This means that although the absolute number of potential mates is smaller, so is the pool your prospective partners are choosing from.
In other words, their pool is smaller - and you are in it - making you more likely to be picked by those in a demographic you desire.
What these calculators estimate is the prevalence of someone with those traits in the entire US population.
But perhaps counterintuitively, your own chance of meeting people with those traits can be much higher.
And this depends in part on how similar you are to them.
Think also of what is being given in these calculators - an estimate, a probabilistic snapshot - of how many people exist with X traits.
It is fixed over an extended period of time.
In theory, if you resample people tomorrow, it shouldn't change much.
The probability of meeting another human being is not like this. You can increase it immediately.
Talk to ten people in a bar instead of five - the chance you meet someone with the traits you seek just went up.
Stay at home - your probability is zero.
You can think of it like flipping a fair coin:
The discrete probability of heads is always .5, but the probability of getting heads at least once over a series of five flips is .96
Meeting a potential romantic partner is not a discrete event (usually, hopefully).
The calculators for men and women give you a "delusion score" that implies you are a buffoon if you have what are at face value very reasonable standards.
And yet if you resemble one of these profiles yourself then you probably know a few couples who do as well.
You probably interact with many people of a similar demographic.
It is actually very reasonable for you to expect your eventual romantic partner to fit those traits.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. The Red Pill seems to get little unique recognition and is synonymous with incels.
2. Incels represent a critical entry-point into other manosphere communities (consistent with low romantic success driving men into the manosphere).
3. PUAs (pick up artists) have low centrality and node weight. They are kind of their own thing and not closely related to participation in other manosphere communities.
4. High overlap between communities, such that some can’t be easily categorized (blue in the network chart)
As I have written in the past, the manosphere has drifted away from male self-improvement, how to be more “alpha,” and the PUA or dating-focused communities of yesteryear.
Now the manosphere is mostly male social justice grievances.
Keywords across communities: PUAs are still talking about seduction and dating, incels are talking about the redpill.
MRAs are defined more by what they are against than what they have to offer - it’s predominantly ranting about feminism.
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.