Tinder Experiment from Medium

Post Reply New Topic

Conclusion: Only the very attractive guys can get a lot of matches, and unattractive looking guys's chances are almost zero, look below. And I am 100% sure this would apply to the new Okcupid too, not just Tinder.

https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/ti ... 4892e18f75



Oh....so what happened to "individualism"? What happened to the "not all are the same"?

0.5% of matches vs ~40% - that's so lopsided I say.

Does anyone claim that there are no guys who have an easy time getting laid and others who have a hard time or can't at all?

Of course there are objective criterion of how attractive someone is (in the sense that most people would see it as attractive, or most wouldn't). Anyone who is a bit observant of what goes on around them is bound to notice that.
If you see it from the perspective of how much attention which guy gets you won't observe any individualism. Some get a lot, others don't.
This means there are traits a lot of women find attractive and traits next to no woman finds attractive, even traits the vast majority finds very unattractive. It proves that there is no 100% individuality that somehow guarantees all men have an equally easy time getting sex or a relationship.
It does not mean that there are no traits that are seen as attractive by some women but not by others. There are, but this won't help men much who have lots of traits that are seen as very unattractive by almost everyone.
No 100% individualism, but also no 0% individualism.

Oh, ok - then there's about only 0.5% of individualism, that's comforting.

Because you measure individualism in women by the chance of individual men to get sex/a relationship and not by the whole of women's preferences.

Most women prefer taller men.
Most women prefer confident men.
Most women prefer men that are not obese.
Most women prefer men that have a job.
-> The chances of a man who is short, has anxiety issues, is obese and doesn't have a job are bad.

Some women prefer men with tattoos, others prefer men without tattoos.
Some women prefer bald men, others prefer men with hair.
Some women would rather date a manager, others would rather date a scientist or an artist.
Some women would rather date a serious man, others would rather date a humorous man.
One woman may date the short but confident man with a decent but not perfect body who is bald, has tattoos, is an artist and is usually serious but not the short but confident man with a decent but not perfect body who doesn't have tattoos, has hair, is a scientist and has a good sense of humor.
A different woman may date the short but confident man with a decent but not perfect body who doesn't have tattoos, has hair, is a scientist and has a good sense of humor but not the short but confident man with a decent but not perfect body who is bald, has tatoos, is an artist and is usually serious .

But somehow all those don't count as you can't directly see them in the numbers of how good the chances of an individual man are to get sex/a relationship. Because those influence the chances of an individual man with one individual woman rather than with the majority of women.
Traits that are seen as attractive/unattractive by the majority vs traits that are seen as attractive by some as unattractive by others and as neutral by others.
They both exist, you just choose to only count one of the two categories for how individual a woman's preferences are.

I mean, most men wouldn't date an obese, bald, jobless, crazy woman.

What metrics did they use to determine who was attractive and who was unattractive? Was it based on their match count or something else?

How did average guys fare?

So apparently I should focus on very young gals, perhaps in the hope that they haven’t yet learned to recognize a dirty old good-for-nothing when he’s staring at them in the face. Great

No idea, you should ask the guy.

As for what “metrics determine what’s unattractive and attractive” I think all of us humans have the same built-in instincts to determine that - the author used his own, and judging from the results you can clearly assume that he knew well what’s would be considered attractive-looking to women and what’s not before conducting his experiment.

It's not that simple, there aren't just attractive and unattractive people. It's a continuum. A spectrum if you will .

If you group photos of people into attractive and unattractive groups what results would you expect? This seems like a pointless study. Were you hoping the unattractive men got as many matches as the attractive ones? And do you think the results would be significantly different if the sexes were reversed?

The point is not that unattractive guys get fewer matches, but how huge the ratio is. And I’m pretty sure the results would be very different if the sexes were reversed: either that ratio would be smaller, or it wouldn’t matter so much, because both the attractive and unattractive gals would get a lot more matches than the guys.

Why many of you WPers deny the obvious and react like that to such experiments?

Is it a defensive mechanism?

The results and the huge rstio gap are crystal clear what it means.

Probably the same mechanism keeping religions and ideologies alive.

It does seem like dating apps don't work well for guys who aren't in the top 20% for looks alone. It's a click-bait medium based on shallow primary attraction. People can fall in love after meeting due to secondary attraction, but the chances of that happening through a dating app is low. The problem is stupid dating apps don't let men even get that far. If you're an introvert it's even harder as your true personality isn't necessarily going to come out on the first date. It takes time to get comfortable with someone and people generally don't have patience for that these days.

Because alot of WP'ers have a nauseatingly romanticized view of dating and relationships.

It seems like for men primary sexual attraction is almost universal. Most men will find 90% of women sexually attractive to some degree on first appearance. Most women seem to be wired differently. Sexual attraction is a binary thing. They're either attracted or their not attracted at all. Though exactly what characteristics they find attractive varies, they only seem to find 20% attractive at all on first appearance.

My conclusion is dating apps like tinder suck. They're geared towards hookup culture and they're designed to make money, not generate lasting relationships. Hell, if someone finds a long term partner it means they're no longer hooked to the app... i.e. lost business. Yet another example of technology conspiring to make the world a shallower shittier place.

But only because the users are willing to coöperate to make the world a shallower shittier place for themselves. Noöne is forced to use the app.