The Match Between Potential Daters’ Attractiveness Is The Most Important Predictor Of Romantic Desire

facial-attractiveness

Gomez et al implemented a multi-agent model that allows an assessment of the relative contributions of selectivity and matching on ratings of attractiveness.

 

Gomez, P. & Erber, R. (2013). Is selectivity an aphrodisiac?

 

Abstract:

In a recent article, Eastwick, Finkel, Mochon, and Ariely (2007) reported data to indicate that selectivity might be an important factor in determining romantic desire. Using a speed-dating paradigm, they found that individuals who, on average, rated potential dates as highly desirable were likely to receive lower average ratings from their dates, as evidenced by what they termed as negative generalized correlations. However, the dyadic correlations were positive, suggesting that, across pairs, desire was somewhat reciprocated. Eastwick et al. go as far as to claim that “… daters somehow broadcast their unselectivity… ” (page 318), which we find to be a deeply dissatisfying explanation. We present an alternative and more principled approach in order to account for the disassociation between the generalized and dyadic correlations. We implemented a multi-agent model that allows an assessment of the relative contributions of selectivity and matching on ratings of attractiveness. The model suggests that the match between potential daters’ attractiveness is the most important predictor of romantic desire. We believe that Eastwick et al’s (2007) article is just another example of a dangerous pattern in social psychology research: spectacular claims are made on the flimsiest of evidence.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to The Match Between Potential Daters’ Attractiveness Is The Most Important Predictor Of Romantic Desire

  1. glenn says:

    Siir – Glenn here from The Rational Male boards. Holy shit do people freak out over your commentary. I guess for me I’m really into the learning more about this and also know that I’m not an evolutionary biologist. I guess this means I’m “humping your leg” as some a-hole over their said about me.

    For the record, I greatly appreciate your efforts. While I’m not certain you are correct about all this, I’ve been really trying to understand this more from actual scientists and they all sound a lot more like you than Rollo – and let’s not even talk about morons like Roosh. However, even on Rollo’s site, you are running into his biases and interests and it exposes something about Rollo that is not really so impressive. His latest post cites an anti-science quote by Krauser, a British PUA and a very smart guy, btw. I believe you are forcing him to stop engaging you thoughtfully because if he did, he’d have to admit much of what you’ve shared there is very damaging to many of the ideas of “game”.

    I just want you to know I appreciate what you are doing. I’m learning something and that’s what I go there for. But more and more, I’m finding there are so many aggressive assholes there who pose as scientific that it’s not worth the time. Tell me, what sources would you recommend for a guy like me? I’ve been listening to Christopher Ryan and the various scientists who end up on the Mating Grounds podcasts. Anything else out there for a non-scientist like myself that you would recommend? Thanks.

    • sirtyrionlannister says:

      @ glenn.

      I’ve never been posting on that blog. I guess someone is using my nickname. I have come across a lot of imposters and strange fans.

      What kind of literature are you looking for exactly?There is no halfway decent scholars on the game subculture, since it’s a pseudoscience.

      • glenn says:

        Indeed, someone is copying your stuff and impersonating you over there. The “manosphere” is such a cesspool of trolls it’s ridiculous. I already bailed from most of it and just try to access actual scientists discussing this topic – of which there are many.

  2. thegreatshebang says:

    Many thanks to SiirTyrion excellent work on making this science available. I’ve been looking for this kind of research since 1990. Now it is available more easily.

    Also thanks to Glenn for adding to the comments on the Rational Male blog.

    @ Glenn
    The reason commentators at the Rational Male and other gamer blogs “flip out” is that they can not follow the argument that “game” is derived from a designed fraud to get money out of men and that it is no more effective than a placebo. Then they shift the definition of “game”. This placebo effect of “approaching” women is rightly pointed out by you, Glenn on the comments over there.

    In addition, the commentators are probably in some way ideologically committed to blogging online about “game.”

    For a nice breakdown of the ideological problems with online commentators on “game”, google the black pill blog.

  3. chris says:

    You were asking for some sort of scientific/empirical jsutification of game techniques.

    This review in epjournal was the easiest one to come to mind.

    http://www.epjournal.net/articles/the-dating-mind-evolutionary-psychology-and-the-emerging-science-of-human-courtship/

    • glenn says:

      Great link, I’m digging into it, thanks.

