TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

617
618

That the sexual marketplace is an absolutely brutal place for men is no mystery, but it is still impressive to see the numeric data confirming it. Aviv Goldgeier, an engineer at dating app Hinge, presented the likes distribution as such, but I find that table to be poorly readable, so I re-calculated the values in a way that's more clear:

Percentile range Likes shares
Top 1% 16.4%
Top 2%-5% 24.7%
Top 6%-10% 16.9%
Top 11%-50% 37.7%
Bottom 50% 4.3%

If this doesn't look too bad to you, consider that each bracket is several times the size of the preceding one: the 2%-5% range gets a higher share of likes than the 1%, but they spread that share over 4 times as many men. If we normalize for the size of each bracket, here's how the distribution looks:

Percentile range Normalized likes score
Top 1% 16.4
Top 2%-5% 6.2
Top 6%-10% 4.2
Top 11%-50% 0.9
Bottom 50% 0.09

A top 1% Chad gets 70 times as many likes a bottom 50% man. Of the top 11%-50% bracket, I have little doubt that with more granular data we'd see most of their likes going to the top 11%-20% of men; in fact, I'd strongly suspect we'd get exactly a classic 80-20 Pareto distribution. And of the 4.3% that goes to the bottom 50%, I don't doubt many are bots and most of the remainder go to the top percentiles of that bottom 50%.


[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon279 points280 points  (49 children) | Copy Link

From the article:

The reason for this gender disparity is probably not that women are more appearance-focused than men. The most likely explanation is that women, who are generally less likely to initiate contact, have a higher threshold when they do so. For many women, though certainly not all, if they are going to break with gender norms, it is only going to be for a really attractive guy.

This is bullshit, because this is "likes", not initiation.

The real factors are that women only go for top top men when they want casual sex. Partly because they're hypergamous (got to have the best), partly because they can afford this strategy (the demand for casual sex is much much higher on the male side).

The result is that Men will click like on all women they're prepared to fuck. Women click on top men because they can, and they still get hard dick. The effort is negative for women (validation and dates paid for), while the cost is much higher for men (texting, saying the right thing, paying for dates if you're stupid, rejection).

So our mediocre HB6 girl clicks on Chads until she gets fucked, while Billy Beta has to click through hundreds of girls to hope to get a response.

[–]2Derek1382[S] 63 points64 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I avoided discussing the data on women because it's useless without a volume comparison. The distribution is flatter but still unequal, sure, but what does that mean in practice? we know from ample data that ugly men can go forever without a single like, whereas female profiles are likely to get likes from real humans even just because of the dudes swiping right on everyone. And of those dudes, I guarantee some are willing to fuck even if she looks like an orc.

[–]dec_cutter30 points31 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Actually the reason women's activity is more top-heavy than men's is because women are more selective.

1, evolutionary reasons

2, the simple fact that a hot guy will actually 'slum' and fuck all sorts of chicks, even 100 in on week if he desired to. So the 'harem' strategy actually results in these chicks thinking they got a shot.

3, legions of doting chodes have inflated her own sense of pussy power

[–]2Derek1382[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually the reason women's activity is more top-heavy than men's is because women are more selective.

I said nothing about why women are more selective, my reply is on why I'm not doing a comparison between men's and women's like distributions.

[–]casemodsalt29 points30 points  (33 children) | Copy Link

I literally just spam the heart button till I run out and I rarely get any matches. Then they usually don't respond if we do match, if they are what I call cute.

The ugly ones message me first. Ugh..

[–]JTPish53 points54 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

That's a very bad idea since it ruins your elo score. Best to swipe left on the undesirables.

[–]Rollo_Mayhem313 points14 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

can someone explain what practical impact the elo scores has.

I usually take my time and I am very selective. Then I read somewhere that it is more efficient to simply swipe right and then select from those that match with you. So I started doing that.

While I do get some matches, the matches that I actually meet, almost always have converted into lays same day/night. So from that limited perspective online dating has been hugely successful for me. Of course, I am not meeting girls every week but when I do, it works.

[–]corsega19 points20 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

If your Elo score is low, your profile won't be seen by hotter girls, and you'll be shown uglier girls in your stack in general.

I've verified this by resetting a profile and autoswiping, I received only 9 matches in a week that I considered bangable, meanwhile I get around 30 bangable matches if I manually swipe (around a 60% swipe right percentage).

[–]Profdiddy0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Any links to confirm this please?

[–]corsega2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't have any specific links, you'll have to trust my word and that I run a blog that is pretty analytical about online game.

[–]Rollo_Mayhem30 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

can I increase my elo by reverting back to swiping with more discretion?

[–]corsega0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I haven't tested that yet, so not sure. At this point I don't think it makes sense to spend time testing as we know that Elo is trashed with constant right swiping, so it's better to just reset and recreate the account.

Something I do intend to test is if randomly swiping 60% of girls still trashes your Elo.

[–]zephyrprime0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You don't get shown to women. There are basically 10 men to 1 chick on tinder and the men look at 10x as many profiles. So it's easy to for a single man to not show up on ANY chicks profiles and despite doing this Tinder will never have a shortage of men to show women. If you aren't even getting matches with bots and gold diggers, you know your profile isn't being shown to anyone.

[–]Snoopy_Doggy 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Online dating doesn't work for most men, even if you're attractive and have a nice profile photo it's a huge scam and waste of time. In person works best. Actually Facebook works out too sometimes, because they at least know who you are and what you do.

[–]ioncehadsexinapool21 points22 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Friends have friends has by far been the most effective for me. Or befriend an uggo on tinder and invade her social circle

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock24 points25 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I'm tall and attractive. Started using tinder 2-weeks ago. Gotten over 50+ matches from attractive women since. But matches don't mean shit. More than half of them don't even respond (just looking for validation). Of the half that do, a portion stop mid convo (even the ones they initiated). Some unmatch mid-convo for no reason. Many end up living where logistics is bad, or don't have cars. Got 2 bangs from the same girl last week. Got a few numbers. I think that as long as I can continue the one new girl bang a week, it's worth it. 1/week from just swiping is 52 a year. Pretty g. I'll take it. It's my only portal to the 18-22 year olds for now. Haven't used other apps though.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It's my only portal to the 18-22 year olds for now.

Guessing you're in your 40's too....I cut my Facebook age in half, while on Tinder I just hide the fake age. Brand new pics, gray hair not dyed out. I get matches, haven't been mercilessly escalating (new year, though).

What's your approach?

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Some bad boy pics. Shirtless pics in a social setting. I'm late to the game though. Women are desensitized to it now. I'm sure I'd slay in it's infancy.

But your main concern, how to be around the 18-22 year olds, is a much deeper question than you realize. It's a proximity issue that is built in the way society is structured by age and class system. I had a long, well-received comment that discussed that a few months ago, but I'm still working on the post version. I'd rather do that and answer it in full. It's a big problem.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm looking forward to it.

I had a splendid, 4.5 year relationship with a girl who was 19 when we got together....I was 39. It was random as hell, I was a non-traditional student, so we met in college.

I'm now a professional so the college angle is clearly in the past. I do martial arts as well as hiking/climbing/backpacking, all stuff that kind of caters to a younger crowd.

It's like....yeah, women my age are post Wall, but there's more to it than that, you know? I'm somewhat useless to women our age. I don't have kids, I don't want kids or anything to do with kids, my life revolves around fitness, work, and adventuring. I've thought about whoring myself out to rich older women while banging young ones, but that's a different story.

Anyway.....my highest rated comment here had to do with having a young smokeshow on my arm. Younger women had no problem with it. Put together young men didn't bat an eye. Loser young men and women over 30 hated it. Old men fucking loved it, shot me grins and even thumbs up on a regular basis.

I've chewed some on the proximity angle. I've deliberately crafted my lifestyle to be much more a dude in his late 20's than mid 40's....but I don't act like a kid, that would be stupid, my girl was with me because I wasn't a kid. You're right, it's a big problem.

I don't know how it ties into proximity, but the assumption that someone is being manipulated really sets my blood to boil. Does it happen? Sure. But in this case, there was no manipulation. She won. She went from an awkward girl coming out of a cult (yes I consider conservative Judaism a cult) to a really wonderful and well loved girl......guys my age usually spend $200 to fuck a girl like her, so I saved what $80,000? Seriously, though, there's all the societal bullshit going on, then there is me recently going out to dinner with this girl's father because we're quite fond of each other......trust me, it's not because I fucked his young daughter over (or was played to be a sucker myself).

[–]domoli0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

A good post on this would be well appreciated, standing by...

[–]smirk_addict3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I like that strategy. I just want consistent sex from attractive women. FWBs and what not. My friend has had similar experiences as you. Tall, fit, good looking dude. He got hella matches and super likes on tinder but little to no result. Most girls just wanted to talk. He told me in the months he used it he must’ve banged like 2 or 3 girls. But his Facebook? He was murdering it there.

[–]1TRUEKING1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

what do you mean by his facebook? do you randomly dm a girl on facebook to hookup? I feel like instagram would be better right? I find it mad weird to use facebook for that because that's not the intention of the facebook app whereas tinder, everyone knows the goal is to hookup

[–]smirk_addict-2 points-1 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

It’s more to it than that. But since you find it weird I won’t go into detail. Don’t want to make you more uncomfortable.

[–]1TRUEKING1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

well i find it weird, but im also curious and interested to what he does haha

[–]kenpachitz 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Dunno about him. I don’t mind.

[–]smirk_addict-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

My buddy owns his own business. He’s in sales. He has two separate accounts. A business one and a personal. He pays Facebook to run his ads monthly. He’s tall, fit, white and has some tats. He has some professional pics that he sometimes post on both accounts. He post a lot of gym selfies, funny shit, his cars, check stubs..etc.. So people see his ads constantly, and he presents himself as having a cool interesting and successful life. Girls were always sliding in his DMs. He didn’t even have to try. We know what it is. Looks, Money, Status. He’d send me screen shots all the time. Eventually they would always try to lock him down but he’d move on. He’s married now to some fitness model. But she’s crazy as fuck. He has 4 kids. All by hot girls. All crazy as Fuck..

[–]1Revo_Luzione-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

. He has 4 kids. All by hot girls. All crazy as Fuck..

This is an interesting strategy. Evolution favors the bold.

[–]Luckyluke231 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

had tinder become a joke of the online dating world? like... I swear it's ONLY used for validation.

edit: you seem like a guy who could use ALL the dating apps. could you use some diffrent ones and write up a report on which are good and which aren't? that would be cool. I mean you could do it while you take a shit

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's because the online dating app has long peaked. In it's infancy, many a dude were slaying.

For online dating, there is but one man you must reference here Online Dating Prophet Omlalahammed. He is in the askTRP sidebar "Everything Omlala has were written".

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If you are a high status man, you can have success in both online and in person approaching. The more of your status you derive from your appearance, the more relative success you will have online vs in person. I see no reason why single men should not have online dating apps though. Online and in person approaching are not mutually exclusive. You can spend 10 minutes a day on tinder and greatly increase your success with women. Break out the app while you are taking a dump in the morning, riding the train home from work, or waiting for your buddy to come over before you go to the bars.

[–]chemicalprogrammer7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Men want sex more than women, therefore women get to be more choosy. Simple supply and demand + biology.

[–]TheReformist945 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No,women want sex as much as men,just not with most men

[–]CreatedItJust2Saythi0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Female inferiority needs to be picky. Male superiority is the promiscuous party.

Find a single blog out there about how sexy are fat men, old men, male amputees, etc, which is run by a woman and I'm turning blue pill

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

This is bullshit, because this is "likes", not initiation.

Hinge requires messages to be sent with likes.

Just tried it again, I'm retarded.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Ah, ok.

Are these initiations or replies?

Given the skewed nature of online dating (vastly more male initiation than female), I'm surprised it's not even more skewed than it is.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hinge basically by design blurs the line between likes and initiation. When you like a profile it has to be a profile pic or part of the bio. I was under the impression that likes have to be sent with a message, but doesn't appear to be the case.

They're still likes, but they frame it as a "initiate with this part of the profile" thing, in an effort to get rid of binge swiping.

[–]dereko33 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Consider correcting your earlier comment so 100 more people aren't misinformed.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Consider correcting your earlier comment so 100 more people aren't misinformed

Look again at the comment I replied to, you'll see it has been corrected and that mine stands as valid.

Consider deleting your comment, seeing as it is you that is in the wrong. You wouldn't like to be a hypocrite would you?

[–]Philadelphian51-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You sure know how to steer off topic and infer from stereo types rather than actual statistics

[–]2Dmva100104 points105 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

You are either her cock, wallet, or handkerchief. Even if you have what it takes to be 'Mr right' and be all 3, dont.

[–]Werewolf35b13 points14 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

What is a "hankerchief" in this context,?

[–]DragonBornX4573 points74 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

My guess is it's a "shoulder to cry on" analogy

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck. I'm screenshotting this so I can remember to use this in the future.

[–]Newbosterone29 points30 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Confirming this from OkCupid:

Women rated an incredible 80% of men as below median.

[–]Junted55 points56 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

The solution, (if seen as an issue):

  1. Build something and yourself that is top 10% of men worthy.
  2. Don't invest time in viewing the lives of the 10% until you emerge into that bracket.
  3. Keep building.

This is only allowed to bother you if you've tried vigorously to achieve it. Otherwise, accept the data and get back to whatever you were doing that a top 10% man wouldn't be.

[–]2Derek1382[S] 26 points27 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

if seen as an issue

Here's how I see it:

  • the vast majority of men are hardship- and conflict-averse lazy assholes who go through life along the path of least resistance; that they're not being rewarded by online dating is not a problem and might arguably be a good thing

  • a power law distribution like this doesn't arise out of any artificial mechanism, but something much deeper; it's completely pointless to be upset at it, might as well be upset that gravity doesn't let you fly like superman

If you have any sort of self-respect, what you do for your body, mind and social life will be enough to easily put you in the top 20%, and with a little more dedicated effort you can get into the top 10%.It's not an issue on a moral nor on a practical level.

[–]Wolveryn14 points15 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

True but also don’t be ugly more importantly

[–]2Derek1382[S] 27 points28 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

If your facial structure is blackops2cel-tier then yeah, you're shit out of luck. However there's a shit ton of guys who insist they're genetically ugly as an excuse not to better themselves, because it's easier and more comforting to wallow in self-pity than to make something of themselves.

[–]Wolveryn3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe you’re right but the idea of not bettering yourself if you have the opportunity disgusts me to the point of disbelief

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yah ugly fit dudes can still smash.

[–]Omnibrad3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Harvey Weinstein got his dick sucked by women much prettier than anything your ugly fat self has ever porked.

[–]NitricTV1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

He has much more money & power than him too...

[–]ParanoidKasparov-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

My jaw is broken at the chondiles and I grew up with man tits. No excuses focus on the positives but be rational. I'm 6.3 with a good frame on track for 800k this year if I dont fuck it up. I can still and will slay.

[–]dongus881 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Looks at the face gains pictures on the progress pictures subreddit. Lots of people's faces drastically change as they lose weight and get in shape

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

But what if u look ugly in face even when low bf%? Check-mate

[–]Damien_Scott0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Mine certainly did. I'm pretty damn hot now on a good day. I even catch gym bunnies looking at me even though I'm not where I would like to be yet.

[–]Hyperian6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Funny how if it was easy or even fesible to get into the top 10% it wouldn't be the 10%.

It's like people that say just work harder and you'll not be poor.

[–]dongus88-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's possible but not easy. It will be very hard and take years. And if you worked SMARTER you wouldn't be poor

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

easily? why do you say that? if getting into top 20% was easy, don't you think everyone would be doing it?

[–]2Derek1382[S] 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

if getting into top 20% was easy, don't you think everyone would be doing it?

Evidence that humans don't necessarily do easy things to improve their lives is all around us.

Not being a fatass is easy, just control your eating. We even have calories printed on most food, by law.

Not getting into loads of consumer debt is easy, just spend within your means. We have apps for that too.

But most people don't. Traditional wisdom has it that it's because most people behave like herbivores with low time preference, but I think the simpler truth is that most people don't actually want those easy-to-achieve things that they fail to work for. Most people don't want to leave their comfort zone of being fat and uncontrolled. They like it there.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not being a fatass is easy, just control your eating. We even have calories printed on most food, by law.

Being skinny is easy and i find is the norm amongst the 18-30 crowd (at least at my uni). getting into 'jacked' territory is hard.

Not getting into loads of consumer debt is easy, just spend within your means. We have apps for that too.

No debt is easy too - like you said don't spend above your means. getting 7 figures is hard.

What you are saying is a baseline, imo. one should strive for more.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Bs, being muscular doesn't do shit.

[–]Compeliminator-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Its even easier to change nothing and sit on your ass though.

[–]Augustuscrassus2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Word. However for dating apps looks are going to play a much larger role.

[–]1Revo_Luzione91 points92 points  (53 children) | Copy Link

Getting professional pictures makes a big, big difference. If you're reasonably fit, have a decent face, and look your biological age or younger, professional photos can easily get you into the top 5%. I've seen it firsthand. A good buddy of mine went from getting no matches on Tinder, to getting many matches a week, simply by hiring a professional photographer.

[–]2Derek1382[S] 83 points84 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

If you're reasonably fit

That alone will put you in the top 30%, as 70% of men are medically overweight, with 40% being medically obese: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/obesity-overweight.htm

It's really not any kind of enormous effort to be a top 10% man. All it takes is a baseline of self-respect, which says something about how low the bar is set.

[–]foot_odor60 points61 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I've checked the study in the pdf. The numbers are frightening for both genders. The worse category is black females with more than 80% of them being overweight or obese.

[–]frrunkis 3 points3 points [recovered] | Copy Link

What, are you just afraid of a real woman?

[–]GuitarHero0723 points24 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Remember though, the population on dating apps is not representative of the population at large. For starters, you’re going to find a much younger demographic (mostly 18-35). The percentage of obese individuals in this demographic is considerably less than the population at large (although it is still shockingly high in the US and many other developed countries). Also, there is going to be a selection bias; not everyone is going to be on Tinder, Bumble etc.

[–]2Derek1382[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh of course, if we wanted to calculate the real percentages it would get more complicated. But here's the thing: the distributions for weight, muscle mass, grooming habits etc are still so lopsided that it doesn't really matter. Even a first-order imprecise estimate will tell you the truth: being in the top percentile brackets for attractiveness is positively easy, because the bar is set so low.

[–]Momo_dollar2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree but also remember, as pointed out the demographics on dating apps is younger PLUS the guys that join and stay are not likely to be obese or out of shape. Most men are not delusional a fat guy already knows he isn’t made for dating apps, the guys that stay and fail are guys who think they have a chance probably because in real life they do ok. But then they get onto dating apps and it’s a whole different ball game.

[–]GuitarHero071 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In most major cities the competition is going to be a lot stiffer than you seem to be presenting it. That’s not to be defeatist; it is possible to get decent tail on a dating app if you are decent looking (i.e. fit, well dressed, well groomed with good pics etc.).

However there are plenty of 18-35 men on dating apps in any major city who are fit, well-dressed, well-groomed, have game and good pics etc. If you want to get a true idea of your competition, go to a popular nightlife or dining area in your city. I guarantee you will find plenty of guys who meet the aforementioned criteria.

Also keep in mind that the bar is set very low for women as well. A large percentage of the female population is obese or has other unattractive traits. Don’t kid yourself, the competition for the most attractive women (7s and above) will always be tough.

[–]1Revo_Luzione8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's really not any kind of enormous effort to be a top 10% man.

You're correct. Yet the fact that the top 10% is the top 10%, and not the top 50%, is instructive.

90% of people think they are above-average drivers. That means 40% have un-earned self-image inflation.

In reality, improvement is hard. Human nature is capricious, evolution has programmed humans to be efficient (read: lazy). True warrior spirit is rare, thus its value.

Thus, the top 10% is the top 10% for a reason, because if everyone could get there, it wouldn't be the top 10%. Circular logic, but this is why participation trophies are harmful, and competition & thumotic spirit is to be encouraged, stimulated, and rewarded.

[–]mugatucrazypills-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're a lot more likely to be in the top 10% if you aren't invested into a blue pill numale ideology that says there's no such thing or as the top 10%. Or that there "shouldn't " be. Even if you never got there think how much more rewarding and purposeful such a life attempting greatness would be than as a fatalistic say anything doughboy.

[–]frankwashere444 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That alone will put you in the top 30%, as 70% of men are medically overweight, with 40% being medically obese: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/obesity-overweight.htm

You haven't controlled more precisely for age. 70% of men in their 20s are not overweight. Far from it.

[–]LeftHookTKD4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

That alone will put you in the top 30%, as 70% of men are medically overweight, with 40% being medically obese:

What about the undeweight guys? That's not attractive or fit either. Being in good shape is probably top 25% off the bat.

[–]2Derek1382[S] 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

What about the undeweight guys?

1.4% prevalence among American adults, not a comparable problem hence why I omitted them from that first-order analysis.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

1.4% prevalence among American adults

Good Lord, stat of the year.

[–]dereko330 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The thing is, bmi and weight alone does not tell the story of body fat, muscle, and actual sex appeal athletic look.

[–]TheReformist940 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No,it won't.not if you don't have a good face.

[–]silversurfer666 -1 points-1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Just losing weight doesn't put you in the top 30%, nevermind top 10%. An overweight guy who is tall and has good facial bone structure will mog an athletic average looking guy.

Also if men begin to slim down, then that raises the bar. Now being in the top 10-30% has even more requirements. I live in a European country with low obesity rates. I am average looking but athletic and have taken professional photos, still barely any luck on these dating apps. The competition is insane.

I suggest you make a fake account as a female, and see who the guys you're competing with actually look like. Not a lot of fat guys will even bother making a Tinder account.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I suggest you make a fake account as a female, and see who the guys you're competing with actually look like.

I'm guessing that's a bad idea.

[–]smirk_addict10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I really need to do this but I want to cut more weight first. Especially after the holidays. I talked about this with a female friend and it was fulll of red pill truths. At first she said she thinks guys that do that are try hard. Then later she says she wants to be the one to take the pics. Women by design try to discourage men in the sexual market place. Then to have some type of power over me she offered to take the pics. That way she could take credit for my success or tell me it’s because of my looks or try hard pics if I don’t get more matches.

[–]1Revo_Luzione5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

After a while, it becomes obvious when women are saying things to a guy to discourage him from increasing his SMV. Call it the Red Pill of Relative Female SMV Arbitrage by Sabotage. Welcome to one of those experiences. There will be more.

[–]LuvBeer8 points9 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

I see how this intuitively makes sense, but if you look at the photos of females aged 18-22, they are basically the opposite of what most people associate with professional photos (the cool kids' photos typically involve: an ambiguous subject, shitty image quality, awkward expressions, dynamic "poses"). Do you think females in this age bracket still go for professional pics? I would bet more on taking photos that resemble their own or perhaps professional but which look convincingly non-professional.

[–]2Derek1382[S] 21 points22 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I see how this intuitively makes sense, but if you look at the photos of females aged 18-22, they are basically the opposite of what most people associate with professional photos

Agreed, however there's still an important difference: while women's photos are almost never professional-grade (nor attempting to be), they're almost universally studied.

With dudes, you'll see many if not most profiles filled with lazy-ass selfies, clearly uploaded straight from the gallery. Dudes often show their weak spots by pure laziness or inability to understand what they are and that they should hide them.

With women, you'll mostly see well-posed selfies that have clearly been picked among several hundred and altered through cosmetic and other filters. You'll almost never see a girl's photos showcasing weak spots.

Very few people on either side have real professional-quality photographs, but women on average put in a much better effort.

[–]LuvBeer-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

while women's photos are almost never professional-grade (nor attempting to be), they're almost universally studied.

Absolutely. Also who's to say a woman who posts edgy photos herself won't go for professional photos of a guy? I'm always bowled over at the corny shit women go for instead of my honest, slightly more vulnerable humor/thoughts.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

the question should be, where do girls 'study' the art of the selfie? And where can a man learn it? I've seen the video on 'squinching' but it hasn't helped tremendously.

[–]zephyrprime1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They just take so many selfies that they get good at it. They probably literally take 100x more selfies than men do. Anyone who practices something 100x more than me is going to be way better than me at it.

[–]2Derek1382[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Women don't have an 'art' of the selfie at all, they take hundreds of photos of themselves and use the best few. In the process of taking hundreds of photos they also learn by observation what angles, lighting set-ups and poses look best.

Don't mythologize women's skills in the appearance realm, very few have any real ones, they only look skilled by comparison to most guys because most guys don't even try.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

they take hundreds of photos of themselves

i tried that once. i had maybe one good photo after taking 70 of them or so. it took two hours. sounds like a ridiculous amount of effort? or am i doing something wrong?

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You are right.

No girls except Ukrainian take professional photos for their online dating profiles.

[–]casemodsalt5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

All the professional looking photos of women I assume are spambots. Especially with no info in profile.

[–]1Revo_Luzione2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

What most females do with their own photos has nothing to do with what they respond to in male photos. A small portion of women do have pro photos, and they're not coincidentally top SMV women.

The rest might be using goofy photos as virtue signaling, but most women would not turn down a professional photographer's offer of free photos, and would absolutely use them on social media and dating sites.

So with that in mind, would you want photos that resemble theirs? Mirroring is a tactic, not a strategy. Think strategically.

[–]DamnDirty_Ape 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

What about casually mentioning in your profile that you enjoy spending a relaxing evening on your yacht? LOL would that be tactical or strategic?

[–]1Revo_Luzione-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If it's a part of an overall life story where you actually have, let's say, fractional ownership in a yacht or access through a relative or just straight up own one, then it's strategic. Think Gianluca Vacchi. Look him up if you're not aware.

Whereas if it's just a fib or a glib bullshit saying in your profile, then it's a tactic, and maybe not a great one.

[–]truedemocracy3-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women have much more pictures to choose from and are much better at taking pics than men

[–]itsjustsimon-4 points5 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

professional photos can easily get you into the top 5%

Sorry guys but how the fuck does professional photos make you 5%? You're delusional. After matches, you still need to meet this "leads" in real life.

[–]1Revo_Luzione7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

After matches, you still need to meet this "leads" in real life.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. We were talking about top 5% in terms of right-swipes, not overall SMV. Geez. Context, bruh. Edit: It should be obvious that a right swipe is just the beginning. Looks do not equal game.

[–]itsjustsimon--2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh I see, your "phone game" is doing it.

If you're ugly, professional photos will only make it more clearly that you're ugly. But do you really believe just pro photos will make you top 5 in the group of 100 guys all horny to fuck? Geez.

[–]1Revo_Luzione-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You can see the answer in the data. If a guy went from getting zero matches, ever, or only rarely, to getting quite a few a week, then yes, absolutely. Like it says in the post title, the top ten percent get 60% of the attention. So just be in the top half of that. Even an ugly man who isn 't fat, who gets good professional photos with decent attire, yes, he's got a good chance to be in the top 5% in his area. My post said be decently fit, and get pro photos. A pro is going to help you dress properly for good photos.

Feel free to try it & verify for yourself rather than being so salty.

[–]Fedor_Gavnyukov8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

because all these bitches don't look like their pictures either

[–]itsjustsimon-2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's why Tinder is bullshit. If she looks like 9 on Tinder, she's probably 6 at best.

[–]1Revo_Luzione1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, you bet. Life experience: I live in a relatively small city. Under 250K. I have a great memory for faces, and I've seen at least 8-10 women in real life that I've seen on some dating app. I've also seen 3-4 on the app that I know personally. With only one exception, they all looked way better on the app. For some reason, one of the more attractive women I know played down her hotness with more plain pictures--a weird exception that proves the rule.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Sorry guys but how the fuck does professional photos make you 5%? You're delusional. After matches, you still need to meet this "leads" in real life.

Haha more importantly... are you fucking kidding me? Professional photos? First of all, most of these apps link to your Facebook, so aren't people you know going to think it's a little strange when you start posting your model photos to Facebook? Second of all, who doesn't have a single good pic on their Facebook where they look good? Just pick that one as your profile, and make sure you also add one in where you are with a big mixed group of guys and girls, all smiling and just having a grand old time so you can show her how fucking fun and happy and just plain awesome you are.

In related news, yes, girls are in fact so stupid that they think if you look cool in one picture on your tinder account you that you must actually be a cool guy with lots of friends! I don't know why more societies in the past haven't thought of giving women the vote and pushing them into leadership positions. What could possibly go wrong?!

[–]corsega0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

First of all, most of these apps link to your Facebook, so aren't people you know going to think it's a little strange when you start posting your model photos to Facebook?

They only use Facebook for signing in. Your Facebook friends never see your photos.

[–]1Revo_Luzione-3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In related news, yes, girls are in fact so stupid that they think if you look cool in one picture on your tinder account you that you must actually be a cool guy with lots of friends

That's a false equivalency. We're just talking about the right swipe. First step, making contact. After that, yes, you're right, you need game.

As for the pro photo thing, and how it will be received by friends, business colleagues, etc: It depends a lot on your age, location, and profession.

Lots of my friends, both male & female, have pro photos. I'm in the health & wellness industry, and I'm one of the few that I know that don't have a large book of pro photos or only a few (if you go to events--charity balls, symposiusms etc, there are almost always pro photographers taking photos of the event and attendees, and you can get those if you ask for them. I always get their business card, it's good networking anyway.

Virtually every executive coach, corporate consultant, and public-facing digital professional that I know has at least a few pro photos, on both their FB and linkedin. I practice yoga occasionally and know a lot of people in that field. Virtually every yoga teacher I know, both male & female, have pro photos. The females usually have LOTS.

People who get pro photos don't necessarily need to show the world. You can upload them directly to the dating apps, or you can put them in FB in a folder that only you can see. I personally don't care that much what people think, and my social circle already thinks I'm eccentric, so I'm happy to feed their imagination.

[–]Shakydrummer0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I remember a few months ago when I was seeing a concert and was just people watching. The amount of run of the mill average dudes that are not in shape is just jarring. Those statistics don't surprise me at all.

[–]casemodsalt48 points49 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

My irl game is pretty solid. Seems much easier than tinder.

I'm not gonna put that much effort into some dumb app just so women can have a better overall quality of selection. They're entitled and have it easy enough already.

[–]Wolveryn7 points8 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Tinder gives men more power now, and you don’t even realise.

If you optimise your profile and you understand why pick up techniques work, it becomes almost too easy to get laid on tinder

[–]Rollo_Mayhem322 points23 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

On new years, the amount of women who contacted me exploded.."hey, going out for new years??" "Any big pans tonight??" Amazing how they all turn into whores that one night...I used the opportunity to set them up for later..

[–]zephyrprime0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I went hard on new years and didn't get more matches than on a normal day

[–]Rollo_Mayhem30 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

all i know is that on NYE, I was getting many matches and quick contacts by the girls...now I am getting a lot more matches than ever before. The only variable is that I used photos that have me at top 20% on photofeeler. But as it turns out, most photos that I thought were good, I was already using. SO I do not think that is a variable.

[–]casemodsalt2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

How do I optimize my profile?

[–]Rollo_Mayhem316 points17 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

there was post about this on askTRP... short of it is:

Professional photos or at least high quality photos that show several angles to your personality and body... (pic with friends, pic doing some activity, pic with no shirt but not a selfie, pic that should show your status (like somewhere you live, clothing, or area of town)...

Only swipe within immediate area that you are willing to travel for date. I would add probably within city limits or a relatively affordable cab ride (major metro area). Save super likes for girls you perceive to be a point or two higher than your SMV...

information in your profile should be just enough to catch their attention and show that you are normal...emphasis positive like if you are tall put your height, it you have a college degree, say "college educated" although it usually comes up what school you went to in the profile taken from FB.

that's just a start

[–]somebullshitrp1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Tinder gives men more power now, and you don’t even realise.

I question this... Can you explain how that is?

[–]Bisuboy9 points10 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

If you look good, you can have sex for free just by writing a few texts on a simple app

[–]somebullshitrp5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If you look good, you can have sex for free just by writing a few texts on a simple app

Obviously, but that's not what he said. The implication was that tinder somehow gives guys more power.

Show me examples of men pulling women as hot, or hotter, than themselves from online dating apps and I'll agree. Otherwise, where's the power?

Guys, even good looking guys, are still at a disadvantage online vs. in person.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean... there's no examples other than anecdotal evidence. It worked pretty well for me.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's just another avenue to get what you want. No one says you have to stop approaching in person. And if you think approaching in person is easy, then this should be like taking candy from a baby for you. I found tinder to be so easy that the biggest problem was that I felt my in person skills were actually atrophying.

[–]vicious_armbar0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Glad IRL works well for you. For many men online dating is more efficient. Online dating can be a good aggregator for men who don't live in large cities. You get to quickly hit on a ton of women who are geographically disbursed. The downside is that unlike opening in real life there are no barriers to entry. So you have to be better than most of the other guys on there. Which isn't difficult. Around 90% of the openers being sent to women are "hi", or the same copy and paste spams from some pua website that are sent multiple times a day.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

From the headline alone, you can see that the author is grasping at the truth of the matter, but he can't quite get past his programming to accurately view reality. "These statistics show why it’s so hard to be an average man on dating apps"

Those last three words, "on dating apps" are crucial. The fact of the matter is that title should have excluded those last three words because the dating apps are actually a fairly good representation of the distribution in reality. Unrestrained female hypergamy, access to resources and employment, and no fault divorce mean that these statistics represent the actual reality that a typical man faces in the dating game, both approaching in regular life and online.

Restriction of female sexuality is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the development of advanced and stable societies.

[–]Augustuscrassus2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That is true and it isn't. I have far more success with better looking women in real life than on tinder. I'm pretty good looking but I can't take a good photo to save my life. I guess I'm not really average but I'm not top 20% either.

