1mind2have4now

Mar 15, 2013

^There's the data I was looking for. A real demonstration for once.

MarchofthePawns

Mar 15, 2013

^^ yup. Depresses the shit outta you if you're a guy though. Depresses the shit out of me anyway. I'm in the zero crew. Even the best looking guy got 12 over a month period.

Sushibitch

Mar 15, 2013

The problem with that experiment is that the profile he wrote was crappy; clichéd and dull and lolearnest. It may be the case that on average, women will get messages based on their profile pictures, and men only based on their profile; if that's the case, then his approach (creating a crappy profile with, in some cases, good pictures) will naturally bias the results towards women.

It would be interesting to see this done the other way round; use pictures of one guy and one girl, but with five different profiles, including one which is extremely confident + interesting + non-lolearnest, and one which is the reverse, and see how that affects their contact rates.

MarchofthePawns

Mar 15, 2013

^Care to start that experiment? I may volunteer. Not sure if I truly want to or not.

I could use more information as well.

OctoberTens

Mar 15, 2013

The problem with that experiment is that the profile he wrote was crappy; clichéd and dull and lolearnest.

As best I could tell, the crappiness factor was constant across all of the fake profiles. The variables were attractiveness and gender. The most attractive fake profile had an equally crappy profile as the least attractive profile.

Even with replication and a greater number of fake profiles the "experiment" speaks only to correlation.

The "experiment" does a fair job of expressing that men, despite attractiveness, receive less interest than women. This isn't shocking. Rather, it confirms what is widely thought to be normal hetrosexual gender roles.

Sushi, your exception to the "experiment" goes to causation. For the experiment you seem to suggest, the attractiveness and gender would have to be constant and only the crappiness factor manipulated to demonstrate causation. Also, the messages would have to be kept constant, to determine whether it's the messages or the profile.

Sushibitch

Mar 15, 2013

As best I could tell, the crappiness factor was constant across all of the fake profiles. The variables were attractiveness and gender. The most attractive fake profile had an equally crappy profile as the least attractive profile.

The crappiness of the written stuff was, yes. The photos varied though; the profiles which got a lot of messages had good photos of girls. If men message based on photos, and women message based on profile, then you would expect a crappy profile with a good photo to work fine for women, but poorly for men. Thus, if you had a good profile, that shouldn't much increase the message rate for women, but should greatly increase the message rate for men.

The "experiment" does a fair job of expressing that men, despite attractiveness, receive less interest than women.

No, it doesn't; it shows that men with crappy profiles but good photos receive less interest than women with crappy profiles but good photos. If, as the received wisdom suggests, men are all about the photos and women are all about the profile, that's exactly what you'd expect.

Also, the messages would have to be kept constant, to determine whether it's the messages or the profile.

What messages? The experiment looked at how many messages were received; no messages were sent as part of the experiment.

ExtremeDating

Mar 15, 2013

Thus, if you had a good profile, that shouldn't much increase the message rate for women, but should greatly increase the message rate for men.

I'd just like to confirm that we all accept that a good profile isn't lolearnest.

MarchofthePawns

Mar 15, 2013

^experiment details?

Kinda curious and bored

What9Thousand

Mar 15, 2013

anyone can get replies if they play it cool

FTFY, changes in bold.

Also, anyone can get dates if they get replies, provided they play it cool.

Anyone can get sex and/or relationships if they get dates, provided they play it cool.

ExtremeDating

Mar 15, 2013

experiment details?

You're dreaming! ;) I'm here to dispense insight, not to hop on command or hold people's hands through the entire faith-building process.

I'm one of the greatest scientific minds on OkCupid, not a lab technician. If the lab rats wish to try producing experimental results showing a confident, interesting, and non-lolearnest man failing to clean up on here, I'll have a look at those results and help you all see the experimental flaws.

MarchofthePawns

Mar 15, 2013

awww. Hope is now lost again. hahaha

OctoberTens

Mar 15, 2013

Sushi, are you suggesting that there is no difference between the male and female experience but that everything, without exception, turns on the amount of crappiness or not-crappiness of a profile?

Sushibitch

Mar 15, 2013

^ No, dude, I'm suggesting what I actually said up there; that if, as we're told, men message according to the picture and women message according tot he profile, that what women need to do to get messages is have a decent picture, and what men need to do if they want messages is to have a decent profile. There's no hidden message, I'm saying what I mean, quite clearly.

MarchofthePawns

Mar 15, 2013

^in a perfect world yeah. This world aint perfect though.