    • glenn says:

      And in the conclusions, the paper states “In light of these findings, it is equally important to note that many of the strategies advocated by the community are not currently supported by peer-reviewed literature. ” In fact, all it really gives game much credit for is defining the stages of intersexual interactions as Attraction, building mutual Comfort and Trust, and Seduction. Yawn, that’s some kind of breatkthrough? Any first year copier sales person. Interest, Trust, Action or a thousand different versions of it.

      If this was a cite to support game, wow, perhaps it all is utter horseshit designed to separate losers in the mating game from their money.

      • chris says:

        I said “some sort”, it’s not meant to provide conclusive scientific evidence that everything mentioned about “Game” by “Pick-up Artists” is true. But it does show that at least some isn’t “utter horseshit” as you mentioned.

        If you want more empirical evidence, read this guy’s blog on psychology today;

        http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor

        He is a psychologist who has an interest in Game/PUA’s.

        For instance here he is discussing the Game concept of “negging”

        http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201308/can-insult-make-you-fall-in-love

        Here he is discussing “playing hard to get”

        http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201403/when-should-you-play-hard-get

        There’s more if you go through it.

        • glenn says:

          Thanks, I will review that info. I have no axe to grind – the “truth” (if there is such a thing) is all I’m after. I’ve gone through quite an evolution wrt Game and am a huge supporter of some basic aspects of it for me. But I also think that much of what’s gone haywire for men is that many og them don’t embrace their own masculinity in a positive way. I think women react very well to typical male behaviors, yet so many guys today have been emasculated by our gynocentric culture.

          I separate Game from other aspects of Red Pill truth. Intersexual dynamics are not game, and we don’t need PUAs to describe those things for us. What men do need to do is instrumentalize and internalize the reality of intersexual dynamics in today’s world and the degree to which PUAs do that is the degree to which I find them interesting.

          Going a bit deeper, I was an unconscious success with women in some very real ways. I now realize women were reacting to my looks a lot more than I ever was conscious of. In fact, all my nice guy shit didn’t make much of a difference with women. I noticed that when I didn’t work that hard to please them and was direct and my normal, confident and funny self that I had good luck with many women. I have an “n” higher than many PUAs, so I’m not the typical guy who stumbled into game because I could never get with attractive women.

          So, I reduce “game” to the techniques they recommend. I give them no credit for defining phases of interacting with women. Attraction, trust and seduction? Yeah, no shit. If that’s a breakthrough, I have a bridge I want to sell you. This is something any person could get from reading one book on sales, fyi. Seduction is much like sales – and I’m a world class technology sales executive so many of the ideas these guys present are quite amateurish to me.

          Take the entire idea of “approaching”. Krauser PUA and Roosh publish their numbers. They make hundreds and thousands of approaches, only connecting with a tiny fraction of the women they approach. All PUAs hammer on it being a numbers game and that if you don’t approach, nothing will ever happen. I’m sorry, this is new? That if you don’t talk to women, you will never fuck one of them? it’s laughable to make such assertions. And their “success” rate is so low, one wonders how they can claim success with their “techniques” for approaching? Is it really any better than any non-game trained guy could do if he made the similar number of approaches? I’ve not once seen that kind of control done by a PUA, and of course without it that kind of control, their numbers are meaningless in terms of proving their techniques work.

          As for the things that women find attractive, i do think that is interesting and a man should be aware how women are judging/rating them. And as far as it goes, those points are interesting but they are supported by science that already existed, they weren’t discovered by PUAs. I also think that much of the advice they give is very specific to bars and nightclubs, an environment where most men will not be successful as it amplifies the value of looks and diminishes the ability to demonstrate high value in terms of career or expertise etc. In other words, while they bump into the truth sometimes – truths that any man 50 years ago would have told you without taking a fucking course in “Game” – be assertive, funny and confident. I just don’t think the fact that they are wrong about so much should be given a pass.

