Are the top 20% of men showered with attention and are "Chads" poaching average women on dating apps?
What the OKCupid data show. 🧵
This chart is often interpreted to show that men are "fair" with women on dating apps. However, these are just ratings.
Here are ratings against a distribution of actual messages - "revealed preferences" if you will.
These charts are kind of a mess.
A better way to visualize this data is in Rudder's book Dataclysm:
This is over one week and the OKCupid blog charts don't specify a time frame. But here are the ratios for men and women:
The number of messages that the most attractive men receive - even the top 5% - is incredibly small.
The most attractive women receive messages every day. The most attractive men do not.
Below average men receive about as many messages as men up to the top 10%.
Over a month, an average man might receive 4 messages. A man in the top 10% between 8-12.
This is expected - attractive people will receive more messages. But it's a remarkably small difference for most men, even at the highest levels of attractiveness.
The ratio by attractiveness is the same.
But as this is a ratio, it doesn't mean that the absolute messages are the same for men and women.
An average woman receives about 5 messages per week, or 20 per month.
But a woman in the top 10% receives 25 per week and 100 per month.
Who sends messages also matters.
For women, less attractive women send more.
Attractive women send fewer messages - they don't need to send any at all. They receive a lot.
Attractive men, on the other hand, actually send more messages! Perhaps counterintuitive.
But maybe not - since attractive men still receive very few.
Attractive men can't sit back and just respond. They don't get that kind of attention, as attractive women do.
What we see from this data:
Even if you are a very attractive man, spontaneous attention is rare.
You have to send messages to women.
And for the most attractive women, you're competing with most men - men who are as attractive as you, more, less, etc.
Less attractive women send more messages.
First messages you receive from women are, unfortunately, unlikely to be from women that you really desire.
Beautiful women do not fall into your lap on apps.
Even for a "Chad."
Average women and below are also not killing it on dating apps.
How many of the 5 messages per week an average woman receives do you think is from a man she finds to be attractive?
Remember how women rate men on OKCupid:
Even when a woman is fairly compromising and goes on many dates it is common that she won't find most of the men attractive:
There is something sinister about expressed resentment and dislike of “normies.” Real antisocial vibes. Even more so than the “anti-Karen” discourse. With Karens, the debate is over if an enforcement boundary is overstepped. Maybe a real debate can be had in some of those cases.
With resentment toward normies, it’s simply a dislike of actual normal people. Yet normal people are the backbone of society. A lot of the time it looks like the useless fringe complaining about the people who actually make things function.
Hating the normal has always been a trait of losers and outcasts. It’s an immediate red flag. It’s general negative emotionality and also specific hostility toward both the mundane and the wholesome.
It’s the mindset of the unpopular kids in high school who couldn’t play sports or make it into clique groups and so, resenting their peers, experiment with every bizarre ideology and identity that the less popular adolescents do.
Delinquents think this way, they also hate the normal and society around them, but delinquents aren’t even at the bottom of this youth hierarchy. The ones at the very bottom don’t get into gangs or really edgy youth subcultures. They get into sneaky and covert ways of lashing out. Maybe they adopt a victim mentality and embrace some kind of social justice ideology where the normies (see: normal society) are oppressive. They fantasize about social collapse or revolution as their anti-normie revenge. Maybe they just become online trolls. The Internet gives them a way to lash out without any possibility of repercussions (and indeed the modern use of “normie” arose from these kinds of communities).
There is a sort of narcissism in the “anti-normie.” They feel superior, but it’s the very fragile superiority of the narcissist who isn’t recognized as superior by anyone else. They don’t get their narcissistic supply from the world around them very often. They feel very smart - their beliefs and hobbies are so much better than the normies, too! Of course anime is better than Friends. Why yes, your fringe political beliefs would totally make society better than that thing everyone else voted for. The normies don’t see the secret truths in all of the conspiracy theories that they believe; normies are very dumb but the anti-normie is very wise.
They have never had their IQ tested, but they are very certain they could not possibly be “midwits,” even if every life milestone they have experienced is associated with lower or average intelligence. If a psychologist looked at them and said “mental illness” the psychologist would just be dismissed as a normie psychologist.
They are misfits and will relate to the aesthetics of cultures and times not their own, because they don’t thrive in the here and now. This is the “men looked better in the 1920s, I should buy a fedora” effect. But it also manifests in social desires: “we should live like we did in the 1920s because I would thrive more in that environment and culture than I do now.”
They will relate to past misfits, too, and make them their heroes. This is also a narcissistic fantasy. “Actually Napoleon wasn’t a normie, see how smart the non-normies are, just like me.” In reality the normies, however, aren’t even exclusively average people. They are also the typical overachievers. When I looked at the lives of the recent Nobel Prize winners, they were every bit as normie as you might imagine. Wife, kids, house, and dogs.
And that’s the general rule for the normie: the normie is the functional and productive member of society. The further one drifts from the normie, the less likely they are to thrive. This is what fuels resentment of the normie. They see the wife, kids, dog, career, and lifestyle of the normie and think, “I want that, but I don’t have that.”
Who is the normie? To this person, “heteronormative male college kids.”
Teenager posting about his parents on the nihilism subreddit, of course, hates normies:
Just in time for National Orgasm Day, Caitlin and myself have new research up on the orgasm gap and short-term partner traits. Results in this thread. 🧵
First, the orgasm gap:
Men experience more orgasms in casual sex, especially during a first encounter.
Women who have an orgasm with a short-term partner are more likely to go on to have sex with them again in the future.
So - that first encounter matters!
Why is this? Overlapping hypotheses for the evolution of the female orgasm is its role in mate selection and mate retention.
There is a widespread perception that women face stronger pressures to be physically attractive, but it doesn’t seem clear to me that this is the case.
There is pressure to be attractive and how that pressure is experienced. This is where I think you see the differences. 🧵
The bodies that are modeled for men and women as the ideal are as unrealistic (if not more so) for boys as they are for girls.
Big things have been made of Barbie being unrealistic - but she a body that is within a natural and healthy range.
Not so for many boys toys:
Female models have been called “unrealistic” despite being real people, but what is clear is that they are simply conventionally attractive women who are thin.
Men who are handsome, lean, and also muscular are similarly selected for male advertisements: