Male Model Experiments and Sexual Selection by Lay Scholar

Share your experiences with the opposite sex. Suggest ways to improve your success. Analyze the behavior of females in real life and online. Rant and rave about females. Show the importance of looks pertaining to attracting females and other social situations. Discuss aesthetics and the science of attractiveness. Exchange health, nutrition and looksmaxing tips.

Game is fanfiction for men.

Image





This part should be required reading for everyone on the forum. No one is going to read it because it's long and poorly written, but the argument is true and it's the only hope average guys have of landing hot girls. The author is completely right about the "lottery" for less attractive guys -- you see it all the time. If you're average, this means that you have, absolutely have, to play numbers game.
SIGNATURE

Fucking aspie trying to use maths to overcomplicate things
...

The blogger has been exposed as being a fucking 33 year old virgin you fools. Why is it you retards NEVER Listen to slayers, you only listen to self hating raging 30+ year old virgins with "scientific theories" ? :lol:



Great website with tons of useful data. I wonder if author of this blog was a creator of "seductionmyth.com"( similar website ). Anyway someone should invite him to sluthate .

guy employes solid logic, and I agree with all the conclusions I read. But he is not a good writer, and his insistence in using needlessly complicated language makes his essays a tough read.

Samsung wrote:The blogger has been exposed as being a fucking 33 year old virgin you fools. Why is it you retards NEVER Listen to slayers, you only listen to self hating raging 30+ year old virgins with "scientific theories" ? :lol:


of course he is a 33 year old virgin, who else would assemble such a site? And why would his being a virgin diminish his analysis?



If this guy spent as much effort building apps or software, he would be richceling by now.
gfs: 0
kisses: 0
handjobs: 0
blowjobs: 0
intercourse: 0
Creep shamed:

Last updated: 11.04.15

interesting site...
mrz wrote:Those who argue against me are invariably religiously delusional with propaganda, or otherwise they are simply sociopaths, those are the only two possible reasons that anyone would argue against me.
PostThis post by medjon was deleted by puanewb on Fri Jun 05, 2015 10:35 pm.
Reason: Requested in PM

There are a new academic online dating study (Ben Seefeldt, University of Illinois) working on Tinder with ficticious profiles (one medium-atractive male and other medium-attractive female):

http://benseefeldt.com/content/sites/Tinder/tinder_paper.pdf

This research carries out a bisexual setting, selecting both same sex and opposite-sex partners for both dummy profiles. The author was swiping right for 2020 (both sex) profiles on each account.

Results for opposite-sex matches:

Male profile: 173 female matches ( number of female matches who sent a message =6)

Female profile: 1.011 male matches (number of guys who sent a message = 429).


Anyway it is a small sample size (just one male profile and one female profile) and he's not controlling for attractiveness, which means smaller power and, for all functions, the positive predictive value for a true research finding decreases as power samples decreases. Thus, other factors being equal, research findings are more likely high in predictive value in scientific fields that undertake large studies, such as studies analyzing data sets obtained through collaboration with online dating web sites. Best online dating datasets used to be extracted of data from log files and users’ profiles, anonymized it, and compiled it in a data warehouse.

These research working with log files (Taylor et al, Kreager et al, Hitsch et al.) provides a higher ecologically valid context, but investigators use online data inefficiently, just logistic regressions for some parameters without appropriate graphics and data analisis or fails to notice statistically significant relationships).

And some dating sites as Okcupid marketed their own study on mating distributions vs attractiveness (unsolicited messages and response rates):

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your- ... ne-dating/

but their response rates differ significantly from those provided by other dating sites, like AYI for example:

http://www.businessinsider.com/likeliho ... men-2013-7

But you know that the greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. Conflicts of interest and prejudice may increase bias. Such nonfinancial conflicts may also lead to distorted reported results and interpretations.

Anyway most controlled testing reveals of male/female mating preferences, and the resultant asymmetry. But this new author should apply the results from his Tinder experiment to more general populations. On the other hand, the controls used in a new experiment should be more meaningful and strict. And the sample size should be large enough to predict any meaningful relationships between the variables being studied.

Hence I want to suggest you could make a cross-sectional study of population variation in mating success (i.e. with more human means and logistical resources). There are simple models to quantify the potential contributions to such variation in mating success (equivalent to the number of individual’s matings per user).

My suggestions for future study on online dating:

1. The impact of experimental design on estimates of the strength of mate choice preferences. Seefeldt is computing just number of individuals who perceive that 2 targets as a potential prospect for mating, but not the quality of the pool of their potential mates. He should use these two approaches if he wish estimate the accurate index of mating opportunities. Since physical attractiveness is the limiting factor, he must create multiple dummy profiles varying in attractiveness. Also some method should be designed to get ratings of attractiveness of their matches.



2. Not all matches mean real mating interest. Getting a match on a dating site is half the battle — but it isn't everything. The likelihood of any given match or first reply resulting in a reciprocated exchange and eventual date (exchanging contact info) is extremely small (see Kreager et all, where at first, 79% of men's sent messages, and 58% of women's sent messages, went unreciprocated. As number of reciprocated responses increased, the percentage of messages in each category declined, so that only 3% of men's, and 7% of women's, sent messages resulted in more than five exchanges).

There’s only a certain of spurious matches chance that a match will turn into an actual conversation — a correspondence that lasts for three exchanges or longer. For example, Hitsch et al. (2010a) consider that 6 is the mean number of exchanges required until the dyadic relationship result in an offline date.

My idea for computing the actual matches for a given user, it would require to sending messages to every initial match and collect how many users would be willing to exchange phone numbers for set a date offline

The Cockroach wrote:Here's a chart from his online dating experiment:

Image


All or nothing theory confirmed
Image

Samsung wrote: Why is it you retards NEVER Listen to slayers, you only listen to self hating raging 30+ year old virgins with "scientific theories" ? :lol:

Which kind of slayer? Certainly not one a natural one who was always at the top, what kind of advice would he be able to give you?

Would you ask Paris Hilton for advice how to become rich?

Is the author sluthater?
-gossipping
-deepthroating slayers
-sucking the blood of less attractive males and using them as an emotional tampon to soak up all their childish emotions while denying them sex

FuckThis wrote:
The Cockroach wrote:Here's a chart from his online dating experiment:

Image


All or nothing theory confirmed


yeah wheres that bullet through the head gif?

so much for caring women interested in personality

FuckThis wrote:
The Cockroach wrote:Here's a chart from his online dating experiment:

Image


All or nothing theory confirmed


fucking legit

it makes me so happy to see my theories quoted :mrgreen:

it's all or nothing

there is no in between

ALL OR NOTHING

Topic Tags

Return to Shitty Advice

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 99 guests