          Just imagine how many guys have failed using PUA techniques? How much harm is done by telling them that this stuff works – but they still can’t get laid? I see the entire issue much more broadly, and believe that digesting the entire Red Pill will have a man behave much more optimally wrt to women he’s interested in. Changing the gynocentric mindset wrt chivalry and courtly love and romance, and seeing women’s dualistic mating strategies for what they are is what will have you deal with women more effectively. Not “negging” or being an asshole. And in the end, I’m more convinced than ever that basic sexual attraction based on appearance is driving a lot more of what’s going on than I ever wanted to admit. Sure, knowing some of the basics of game can help, but really, I think it’s small beer when compared to the larger ideas from the Red Pill world.

          For me personally, the best change wrt women was reading interest and feedback much more closely. I also flirt much more and more readily as I get that women love flirting and this is the best way to begin a sexual interaction with a women. I don’t act like a new friend, I act like a guy who wants to fuck them from the outset as I’m no longer ashamed of my sexual desires. This all comes from broader Red Pill truths about how our female dominated society shames male sexual agency and sells men a bunch of lies about how women are after “good guys”. I know now the truth. They will settle for a good guy sometimes, but they will always be on the lookout for a guy who makes their vagina tingle and also in today’s society, feel little compunction about dumping nice guys. I can learn all this without a PUA fucktard telling me how to indirectly approach a woman. Put differently, if you are so fucking socially retarded that you can’t start a conversation with a woman, you probably can’t do so with men too and no matter how much PUA technique you use, you will never do any better with women.

          Some of what game has to offer is based on reality, great. Much of it is horseshit. And the entire idea that a woman who wouldn’t fuck you now will because you learned game is just not true based on what I’ve seen. One specific thing I’ve learned is this. I think women’s choices are highly contingent when selecting short term mates and there are a number of deterministic factors that a man cannot effect directly. Just consider relative SMV? A woman who is promiscuous and in the mood for a short term hookup (a large pct of women under 30 are so these days) might end up with a guy who is lower SMV because there were no other higher SMV guys around when she was making that choice, I had a woman describe it to me once, a hot 30 yr old. She said it plainly, “You’re fuckable”. And under the right circumstances, I had a sexual encounter with her. But if there was a 6’1″ guy who was built and much younger than me there? Much less likely. I’m okay with all that because I no longer internailze what women think of me or how they rate me. If they are not interested in me, I’m gone. But I also know that it wasn’t my “technique” that worked but rather it was about her available choices at the time. Could game change any of that? Not a chance. But what I can do is recognize how she’s making choices and act accordingly to optimize what I want out of it.

          None of that is about game. It’s about being in reality. Am I making any sense?

    • sirtyrionlannister says:

      @ Chris,

      That already known paper proves nothing, just it’s an advertising booklet!

      I just can to say that I regret the widespread lack of understanding of evidence-based science. The publication bias produced by pseudo-researchers not publishing negative results is illustrated.

  4. chris says:

    For me the utility of game has really just been the internalisation of traditional masculine norms. Essentially a deprogramming from politically correct feminist ‘sensitive new nice age guy’ brainwashing.

    Some of the tactics they teach can be useful for beginners who are just learning to be approach women as it gives you a script you can fall back on if the conversations falls flat.

    • chris says:

      should be sensitive new age nice guy

    • glenn says:

      Well put. And it shouldn’t be surprising that many young men don’t even know how to be be a man in the first place. Women have chased men out primary schools utterly and mostly out of secondary schools. They are having kids without dads and dumping fathers like old shoes. The culture at large teaches them that men are oafs and even when they try and be good, are really not as good as women. Watch movies where the man is a hero – he’s still usually being hectored by a woman who’s set up to be morally superior, sometimes even by a child.

      So to the degree that “game” teaches men how to act like men, I’m fine with it. But that’s not what it puports to do. I like the idea of being positive about masculinity and embracing it as I have. It’s quite self-affirming and it puts the locus of control over my identity and self-esteem squarely inside of me instead of with women.

    • sirtyrionlannister says:

      @ Chris
      For me the utility of game has really just been the internalisation of traditional masculine norms. Essentially a deprogramming from politically correct feminist ‘sensitive new nice age guy’ brainwashing.

      Some of the tactics they teach can be useful for beginners who are just learning to be approach women as it gives you a script you can fall back on if the conversations falls flat.

      And that cultural self-internalisation can ‘bend’ female choice?

