

For casual sexual partners specifically, however, I would point out that the libido difference between men and women means I daresay the gender ratios in that sort of environment aren't quite equal. As a result, I would expect a higher proportion of men than women are left without a sexual partner out of those who were looking for one.