I met my main plate off tinder: HB7. I told her that when I picked her up I hoped she looked like her tinder profile (she did). She told me that she was glad because I am MUCH hotter in person. I've had other girls tell me they wouldn't have swiped right if they hadn't met me in person beforehand.

Jacking myself off aside, online dating just isn't for everyone.

[–]Bear-With-Bit 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Fantastic find and analysis. Top 10% gets 58% of likes.

As a 5'7" Asian American man still trying to gain muscle mass, I'm glad I wrote off all dating apps.

[–]antariusz2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not forever. At some point you have to say, well it took me 3 weeks, but I got laid, so tinder is now “working” for me.

Depends on where you live though. Bigger the city, less harm comes from using it early. If you live in a small rural area, best to wait.

[–]jewishsupremacist8813 points14 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

this is why men wind up paying for sex. who has time to go through all that BS?? if im trying to gift some eggnog its alot easier to just pay

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm thinking the same too. I was reading a book about the Soviet Union where people had to practically hustle their way around to get anything other than bread and vodka. I'm starting to think that getting laid any other way than prostitution is just as much as a hassle.

[–]kieran93232 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

hustle

that's pretty much how it was, plus that "hustling" was illegal, so at the end, everyone was a criminal. If you pissed off someone who was politically involved, even at a small, very regional level, there was no problem to lock you up for some time to straighten you up. Communism in EE was v. similar to the situation in N.Korea now.

[–]jewishsupremacist881 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

tbh fam, "hobbying" as they call it is another form of dating with its own hassles. but its alot more straight forward, that's for sure.

[–]vicious_armbar 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

That's why feminists and tradcon's fight against the legalization of prostitution so hard, and try to conflate voluntary prostitution with "human trafficking" (slavery). They desperately want to keep the price of sex high.

[–]jewishsupremacist885 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup. There is a big divide in "feminist" circles as whether or not prostitution is oppressive. The hot girls know they can sell that ass and its "empowering" and the purple haired faggots and dykes hate it because they lose their power.

[–]binarynightmare8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I posted a few months ago about how I suspected the SMP followed a power law, this confirms it. Thanks for taking the time to post this, refreshing to see data in this thread.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course it does, cuz physics.

[–]dereko338 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

80-20 Peano distribution

I think you mean Pareto distribution

[–]2Derek1382[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Got my Italian mathematicians mixed up yeah

[–]Gay4Pancakes 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy Link

I think the best course of action would be to stop looking for validation from tinder sluts.

[–]2mbillion3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Not sure why you're being down voted. While it's certainly a decent piece of analysis it's a fucking bubble of people looking for the cheapest most low effort no strings attached sex they can find.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

So I guess sticking your penis into a warm vagina is now considered "validation."

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Interesting study for sure.

Actionable advice for everyone - look how much better the top percentile of men does than the average man. Don't envy those men, become one of them. Go lift. Educate yourself. Groom yourself well. Be a badass.

[–]Yanlii2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Lifting doesn't fix bad facial proportions man.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Most people don't understand that.

[–]1PantsonFire12343 points4 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

How do you rate top % on a dating app anyway? Some guy could be a pro at making pictures, a high status job, nice car to show off, some other lifestyle extravagances that do especially well on a dating profiles album. Yet that same guy could be a out of shape short dude with a side of autism limiting his jerkboy potential charms in real life.

This brings us back to the point that men dominate in their preferred environments. You have the office alpha, the gym alpha and the school aplha, nowadays you have the social media alpha. But none of these guys are guaranteed to show dominance in another category. Some might have allot of things in common, like say the school environment and the gym environment. What makes you dominate in one category will help you along in the other. But in other areas one set of qualities far outweigh the other, say your top 1% social media guy. I'd say that being able to make nice pictures and having a showroom life far outweighs genetic virility and charm.

Yet we all know what type of dude women go for to get banged hard. This is the big problem I have with social media, it only matters if you chose to participate. And even though women do invest in it and chose to believe in it. Making it any more than an after thought for when you already dominate another market is foolish.

And dominating another market is hard.

[–]Rod147 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

How do you rate top % on a dating app anyway?

The 1% of male users who received the most likes and so on...

Some get liked by 50/100, some by 25/100 and some by only 1/1000, that's how the top % are distributed.

[–]1PantsonFire1234-2 points-1 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I get that. It does however sound very arbitrary since social media perception is probably the most inaccurate way to judge a man, or a woman. I'm still waiting for the whole market to implode, it like online dating, is unsustainable because both parties end up finding out that they are losing out.

Women learn that no man likes an attention whore and their only validation is superficially sexual. Men will realize that they can spend their time more efficiently elsewhere, finding that they are losing in real life to guys that appear to have fewer 'validation' likes and a weaker social media pressence.

Social media is just like a kid who plays call of duty thinking he's a hardened soldier because he killed some newbs in multiplayer. The fantasy stays intact until real life experiences shatter this image. Fat girls controling every camera angle, whores showing their body off looking for Chad to be their boyfriend, guys yearning for validation more than domination.

We've been in this online bubble for a decade or so now. It won't be much longer.

[–]1Revo_Luzione0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

I get that. It does however sound very arbitrary since social media perception is probably the most inaccurate way to judge a man, or a woman

The original article had access to the source data from Hinge. It's a math problem.

We've been in this online bubble for a decade or so now. It won't be much longer.

I don't know. I think when VR hits big, it's gonna make every issue in digital bigger, weirder, more vexing. And VR will hit big, if and when it creates a compelling experience. That's coming.

[–]1PantsonFire12340 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

The problem with VR is that it doesn't replace real human experiences. Especially for women looking for emotional impulses. It's much easier to create a sex experience for guys than an emotional one for women.

There was a recent study that showed a graph regarding how male/female pairings met. Church was down completely, college was down, everything was down in fact except for meetups at a bar. I'll leave this for your own interpretation but what I would want to mention is that online had gone up and had since been stable, we're talking 2012 and onward now.

So people weren't meeting eachother more or less online. It has flat lined. The reality about social media, online dating and online presences in general is that it's severely limited by virtue of being online. While real human interaction (sexual/emotional) takes place in the real. Before they make a 100 for 100 believable Matrix experience it will always flatline in favor of the real thing.

Men and women simply use it as a rejection buffer. They go online and live online because it gives them total control. But after a while they realize it's a carrot chase. They will never get what they desire without risking themselves out there.

[–]1Revo_Luzione0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Quality comment.

I saw that graph. I think Heartiste linked to it with commentary.

[–]1PantsonFire12340 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yep I got it from there, great place to visit for some laughs and juicy intel. And this one is especially valuable since it validates the red pill way of de-prioritizing online dating and online activity. Especially social media is pretty much useless. Having an amazing profile and no profile at all pretty much gives the same punch. Either you show off or you appear mysterious.