      You would not need scripts whether a woman is interested in you, you should zero in on her non-verbal signals. Women unconsciously let you know that they’re into you or not.

      • glenn says:

        It’s funny, you net out what I spent a year distilling down from all the game bullshit. Gauging feedback and nurturing interest when it is present is something that is useful. Women let you know that they are interested. As I’ve mentioned earlier, I’m also a long time, senior sales exec and without being arrogant, I’m a sought after expert on all aspects of sales. I figured out a long time ago that looking for prospects who exhibit what I call “buying behaviors” is the way to focus in on real opportunities. Sales is not “pushing” people as it is creating a space where they can pull you to them.

        Women are the same. I find that it’s also crucial for them to feel okay about flirting with you, that if they do so but don’t take it any further that you won’t become a stalker. Women just kind of get that I’m really just about short term sexual connections. and am not stressed about it, I’m playful and relaxed about it. Those that are interested in that step forward to me because I create a fun, open, sexual space for them to express themselves. Many just stop at flirting, which is fine. But I never could be doing any of it if I was still caught up in my frustration or worries about women, so that’s where the manosphere has helped tremendously.

      • chris says:

        That cultural internalisation can affect whether you get the woman or not.

        Traditional Masculine Norm 1: Men initiate/Men approach.
        Feminist Counter Norm 1: Don’t initiate/don’t approach, that’s harassment.

        Considering women are the passive sex when it comes to mating, abiding by the feminist norm ensures you will complete far few mating opportunities as you will never be approaching and will instead be waiting on women to directly approach you.

        Traditional Masculine Norm 2: Be confident, be dominant.
        Feminists Counter Norm 2: Don’t be confident/ don’t be dominant. That’s sexist.

        Women aren’t attracted to low status males. So not being confident or being submissive indicates that low status and will atleast “bend her choice” away from you. Or disqualify you.

        As a biologist, you can’t really be saying that a program designed to change the behavioural patterns of males to be that of females, won’t have any negative affect on those male’s reproductive success.

        What if you brainwashed/conditioned antelopes to avoid the lek. Or male rats not to respond to lordosis behaviour in the females.

        You might say, in the long-run that doesn’t matter as evolution will select for those males who are resistant to that enculturation/socialisation/conditioning. Which is true.

        But we are in the here and now. We are the males that stand to be selected out as a result of these enculturation/socialisation/conditioning practices, and that matters to us. It’s our reproductive success that stands to be thwarted.

        I’d also wager it matter’s to society, because one of the simplest ways to be resistant to maladaptive socialisation practices is to just be resistant to socialisation. And generation after generation of men made resistant to socialisation practices won’t be a very civilized lot.

  5. Dark Pill Advocate says:

    sirtyrion, what is your take on these studies? both challenge what you’ve stated on human mating:

    Sexy sons and sexy daughters: the influence of parents’ facial characteristics on offspring:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347208003928

    Genetic Factors That Increase Male Facial Masculinity Decrease Facial Attractiveness of Female Relatives:
    http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/12/30/0956797613510724.abstract

    • sirtyrionlannister says:

      @ Dark Pill Advocate,

      Where do these papers challenge my views?

      Papers found that:

      1) both fathers’ and mothers’ attractiveness predicted the facial attractiveness of daughters: ‘sexy daughters’.

      2) Fathers and sons were related to each other in facial masculinity but not attractiveness, providing only partial evidence for ‘sexy sons’.

      3) Parents were similar in attractiveness but masculine men were not partnered to feminine women.

      These findings support some predictions of Fisherian selection theory.

      Humans get roughly half their genes from each parent, but mothers affect their offspring in additional ways. First, there is mtDNA which is inherited only from one’s mother. Second, there is epigenetic inheritance via mothers’ eggs, which covers all their non-genetic qualities of these cells which grow up (post-fertilization) to become humans.

      If a maternally inherited trait reduces the genetic fitness of a woman, then it will be under negative selection, and will be weeded out. If, on the other hand, it reduces the genetic fitness of a man, then it will not be affected at all: this reduction in fitness has no evolutionary effect since maternally inherited traits (e.g., mtDNA) are doomed in male bodies anyway.