Siva23

Mar 15, 2013

@ExtremeDating sounds like someone is afraid her theory will produce zilch. :-)

 

 

but really I don't understand why some on here don't see that prima facie, women are just going to get more messages than men. I do agree with sushi that a good profile is key for men. Most men skip the profiles.

ExtremeDating

Mar 15, 2013

It's saddening to see so much male rage.

What seems to be forgotten in all this talk about messages (my own doing, admittedly) is that a woman can't get a date from here without a man getting a date from here (pardon the straight bias).

Who are those men? Do you think they're lolearnest?

Sushibitch

Mar 15, 2013

^ Well, except for the lesbians.

Damn those lucky bitches, eh?

Immortal_Object

Mar 15, 2013

That's the thing, though: If you be confident, if you be interesting, if you don't be lolearnest, you may end up getting more messages than a pitiable 1-3 each week.

As for more replies to your messages, does the rage you're expressing here come across in your messages?

 

Wrong. Also, are you referring to unsolicited messages or replies? I receive perhaps 1-3 unsolicited messages per week, if even that.

Your anti-mantra is getting annoying... Especially considering you don't know the messages that some men send. 

More peddling of excuses, my friend. Will the sexist rationalizations for personal failures never end?

 

I like how you ignored everything I typed explaining that there ARE gender imbalances and they're not "excuses" but mere facts.

 

Let me get this straight, this is all I see you doing on these forums.

 

  • Hey! I'm really awesome and I get SOOO many messages that I can't delete them fast enough!
  • Hey! I just read complaints from males and that they're not getting messages or replies back! Must be their fault, BECAUSE I'm doing just fine!
  • Oh, you're telling me I'm wrong and it's because I'm female? Well that's sexist, so you must be making excuses for yourself!

 

Also, you haven't really described what you mean be "lolearnest." You're saying to be confident, but don't be confident, essentially. You're contradicting yourself.

 

Your rationale for comparison is flawed, and this is why I described you as perhaps having asperger's syndrome. Not because I don't "agree" with you, but because even when it was explained to you over 10 times in this thread that there IS a gender biased, whether you like it or not... you pretend it doesn't exist, then blame the other party.

At this point, you're either a huge troll, or just plain retarded if you can't figure out that you're getting messages back, and get messages to BEGIN WITH simply because you're female. Are you really that thick?

 

And no, I have no anger at all during this conversation.... and I certainly don't portray anger to someone I write... Though if it sounds like I'm angry, good. I'm glad to know you feel a bit intimidated by the fact that someone is telling you that you're wrong with overwhelming amounts of evidence to back it up. (You know, like the 2 links you ignored that explained the studies on gender bias.)

Perhaps you sense "anger" simply because I'm not agreeing with you like every desperate douchenozzle that comes across you and writes those "messages that fill up your inbox you can't delete them fast enough."

Disagreeing with you doesn't mean the other person is "angry."

 

I guarantee you if I created the "Female version" of my profile on OkCupid, and answered in the same exact fashion... That not only would I get unsolicited messages more often than my normal profile... But the replies I make to them all would give a 90% response ratio.

I also know that if I wrote to almost any male person, they would reply back.

Please tell me how by being male it's an "excuse" that I don't get nearly the "sheer amount of replies that I can't delete them fast enough" like you...  But the female version of me would get a sheer amount of replies.

What would the female version be doing different than the male version of me, aside from being female?

The answer? Nothing would be different... Therefore why are you telling me that the male profile is making up "excuses" for their lack of unsolicited messages and low reply rates?

 

If we're going to ignore the fact that they're simply 2 different genders... Since you believe that's "sexist" (which it is by the way, I totally agree with that) and it's also an "excuse" because it's sexist...

 

Please, tell me why the female version of the same profile would get better replies than the male version... If they're both doing the same thing. Ignoring their genders... Please tell me what the "male" version is doing wrong.

 

 

1mind2have4now

Mar 15, 2013

I'd just like to confirm that we all accept that a good profile isn't lolearnest.

 

ED, would you care to direct us to any definition of this so-called "lolearnest"? Didn't find it on urbandictionary.com

Siva23

Mar 15, 2013

Rage?

 

yeah, butt like discojer likes to point out, 10% of the men date 90% of the women.

 

just for giggle I did a search for "guys that like girls" and I saw a lot of "this user has not been messaged in a week".

Post a comment

Add a photo to:

Stay fresh with Instagram

Are you sure you want to delete this album?

Where's your photo?

Drop it like it’s hot

Photos must be at least 400 x 400px
Edit thumbnail
Add a caption

You look fantastic!