The reason some people go all wrong on Instagram/Facebook etc is when they try to participate and show off their life and it reveals the suck. Which is often times just social media inexperience since the addicted people know exactly how to take good and quick pics, how to appear as if they are doing more than they actually do etc. And most newbies don't, they just advertise wrongly.

If you suck at fighting don't get into a fight. Just talk a big game, boast around and for as long as no one challenges you, people will assume you're a bad ass. The only difference being that martial prowess is a masculine ablity to have. And beign social media is a gay ablity to have. What kind of guy makes selfies, uses snapchat filters and shares every aspect of his private life? Exactly.

[–]1Revo_Luzione0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

What kind of guy makes selfies, uses snapchat filters and shares every aspect of his private life? Exactly.

Pretty much you have to be Dan Bilzerian or Gianlucca Vacchi, or close to that level for this strategy to work. And those guys aren't snapping selfies, they have entourages to do that kind of social media scut work for them.

The latest Heartiste post drives the nail even further. https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2018/01/04/technology-and-female-hypergamy-and-the-inegalitarian-consequences/

Translation: Don't bother if you're not clearly in the top 20%. For the top 3%, it's a home run. Back to day game it is.

[–]1PantsonFire12340 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

He pretty much echoes what we've been saying before. Another point is that social media only focuses on few arbitrary criteria points in the eyes of women (the ability to make best angled pics etc) and that status is highly subjective from moment to moment. Personally I'd rather say women prefer dominance rather than status, since this is mostly expressed all around where as status doesn't explain why lots of virile plumbers end up cucking some millionaire husband.

Both Dan and the other guy aren't necessarily alpha men by virtue of their genetics, far from it. And even though attitude and status helps along way, you could rather say that they cleverly play into their strengths. Social media just happens to work for them but making it in the military or becoming a mafiosi has not.

So even if you are clearly in the top 20% in your football team or in and around your neighborhood, never presume that this will translate to social media, academics or corporate businesses. That's not how male dominance works. Every ladder has another picking order.

I think we've all come to the consensus by now that social media could potentially be a huge waste of your time if you don't possess certain traits, time and/or money to stand out. Thankfully no one gets laid online but rather offline. So not having a fly Instagram is less disastrous than not being fit or running sperg game.

I smile everytime when Heartise validates my initial beliefs (and I assume many others). There's a unique blend of idgaf, high iq and social savy going on there which I sometimes find lacking on TRP itself. Which has a tendency to take things literally and give a great deal of fucks (in secret).

[–]1Entropy-70 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

In this case the top are simply rated statistically according to how many likes they have. They aren't measuring the reason why any particular guy gets as many likes as he does, they are simply measuring that he does. Say they took 1000 guys: they sort them in order from the most likes received to the least likes received. Then they count down the first 10 guys who have the most likes and call them the "top 1%".

If there was a total of 10,000 likes were given out, those guys averaged about 164 likes each. The 500 guys with the lowest number of likes averaged 1 like each.

[–]1PantsonFire1234-2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah exactly. That's the thing though about social media. There is never a measurable reason why any particular person gets more likes, followers etc. It's public bias. Women fall for it especially, which is why they believe in it. However i'd say that social media is as dangerous as porn.

Porn being most dangerous for women and social media being most dangerous for men. No one loves a whore or respects a validation thirsty guy.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

What are you not understanding here? You asked from a technical, statistical point of view, how they are determining the top x% on the app. The question was correctly answered that they are looking at how often a man's profile is liked by women, and the men are then ranked in order of which are liked the highest percentage of the time.

Then you go off on a tangent about how the app isn't really picking up who is high status and who isn't. Status in a dating context is defined by appeal to women. So given the information available to the women on this app, the study is correctly identifying the highest status men on the app. If the study measured how well women responded to the men hitting on them in a bar (is that really any less arbitrary?), then the status ranking of the men might be different. When it comes to applying the results to other forms of dating and approach, generalize or discard them as you see fit.

[–]Throwawaysteve1234561 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The only difference is they are liking if they want to fuck them or not. Men will fuck 60% of women, women will fuck 5% of men. It's pretty straight forward. If you look at shit like instagram, it's the EXACT FUCKING SAME FOR WOMEN. The top 1% of instagram women will have likely 50+% of all instagram likes. In fact, if you look at a typical 6/10 female vs a crazy popular instagram 'model' (lol), these women are receiving several thousand likes for every 1. If anything, it's more extreme for men. You're just comparing apples to oranges.

[–]TheFoxxi1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

We see this pattern all the time. It's called the Matthew principle. In cases of meritocracy, the square root of the total population accrues half of the reward. In this case it is likes, in others it is wealth. Work hard to be top 10% in every thing you do.

[–]1Entropy-7-2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The math doesn't work. With a population of 100, the top 10% get half the reward. With a population of 10,000 the top 1% get half the reward.

[–]Burgundy145-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This makes sense. Isn't it something like the top 5 people in the world have the equivalent of the bottom 50% of the world's wealth.

[–]Andgelyo1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Didn’t know what hinge was, so I looked it up. Premise was that it hooks people up with mutual friends of your Facebook friends....yeahhh fuck that. I’m not trying to get my squeaky clean reputation fucked with. Back to tinder I go!

[–]BaronIncognito1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

LOL, Chad has done it again!

[–]APDD_Ben1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This distribution is very common with modern society and media. It's called the Long Tail Short Head distribution.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men (like me) who don't take full advantage ought to be sentenced to punching ourselves in the dick daily until they have 3 plates, no excuses.

[–]Smoovemammajamma0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

So you're saying there's a chance

[–]Frenchy1000 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's for the guys who can't analyze data :

This is only considering physical attractiveness as selection trait. On average, men are not physically attractive to begin with (also because women are not as visually stimulated as men). On the other hand, the average woman is already attractive to men. So when you ask women to choose men solely based on attractiveness, it is completely normal to see this data pop up. If you think looks are going to get you the results you want, you're mistaken. Looks only get your foot in the door. If you don't have the skills to seduce and frame, you will fail (unless you're looking for mediocre drunk sex). On the other hand, if you do have the proper frame, you will realize that you don't need looks to get your results. We all know someone who isn't particularly attractive, yet who is amazing with women. What lifting is going to get you is confidence, alpha traits, and respect from other men, but it is not going to be the cure-all to your dry spell if you haven't put in the work into game.

[–]truedemocracy30 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I would like to see these broken down further. So far top 10% of men get 58% of the likes. But 11% - 50% is a huge range for the other 37%. I bet if this follows a bell curve we see something VERY CLOSE to the 80/20 breakdown. Where if you are a guy between 20%-40% (still above average, probably solid bod, ok body, college educated) you are getting low level leftovers and if you are in the 50% median you get NOTHING.

Would love to see similar data for women.

[–]Saladino930 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

What is your definition of top?

[–]1Entropy-70 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's recursive because it is just the guys who get the most likes.

ie: the guys who get the most likes are the guys who get the most likes.