      Not surprisingly, such traits have been implicated in male sperm quality conditions, with e.g., specific haplogroups leading to reduced sperm count or mobility.

      Sexual selection theory suggests that humans pick their mates because of their “good genes”. But this raises this issue: if males with good genes are selected for in each generation, then how come is a great reproductive skew maintained in the human species: why do some men produce many offspring while many produce none or a few? And, why do women often “cheat” on their mates, having children with others than their official mates.

      Maternal inheritance explains this paradox: male reproductive variation due to the Y-chromosome or the autosomes can be shaped by evolution to produce males with good (well-adapted) genes, but maternally inherited factors cannot.

      Interestingly, this may solve the paradox of non-inheritance of male attractiveness. While sexy parents have sexy daughters, apparently they don’t tend to have especially attractive sons. This may be due to male-expressed maternally inherited traits. Such traits don’t make their mothers’ attractive (they are male expressed), and they are not inherited from their fathers.

      • glenn says:

        Can I just say how much I appreciate you taking the time to lay this out? While it’s at the limits of my understanding, the general impression I take away is that this field is much more complex than cite/quote mining buffoons on game sites understand. What’s sickening is how many of them wrap up their idiotic views in “science'” that apparently they don’t even understand themselves, yet they correct and hector me.

        You’ll note I never take the pose of a scientist, citing studies and findings etc. Do you want to know why? I’m actually a lifetime armchair student of economics and human history. After about 20 years of my own mostly self-directed study, it became very clear to me that it is actually very hard “to know something” as Richard Feynman says. And that the best academics I came across and listened to were, for the most part, quite humble in their assertions about truth. I also came to understand how much disagreement and uncertainty there were about many issues that the casual person thinkx are settled. And even in those fields, where I do possess enough knowledge to argue some aspects reasonably well, I rarely do so. I’m a spectator and a consumer of the info – and that’s great for me. But I don’t confuse myself and start to believe that I’m on the same level intellectually as someone who’s actually studied these topics formally.

        Perhaps it’s also because I’ve worked with academics in many settings too and am well aware of how deeply they have to dive into a topic to really figure out something new and real. Whatever the reason, it makes my BS detector sound off when many manosphere web-experts make the claims they do.

  6. Moet says:

    Sirtyrion, I found your comments at therationalmale too and I must say, your perspective is very interesting. I have also noticed some commentators and Rollo (the host) go through great lengths to discredit your work. It makes me question if they have something to hide by all the strawman arguments they often resort to…

    While that other imposter (as you say) uses your work, it is nonetheless thought provoking. You should really keep it up and spread your message. I can see it damaging a lot of core game principles and the overall belief that “men can have their cake and eat it too” mentality that runs rampant in the manosphere.

    I would wager that the problem with many top bloggers is that they sacrifice real truths in order to give men hope but little do they know that the mating market is a lot more fatalistic than what other “professionals” would have us believe.

    • sirtyrionlannister says:

      @ Chris,
      “Considering women are the passive sex when it comes to mating, abiding by the feminist norm ensures you will complete far few mating opportunities as you will never be approaching and will instead be waiting on women to directly approach you.”

      You are not adding nothing new. Males that are increasing their courtship effort ( defined as the psychological effort put forth to obtain mates), by communicating sexual interest, can make himself more ‘visible’ to his own subset of potentially receptive females. Mainly there is heritable dispositions would lead individuals to adopt high or low mating-effort tactics. But it can work as a conditional strategy, where social failure would occur first and lead directly to some individuals’ (i.e gamers) adopting high courtship-effort tactics.

      Courtship effort can account for a certain co-variation of mating success to some degree. Evidently if an average guy is approaching plenty of women in a context, that male will have more mating options than if he was doing zero approaches. But this does not mean he has got a higher number of interested matches. He is simply accessing to pre-existing female options that would have never known if he had not initiated any courtship process.

      “Women aren’t attracted to low status males. So not being confident or being submissive indicates that low status and will atleast “bend her choice” away from you. Or disqualify you.”

      And what evidence is there that ‘dominance’ is the determinant of female sexual choice?

      In fact, there’s quite alot of evidence falsifying this premise.

