Saw this article on Priceonomics and was looking for some insight
http://priceonomics.com/online-dating-and-the-dea…
“Well, women have individual [preferences],” says McLeod. “Men kind of do agree on what’s attractive and what’s not.”
The rise of online dating has provided a lot of hard data that documents how we date and what we desire. Some of the revelations are hard truths. Dating Site OKCupid, for example, has shown that its users routinely rate members of their own race as more attractive.
In this case, the data is clear that men’s preferences are much more homogenous than women’s. “There are women who 95% of men say yes to, and there’s nothing like that for men,” says McLeod. “A man is really attractive if 40% of women say yes.”
The intriguing insight here? Among heterosexual couples, men are the ones driving assortative mating—and the fact that mixed-attractiveness couples are rare."
This excerpt in particular is what I am struggling to wrap my head around. Anyone have opinions on why this occurs - where all men have the same type but woman cant seem to agree?
Best lesson my father ever taught me:
"Son, never try to understand women."
Before I try to opine, some key-term definitions are missing:
"The intriguing insight here? Among heterosexual couples, men are the ones driving assortative mating--and the fact that mixed-attractiveness couples are rare."
This sentence is all kinds of ambiguous. What the hell is assortative mating and mixed-attractiveness couples? I have literally no idea.
Assortative mating - the hypothesis that people generally date and marry partners who are like them in terms of social class, educational background, race, personality, and, of course, attractiveness
Mixed-attractiveness couple - When the individuals in the relationship have different levels of attractiveness i.e. a 3 marries a 7 or a 7 marries a 10
http://www.theonion.com/article/womans-parents-accepting-of-mixed-attra…
You can never tell how much a guy makes/doesn't from an online photo of his face. It's opposite for men looking at women: you can never tell how ugly she is from an online photo of her face.
why is this on WSO?
This is under Off Topic Forum
I've been doing online (and offline) dating off-and-on for a bit more than 2 years now. Because I'm a finance/Excel nerd, I've kept amazing track of my information in order to analyze my situation and the resulting data.
At least through my own observations, what the article and its experts are saying is essentially true. If I'm supremely objective about myself, on a 1 to 10 scale with 5.5 being the exact median for all white American males, I'm a 6 to 6.5. Being supremely objective, I've rated all of the girls I've met online and the average is 6.5 and the median is 6.00. Where you win as a guy with online dating is in the numbers game with the outliers. I've had two relationships come from online dating and both girls were solid 9's. But to reach those outliers required countless thousands of online rejections and innumerable in-person rejections (once we met).
On the other hand, the girls I've dated who I already knew in-person range from 7 on the low end to 9.5 on the high end with most of those girls coming around the 8.5 range. Getting to know me beyond a single meeting increased my chances of dating a very attractive girl.
So to the article's credit, my personal observations match their observations of the population at large.
Dude, you're definitely like a 3 1/2.... at best
Obviously you're joking (since you've never seen my photo), but to expand on this comment, the article's experts observe that a really attractive man will be found attractive by about 40% of women. So to this point, there are many, many women who would consider me a 3 or 4 despite an average of around 6.5, whereas a girl who is 6.5 would have a much tighter range of observations.
Anyway, I just find the data fascinating. A bit depressing, too. Nobody wants to be a 6 or a 6.5. We always think of ourselves as being "hot", so the objective reality hurts a bit.
That was one of the saddest things I've ever read on WSO for so many reasons and also because it was completely 100% genuine.
What exactly is "sad" about it? I'm genuinely curious. On a very small scale, I did exactly what the dating algorithms do...
Like, what were you really trying to capture about your love life with an excel spreadsheet? Did you think it would offer some kind of magical insight? Were you trying to like find some kind hidden intangible asset driver to landing 9s? Dating is not a DCF model. Also ranking something so subjective as physical appearance on a numeric scale, with means and medians, screams 4ever alone.
Actually, it provided amazing insight. It's showed me, objectively, that my best strategy is not to utilize online dating but to meet people in person. This isn't necessarily true for everyone since a lot of men that I know have met their life partners online.
In terms of ranking people by looks, I don't know if you have any experience with online dating, but that's exactly what 90% of people do subconsciously; if a person objects to that philosophically then he or she has no business utilizing online dating. It's just the reality of the world. I can't just use Match.com and say, "Well, I don't care about looks. It doesn't matter." Well, too bad--that's how it works. People rank others instantaneously. Even if you're not ranking the other side (which you are...) they are ranking you. #thatislife.
BTW, who is talking about a DCF model?
lol.. are you serious? you actually made an excel spreadsheet of your dating history? that might just be the lamest thing I have ever heard
How is that lame? It took 30 minutes to do and provided valuable insight. Still trying to understand why this is such a big deal. You do realize that every online dating app--from eHarmony to Tinder--you use uses math and algorithms? Do you not see the irony in your criticism?
BTW, I love how everyone on the internet is some sort of a badass playboy.
What's with the MS? This is literally one of the most substantive evaluations made by any of the posters in this thread.
Would SB for the obligatory WSO excel analysis.
Agreed
wait dating isnt a DCF model? fuck i've been doing it wrong all this time...
Quo quia dolorum id blanditiis sunt quas voluptatem. Dolore quia esse est tenetur esse hic qui.
Omnis id qui eos aliquam nisi. Qui sequi facilis quis omnis rerum id inventore blanditiis. Ipsa qui veniam velit voluptates enim nihil sed.
Voluptatem doloribus ut ipsam corrupti et consequatur natus. Molestias voluptatum sunt aut aut laudantium a nisi. Dolor sed dolores iure. Quo saepe eum nam veniam.
Veritatis dolores optio aut quibusdam est odio. Accusantium aut non laborum nulla. Dolorem eum laudantium quia eveniet sunt.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Consequatur et non voluptatem tempora voluptates eligendi. In non rem id eum voluptatem aut. Perferendis praesentium rerum ex ipsam dolorem. Exercitationem maxime iusto quas.
Facere ut dolor laborum voluptatibus ut facilis laborum vel. Assumenda veniam ut labore quos. Dolorem suscipit molestias quam aut sint consequuntur impedit ratione.
Voluptatem aut omnis sed consequatur. Hic aliquam qui qui ullam cumque et iusto. Pariatur veritatis voluptatem aspernatur ut qui. Quasi rerum pariatur ut qui enim non.
Eum assumenda temporibus at enim ea esse. Sunt consequatur quis non nihil eum. Tempore eius sit autem repudiandae mollitia et. Ad sint sit maxime dicta officia. Odit dicta corrupti et velit qui. Ea cum quo error nam ut quia.