pwno comments on Love and Rationality: Less Wrongers on OKCupid - LessWrong

19 Post author: Relsqui 11 October 2010 06:35AM

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

Comments (329)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: pwno 11 October 2010 06:29:29AM 7 points [-]

Why didn't you mention any advice on status signaling?

Comment author: Clippy 11 October 2010 04:04:45PM 18 points [-]

User:Relsqui probably didn't mention it because it's such an easy issue to handle. Just add this to your profile:

I am slightly more committed to this group’s welfare, particularly to that of its weakest members, than most of its members are. If you suffer a serious loss of status/well-being I will still help you in order to display affiliation to this group even though you will no longer be in a position to help me.

I am substantially more kind and helpful to the people I like and substantially more vindictive and aggressive towards those I dislike. I am generally stable in who I like.

I am much more capable and popular than most members of this group, demand appropriate consideration, and grant appropriate consideration to those more capable than myself.

I adhere to simple taboos so that my reputation and health are secure and so that I am unlikely to contaminate the reputations or health of my friends.

I currently like you and dislike your enemies but I am somewhat inclined towards ambivalence on regarding whether I like you right now so the pay-off would be very great for you if you were to expend resources pleasing me and get me into the stable 'liking you' region of my possible attitudinal space. Once there, I am likely to make a strong commitment to a friendly attitude towards you rather than wasting cognitive resources checking a predictable parameter among my set of derivative preferences.

Then, use a standard protocol to make it credible. What's the problem?

Comment author: Relsqui 11 October 2010 05:33:27PM *  3 points [-]

The main reason is that we didn't really talk about it in the thread I based the post on. Other reasons include that I find a lot of the commonly advised signals personally repugnant. I don't mean that I know better than the person doing the advising--quite the contrary, I think that reaction probably disqualifies me from giving good advice about it. But there are some points which are worth adding (e.g. don't talk about your worst bits in your first impression), and those I merely didn't think of. I'll see if I can find a place to work that in.

Consider stopping by the discussion section some time; it would have been nice to have this conversation about an earlier draft over there.

Comment author: pwno 11 October 2010 06:09:42PM 7 points [-]

This post is good advice for a dating site where all the users are approximately equal in physical attractiveness and status level. Otherwise, most the information becomes irrelevant once your profile readers determine your desirability levels are unmatched. For instance, men wouldn't even read your profile if they think they can get a better looking woman. And I've seen women go through profiles only paying attention to job, pictures and height.

More important information for these profiles is status and physical attractiveness orienting information. Finding a match at this level is enough for most people (I'd guess 90%) to message the other person.

Comment author: Relsqui 11 October 2010 06:22:24PM 1 point [-]

If that were true, what's the purpose of having a profile? Why not just post your photo, height, and salary and be done with it?

Finding a match at this level is enough for most people (I'd guess 90%) to message the other person.

I would expect that to vary significantly based on the number of users available who fit one's age/sex/preference requirements. But regardless of what the percentage is, it seems to me that people who fall into it have no need of this post.

Comment author: pwno 11 October 2010 06:33:01PM *  3 points [-]

If that were true, what's the purpose of having a profile? Why not just post your photo, height, and salary and be done with it?

Well, for those few whose status/looks filter you pass.

Comment author: Relsqui 11 October 2010 06:39:41PM *  3 points [-]

Then is your complaint that my profile-writing advice is only applicable when people actually read your profile? Because you're right, and I'm not sorry.

Comment author: pwno 11 October 2010 06:43:21PM *  2 points [-]

Sure, but it doesn't help for those who want to make sure they're maximizing the status/looks of their readers. And for people not getting messaged/messaged back as much as they'd like, should consider improving their displayed status/looks.

Comment author: Relsqui 11 October 2010 06:45:51PM 1 point [-]

As noted, it's worth adding a section on status; I will when I think of what exactly should go in it. But that'll still only matter when people read the profile. The presentation of looks is discussed in the photo section. Actually improving your real-life status and appearance is indeed relevant to your dating chances but beyond the scope of the post.

Comment author: pwno 11 October 2010 06:49:44PM 0 points [-]

I can help you write that section if you'd like.

Comment author: HughRistik 13 October 2010 02:19:47AM 1 point [-]

I'd be interested to see anything more you want to write on the subject.

Comment author: Relsqui 11 October 2010 07:43:51PM 1 point [-]

By all means. Perhaps write a top-level comment to the post about it (so it doesn't get buried at the end of this thread)?

Comment author: Larks 14 October 2010 04:38:48PM 0 points [-]

If that were true, what's the purpose of having a profile? Why not just post your photo, height, and salary and be done with it?

To prove you're an actual person.