      First, there is no reason to believe that humans evolved in hierarchical tribes. There is a mountain of evidence showing that humans evolved in bands that punished attempts of dominance with social sanctioning, banishment, and death.

      Second, assuming that it were, mate access would be no longer a function of subordinate status concessions in prevailing human populations (compared to the way it works in smaller populations typical of early hominid ‘troops’, and those of other primates), dominance can say nothing about its distribution (given that density dependence means large populations have marginalized mating concessions to a negligible quantity).

      “I’d also wager it matter’s to society, because one of the simplest ways to be resistant to maladaptive socialisation practices is to just be resistant to socialization”

      What worries me is how our modern socio-cultural environment have shaped the whole mating landscape. I do not think that current culture affects the male courtship pattern, but the outcomes.
      Maybe I should tell you how selection on female choosiness influences number of matings, acceptance thresholds, etc, according to various ecological/social conditions.

      But I’ll leave that for another time.

      • chris says:

        You are not adding nothing new.

        I am showing that enculturation/socialisation practices have an effect on mating success for a male.

        And what evidence is there that ‘dominance’ is the determinant of female sexual choice?

        5 minutes in google scholar with the search terms “women attraction dominance” turned up a multitude of studies attesting to this proposition. Most of them are about the olvulatory shift women experience in relation to masculine males.

        Here’s one I found on the first page that directly relates to this proposition.

        http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/52/4/730/

        Four experiments examined the relation between behavioral expressions of dominance and the heterosexual attractiveness of males and females. Predictions concerning the relation between dominance and heterosexual attraction were derived from a consideration of sex role norms and from the comparative biological literature. All four experiments indicated an interaction between dominance and sex of target. Dominance behavior increased the attractiveness of males, but had no effect on the attractiveness of females. The third study indicated that the effect did not depend on the sex of the rater or on the sex of those with whom the dominant target interacted. The fourth study showed that the effect was specific to dominance as an independent variable and did not occur for related constructs (aggressive or domineering). This study also found that manipulated dominance enhanced only a male’s sexual attractiveness and not his general likability. The results were discussed in terms of potential biological and cultural causal mechanisms. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

        Here is another study, that I didn’t find using google scholar, I just remembered reading it (or an article talking about it) from a while back.

        http://psp.sagepub.com/content/20/2/210.abstract

        Previous research indicates that males, compared with females, evaluate their relationships less favorably after exposure to physically attractive members of the other sex. An evolutionary model predicts a converse effect after exposure to opposite-sex individuals high in dominance, which should lead females to evaluate their current relationships less favorably than males. Women and men rated their current relationships after being exposed to opposite-sex targets varying in both dominance and physical attractiveness. Consistent with earlier research, males exposed to physically attractive, as compared with average, targets rated their current relationships less favorably. Males’ relationship evaluations were not directly influenced by the targets’ dominance, although the effect of physical attractiveness was significant only for men exposed to women low in dominance. However; females’ evaluations of their relationships were unaffected by exposure to physically attractive males but were lower after exposure to targets high in dominance. These data support predictions derived from an evolutionary model and suggest that such models can be used to generate testable hypotheses about ongoing social cognition.

        I do not think that current culture affects the male courtship pattern

        This might relate

        http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2007/10/12/0146167207305856

        • sirtyrionlannister says:

          @ Chris,

          I am familiar with most of the studies you cite above. In the future, you should refer us to the source instead of pasting lengthy excerpts on something that goes into a tangent.

          First, all these studies are based in surveys (which ignores the broader and real ethological context ), and reported preferences need not correspond to actual mate choices in the wild,

          Second, even if we assume some validity to this type of research,there is no clear consensus on its definition:

          1) The dominance dilemma: Do women really prefer dominant mates?

          Snyder et al (2008) found that women preferred high to low dominance, but only:

          (a) when displayed in the context of an athletic competition and

          (b) in ratings of attractiveness and desirability as a short-term (vs. long-term) mate.

          So it seems women perceive physical dominance to be related to both attractiveness and social dominance. Somewhat correlated with athletic and sporting ability. Male body shape and muscularity are among the traits that would reflect fitness and, therefore, seem likely to affect the attractiveness of potential dating partners.

