Online dating profile experiment
And I rated the physical attractiveness of all the users , with regard their average score: highly-attractive (5 points), moderately-attractive (4 points), medium-attractive (3 points) and unattractive (1 or 2 points).
Results Conclusion One obvious implication of these data, is that, given sufficient latitude of female choice (ie.
Which, of course, renders less available ‘average’ females to be mated with average guys – necessitating an imbalance that progresses down the attractiveness scale (rendering a sexually asymmetric mating dynamic).
in terms of assortative mating), because sexual liberation has freed western females to indulge increasingly in disassortative mating(which is the expectation for all but the most attractive females, given their rate limiting function in sexual reproduction).
That the attention women receive is frequently dismissed as originating from unattractive men, gives us a further indication of where the onus actually lies. We have many reasons to suppose this, beyond online dating data (which supports that females are more selective, given that message frequency is a corollary of selectivity), which poses too many confounders in the data to rely upon too strongly.
Which, means that females have shown to be more critical in judging male attractiveness than the reverse (meaning that they are *more* likely to find a receptive partner, regardless of their own relative attractiveness).
The undercurrent in male complaints, are that – for an increasing proportion of males – they no longer have an expectation of finding a reasonable equivalent in terms of a female partner(ie.
Search for online dating profile experiment:
Results Male popularity: Female popularity: Disscusion We can see high asymmetry in female messages distribution, observable male variance and skewing mating success towards top ranked males (highly attractive profiles).