Ody Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Another interesting thing to me is that OKCupid's match approach synthesizes most of the poster's preferences in this thread without resorting to any forced exclusion or forced inclusion or just parroting liberal or conservative talking points. Users answer a huge number of questions created by other all the other users. Just so it's clear, OKCupid writes none of these questions, the entire pool is generated by the user base. When you answer the question, you pick your answer, your ideal match's theoretical answer, and how important the match's answer is to you. So if you really really don't want to date anyone who would exclude gays from a dating website, you add a question to the pool that goes something like this: Is it OK to exclude gays from targeted dating websites? Then you answer "No" for yourself, "No" for your potential match, and set the importance as "must have". Likewise if you really don't want to date anyone who feels that all must be included no matter what, you do the exact same thing, except you change your and your match's answers to "Yes". There. Everyone's happy, everyone can play, and the matching logic is at least a little bit useful. Similar reasoning can be applied to athiests, jews, fatties, bodybuilders and Sarah Palin. I almost brought that up in the other thread about matching that football player dude, since this free method seems to me so obviously better than any of the pay site's methods. But that whole thread was such a clusterf**k that I stayed out. Let's try to prevent this thread from going down similarly. That said I still don't answer many questions on that site and ignore the match rating, even this best of the matching algorithms seems lacking to me.
shadowplay Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Just did a cursory search of men and men in my area on Match.com, and the results leave me unsurprised about the female harshness discussed above. For whatever reason, there seem to be far more attractive women than men posting on the site. The men don't seem to be an accurate sample of the population. I wouldn't rank most of the men as unattractive, but 70% probably do fall into the average category. And by average I mean more than just features, but grooming and presentation. As previously noted a lot of the pictures are terrible. Bad lighting, hairstyle, clothing, background, expressions. A lot of the guys either seem to look sloppy or they go to the opposite extreme by overdoing the hair gel and wearing ridiculous sunglasses. They either try too hard or not at all. I found myself most drawn to the normal looking pictures where the guys were nicely groomed but didn't seem to be putting on a false persona...and looked intelligent and confident.
Author amirpc Posted November 25, 2009 Author Posted November 25, 2009 I like the way match.com does religion. I find it is fairly easy to find only people whos views would be compatible enough with my own to have a relationship with. They basically ask you your religion, and you can not respond, and they ask you your prefered partner's religion, which you can also not respond to. Then when you're searching you can go as narrow or as broad as you'd like. The whole gay/straight situation is stupid. Man searching for man, bam only gets men...problem solved. I don't even see the issue really. Let's try to prevent this thread from going down similarly. Yeah, I'm done.
Ody Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 The men don't seem to be an accurate sample of the population. I wouldn't rank most of the men as unattractive, but 70% probably do fall into the average category. Well yeah. That's reasonable. Most people should fall into the average category, given the definition of average. The thing about this study is that 80% of men were classified as below average. Or more specifically below medium. This defies both the definition of average and most folks' expectations. You're right the online sample of men could be worse than the population as a whole (although I would not wager this due to the fact that affluent, young, educated people are overrepresented online in general). Also I wonder about the samples and questions used by the OKC study. But at the very least this is a curious result. PS. Any statistics majors out there relax, I realize my implied definition of average is not rigorous, using it as a lay term not a statistics term.
Stung Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Another interesting thing to me is that OKCupid's match approach synthesizes most of the poster's preferences in this thread without resorting to any forced exclusion or forced inclusion or just parroting liberal or conservative talking points. Users answer a huge number of questions created by other all the other users. Just so it's clear, OKCupid writes none of these questions, the entire pool is generated by the user base. When you answer the question, you pick your answer, your ideal match's theoretical answer, and how important the match's answer is to you. So if you really really don't want to date anyone who would exclude gays from a dating website, you add a question to the pool that goes something like this: Is it OK to exclude gays from targeted dating websites? Then you answer "No" for yourself, "No" for your potential match, and set the importance as "must have". Likewise if you really don't want to date anyone who feels that all must be included no matter what, you do the exact same thing, except you change your and your match's answers to "Yes". There. Everyone's happy, everyone can play, and the matching logic is at least a little bit useful. Similar reasoning can be applied to athiests, jews, fatties, bodybuilders and Sarah Palin. I almost brought that up in the other thread about matching that football player dude, since this free method seems to me so obviously better than any of the pay site's methods. But that whole thread was such a clusterf**k that I stayed out. Let's try to prevent this thread from going down similarly. That said I still don't answer many questions on that site and ignore the match rating, even this best of the matching algorithms seems lacking to me. This matching algorithm is what drew me to OkC. I even used it when I moved out-of-state, not to meet sexual hookups but to try to make new friends in the area. While no matching system is perfect it seemed to work fairly well as long as I only met with people I matched at 80% or more. I made a few lifelong friends that way. In my experience pictures only tell a part of the story as they can't capture vocal timbre or personal charisma/chemistry, and people might simply be unphotogenic. I looked at pics but only excluded people who were extremely outside of my range of preferences, otherwise I gave the photo the benefit of the doubt and concentrated on our match percentage and whether his personality shone through his profile at all. I met my husband on OkC . His pics were perfectly average, a little stiff and not totally my style, but he was a high match for me at 97%. I was the highest match for him in 2000 miles, which is how he found me although I was living in another state. Like many, many people, probably including myself, he was more attractive in person. And the chemistry and the way he made me feel...zing!
AD1980 Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 As far as looks we all know women are much more pickier..Thye pick apart their own looks to death you dont tihnk they do it with men?? .A female friend of mine told me most women only fidn really attratcive guys good looking and that moat women chase after the same small perentage of men its just up to the women if she wants to settle becasue she feels she cant do better but msot of the time a women isnt attracted to an average guy no matter what she looks like
shadowplay Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 As far as looks we all know women are much more pickier..Thye pick apart their own looks to death you dont tihnk they do it with men?? .A female friend of mine told me most women only fidn really attratcive guys good looking and that moat women chase after the same small perentage of men its just up to the women if she wants to settle becasue she feels she cant do better but msot of the time a women isnt attracted to an average guy no matter what she looks like I don't think this is accurate. I'm in college and most of the guys I see in my classes are actually above average and fairly nice looking. It may be the case that as men get older, more of them let themselves go and become average. But there are a lot of attractive young men.
Ody Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I don't think this is accurate. I'm in college and most of the guys I see in my classes are actually above average and fairly nice looking. It may be the case that as men get older, more of them let themselves go and become average. But there are a lot of attractive young men. About what would you say "most" is? 3 out of 4 perhaps?
AD1980 Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) I don't think this is accurate. I'm in college and most of the guys I see in my classes are actually above average and fairly nice looking. It may be the case that as men get older, more of them let themselves go and become average. But there are a lot of attractive young men. If theyre above average then theyres less guys who look as good as them then do.. My friend said theyres no guy next door look that women like so to speak and that mr average is a negative term to women..She said above average guys are fought over and worshipped because women want them that badly becasue the alternative is not good to them physically or status wise Edited November 25, 2009 by AD1980
shadowplay Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) About what would you say "most" is? 3 out of 4 perhaps? I'd say between 2/3 and 3/4 are, and it's not an exaggeration. Maybe it's just something about male art majors but the majority are slim, well-groomed, stylish and decent looking. (And most are straight as well.) Perhaps it's different in the rest of the school. I'd guess there'd be a lower percentage of hot guys in an engineering department, for example, where physical appearance is less emphasized. Edited November 25, 2009 by shadowplay
Ody Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I'd say between 2/3 and 3/4 are, and it's not an exaggeration. Maybe it's just something about male art majors but the majority are slim, well-groomed, stylish and decent looking. (And most are straight as well.) Perhaps it's different in the rest of the school. I'd guess there'd be a lower percentage of hot guys in an engineering department, for example, where physical appearance is less emphasized. Given the definition of the word average, the only possible way 3/4 of the guys could be above average looking would be if there were some real hideous zeroes pushing the average down. At least by any definition of average that has much to do with math. So we're probably using this word very differently. This makes me wonder if the reason for the results has to do with the phrasing of the questions on the OKC test thingy, obviously there is not uniform common usage agreement on the meaning of the word average. Not saying you're wrong at all, hopefully you have tons of hotties in your class. But do you see what I mean about the notion that for something to be average, about half of the things need to be above it and half should be below it? Kind of a compromise between "median" and "mean" if we were talking strict stats.
shadowplay Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Given the definition of the word average, the only possible way 3/4 of the guys could be above average looking would be if there were some real hideous zeroes pushing the average down. At least by any definition of average that has much to do with math. So we're probably using this word very differently. This makes me wonder if the reason for the results has to do with the phrasing of the questions on the OKC test thingy, obviously there is not uniform common usage agreement on the meaning of the word average. Not saying you're wrong at all, hopefully you have tons of hotties in your class. But do you see what I mean about the notion that for something to be average, about half of the things need to be above it and half should be below it? Kind of a compromise between "median" and "mean" if we were talking strict stats. I don't think we're actually using the word differently. I think it has to do with groups of people being skewed in different directions. Let's say that for whatever reason young male artists tend to be better looking on average than other men. I don't know if it's grooming or something else. But it's certainly plausible that one group of people could have a majority who are above average if they deviate from the rest of the population. I'm also talking about men who have the advantage of youth on their side. Because looks fade, older men, which you'll get more of on dating sites, won't be as attractive as their college counterparts. Then there's the selection factor of some people using online dating because they can't find dates irl.
Ody Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 I don't think we're actually using the word differently. I think it has to do with groups of people being skewed in different directions. Let's say that for whatever reason young male artists tend to be better looking on average than other men. I don't know if it's grooming or something else. But it's certainly plausible that one group of people could have a majority who are above average if they deviate from the rest of the population. I'm also talking about men who have the advantage of youth on their side. Because looks fade, older men, which you'll get more of on dating sites, won't be as attractive as their college counterparts. Then there's the selection factor of some people using online dating because they can't find dates irl. Understood completely. I just don't think the sample skew will account for that level of statistical anomaly. Keep in mind the mens evaluation of women had no such skew. All the youth, can't find real life dates, etc stuff applies to women too.
USMCHokie Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Exclusion from site as a whole is gross to me, and also probably has legal ramifications that I'm surprised they are willing to risk. They can probably get away with the gay exclusion due to the current murky atmosphere on gay marriage, but any athiest with a chip on his shoulder and a decent lawyer and some funding could probably eat them alive in court on this issue. Likewise ACLU. Highly unlikely...remember, equal protection laws apply ONLY to state actors...not private entities...civil rights laws (which does protect religion) also only apply to state actors and a limited number of exceptions (primarily employment). EHarmony, much like many private businesses and entities, has an easy out here..."if you don't like it, don't play..."
Ody Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 Highly unlikely...remember, equal protection laws apply ONLY to state actors...not private entities...civil rights laws (which does protect religion) also only apply to state actors and a limited number of exceptions (primarily employment). EHarmony, much like many private businesses and entities, has an easy out here..."if you don't like it, don't play..." Yes, you're right I should have reeled that last one in a bit. But the laws on this vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and the civil rights laws go farther than just public and employment, generally they will include any place that could be considered a public accomodation, for instance you can't put a "no jews" sign on your deli. Prob would be a stretch to call EHarmony a public accomodation, but everything on the internet is nebulous. If it's taxed like interstate commerce I could see someone making the case. Anyway all it would take is one suit in a state with usable laws to turn into a PR nightmare, even if EH won the suit. I'm actually surprised they don't accept the gays and athiests and then simply not match them with anyone. Not any more admirable to me but probably more legally safe plus they'd get the subscription fee. But maybe they already had a bunch of lawyers look at it and I'm dead wrong.
gypsy_nicky Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 (edited) I don't think this is accurate. I'm in college and most of the guys I see in my classes are actually above average and fairly nice looking. It may be the case that as men get older, more of them let themselves go and become average. But there are a lot of attractive young men. Attractive people are rare-most fall in 5-8 range. first off, what sort of college do you attend? Ivy league, state etc? The demographics seen in each one will vary and if you attend the prestigious ones, it's not necessarily the males are more attractive but because they put more time on their appearance-they're better groomed and take better care of themselves but not necessarily more attractive. this is the same thing I experienced upon entering university. I thought most chicks were hot but when I took the time to observe their faces most fell in the 5-8 range-heavily groomed. I can only recall one girl being a 10 (saw in a lecture), though I think she was a catwalk model-skinny but curvy, nice height and a very attractive face-very cheekboned. Edited November 26, 2009 by gypsy_nicky
shadowplay Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 Attractive people are rare-most fall in 5-8 range. first off, what sort of college do you attend? Ivy league, state etc? The demographics seen in each one will vary and if you attend the prestigious ones, it's not necessarily the males are more attractive but because they put more time on their appearance-they're better groomed and take better care of themselves but not necessarily more attractive. this is the same thing I experienced upon entering university. I thought most chicks were hot but when I took the time to observe their faces most fell in the 5-8 range-heavily groomed. I can only recall one girl being a 10 (saw in a lecture), though I think she was a catwalk model-skinny but curvy, nice height and a very attractive face-very cheekboned. I would consider people in the 7-10 range attractive, so maybe we have different definitions.
gypsy_nicky Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 I'm actually glad that the double standard for women picking men based on status is diminishing. It shows that women are equally identical to men when choosing mates (preference for attractiveness). I do hope equality comes when women no longer will look at the man's status since income for women has risen significantly ever since feminism>> (this will actually stop the overestimation men place on their looks).
shadowplay Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 I've actually seen a bunch of 9s, and possible 10s on my campus (both genders). Maybe Australia has a dearth of hotties!
gypsy_nicky Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 I would consider people in the 7-10 range attractive, so maybe we have different definitions. maybe your definition of high average/average is 7-overestimate. average does not equal unattractive.
gypsy_nicky Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 I've actually seen a bunch of 9s, and possible 10s on my campus (both genders). Maybe Australia has a dearth of hotties! your overestimating those are rare.
shadowplay Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 your overestimating those are rare. No, I'm not. I'm actually really picky when it comes to physical appearance, especially in women. I've seen a bunch of girls who could be and in some cases are models. I go to a school with over 20,000 students, so maybe it's a numbers thing.
gypsy_nicky Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 No, I'm not. I'm actually really picky when it comes to physical appearance, especially in women. I've seen a bunch of girls who could be and in some cases are models. I go to a school with over 20,000 students, so maybe it's a numbers thing. don't matter. Your prolly seeing the 8's or 7's all primped up. 9's and 10's are rare.
shadowplay Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 don't matter. Your prolly seeing the 8's or 7's all primped up. 9's and 10's are rare. Nope, I've seen definite 9s and 10s. And I've looked at their faces closely...ha. I have good taste, so I'm not exaggerating. As a girl I can see past the makeup and grooming. I really think location might be part of it. Who know what women look like in Australia.
gypsy_nicky Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 Nope, I've seen definite 9s and 10s. And I've looked at their faces closely...ha. I have good taste, so I'm not exaggerating. As a girl I can see past the makeup and grooming. I really think location might be part of it. Who know what women look like in Australia. Location has no bearing, unless its a developing country. so... you've seen multiple ken's and barbie's (they literally exist but are rare) walking around?? I find that very hard to believe.
Recommended Posts