          2) Burger and Cosby (2002):

          – The findings suggest that a simple dominant–nondominant dimension may not be very useful when predicting women’s mate preferences.

          – describing men as either dominant or nondominant decreased the desirability of hypothetical dating and romantic partners for undergraduate women

          Do Women Prefer Dominant Men? The Case of the Missing Control Condition

    • glenn says:

      I actually believe that many manosphere bloggers and game types are working from two primary motivations:

      1. Most have no other notoriety in their lives. The aggrandizement of ego one experiences from being seen as a “leader” in a “movement’ is incredibly powerful. I did a MGTOW (or really, anti-mgtow) YouTube channel for a while and ended up with over 500 subs and 22,000 plus views, did 40+ vids etc. What’s different for me is that I have built a “name” for myself in other domains and build traffic for businesses, so I didn’t let it sway me. In the end, I found that most MGTOWs aren’t about reason, they are about making a virtue of their failures, cynicism and rage and when I pointed out how self-destructive their entire ideology was, I was attacked by the rabid hyenas who peddle their garbage on other channels. It’s an ingroup/outgroup kind of thing now and it’s part of their identity and ego. Facts don’t really matter that much in these situations.

      2. Many are monetizing. Sandman’s daily 10 minutes of hate or Molyneux jumping on Manosphere bandwagon or the PUA sites – they all have a financial interest in perpetuating the lies they wrap themselves around. AVFM? They measure their success based on traffic, lol. Fyi, I offered an alternate analysis of their traffic to Paul Elam and some others there and I was pilloried. When it becomes your means of surviving and making a living, well, people become just as locked in as the first group I describe does. As well, many of the pseudo-intellects in this space suffer from both problems.

      But from a broader perspective, I do have some sympathy for the guys who think they are doing God’s work. Given runaway selection and the primary role looks play in women’s pursuit of short term mating strategies. I get why so many losers in the mating game are enraged. They were told that if they were ‘good men’ the land of milk, honey and pussy would be their’s. Lol. Not so, and never was and they simply can’t handle it.

      I also think many of them would rather sit in that rage and disillusionment and feel like a victim rather than be an adult and deal with the world as it is. I would say Great, more for me, but the sad truth is that most of these guys were never in the game to begin with. What they don’t want to seem to process is that life itself is a competition for survival and limited resources. We over-reproduce because of that fact. There are winners and losers in many aspects of my life, business, investing, sports – it’s endless actually. Knowing that fucking women is a competition energizes me. I get what they are looking for now and am out to maximize how I come out in that calculation. These other guys? Ultimately, for the most part, they are just a bunch of freaking whiners. It’s the same in my business, many people fail and set up the world as uniquely unfair and mistreating them, I can even sympathize but I never allow such thoughts to stay for long.

      Last. Rollo. I think his case is a bit different. You see this at times in the Game world, where a naturally attractive guy with a lot of success with women folds himself in. Game gives him a “reason” why he’s a winner in the mating game with his wife. It can’t just be that he still makes her hot, that wouldn’t validate his sense of his own superiority. He also married a very traditional woman, a rarity in this day and age, who actually kind of demanded he behave like a traditional man. So many people do not understand how complex systems work, but in fact, their will always be variations and exceptions like Rollo and it doesn’t prove a damned thing. Other than keeping your woman attracted to you will keep her around.

  7. sirtyrionlannister says:

    @ Moet,

    I have no problem with that impostor, he seems to have been doing a commendable job of spreading my ideas, participating in at anti-game tangent in at Tomassi´s Blog.

    I would also like to elaborate on this whole strawman meme that typical AFCs are somehow hindering themselves by pursuing women who are exceptionally attractive.

    Controlled testing (as well as agreement within a broad evolutionary synthesis) supports the conclusion that large populations of *women* opportunistically tend to small populations of ‘choice’ males in their mate choices – rendering an acutely imbalanced mating dynamic, given the opportunity.

    So, whatever reality PUAs purport to be observing (ie. where the cause is down to male ‘pickiness’), is in stark disagreement with anything approaching scientific inquiry.

    And what is your evidence for these claims(ie. claims are trivial, justifications are a bitch)?

    Sounds like knee-jerk female apologism(without any justified basis) to me, shifting the onus onto the non-limiting sex (ie. a male).

    Consider that females are the reproductively limiting sex (rate limiting in reproductive success) – which manifests in *all* dimensions of mate choice(in other words, females are more selective in all their mating considerations).

    • glenn says:

      Exactly my experience.

    • cool says:

      ”Consider that females are the reproductively limiting sex (rate limiting in reproductive success) – which manifests in *all* dimensions of mate choice(in other words, females are more selective in all their mating considerations).”

      I think this could be amplified to some degree by the increased risks and consequences sex poses to women vs men. The small number of women who arent so limiting in there sexual partners are labelled as sluts, so going against the trend of increased selectivity and restrictiveness towards sexuality is something that society looks dosent hold in very high regard. I think the more promiscuous women arent just women with there attraction triggers gone awry, but rather women who arent that affected by the conditioning and gender roles imposed by society.

      I am in no way saying hypergamy in short term mate selection exists to a huge extent, but i think the problem is exacerbated by culture.

      And from my experiance males and females are equally selective in long term pairings. I dont see huge disparity between the male and females attractiveness with the average couple.

  8. sirtyrionlannister says:

    @ Glen,

    “It’s funny, you net out what I spent a year distilling down from all the game bullshit. Gauging feedback and nurturing interest when it is present is something that is useful. Women let you know that they are interested”.

    I agree. This have to do with the role of automatic regulatory processes in relationship initiation. Women are reluctant to risk alienating high-quality males, and unconsciously are communicating some attentional bias towards attractive men. Helpful for mate detection.

    By the other hand, any affected/token disinterest on a female’s part would be very transparent. And her receptivity would come through loud and clear (in essence, her affectations would resemble that of playful ‘flirting’ – quite different from a conventional shit test connotation).

  9. Chuck says:

    Looks like Krauser has a post attacking your positions Sir:
    http://krauserpua.com/2014/10/21/players-outrank-scientists-in-the-art-of-seduction/

    He also mentions you, Glenn. It’s a shame in a way, because you guys make complete sense but some are just too caught up in the cargo-cult reasoning to understand.

  10. sirtyrionlannister says:

    @ Chuck,

    Thanks for providing that link. Anyway spurious PUA pseudoscience doesn’t fit the overall picture where real science does. If they don’t know what they’re talking about, it’s easy to find naive people who tells them what they want to hear.

  11. Wangmen Throb Meister says:

    Too bad all you pencil dicks out there insist on denying the ubiquitous truth – we 12 inch dong wielders, in the end, can pretty much have our way with any broad we want. Do not believe for a second any girl who pretends that there’s such a thing as too big. They are all, repeat ALL, desperately hungry for the longest, thickest, dong meat they can get their oily palms all over… facts are facts….time to face them shrimpos!

  12. Jimi says:

    I know this is a terribly late reply.

    One very important thing that’s missing when evaluating pictures is how the females look naked.

    A neighbor of mine had been showing some obvious interest in me but something wasn’t quite adding up. At first glance my thoughts were that she was way out of my league. She had a really attractive face and what seemed like a tight body. She was living with a man so I wasn’t going to try anything but I was going over the whole thing in my head thinking there has to be something I’m not seeing in all of this as I’m no high status, movie star or anything.

    Then I saw it. I noticed when she was wearing spandex she had a saggy ass. While I would have absolutely no problem fucking this woman everything began to make sense. She had a great face, skin, dressed well, but that one flaw was the reason she showed more obvious interest in me than other women that I’d rate as equally attractive. She was very good at hiding it, even while wearing short, shorts.

    They’d hang down right at the bottom of her cheeks so you could see her nice, long legs but nothing higher. When she wore tight jeans you couldn’t tell because they were essentially lifting the cheeks. I witnessed something similar at a jazz concert. I saw a guy I’d consider below average, at least in the face, with a woman who was pretty cute. Then I spotted her ass. It was sloppy and a bit misshapen. All these things matter, not just a face with clothes covering up the body.

  13. Pablo Gomez says:

    Thanks for posting our article. Can you please use the appropriate citation:

    Gomez, P., & Erber, R. (2013). Is selectivity an aphrodisiac?. Universitas Psychologica, 12(SPE5), 1601-1607.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s