In almost all speed-dating events, women sit in stationary positions and men rotate to talk with each of them. When Finkel and Eastwick set up a dating event like that, the standard result bore out — women were more selective. But when they reversed the roles and had women rotate, that was no longer the case. Suddenly, the men became more selective and the women less so.
Well most women nowadays are very picky when it comes to relationships since they want nothing but the very best of all and will never settle for less because of their greed and selfishness. And very money hungry as well these days too.
Women are pickier because they have all the power in the dating/mating/sex scene. The woman ultimately picks the man, it's always been this way. Theyr picky b/c they can afford to be picky... Personally I think it's out-dated, feminism gave women the ability to opt out of traditional gender roles, to pick which role they wanted to follow, or switch back and forth to w/e benefits her at the moment. Whereas men are still largely relegated to our role, women are given options, men are given responsibilities. Given this, if women can leave the house and hold down a job, they can also carry their own weight 50/50 in courtship. They shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too, ie, they shouldn't get the best parts of both roles and leave nothing but the bad stuff for the men. I mean, if it's "just biology" that men have to do all the work to get women, well, then by that same darwinist logic, it would be "just biology" that women couldn't leave their houses.
Women. women. women. But if you look at the data, women don't change there pickyness that much based on who rotates. Men do. Look at figure 1c on page 4 of the paper:
I'm surprised no one has suggested a selection bias here. The women taking part in speed-dating events aren't representative of the general population of women, which I assume the surveys sampled. Perhaps this subpopulation has greater preference for good-looking men, which might make them more likely to speed-date over more traditional methods of seeking partners. However, I can't really think of good reasons for the higher appeal of speed-dating to such women.
I'm very interested in the recursivity between behaviour and environment. It looks as though this study shows selectivity (usually seen as an individual trait, as in 'I can't help it, I'm just choosy') is conditioned by institutional context. I wonder if a similar set of experiments could be conducted, in which women and men were allowed to choose whether they wanted to move about (be chosen) or stay put (do the choosing). Somewhat connected: I've recently written about the cultural context of tipping and how it affects the people giving tips.
I don’t know, maybe I misread – seems to me that if I’m stationary and different prospective mates are coming to me… well, I’d probably feel more empowered, more selective. As far as institutions influencing such tendencies? Well, chicken/egg comes to mind.
“My hope with the discussions below is that they will help other guys hopscotch past a lot of the conceptual traps that hold us back.” –Nonmonogamy for Men
Psychological barriers? Value system? Selective Self respect/integrity? The other day someone was saying how because of the recession shoplifting had increased dramatically. My thoughts on this is that these people are basically continuing to do what they’ve done for years, on toxic credit, condoned by governments that can’t, or refuse to, legislate/execute the hard facts of unsustainable economics and therefore pander to selfish sex obsessed consumers (just take statistics on pornography). Everything is so hideously distorted I’ll call it ‘shagflation’ (the cause of the so called recession).
I think an important issue here is confidence. But a confidence that may have been a win win for hunter gatherers far more often translates into narcissism and crime in the modern context, but so long as the conscience is sufficiently dimmed with alcohol it need not impinge on a ‘good’ time.
One should a discrepancy between individual's long term wants and what they actually pursue, since the relationship market doesn't provide long term goods (say, a 10 year relationship contract) but a series of short term goods (coffee date, night out, high liquidity marriage, etc.)
Adding to this, I know I would think much less of a woman if she was obviously attracted to alpha-type males, even if she didn't sleep with them. I never think much of the female groupies my alpha-ish male friends have, and I've noticed I immediately become less attracted to them when I learn they've slept with my alpha friends.
If this is a general trend with men, it would explain why women don't admit their preferences.
I think speed dating is just a easy way to meet a lot of people in a short time, and decide if you want to date one.
At first glance it seems like men admit more of what they want than women. I'm young, rich, and (according to women) very attractive, but unless I use game the opposite sex generally ignores me. Women aren't able or willing to communicate why I'm not attracting them without game, though I of course know why. I've had female friends who were completely unwilling to admit why they didn't like a suitor, though they would tell me in private (in all cases it was a lack of physical attractiveness).
Why would our genes or memes evolve to understand our own preferences if those preferences look bad in the eyes of others?
Women: Institutions make me picky.
Also women: I don't participate in neutral institutions that won't make me picky.
Sounds like projection.
Well most women nowadays are very picky when it comes to relationships since they want nothing but the very best of all and will never settle for less because of their greed and selfishness. And very money hungry as well these days too.
Women are pickier because they have all the power in the dating/mating/sex scene. The woman ultimately picks the man, it's always been this way. Theyr picky b/c they can afford to be picky... Personally I think it's out-dated, feminism gave women the ability to opt out of traditional gender roles, to pick which role they wanted to follow, or switch back and forth to w/e benefits her at the moment. Whereas men are still largely relegated to our role, women are given options, men are given responsibilities. Given this, if women can leave the house and hold down a job, they can also carry their own weight 50/50 in courtship. They shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too, ie, they shouldn't get the best parts of both roles and leave nothing but the bad stuff for the men. I mean, if it's "just biology" that men have to do all the work to get women, well, then by that same darwinist logic, it would be "just biology" that women couldn't leave their houses.
I agree it is more complicated. There usually isn't one factor that makes up a person's decision; there are multiple.
Woman don't mind about the looks, they want the money. Even if you are an ugly man but you are rich, then you can get the girl that you wanted.
Women. women. women. But if you look at the data, women don't change there pickyness that much based on who rotates. Men do. Look at figure 1c on page 4 of the paper:
http://faculty.wcas.northwe...
Both genders are more likely to say yes if they are the ones rotating, but this effect is about 2.5 times greater for the men than the women.
I'm surprised no one has suggested a selection bias here. The women taking part in speed-dating events aren't representative of the general population of women, which I assume the surveys sampled. Perhaps this subpopulation has greater preference for good-looking men, which might make them more likely to speed-date over more traditional methods of seeking partners. However, I can't really think of good reasons for the higher appeal of speed-dating to such women.
I'm very interested in the recursivity between behaviour and environment. It looks as though this study shows selectivity (usually seen as an individual trait, as in 'I can't help it, I'm just choosy') is conditioned by institutional context. I wonder if a similar set of experiments could be conducted, in which women and men were allowed to choose whether they wanted to move about (be chosen) or stay put (do the choosing). Somewhat connected: I've recently written about the cultural context of tipping and how it affects the people giving tips.
I don’t know, maybe I misread – seems to me that if I’m stationary and different prospective mates are coming to me… well, I’d probably feel more empowered, more selective. As far as institutions influencing such tendencies? Well, chicken/egg comes to mind.
“My hope with the discussions below is that they will help other guys hopscotch past a lot of the conceptual traps that hold us back.” –Nonmonogamy for Men
Psychological barriers? Value system? Selective Self respect/integrity? The other day someone was saying how because of the recession shoplifting had increased dramatically. My thoughts on this is that these people are basically continuing to do what they’ve done for years, on toxic credit, condoned by governments that can’t, or refuse to, legislate/execute the hard facts of unsustainable economics and therefore pander to selfish sex obsessed consumers (just take statistics on pornography). Everything is so hideously distorted I’ll call it ‘shagflation’ (the cause of the so called recession).
I think an important issue here is confidence. But a confidence that may have been a win win for hunter gatherers far more often translates into narcissism and crime in the modern context, but so long as the conscience is sufficiently dimmed with alcohol it need not impinge on a ‘good’ time.
*One should expect
One should a discrepancy between individual's long term wants and what they actually pursue, since the relationship market doesn't provide long term goods (say, a 10 year relationship contract) but a series of short term goods (coffee date, night out, high liquidity marriage, etc.)
Adding to this, I know I would think much less of a woman if she was obviously attracted to alpha-type males, even if she didn't sleep with them. I never think much of the female groupies my alpha-ish male friends have, and I've noticed I immediately become less attracted to them when I learn they've slept with my alpha friends.
If this is a general trend with men, it would explain why women don't admit their preferences.
I think speed dating is just a easy way to meet a lot of people in a short time, and decide if you want to date one.
At first glance it seems like men admit more of what they want than women. I'm young, rich, and (according to women) very attractive, but unless I use game the opposite sex generally ignores me. Women aren't able or willing to communicate why I'm not attracting them without game, though I of course know why. I've had female friends who were completely unwilling to admit why they didn't like a suitor, though they would tell me in private (in all cases it was a lack of physical attractiveness).
Why would our genes or memes evolve to understand our own preferences if those preferences look bad in the eyes of others?
They signal that they have standards and, thus, have been with average women in the past.
What signalling benefit to men get by saying they just want hot women? Countersignal of toughness?