Vrij verbluffende gegevens over dating

Vrij verbluffende gegevens over dating


Translating…

De Beste Datingsites

Comments

hey Ms. K Connaway
we wanna be your dogs!

Respond

Cargo pants rule! Not so much cargo shorts.

Respond

How else am I supposed to signal my ability to attain cargo?

Just shows you that women aren’t very discerning.

Respond
Respond

Cargo shorts are ALWAYS in style.
My wife hates them.
We were recently in Bologna, Italia eating lunch at a “nice” restaurant (https://www.facebook.com/ristorantereenzo/) and the table of 6 Italian males next to us had a cargo short ratio of 1:1. She was not happy.

For a while I thought I liked cargo shorts, because they approximated hiking shorts of the day. Now I think “cargo” is about too many pocket flaps.

“Adventure shorts” or “travel shorts” yield better results. Comfortable, durable, with zip pockets for valuables, rather than flaps.

You can wear the lululemon and your wife will be on board.

Respond

Cargos shorts are an accepted workwear in the heat in Italy. Many couriers, plumbers or physical worker wears it.

Respond

How much stuff do you need to carry? I carry my phone, driver’s license, car key and a credit card. Takes up almost no space at all. What do you do with the extra pockets?

Respond

I don’t have a problem with cargo shorts. Seems like a useful way to store nails and other hardware equipment, in case you need to fix something while you are out.

Respond
Respond

Meeting online is both a weird way to meet a mate and an indication that nobody has friends anymore. That smartphone “penetration” is the explanation for this trend is both obvious (spending all that time on the smart phone doesn’t leave much time for friends) and dirty. As for the male-female difference in rating the opposite sex, women seem to be rational (it’s the bell curve) while men have long tails (which we already knew). And what produces the equilibrium in the matching market: age. Older men matching up with younger women, leaving men with far more opportunities than for women. All of which has produced a more efficient matching market: greater reliance on appearance (the visual benefit of the smartphone), more experience and better informed, and supposedly fewer divorces. I say supposedly fewer divorces, because online hookups via the smartphone don’t by magic end with marriage; maybe fewer divorces but more opportunity for cheating and thus a happy marriage.

OK anti-Cupid.

Internet seems to me like a perfectly good way to find companionship among those beyond reproductive age. For younger people – is it at all possible that, much like the donor sperm market, it is messing recklessly with nature to remove the actual, physical, in-the-flesh aspect of attraction? I won’t contend that it’s valuable to observe the behavior of prospective mates “in the wild,” because I imagine the zoomers and such feel confident they are getting to know each other by what they type on the internet, their real world, as well as anyone ever did getting matched up by a card at a mixer. [I myself have “spoken” at greater length with some of the commenters on just this blog, than I have with any of the members of my nuclear family, Mother excepted, in thirty years.] But with online “courting” you don’t get the benefit of knowing their families … and to use the most-PC possible interpretation of that, you will be marrying their families …

I agree that the problem is online dating does not allow one to get the real in-the-flesh “chemistry” aspect of attraction. This is also a LOT harder for women to figure out via a sterile online interface than men. Men generally know what they are sexually attracted to from a picture so they can pick out girls they like online pretty easily, but women have to actually meet a guy in the flesh to gauge things like confidence and personality (not usually revealed by a profile), and will pick wrong more often, so there’s more risk and wasted effort involved for the women. The algorithms suck at matching because they tend to go by similarity, whereas in real life, opposites attract.

And whither pop songs?

YOU make me feel – you make me feel – you Make. Me. Feel. Like. A. Digital. Woman.

Respond
Respond
Respond

I think the main thing this data reveal is an ontological tragedy in human life that’s so deep it’s basically never been even noticed until recently, and thus never even explored through art.

Take the data literally, don’t try to warp it into something else. What is it saying?
Basically that men are very generous in how they view women, and women not nearly as generous in how they view men.
And what are the consequences of this? That men can say, repeatedly, and honestly, to any woman who will listen, that they find something beautiful in almost all women, especially the one they are currently with. Only to have that interpreted by women (who find almost nothing attractive in almost every man they see) as being an obvious lie, yet more proof of how awful men fundamentally are.

Ontological tragedy indeed, right up there with The Oresteia.

I really enjoyed this comment – thank you.

Respond

My impression is that women may be more brutal in their view of male attractiveness but they care less about it than men care about women’s attractiveness. It is a cliche, but I have seen short, balding, chubby men attract women thanks to their sense of humour that I could never attract.

I think it’s more the case than women are a bit more brutal about looks than men, but far more brutal about personality. Being far more brutal about personality and only a bit more brutal about looks, means a relative advantage to poor looking men, even if women still care about looks more and judge them more poorly for it.

Women are also brutal about things that specifically cause them to have less respect for men, particularly lower income, but also counterintuitive factors like willingness to do housework.

Respond
Respond
Respond

Attractiveness, not handsomeness. Isn’t there a theory that female attraction is more comparative and male attraction more absolute due to relative differences in the opportunity cost of pregnancy? Maybe women unconsciously comparing every man to George Clooney while men are unconsciously acknowledging a lack of serious genetic defects.

Respond
Respond

The decline in the number of friends predates the smart phone by decades

Respond
Respond

“comparing how men rate women to how women rate men”

oh, so we now have broad data-based conclusion on the dating attitudes of ALL men & women on the planet ??

the standard skepticism certainly applies on this “recommended” research:

– what specific “population” of men/women was under study here?
– was an accurate, representative-sample of that population objectively analyzed?

(this study cannot withstand such basic scutiny)

Respond

Meeting on the job seems strongly discouraged these days, witness the McDonalds guy.

Getting know people you work with is unproductive, or meet at work, wasting company time and money.

Instead of paying food workers for 8 hours when they waste time talking with the few customers between the lunch and dinner rush, send them home, or at least don’t pay them. They can kill that time using their phone online. After all, the worker taking a late lunch break after the rush should either be working without lunch, or forced to clock out.

After all, paying workers costs too much and harms GDP growth.

And people coupling up and having kids is bad for GDP growth because kids cost too much.

Only governments should put more money in consumer pockets with tax cuts and printing money fast enough interest rates go negative and consumers get paid to borrow and spend.

Respond
Respond

STUNNING!

Don’t tell me you’re just now finding out women are the gatekeepers for sex.

Respond

The met in a bar category of meeting a mate is the only other method that seems to have increased besides online. What does that mean? We just drink too much? Also out of curiosity, I wonder if there’s breakup/divorce per method of meeting a mate?

Read the linked paper. “Meeting in a bar” is face saving for people who met online, but are ashamed to admit it.

Nahhhh, maybe 15 years ago but people aren’t ashamed about that any more.

Respond
Respond

Alcohol is a good social, ahem, lubricant.

Seriously, alcohol makes social contact with attractive but remote strangers easier, and young people go where the other young people go.

Respond
Respond

Data which suggest remarkable valuations and revaluations in our era of sensory data.

Olfactory sense would seem to be on the very bottom, perhaps just beneath the gustatory sense–both of which could be triggered in a bar or restaurant.

Tactile sensation is problematic as we all know, since that entails physical contact, the present valuation of which remains in dispute.

–which leaves the Sensory Tech Default of appeals to eyes and ears.

Someone may still want to assess prevailing qualities of sensory stimulation in our Tech-fueled era of sensory deprivation.

Respond

I don’t believe the frequency

Of meeting a date online.

To prove it,

Let me ask:

How many you have met a date

Through

Marginal Revolution?

Post below your answer.

Respond

…the punchline is that the general dominant constraint for women has been not the risk of selecting too low quality of a mate, but rather the risk of not settling for an adequate mate and in doing so ending up alone. We would expect online dating as a medium to materially alter this dynamic as a constraint.

So by holding out longer and doing lots of online comparison shopping, all women can now obtain mates who are above average? What is this — the Lake Wobegon theory of female choice?

The author’s hope is access to more data will somehow offset women’s natural predilection to hypergamy.

Seems highly unlikely. But what other option is there?

Respond

Yes, most women can obtain mates that are above average. It’s called polygyny. We already have a soft, informal version of this. A minority of men have a disproportionate number of serial marriages, relationships, and flings with women. But because of cultural inertia and a sense of shame, we pretend that this polygyny doesn’t exist and refuse to acknowledge that it’s based on women’s preference to share an above average man over exclusive access to a loser.

Do you really believe that the men involved in serial marriages/relationships are of above average quality in any objective sense?

But they don’t have to be (actually above average). They only have to appear to be (above average).

Married three times. I think the most important factor is optimism.

Respond
Respond
Respond

“Yes, most women can obtain mates that are above average. It’s called polygyny.”

Most young women. And even then, for many, only in the short term (research shows that when it comes to flings, one-night-stands, etc, men are less choosy and women moreso than when looking for a long-term mate). But the risk for women of making a series of ‘good’ short-term deals when young is that they’ll end up with a worse deal (or no deal at all) when they’re no longer so young.

Respond
Respond
Respond

One of the things this misses is that as a result of everything it discusses, there is a big incentive for young people to move to cities, especially big cities. That way you can access a bigger pool. Even if you lived in a large city before, your pool was limited to mutual friends and such.

Ie, the GOP that runs Red America are eliminating everything needed to create families because families cost too much, too high costs for welfare to pay for children birth costs, too much welfare to pay for child health care, too much welfare to provide kids education, too much welfare to pay adults to watch kids, too much cost to provide infrastructure business demands to keep businesses in Red America to create jobs for kids becoming adults, too much welfare to train workers to fill jobs for the one of two businesses willing to build a factory in Red America.

Thures, kids migrate to Blue America where the costly infrastructure exists mostly from the 50s and 60s or before, to enable getting jobs to pay the costs of Internet and bars.

And since 2000, it’s been “eat, drink, and be married for tomorrow we die”.

Transnational Pants Machine

Hide Replies 42

I give it a 2 out of 10. Step it up, tiny troll boy.

Respond
Respond
Respond

How are these distribution patterns different from 19th Century patterns when women’s parents, particularly their fathers, were the “gatekeepers” of who exactly was permitted to court or marry their daughters?

Also, The authors sure pitch things in old-school terms. Women of “prime reproductive age” are market setters who face higher material risk due to greater risk of pregnancy?

How about maybe domestic partners are the #1 cause of injury and death for women instead? When wages were kept artificially out of parity and education and employment options were kept artificially scarce for women they may have been obliged to “settle” for negligent, abusive, alcoholic, or indigent partners or face effective starvation.

Men who understand that their breadwinning ability no longer weighs against their likelihood of committing physical or emotional violence seem to be doing just fine. My guess is a new equilibrium will emerge once the future finishes distributing itself and get that women are no longer obliged to use economic viability as their main relationship criteria.

But under the new equilibrium you envision, with male bread winning in decline, you will have a decline in male investment in economic production, especially manufacturing, engineering, and technical capacity, and defense and war making. Such a society would be vulnerable to one with male investment in those things. It would consequently be only a temporary equilibrium. Unless of course you believe that women can not only have it all, but that they can do it all as well.

Respond

Who said that women don’t still use breadwinning ability as a criteria in deciding whether to marry someone? My impression is that inability to earn enough money is still a deal breaker for the vast majority of women. It is just that there are even more deal breakers now that women have more earning power.

Respond

“they may have been obliged to “settle” for negligent, abusive, alcoholic, or indigent partners or face effective starvation.”

So why do they still settle for those characters today? Indeed, find them irresistible and go back to them?

Respond
Respond

The main reason why men like cargo shorts and women don’t is because men value function more while women value aesthetics more. This also explains why few women’s pants have usable pockets, why small cute purses are more common than big roomy ones, and why women’s fancy shoes tend to be so uncomfortable that they prefer going barefoot.

Why the difference in perception? Men don’t really mind women’s dysfunctional pockets or purses or shoes because their costs are mainly borne by the wearer, while the benefits are enjoyed by others. In contrast, everybody sees the ugliness of Crocs, cargo shorts, and fanny packs, and only one (or two) get the benefits. More generally, the costs and benefits of high function, low-aesthetic things are distributed differently than those of low-function, high-aesthetic things.

Good point. I won’t wear any shorts without tons of velcro or button pockets, jackets without zipper pockets, or anything else that doesn’t allow me to secure my keys and wallet. I wore a Halloween costume this year that didn’t have pockets so I put on a fanny pack around my waist to keep my keys and stuff. My wife knows that if she buys me anything without the above, it’s being returned.

Respond

At last, an economics discussion on this economics blog. And a nice one as well. But it leaves the question on whether the externalities imposed by cargo shorts are in excess of the benefits to the individual. Also of note — women must receive individual benefits for the positive externalities of their attractive-but-less-functional clothing. But do they receive all of them? Probably not. This seems to imply that the pro-social thing to do for all (men and women!) is to wear more attractive clothing.

Since people do not internalize all of the benefits of wearing attractive clothing (positive externalities), it implies people do not wear sufficiently attractive clothing, and that wearing such clothing should be subsidized by society.

That said, certain clothes are attractive on some wearers (positive externality) and unattractive on others (negative externality) so it’s a slightly more complicated problem.

