Relsqui 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. Show more comments above.

Comment author: HughRistik 13 October 2010 07:05:23AM 17 points [-]

I have no problem with Relsqui presenting this sort of advice, but I think (a) such advice requires more acknowledgment of how limited it is in scope, and (b) some of it is wrong. I think attempting to synthesize LW thoughts on online dating is an interesting subject, but drawing prescriptions from this synthesis, along with certain other assumptions, runs into the problems that pwno and Vladimi_M observe.

Since Relsqui is being such a good sport about receiving criticism, and Vladimir_M is being shy on certain subjects, I'm going to break it down myself.

This post is a summary of the parts of that thread which specifically address the practical aspect of good profile editing and critique.

What reasons do we have to believe that the aggregated LW on online dating is any use? Unless we have reasons to believe that it is useful, this aggregation is more interesting as a descriptive anthropological project ("Ooh, lookie at what the cute LWers think about online dating!") than as a normative one. This post presents the aggregated advice as prescriptive without adequate caveat emptors.

Concrete Advice #1 is good except for this part:

Honesty (so as to find people who will actually like you)

What is the evidence that being honest will help you find the people who will actually like you? The fact is that in dating between everyone except extremely nerdy people, the norm is to engage in impression management.

Yes, it's true in a trivial way that the information in your profile must relate to your actual traits to attract someone who is into you once they get to know you. Yet the need for impression management puts a ceiling on the level of honesty that is practical.

The other problem with honesty is that you have to consider the signaling effects of revealing information. If one reveals information that most people would impression-manage away according to current norms, then one signals that either (a) one is deliberately flouting impression management, or (b) one does not understand impression management, and by extension, has low social skills. Revealing too much negative information about oneself just makes one look insecure; revealing too much positive information just looks like boasting.

The next problem with providing too much accurate information is that people are judging you with crude schemas and stereotypes. If you provide information that triggers a stereotype, someone's perception of you can be dominated by those stereotypes, and end up less accurate.

Here's an example: some women judge men based on the "nerd" stereotype. "Geek"/"nerd" is a certain schema by which women associate intelligence and technical interests with low social skills, low social status, and other unattractive qualities.

In my case, I am far more exciting than the average male with my cognitive architecture, but I also have a fair amount of stereotypical "nerdy" interests and personality traits. Since I reject stereotypes about nerds as an accurate heuristic to judge me, and I reject being categorized as boring merely because men other than me with similar personality traits and interests aren't sexually exciting, I deliberately foil this heuristic by having my profile emphasize my social interests, and play down my technical interests.

Jumping straight into the "nerd" trashcan that many women have doesn't do either them or me any favors... even if it's more "honest." When a woman actually starts talking to me or meets me, then she can judge whether I have the mix of qualities that she is looking for. Women are going to find out about my technical vices eventually, but my main profile isn't the correct place to disclose it, either practically or morally. The goal is to hide this information long enough that when I reveal it, it makes me look like an even cooler and multi-faceted person, rather than getting me tossed in the dustbin because it triggers a stereotype that dominates their perception of me.

Once women (in aggregate, which means not you, women of LW) stop treating technical interests and intelligence as horrible curses in men, I'll stop doing this. (And to anyone thinking "if a woman would reject you for being nerdy, you don't want her anyways," don't be the fox non-empirically calling the grapes sour. There are plenty of highly intelligent women, including nerdy women, who prefer intelligent men with high social skills over men who read as nerds at first glance... even if those highly intelligent social guys have nerdy interests.)

continued...

Comment author: Relsqui 13 October 2010 07:31:25AM 4 points [-]

The other problem with honesty is that you have to consider the signaling effects of revealing information. If one reveals information that most people would impression-manage away according to current norms, then one signals that either (a) one is deliberately flouting impression management, or (b) one does not understand impression management, and by extension, has low social skills. Revealing too much negative information about oneself just makes one look insecure; revealing too much positive information just looks like boasting.

This is well said. I addressed the balance of honesty and attraction somewhat but clearly not sufficiently, since a couple of people have remarked on it. However, you're the first person to give a clear description of what could be added. I'm mildly daunted by the task of rearranging the post to lengthen that portion of it, what with all the segues, but if I find the (time*priority) for it I'll see what I can do.

I am far more exciting than the average male with my cognitive architecture,

Ooh, burn.

It sounds like how you present yourself, vis a vis nerdiness, and how I do, are actually quite similar--we just came at it from different directions. In both cases, we're downplaying things which would fit us into that mold, because it doesn't suit us.