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.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,962,945 times
Reputation: 40635
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovehound
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.
This isn't the only option though. There is another option, and one that I've had better luck with in terms of actually meeting and connecting with people (I'm specifically talking dating websites, not swipe based apps here). That is to write a really good profile that paints a picture of who the guy is, what drives him and what are his passions, so that women write him first. He then responds. I had my most success and most joy when I stopped sending a bunch of messages out.
I don't know; honestly, I was confused too (until I realized it was all a thinly veiled slam and therefore, an incredibly loose tie-in) because I don't see how this study, showing who was approached more in OLD already, can show us where we rank in "our" desirability in the dating scene. Which is what the thread title says.
JerZ, I posted that just because I think we are discussing a flawed study, and that many are misapplying or misinterpreting the study's findings. In other words I think this is a topic about nothing.
For the record I'm somewhat successful in OLD, enough so that I'm satisfied it is money well spent. If I were really successful I'd be finished, happily hugging my honey. But without OLD I probably would have had only a very few dates this year. So all I can say is that for me OLD is better than nothing.
Actually I'm surprised I don't meet more women IRL. I'm outgoing and talkative in public, I chat with a lot of people during my away from home outings. IRL I am just not meeting any significant number of single women in the demographic I seek. — And noting, my experience is not uncommon. The statistic I recall is that OLD is responsible for about 23% of marriages. That statistic speaks to the success and popularity of OLD.
I just think we are making a big thing out of nothing. The study is interesting, but IMO is also flawed. Now we're building castles in the sky like e.g. the 20 YO woman dating the 50 YO man. It's a statistical unicorn.
I don't think the study is flawed. It's application here, and this discussion of it, is flawed.
Nothing in the study said or implied, for example, that 20 or 30 yo women were interested in 50 year old men.
It did specifically say it was about "desirability", ranking the 50s as "peak desirability," and the only practical application for that would be...well, that more women would be desiring them than any other age group.
There simply IS no other way to look at that. Unless people pick people they DON'T desire. (But in reality, that is a factor...more on that in just a second. However, obviously, many people, mostly middle-aged men, do NOT want to see things this way...as evidenced by a lot of the superior snark here, flying in the face of reality and lack of success. Not you, Timber, obviously.) And that is the flaw, the authors putting down looking/approaching/seeking as based on how desirable the target is. **
On the flip side it listed "peak DESIRABILITY" of a woman as 18 and descending from there.
Putting these together, I can't see any alternative logic to: most women find men at about age 50 more desirable than men of any other age group, and most men find 18-year-old women the most desirable, ergo, the natural (and achievable) result should be many 50-year-old men with women at least 30 years younger than they are. But...that definitely isn't the norm or the majority. Not by one seriously hell of a long shot so where is the flaw? In that assumption that X group is the most desirable to the most people; that the only reason people approach one another (or look at one another) is because of serious hots they just can't control. It isn't.
Now, what's wrong with middle-aged dudes believing this, regardless? None, if they're okay with some high school teen screaming "eeeeeeeew!" and all her friends shrieking with giggles in reaction. Or just with radio silence. Then there's no problem, no difficulty here in just a little daydream of "obviously, I'm in THE hottest category, every woman probably wants me, even high school seniors." BUT the problem is with what the OP claims: that he's trying to help with actual dating. Such skewed assumptions based on the numbers these authors gathered will definitely not help with actual dating. We all know this. Many from experience, from both sides.
Is there any other danger? Meh, probably not, because other assumptions, such as how sending blah messages must be what gets the beautiful girls (again...not a straight-line conclusion and not scientific at all), will also simply result in the same thing: no dates. Which, if the struggling dater already hasn't been getting, means not much will change, the sky won't fall into the sea; he'll simply...continue to not get dates.
If the word "desirability" (which IS an assumption, the reality is that ** people don't necessarily pick the "most desirable," sometimes they just pick whom they feel are the easiest or most achievable...among a hundred other variables) were removed from the "study" conclusions then these assumptions would not be made. Logically, they wouldn't need to be.
It is the study authors who have put this down to desirability, on scale. That's the flaw and since it colors every conclusion then it's just bad science, period.