[–]Saladino930 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Therefore we don't have many info abiut their real SMV. It could be a guy with real low smv that is in the top 10% in this ranking(because of good self marketing for example). Not so useful for real life, although it is an intersting.

[–]1Entropy-70 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Online SMV is related to but different from SMV IRL. You can't use creative camera angles when you are face-to-face.

[–]ChillBallin0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think it’s interesting that top 11-50% do get nearly 40% of likes. With deviation from sampling I think it’s fair to say this group is represented fairly. So as long as you’re top 50%(not hard considering how fucking lazy most people are) you’ll do fine, if you’re top 10% you’ll slay, and if you’re in that bottom 50% you need to hit the gym or else you’re fucked.

[–]1Entropy-7-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I guess the point is that if you are between the 51st and 89th percentile then you are getting a proportionate share of the likes (37.7% of likes divided among 39% of guys).

The problem? HYPERGAMY! Since the top 10% of guys get over half of the likes, the likes to next 40% of guys is coming from the bottom 50% of women.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So stop being the bottom of the barrel bucko and sort yourself out

[–]2mbillion-3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why does this surprise anybody? It shouldn't. Just like you aren't out there looking every ugly chick either. Fix your camp if you want different results

[–]deville05-2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

What constitutes these various brackets according to this app?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The amount of likes constitutes the various brackets. It's not difficult to break a population down into brackets statistically. It has nothing to do with a qualitative analysis, but rather, a purely statistical analysis.

[–]deville050 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I was asking what kind of men are the 1% on this app? Do they look a certain way, run in similar circles, have the same kind money etc?

[–]Sararia-2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm probably gonna get blasted by incels for posting in this thread. But whats the issue here?

The sexual marketplace isnt the word you are looking for, instead you are looking at the casual-sex marketplace, which is what Tinder is, and the other appears to be.

No woman goes to Tinder hoping for a long and meaningful relationship, she goes there when she wants some free food, maybe a place to sleep, and some dick.
Maybe its not moral, but thats the kind of woman you are getting, when you as a man, sign up for tinder. If you want something more, don't use the casual-sex apps.

That said, getting away from Tinder, you still have those women, and even on more regular dating sites and services (like Its Just Lunch, which I'm a fan of) woman still have vetopower on every meetup. So do the men, but they are far less likely to use it (I am assuming here, but I figure its a reasonable assumption)

The problem isn't that the women are being "Too picky" its that your visuals, and a spruced up bio are all she has to go on. If I know nothing about you other than a bio that you spent a week writing and refining, and a selfie taken with ur last girlfriend, I'm not going to be interested unless you are absurdly attractive. Even a 7/10 or 8/10 doesn't stand a chance there.

Then again, I don't do casual-sex apps, and as a successful, business-focused woman, I don't care for unattractive, unmotivated Billy Betas who still live with their parents.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

And what number do you think you are sweety? I am guessing not higher than a 6 or a 7 since you are a successful, business focused woman(ie long past the wall and waisted your time trying to compete with men which we males find no value in when it comes to a mate). Yet you only get interested by a guy who is most likely better looking than you at the top 90 percentile in looks. I'm one of the lucky chads in that I have no problem visually attracting a women. I work with many "professional" women. Most are not attractive and are just bossy know it all cunts. Yet they all seem to get submissive and flirty when I am around. Fuck that. Women like you are the absolute worst to date. Bossy, high expectations, suck at fucking because you can't be feminine or submissive long term and have no idea how to treat a man. Ps go find a chick forum, we didn't ask you for your opinion.

[–]Sararia0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Reposting since automod removed it for linking another sub.


And what number do you think you are sweety? I am guessing not higher than a 6 or a 7

I don't claim to know "my number" I'm someones 10, someone elses 1, im sure. I dont use tinder, as I've been in a relationship longer than its even been a thing. I don't look for casual sex. I do believe I said "if i did"

We are talking about the casual-sex marketplace, where of course men, with their higher drive, are more common than women, thus as in all economies, are valued at less... Therefor to be chosen you have to be better.

When you go into a store to buy produce and they have 100 of whatever fruit you are buying, do you not look for and pick the best? Is your standard for what is acceptable higher in apples than, say, pears, which are usually one stand and not 5 in a walmart. This is because apples are more common (in the sense of amount in a store) and therefore the better ones are picked first. This is just common sense, I would like to think.

I'm one of the lucky chads in that I have no problem visually attracting a women.

Its funny you open up with assumptions about me, saying I'm not higher than a 6 or 7, then turn around and claim to be a chad. I'm not bored enough to troll you about this, but I'd just like to draw your attention to the irony of it all.

Quick Edit: I just noticed your final line.

Ps go find a chick forum, we didn't ask you for your opinion.

I'm banned from 2x for making fun of trannies, and the fact that 99% of their mods are actually MTF.

But this isn't incel, so calm your tits.

The Red Pill: Discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.

I don't think examining the problem, pointing it out, and giving my input isn't a discussion of strategy, or the culture of increasingly lacking positive identity. If you claim to speak for the moderators of the sub (tbh i didn't bother to check if you are one) then go ahead and have me banned.

[–]sjdfhskdjfh 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

I get about a 50% match rate on hinge despite being 5'5"... thanks to my career and alma mater. If I remove those, the matche rate mysteriously slips to about 5%.

[–]sumdumbullshit-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The information is interesting, but without knowing the total population you don't know how to interpret this, though the direction is obvious.

For example, let's say a girl who is a 4 looks through 100 men. She'll probably like 40 of them since she is obviously below average and has a lower standard, where as a 7 could see herself as a 9 and only likes 5 dudes living under the misguided notion that she could pick up a dude at a bar easy enough.

So with just 2 girls we have 45 likes on 100 men out of 200 possible likes and 10 likes in the top 5%. So you'd say the top 5% get 22%, but it doesn't translate to probability in the same way. Normalizing it helps, but without knowing the ranked population of the girls the lower tiers could be inflated by lower tier girls.

Put another way, top 1% gets liked by 100% of the girls, but a 48% dude gets liked by 1% of girls and those are probably all lower than 50% with 0% at even his relative level. You'd need to stratify this a lot more to get a sense of what it's like to be on tinder.

Say you're a 6, you probably get 0 10's, 0 9's, 0 8's, 1 7, 2 6's, 5 5's and 25 4's and below. So depending on how you approach this, you'd have 4 or so matches in the 33 girls that liked you, but at the same time only get 1 match out of the 100+ likes.

There's probably a math or stat major who could break this down better. Either way, dating apps are not kind.

[–]WestyWorld-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Man dating has become a crazy game. I’ve been successful at it but it takes a ton of effort.

Pictures on point. Looks on point. Clothes on point. Body on point. Hair on point. Game on point. Texting on point. Hobbies on point.

The list goes on and on. It’s maddening how choosy women are these days.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is black pill bruh. Not sure how "Red Pill" truth.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter