Sushibitch

Jul 18, 2013

In addition, a message (unless its copypasta) already excludes some factors that would make 2 people incompatible.

I'm not sure it does, y'know; an awfully high proportion of messages I get consist solely of some variation on "hello" or "How are you?", which really doesn't exclude any incompatibilities (and in fact when the variation is more along the lines of "Hw R U?", it represents an incompatibility).

partlive

Jul 18, 2013

Sushi, do you really have to argue with me for the sake of arguing?

I think I clearly said unless its copypasta. However, even copypasta is likely to be at least somewhat targeted, meaning there's already a pre-selection, it's just not very good targeting.

Sushibitch

Jul 18, 2013

Sushi, do you really have to argue with me for the sake for arguing?

No; I only ever argue when I actually disagree. To me, a copypasta is more like the kind of wall'o'text regurgitations of the sender's profile or the PUA bullshit they found on the internet, rather than "Hi"; if you simply mean "crap messages" then sure, but those make up an awfully high proportion of most women's inboxes.

What9Thousand

Jul 18, 2013

You claimed in your previous post that match % is a good approximation of compatibility. Now, which number is larger, compatible or willing to go on a date?

No, I said it's a good heuristic. It's a bad approximation for compatibility. By compatibility I'm referring to long-term compatibility as pertains to real-life relationships.

But to answer your question, 'willing to go on a date', of course. Whether you're talking about actual compatibility or match percentage. Half the girls that message me are low-ass match percentages, and I don't even respond to most of the high percentages.

partlive

Jul 18, 2013

The difference is a very subtle one, but I do stand corrected, heuristic is better. You seem to imply that any message means wanting to go on a date. In most cases that's not true and most messages don't result in dates (or even replies).

What9Thousand

Jul 19, 2013

You seem to imply that any message means wanting to go on a date.

It's still true even if you only count the messages that are like "we should get some coffee sometime" or "we should go to [some event] together" or "we should go on a date", or any other kind of thing that seems to indicate a willingness to go on a date with me.

But in general, it's safe to assume that if someone's messaging you and they're looking for dating, they'll probably be willing to go on a date with you, as long as you don't prove yourself to be boring, stupid, or a douchebag in your conversation. I can't recall a time when a girl messaged me, I replied with interest, and then she later decided she didn't want to go on the date.

If some guy is getting very few replies or very few unsolicited messages, he's presenting himself in a shitty way. Women aren't just sitting there not messaging anyone. They're messaging (and replying to) the interesting people.

And that's how it's supposed to work. Online dating doesn't guarantee you dates. It's just a platform. You still have to attract people with your own qualities.

partlive

Jul 20, 2013

Being open to going on a date with you, depending on whether the exchange or conversation is fun != wanting to go on a date with you. The list of people who want to go on a date is whoever did + whoever suggested it and got rejected.

smashingmayo

Jul 20, 2013

Too long of post to read.
What9Thousand

Jul 20, 2013

Being open to going on a date with you, depending on whether the exchange or conversation is fun != wanting to go on a date with you. The list of people who want to go on a date is whoever did + whoever suggested it and got rejected.

I disagree; I think both of those things count as wanting to go on a date with me. Being "open to" a date and actively desiring a date are identical for purposes of the question.

But either way, that's just a semantic argument. The fact is, the site is fine for dating, regardless of one's gender.

partlive

Jul 20, 2013

I think both of those things count as wanting to go on a date with me

Wow, really? And I thought my ego was big. 

As an analogy, this is like saying that every girl who goes on a date with you wants to marry you. This is not just semantics.

Is that male "fine" or female "fine"? (pun int.)

What9Thousand

Jul 21, 2013

As an analogy, this is like saying that every girl who goes on a date with you wants to marry you.

No it's not. The original question was "which number is larger, compatible or willing to go on a date?"

Willing, as in 'open to' or 'actively desiring'. Either one.
It's probably rare that women with absolutely no attraction to me send me messages. If some girl would go out with me, assuming my conversation is interesting (and it always is, if I also want to go out with her), then she's part of the group that is willing to go on a date with me.

But not necessarily part of the (smaller) group who are actually compatible with me, relationship-wise.

Is that male "fine" or female "fine"? (pun int.)

I don't get it.

 

amp-here

Jul 22, 2013

If there is evidence that women are more prone to negative sorting (in the context of dating or more generally)

   Common sense: women get more messages because men are expected, by basic social standards, to initiate contact and chase.  Also, when women do chase, it makes sense for her only to go after someone who appears better than who is already chasing her, so only a few men at the top get first messages initiated by women. 

 


How so? For every straight woman meeting up with a straight man, there is also a straight man meeting up with a straight woman, right?

  Sure, but it amounts to very few men at the top getting responses from multiple women and many at the bottom getting virtually none.

 

Per week...

   Men, how many women first message you?  How many women message you back after your first message?   Women...how many men first message you...and how many men message you back after you send a first message?

 

What9Thousand

Jul 22, 2013

Also, when women do chase, it makes sense for her only to go after someone who appears better than who is already chasing her, so only a few men at the top get first messages initiated by women.

Why do people who lack romantic success so frequently assume some kind of strict hierarchy for who's "better" (at being attractive) than other people? That isn't how it works in real life.

Is it your lack of success which causes your erroneous viewpoint, or is it the other way around? Or could it be a different cause altogether which results in both things?

 

Sushibitch

Jul 22, 2013

Sure, but it amounts to very few men at the top getting responses from multiple women and many at the bottom getting virtually none.

People say that, but I'm entirely unconvinced; there's an OK trends article which says that two thirds of men message one third of women, but that women's messages are actually much more evenly spread; is there any evidence to the contrary?

partlive

Jul 22, 2013

Vuht provided it in another thread. You didn't read it.

Sushibitch

Jul 22, 2013

Vuht provided a link to the article about response rates; it doesn't indicate that a small number of men are getting most of the replies, and everyone else is getting none or almost none.

amp-here

Jul 22, 2013

Also, when women do chase, it makes sense for her only to go after someone who appears better than who is already chasing her, so only a few men at the top get first messages initiated by women.

 

assume some kind of strict hierarchy for who's "better" (at being attractive) -what

I'm taking about the typical social standard of men chasing and women only responding to the ones they like most...and nothing more.

  But, yes (sigh), people are going to be drawn to what's attractive *to them* among their choices and there's a limit to how much lack of physical beauty someone will tolerate regardless of someone's personality.  I thought that was obvious enough not to have to be mentioned, but apparently not.

Is it your lack of success

   You have to be kidding me.  Please read the above.  Also, you'd better believe I've heard women I've been with complain about other guys who try/tried to get with them.

 

but that women's messages are actually much more evenly spread

I'm interested in seeing that article.

Sushibitch

Jul 22, 2013

^ It's here; it's written in an extremely male-centric way, heading towards misogyny, but it says that men rates women's attractiveness along more or less a bell curve, but disproportionately message those towards the top end, while women's ratings of men tend left, but their messaging is much more bell-shaped. The result (shown halfway down) is that the most attractive men get around ten times the number of messages received by the least attractive men, but the most attractive women get 25 times as many messages as the least attractive women. So that whole "the top few get most of the attention and the rest get almost none" is much more true of men's messages to women than vice versa, according to OK Trends.

bigburpboy

Jul 22, 2013

op. so why are you still on OKC?

Myster_Z

Jul 22, 2013

You live in Brooklyn? I thought it was easy to meet women up there? Because everyone lives so close together and the girls out number the guys.

Whereas, in LA everyone is spread out and never walks anywhere and the guys out number the girls!!!

If I lived in NYC I doubt I would do online dating.

Post a comment