Respond
Respond
Respond

OKCupid automatically informed people you rated attractive. Some women rated men below this threshold to avoid attention.

Men initiate almost all messages; attractive women receive hundreds. Women get beyond picky; they get overwhelmed and paralyzed by the paradox of choice. Women also get a distorted illusion of abundance and inflated sense of their own sexual market value because they don’t see their competition. Some women treat men as disposable, using the site for online entertainment and free dates, and frequently flaking. Eventually, they learn that other women are competing for the top men too.

Cupid on Trial: A 4-month Online Dating Experiment Using 10 Fictional Singletons

It never really made a bunch of sense to me that women are trying to avoid attention from men they really do find attractive? Lots of “Oh, but they’re insecure” but I don’t really buy it. tinder shows similar patterns anyway, with a different mechanism – https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a.

“The average female “likes” 12% of men on Tinder. This doesn’t mean though that most males will get “liked” back by 12% of all the women they “like” on Tinder. This would only be the case if “likes” were equally distributed. In reality, the bottom 80% of men are fighting over the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are fighting over the top 20% of men”

Respond
Respond

Aha, the old Okcupid lognormal distribution for women. It’s weird how much many internet folk either hate it and try to debunk it, or else claim that it’s true, but accurate because “most men are *o bjectief * lelijk (vandaar lognormaal) terwijl de meeste aantrekkelijkheid echt * objectief * normaal verdeeld is bij vrouwen “.

Beide zijn eigenlijk heel vreemd – misschien zijn de meeste mannen subjectief lelijk voor vrouwen (hey, dat is het leven), maar het heeft niets te maken met de verdeling van objectieve mannelijke fysieke en gezichtskenmerken, huid, vorm met een andere verdeling rond de man gemiddelde. P>

Als niets anders, doet de rage in de afgelopen twee jaar voor geavanceerde cross-sex “filters” op apps (Faceapp, Snapchat) de leugen over het idee dat de gemiddelde man op de een of andere manier gemiddeld objectief lelijker is dan zijn zussen en vrouwen familieleden. p>    Div>                   

  
    

“Als er niets anders is, doet de rage in de afgelopen twee jaar voor geavanceerde cross-sex” filters “op apps (Faceapp, Snapchat) de leugen over het idee dat de gemiddelde man op een of andere manier gemiddeld objectief lelijker is dan zijn zussen en vrouwelijke familieleden. “

Echt waar? Hoe? P>    Div>                   

  

Apps transformeren mannelijke gezichten rond de verdeling van een mannelijk gemiddelde naar een vrouwelijk gemiddelde en gebruiken vervolgens neurale netwerken om verschillen weg te werken, toch? Dus je kunt eigenlijk zien dat de mannelijke gezichten niet anders zijn verdeeld over hun gemiddelde, toch?

                  

  

Dat zie ik niet. Kijk mannen zijn lelijker, en niet alleen hun gezichten.

                  

  

Nou subjectief kun je denken dat als je wilt (of iemand kan het tegenovergestelde denken) maar het is niet zoals de gezichtsvormen een veel verschillende verdeling hebben rond het gemiddelde.

                  

  

Ik weet niet wat daarmee bedoeld wordt. Waar hebben we het over een verdeling van wat? gezichtsvormen?

                  

Reageren   
Reageren   
Reageren   
Reageren   
Reageren   
  

Als mannelijke aantrekkelijkheid gerelateerd is aan status, zou het dan niet logisch zijn dat het “objectief” log-normaal zou kunnen zijn (of tenminste scheef recht)? Aangezien het niet puur een functie is van normaal verdeelde fysieke kenmerken, zoals het geval is met de aantrekkelijkheid van vrouwen.

                  

  
    

Ik denk dat ik wat verwarring heb gezaaid over hoe ik mezelf hier uitdruk. Ik ben van plan iets te zeggen als: “De objectieve verdeling van voor beide geslachten toepasselijke aantrekkelijkheidsgerelateerde fysieke kenmerken (symmetrie, huidkwaliteit, goed geproportioneerde gelaatstrekken, relatief normale BMI, andere signalen van gezondheid) is waarschijnlijk niet verschillend bij mannen en vrouwen “. P>

(Aantrekkelijkheidsgerelateerde fysieke kenmerken die evenzeer van toepassing zijn op mannen als op vrouwen lijken mij een vrij goede proxy voor “lelijk”.)

Hoe dat eigenlijk verband houdt met de subjectieve aantrekkelijkheid op OKCupid (voor mannen en vrouwen), ben ik meer agnostisch. Het kan zijn dat dit soort aan beide kanten toepasselijke aantrekkelijkheidsgerelateerde kenmerken weinig te maken hebben met hoe vrouwen mannen beoordelen. Het kan zijn dat die eigenlijk betrekking hebben op “status”. Ik weet echter niet zeker of dat consistent is met het formaat van OKCupid (bevat het veel statusinformatie?) Of een bredere correlatie tussen “status” en beoordeelde aantrekkelijkheid.

   Div>                   

  
    

Het kan zijn dat omdat fysieke verschijning minder van belang is voor vrouwen, maar ze krijgen alleen foto’s om online te bekijken en kunnen dingen zoals “status” of “vertrouwen” niet zo gemakkelijk zien, dat ze de neiging hebben om beoordeel standaard alle mannen lager. P>

Stel ter vergelijking een online dating-app voor, waar de mannen GEEN foto van de vrouwen konden zien, en ze volledig moesten beoordelen op basis van een IQ-test en een reeks open vragen. Hoe kan dat de verdeling van beoordelingen die aan de vrouwen worden gegeven scheef trekken? als je een vrouw wilt die fysiek aantrekkelijk is, maar je weet niet hoe fysiek aantrekkelijk ze zijn, ga je dan min of meer selectief zijn?

   Div>          

Reageren   
Reageren   
Reageren   
Reageren   
  
    

Waarom schrijft een hedgefondsmanager over daten?

Tyler mist bekendheid; deze informatie is jaren oud. D.C. heeft een grote online datingpool omdat het niet succesvol is voor singles. Vrouwen online zijn notoir kieskeurig. Zelfs nadat Tinder pionierde in het onderlinge match-systeem, klaagden vrouwen nog steeds over het krijgen van te veel berichten van mannen van lage kwaliteit. Dus vereiste Bumble vrouwen om het eerste bericht te verzenden. Om vrouwen aan te trekken, was Bumble ook pionier op het gebied van hogeschool en beroep. De meeste online datingplatforms rapporteren lengte, maar geen gewicht. Het is allemaal gericht op de verlangens van vrouwen.

   Div>          

Reageren   
  

Ik denk dat dit een opknapbeurt zou kunnen zijn.

         

Reageren   
  

Ben ik de enige die zich afvroeg waarom de reden waarom de manier waarop heteroseksuele paren elkaar hebben ontmoet meer dan 100% bedraagt?

         

Reageren   
  

Interessant, maar wat betekent dit voor FinReg?

         

Reageren   
  
    

“Dit is een materiële drijfveer van de” incel “(onvrijwillig celibatair) sociale beweging / probleem.”

Afwijzing van vrouwen waarvan u aannemelijk zou kunnen zijn dat ze in u geïnteresseerd zijn, is per definitie vrijwillig. Er bestaat niet zoiets als een “incel”.

   Div>                   

  

Vergeef me dat ik dit zeg, maar ik vermoed dat hun prijzen plakkerig kunnen zijn.

         

Reageren   
  

“… Dit kan worden geconceptualiseerd als de markt efficiënter wordt, wat er natuurlijk toe leidt dat veel marktdeelnemers anekdotisch ongelukkig zijn met de status-quo omdat ze ten onrechte een onvermogen identificeren om overtollige rendementen met lage inspanning te produceren omdat de omstandigheden” oneerlijk zijn ” .”…” p>          

Reageren   
Reageren   
  

Als dit artikel bedoeld is om het vrachtshirt te vergroten?

         

Reageren   
  

Stipulation: je zou
Aantrekkelijkere mannen hebben veel minder kans dan aantrekkelijkere vrouwen om OK cupido te gebruiken, wat resulteert in een eigenlijk scheve verdeling van de aantrekkelijkheid van mannen op OK cupid. D.w.z. De datingpool is eigenlijk vooral onaantrekkelijke mannen en de beoordelingen van de vrouwen over de mannen daarop kloppen.

         

Reageren   
  
    

De OK Cupid-gegevens over aantrekkelijkheidsclassificaties zijn van … 2009. Het heeft 10 jaar geleden een grote vlucht genomen toen het voor het eerst werd gepresenteerd. De man van het hedgefonds heeft zojuist de OK Cupid-grafiek gelezen en zijn eigen staafdiagram opnieuw gemaakt.

https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/ p>    Div>          

Reageren   
Reageren    Section> div>        Section> div>
Read More

Plaats een reactie