CronoDAS 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 08:10:53AM *  15 points [-]

Concrete advice #2 and #3 seem uncontroversial to me, but I'm not sure how much they actually matter.

Therefore, they do a better job of identifying where you fit in personspace

I've thought of the personspace concept myself, and it's a great line of thought.

4 sounds like good advice, but we quickly get into trouble again and raise some of my same objections (I'm going to be repeating myself a bit from my last post, but that's to figure out good ways to articulate things):

Remember that the reason you're being honest is that you want to attract someone who will actually like you, not just the person you claim to be. Don't worry at this stage about appearing "interesting" enough, or whether the generic average airhead represented by OKTrends would like you.

First, I want to acknowledge the accurate part about this advice: your goal is not to attract the average person in your target demographic on an online dating website. It's better to have a small group of people crazy about you, rather than having everyone lukewarm about you... as long as that small group contains enough people you want. Sometimes, it's best to pick out a niche. An important topic is how to narrow yourself to a niche where you can have an impact, but not such a narrow niche that you have no options and only go on date every couple years.

Yet even within your niche, you do need to worry about appearing interesting enough.

A profile is like a movie trailer. The purpose of the movie trailer is to hype the reasons why someone might want to see it. Yes, the trailer should be related to the movie, but it should have the highlights of the movie, rather than the boring parts. If you want to get a more complete look at the movie, you can read reviews and ask friends about it. But the purpose of the trailer is hype, not film criticism! Including a critique of the film in trailers would be more "honest," but it would just make trailers bloated and unengaging.

Furthermore, everyone knows that trailers are about hyping movies, just as everyone knows that first impressions are for putting one's best foot forward (except nerdy people who got fooled by the majority of homo hypocriticus).

Your profile should provide enough information to funnel in people you are potentially matched well with, but its purpose is not to give people a 360 degree view of who you are. It's to intrigue them enough to want to get a 360 degree view of you over all the other profiles competing for their attention.

I disagree with this quote:

No one you want to meet would find you boring.

Such ideas should be examined with scrutiny because they are (a) too theoretical, and (b) they fall prey to the bias of the fox calling the grapes he can't reach sour from Aesop's fable.

Actually, there are many guys, particularly nerdy guys, who have artificially-depressed social skills due to getting cut out of the social world at a young age, and who would be a lot more socially-skilled with a more friendly formative development. These guys will be interested in many women who will find them boring due to their lack of social skills and confidence, and these women would especially find online dating profiles of these guys boring.

Of course, those guys don't want to meet women who find them boring, but they would want to meet those women if those women would be interested in them.

Edit:

As Vladimir_M and I have discussed in the past, there is probably a large subset of males who have the traits to be datable for many women, but who just barely aren't exciting enough due to lacking relatively superficial behavioral qualities. These guys will get strictly dominated by men who are smoother on the first impression (such as online dating profiles), but who don't necessarily rank any higher on other aspects of women's preferences, and who might even be worse as long-term mates.

Part of the reason I support widespread study of influence and seduction is that I want to get rid of the big gaps that can exist between people in these areas. I want to see the nerdy guy getting learning how to get his foot in the door, rather than putting his foot in his mouth. I want to see more men meeting women's basic preferences for social skills, so that women aren't forced to immediately exclude them as mates. (Similarly, if more women met men's physical criteria, looks would become less important in how men select women, and men wouldn't have to exclude women as mates so often based on superficial qualities.)

Comment author: CronoDAS 13 October 2010 11:35:56PM *  1 point [-]

(Similarly, if more women met men's physical criteria, looks would become less important in how men select women, and men wouldn't have to exclude women as mates so often based on superficial qualities.)

I suspect that people will still find something to trigger their Flaw-O-Matic.

A little bit off-topic here: The "unattainability" of the female beauty ideal seems to be a feature, not a bug, because it lets men make finer distinctions. If everyone were a perfect 10, how would we know who to reject? ;) (And you do have to reject someone.)