Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The study is not about how to rank your desirability.
It does say this in the abstract:
"We show that competition for mates creates a pronounced hierarchy of desirability that correlates strongly with user demographics and is remarkably consistent across cities."
If you get zero replies, take off the gorilla mask. No, seriously, if you get no replies you are doing something wrong.
I think I get maybe 5% replies. Or 3%. Obviously I have high aspirations.
I would date maybe 2-3 of the women who hit me first. That's people, not percent, in 6 months. Obviously waiting for hits is not my strategy.
Ive never really tried online dating, nor do I have an inclination to, even if I were single. I wouldn't know how I'd fare on OLD. I have less than moderate aspirations (I keep it real) so I might do okay if I ever got desperate enough to try it.
"We show that competition for mates creates a pronounced hierarchy of desirability that correlates strongly with user demographics and is remarkably consistent across cities."
I don't mean to pick nits. The study didn't show me how to rank my desirability.
A better topic title: "New study shows aspirational effects in online dating."
Hmm... I think this topic is longer than the study!
Particularly people under about 25, their brains have not finished growing, I think I read that men were slower to finish brain development than women, but, anyway, I don't think people under 25 have any business marrying, having children, etc. If I were king, I would forbid it completely. But I am not king.
The thing is, the study is looking at who (really what picture) gets the most "traffic", it didn't look at (probably could not measure) who is messaging who. The data showing that 18 year old women and 50 year old men got the most "traffic" does not mean 50 year old men were messaging 18 year old women. We don't know who is messaging who, age wise, just who is getting the most messages.
What you say about an older guy actually partnering up, in some way, with someone who is almost a child, is spot on. Damn unlikely to work. An arranged marriage to someone closer to your own age would (IMHO) have better chances. Particularly people under about 25, their brains have not finished growing, I think I read that men were slower to finish brain development than women, but, anyway, I don't think people under 25 have any business marrying, having children, etc. If I were king, I would forbid it completely. But I am not king.
Although. Some people want to date, but not necessarily cohabitate or even think about marriage, much less kids. In that case, it's quite possible that a 30 year old woman might indeed want to have a "fling" with a 50 year old guy, one who is in good shape, wealthy, etc. I am thinking of one poster on here who is doing essentially just that. They both know this is not "forever", but they are having fun. What's wrong with that?
I think maybe I'm more sensitive to the idea of "yeah but who is sending the messages?" as a woman, because we've had any number of convos here in this subforum where guys complain that women have just tons and tons of "options" and they (men) don't...but women are like, "Yeah, but what kind of options? Are they acceptable options?" Women don't forget that lots of willing guys are sketchy, sleazy, possibly abusive or otherwise unacceptable...but men seem to forget in these conversations that lots of women who are "technically" possible options for them are women they don't find attractive. Nope, those women don't exist, they're like squirrels, they're not what we are talking about here...
So with that background mentality, I can't accept that:
Person gets lots of messages in OLD --> Person is more objectively desirable.
As the basic ultimate conclusion.
Because it's like...desirable to whom? And if a person finds another person desirable does that automatically mean that they will send that first message? What about "likes" or whatever equivalent are on certain sites, "swipes" and such? And again...which group of men send the most messages? Which group of women send the most messages?
Oh, and I had a fun fling with a guy who was 48 when I was 36...and I am in a deeply committed and very happy relationship of about 3 years now, with a man who is 59 to my 39 at this time. Neither of those men were in perfect shape, but they are aging well and neither of them are wealthy, but both are stable and responsible adults. I'm perfectly happy to admit that I like older men and age differences aren't that big of a deal to me. But even I wasn't into guys older than about 30 or so, when I was 18! And even I get some odd reactions and my age gap relationship is seen as unusual. I don't think I've ever met an 18/50 couple.
I haven't either. And we WOULD - a lot - if 50 really were the most desirable to most women, therefore 50something men had their pick of who THEY wanted, and what they wanted most was 18....20, if they were to to set their sights a little lower on the downward sliding desirability scale.
Ask any 18-year-old girl how hot and desirable she finds 50-year-old dudes. MOST will literally say "eew." I'm not making a judgment, I am almost 51 and I would expect, or at least hope any high school senior would be icked at the thought of poinkin' me, no matter how sooooper dooooper phenomenal I may look *for* 51. But my point is, IF the "study" had PRACTICAL applications and reflected real-world, real-time actual dating situations we would see it more than like once in every 200 situations (yes, that's a guess, LOL...like I said, personally, I've NEVER seen it, period, except as prostitution), and probably either as a financial "arrangement" or somewhere deep in rural Kentucky. The OP claims he posted this to "help" daters. Obviously, it won't since it simply is not realistic. It simply isn't the norm or the "desirability," very obviously.
Who else but me rather doubts this was posted to "help" but rather is an attempt at a creative neg...raise your hand.
A man's only option is to just keep sending messages to as many women as he finds attractive enough (picture & profile) that he thinks he may want to date her, and hope for replies.
Both parties can exchange messages and phone calls to narrow down compatibility.
Any conclusion that there's a 18/50 couple is simply flawed logic in interpreting the study's methodology or results. But due to the wide variety of humanity it's not impossible for such a couple to exist. Any further discussion is mere speculation.
I simply find no utility in the study. It's obvious that sending more messages is the best strategy. It's obvious that both men and women will send messages to both more desirable and less desirable matches. They called sending messages to higher quality members 'aspirational.' So what? Are the lower quality members 'despirational?' (I made that up.)
My point is that the study changes nothing. It just shows that people like or want to date more attractive partners. Who didn't know that already? It's human nature.
The only use I see for the study is for somebody to jack it up and use it to justify whatever agenda they want to propound.
Bottom line. So why post it? (Oh yeah, the neener-neener factor. )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovehound
The only use I see for the study is for somebody to jack it up and use it to justify whatever agenda they want to propound.
Right, so there's that. But otherwise...
I agree with you, Lovehound. And since you ARE successful in OLD and the OP is having some pretty significant issues, you are probably the one he should be listening to for actual help. If real help is wanted here.
Now, there was more to the study than age "desirability." The claim was made (yet another non-scientific guess/assumption by the study authors, without actually backing this up) that because guys who sent "blah" messages were more likely to get a positive result from beautiful girls, that must mean the "blah" messages themselves are what are more desirable (or more intriguing, compelling or whatever) to beautiful girls. But again, how can we assume that? Here's something way MORE likely and something we see EVERY day (with both men and women...'cause...this is life): maybe the guys sending the more blah messages are ALREADY HOT, therefore, they know they don't "have to" say anything other than "'sup?" and still, a percentage of chicks will respond. This does happen, we all know it.
So again...have an AVERAGE "meh" dude send a meh message to a beautiful girl and see how far he gets. This is real life, people. The assumptions the study authors are making don't play out in real life, it's so easy to see. So it's equally easy to see that while the numbers are probably correct, the conclusions are all wrong. They just are, get real.
But go ahead, dudes, send "meh" messages to beautiful girls and see if that's what makes them flock. And be sure to send these messages to women at least 35 years younger than you. Ready, set, go! Report back with your great results.
The study is just...bad. So badly done. Or, rather, the conclusions are. The numbers are real numbers. The conclusions are literally GUESSES, not in the least scientific - and they don't bear out in real life...pretty much ever.
The backward way the assumptions were made were kind of on par with deciding that because people tend to jump away and shout fearfully in the presence of fire, which is yellow and red, the colors yellow and red naturally cause people to jump and yell in fear, so if you just avoid the colors yellow and red, your chances of ever jumping or yelling in everyday situations will be significantly reduced. Because after all, in 100% of study subjects who had flames suddenly whooshed at their faces, every single one one jumped and yelled. This study was like that. It took correlation - a number, with a group - and decided one "caused" the other, in certain specific ways that, further, don't even play out in real life, pretty much ever. Just so bizarre.
Last edited by JerZ; 08-10-2018 at 10:44 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, nor do I have an inclination to, even if I were single. I wouldn't know how I'd fare on OLD. I have less than moderate aspirations (I keep it real) so I might do okay if I ever got desperate enough to try it.
