So the other day most recent OKTrends, which routinely analyzes OKCupid's dating-site user statistics, came up with the paradoxical finding that, at least for women who are contacted by men, it seems that women who are rated beautiful by some men and unattractive to others are contacted more often than women who are uniformly rated beautiful. Or universally rated cute.
Economist Alex Tabarrok closed his analysis of the analysis with an uncharacteristically acute observation about rules of attraction.
In the marriage market what you want is not so much to increase your attractiveness to the average person but rather to the one person who will cherish your unique features. Thus--conditional on attracting a decent number of suitors from a reasonable pool etc.--what you want to do is accentuate your unique features even if doing so reduces your average ranking. In short, heteroscedasticity makes you hot.
Source: Marginal Revolution
I think that's a wonderful insight. I also think it may illuminate the one genuinely positive benefit of so-called "pickup artist" techniques: inducing yourself to make contact with more people than you might naturally be inclined to do. Because I think that more than any specific "technique" is the actual "trick." (To the extent they don't actively antagonize women, e.g. "make the ho say no," PUA "tricks" may be useful for conversation starting. But I'm almost certain that graduates of, for instance, Dale Carnegie courses are going to be more universally successful.)
Update: Incidentally, when I mentioned Dale Carnegie a minute ago I wasn't damning with faint praise. It's an awesome course not only for public speaking or self-esteem but for developing genuine, generous interest in other people -- the key, incidentally but non-trivially, to its promise to help you "win friends and influence people." It's pretty good stuff.
Tags:




I think part of the effect
Submitted by Xakudo (not verified) on Wed, 2011-01-12 18:34.I think part of the effect that OKTrends has noticed is due to guys being hesitant to message women who are conventionally ("universally") attractive because they assume there is more competition for them. I have this tendency myself. I aim for the girls that I find attractive, but which are attractive in a unique not-universally-attractive way. For example, I have a thing for girls with noticible hair on their forearms. I also have a thing for girls with big noses. Why? I don't know. But in the end I'm more comfortable approaching them because I assume there is less competition.
However, certainly there is also a sense of uniqueness that I appreciate simply for itself. Some conventionally attractive women come off as being clones of a cultural architype, especially when they dress up in a trendy fashion, and that can be offputting. Whereas un-conventionally attractive women have something unique about them, and feel more like real people. (A inappropriate judge-a-book-by-its-cover attitude to be sure, but there it is. I tend to write off men in a similar fashion, which is also inappropriate.)
Lastly, I think you may have a monolith-ized view of the PUA community. There is certainly a lot of (highly) problematic stuff in there, but there is also a lot of good advice if one has the moral scruples to recognize what is and isn't ethical.
it seems that women who are
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-01-12 23:40.it seems that women who are rated beautiful by some men and unattractive to others are contacted more often than women who are uniformly rated beautiful. Or universally rated cute.
IIRC, the article asserted the latter but not the former. I believe they only compared women with the same average rating, and found that the ones with polarized ratings got more messages than those with consistently average ones.
Did you mean to call him Dale
Submitted by Rose (not verified) on Sat, 2011-01-15 06:25.Did you mean to call him Dale Carnage? :)
Despite my charming and
Submitted by figleaf on Sat, 2011-01-15 09:21.Despite my charming and rustic spelling, no, in this case I really didn't mean to call him Dale Carnage. I'd better fix the typo, eh? :-)
Doh, better make that typos! I misspelled it not once but twice. Different spellings though so at least I'm consistent. :-)
Thanks for the head's up, Rose.
fl