Alexander Profile picture
Jan 3 14 tweets 6 min read
Although these calculators make it seem as if it is difficult to find an adequate partner, this is not the case.

Mate choice is not random.

The probability of finding a mate in one of the below categories is not the same as the total prevalence in the general population. 🧵
For example, at face value you would consider these standards (man in fig 1, woman in fig 2 above) very reasonable.

And yet, the combined probability of the two together would be lower than 1% - if it were a random assortment from the general population.
The probability of finding a mate with X characteristic depends on the pool you are selecting a mate from.

It depends on the people you come into contact with each day.

This is part of what is called assortative mating.

sciencedirect.com/topics/biochem…
There are innumerable social forces and personal choices that funnel you into contact with certain people.

Whoever you interact with, anywhere in life - they won't be a representative sample of the population:
You have a much higher probability of meeting someone between age 20-30 if you are on a college campus, for example.

20% of the US population approximately in a random selection.

Close to >90% in selection from a university campus.
Think about the strong correlation between age and mate choice - the average age gap between couples is two years.

The probability of finding a couple with a 30 year age gap is much lower than a 2 year age gap.
Obesity was a filter on these charts.

Consider assortative selection for obesity.

People who are not overweight express strong preferences for partners who are not.

They seek each other out.

And overweight partners find each other, too.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17684200/
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
 

Keep Current with Alexander

Alexander Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @datepsych

Jan 4
Did the invention of Tinder result in an increase of casual sexual activity?

Evidence from 1.3 million college students between 2012 and 2016. 🧵
Online dating is now one of the top ways people form relationships. About 39% of relationships began on apps as of 2019.

However, rather than a relationship formation tool we often associate apps with casual sexual activity in popular culture. Image
Researchers examined a very large sample (1.3M) of college students between 2012 and 2016 using the National College Health Assessment (NCHA) survey to estimate a relationship between Tinder use and sexual activity.
Read 26 tweets
Jan 2
Here are the results of a recent poll. I asked people to imagine 100 dating-age peers and tell me if at least half were attractive enough to date.

Most people don't find most people attractive.

So - how is it that most people are in relationships? 🧵
This is a result I expected. Most people don't find most people attractive.

Women are also more selective than men.
This raises a question - how is it that so many people are in relationships and married when we don't find most people physically attractive enough for a relationship?

Let's look at how this works out with something like facial attractiveness.
Read 18 tweets
Jan 1
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. Image
Here are ratings against a distribution of actual messages - "revealed preferences" if you will.

These charts are kind of a mess. ImageImage
Read 25 tweets
Dec 30, 2022
Poll time:

Imagine you feed 100 people some nasty dog poo.

You ask them to rate the taste on a scale of 1-10.

Would you expect 68% of people to rate it between a 4-5 - approximating a normal distribution?

Or would the chart look more like the the second?
It is not a trick question btw.
I think we all learn about the central limit theorem and how we end up with normal distributions in samples.

But if a normal distribution exists or not depends on if the data is actually normally distributed.

Like in real life, in the population.
Read 9 tweets
Dec 30, 2022
Many interesting comments here - a lot of good faith criticism and questions. I'll try to answer a few of those that I didn't add to this thread:
The top one may be:

"What about male ratings of men?"

Men and women do rate faces differently. However, there is average cross-sex agreement on attractive faces.

And women and men both tend to rate female faces as more attractive.
Let me add two other questions/observations that can be addressed at the same time:

"Women use make-up and care more about their appearances."

And

"Maybe men on OKCupid are uglier."
Read 12 tweets
Dec 30, 2022
People with slow life history strategies have higher mate value and mate assortatively more strongly.

link.springer.com/article/10.100…
Matching life history strategy is also associated with higher marital satisfaction:

psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-24…
An idea of what slow/fast life strategies are from this paper:

frontiersin.org/articles/10.33…
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(