This isn't the only option though. There is another option, and one that I've had better luck with in terms of actually meeting and connecting with people (I'm specifically talking dating websites, not swipe based apps here). That is to write a really good profile that paints a picture of who the guy is, what drives him and what are his passions, so that women write him first. He then responds. I had my most success and most joy when I stopped sending a bunch of messages out.
I agree with the part about having a really good profile. I've studied both M and F profiles, forming my opinions based upon my writing experience and the complexity of various profiles I've seen. (I got a small sample of M profiles in a brief experiment registering an F free account just to see the profiles of my M competitors. In my brief experiment I discovered no significant difference in quality between M and F profile writing style or quality.) My opinion is that about 10% have superior profiles usually with multiple pictures. Another 20% are good but not exceptional, often with just a single or few pictures. About 1/3 barely make the mark, have minimal information and very little creativity. A final 1/3 are IMO dismal, with little information or none beyond a picture and maybe a couple words in their profile. Except for extremely photogenic people I don't see how this minimalist group even gets messages. — I tweaked my own profile until I judged that I'm in the top 10%. It's the best I can do.
Timber I guess you are just better looking than me or have more desirable traits and interests than I (or your demographic is more popular). I'm just not getting any significant number of unsolicited messages from quality women. All I'm saying is that your method works for you but for many that just may not work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ
I don't know; honestly, I was confused too (until I realized it was all a thinly veiled slam and therefore, an incredibly loose tie-in) because I don't see how this study, showing who was approached more in OLD already, can show us where we rank in "our" desirability in the dating scene. Which is what the thread title says.
Thanks, JerZ, now we are on the same page. I'm sorry if I seemed pedantic.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,962,945 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovehound
Timber I guess you are just better looking than me or have more desirable traits and interests than I (or your demographic is more popular). I'm just not getting any significant number of unsolicited messages from quality women. All I'm saying is that your method works for you but for many that just may not work.
Well, I don't know what you look like, but I'm a dime a dozen average looking dude (not a self slam, just realistic) as some of the people on here that have connected with me on other social media sites can say.
And I'm not saying its a significant amount of messages, it isn't, its about having successful connections with good people to me. I'm a believer that OLD is NOT a numbers game; in fact, that is mostly what I got out of the study as well. Of course, it's impossible to say what is correlation vs what is causation in the data.
I suspect our demographic is a bit different though.
[quote=Lovehound;52761536I got a small sample of M profiles in a brief experiment registering an F free account just to see the profiles of my M competitors.[/quote]
You have no competitors. You are your only competition. Don't look to the left or to the right. Stay in your own lane. Who cares what the other men are doing? You be you and that be enough.
Much sorry, all. I have yet to understand this whole quoting thing on CD. My apologies.
One thing I will say, when you finally do find someone after a number of failed attempts and rejections, it'll leave you scratching your head. You'll be asking yourself, "Why me?" And you'll consider yourself very fortunate that someone thinks you're attractive, funny, cute, sexy, charming, etc. It's always strange to me when my fiancee tells me how lucky she is to have found me, when in fact I feel like I'm the lucky one to have found her.
Putting these together, I can't see any alternative logic to: most women find men at about age 50 more desirable than men of any other age group, and most men find 18-year-old women the most desirable, ergo, the natural (and achievable) result should be many 50-year-old men with women at least 30 years younger than they are. But...that definitely isn't the norm or the majority. Not by one seriously hell of a long shot so where is the flaw? In that assumption that X group is the most desirable to the most people; that the only reason people approach one another (or look at one another) is because of serious hots they just can't control. It isn't.
The flaw I see is that the study did not say who the 50 year old men were popular with. And likewise who the 20 year old women were popular with. They didn't track the age groups who were blowing up 20 year old women, who were blowing up the 50 year old men. We don't know the age of those who sent the first messages, we only know the popularity of those first message senders, based upon the number of first messages they received.
That's the thing I just can't see. I don't see any statistical or logical connection between the "popular" 20 year old women and the "popular" 50 year old men. IMO they are not popular with each other.
The problem here is that we are reading too much into the study.
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.
do NOT want to see things this way...as evidenced by a lot of the superior snark here, flying in the face of reality and lack of success. Not you, Timber, obviously.) And that is the flaw, the authors putting down looking/approaching/seeking as based on how desirable the target is. **