Posts Tagged ‘preselection’

I’m not innately a misogynist, but I think most American women are seriously defective, for probably cultural reasons. I’m going to establish one of the reasons why in this post. Let’s look at an OkCupid study that has recieved a lot of attention: Your Looks and Your Inbox. Not surprisingly, it shows that women are focused as strongly on appearance as men are. Surprise? Not really. Cause for moral outrage? No. Everyone knows that looks are a substantial component of the dating process, and most of us accept this. Thankfully, not everyone’s appraisal of attractiveness is the same. A few of us are attractive to most people; most of us are attractive to some people. Given enough tries, we find one that likes us; life goes on. The real shocker is this: women on OkCupid have rated 80% of the men as unattractive, including four demonstrably average-looking men (OkCupid staff). It’s quite possible that this reflects only on the women who chose to give ratings– e.g. that bitchy women rate men, the rest don’t. However, although it is far from a scientific analysis, this publication contradicts much of what society prefers to believe about women: that they are kind, less shallow than men, and relatively accepting of the average man’s appearance.

The average man, based on the histogram, appears to have been rated at about 1.4 stars (out of 5) by women. That’s a D, on an A-F scale. Let me explain just how bad that is. A general rule in survey design is that ratings of anything will be inflated compared to the respondent’s actual opinion. If 100 viewers watch a television show and their ratings of it average 3.7 stars, on a 1-to-5 scale, that’s not a “good” rating. The show sucked! The same goes for performance reviews. A ubiquitious constant in such surveys is the “real average” of 4.3– a product rated below this by the public, on a 1-5 scale, is generally below-average. (Expert raters and critics are more conservative in their grading; a 3-star film, according to Ebert, is not being rated as mediocre.) And what is the average GPA at Ivy League colleges (where there are few poor students who must be given failing grades)? It’s about 3.3. It’s the same principle.

People seem to be much more candid when rating the physical attractiveness of strangers, so this rating inflation may not apply, but I’d still contend that a luke-warm rating– say, 3 stars– is not a good sign. In any case, the graph of male ratings of women shows absolutely no inflation. The distribution of attractiveness ratings seems to show a symmetric, bell-shaped curve. This is what we’d expect, and I posted on this matter in October. An average woman is sexually attractive to about 45% of men; an 85th-percentile woman is physically acceptable for about 71%, and a 15th-percentile woman is acceptable to about 23 percent. It’s fairly close to a normal distribution. For men, the story is different, and for those who lack the skills to project sociosexual confidence (e.g. “Game”), quite dismal.

Now consider the distribution of attractiveness ratings given by women to men on OkCupid, which exhibits severe skew in the fugly direction. Of seven categories, a quarter of men fall into the “least attractive” category, while almost none fall into the “most attractive” category. The median male is generally given terrible ratings, with only a few men in the thin rightward tail rated well. This occurred, one should note, in an environment of passive rating, where “Game” is almost certainly not a major factor. It’s likely, then, that these men were rated under the assumption that they have average (e.g. almost none) game.

Men on online dating sites are assumed to have poor game, and to be single, two severe attraction killers. As defined in my October analysis, a man with “7” looks (84th percentile) and “4” game (43rd percentile) is sexually attractive to only 2.7% of women. Of course, posting to an online dating site is suggestive of weak game, to the extent that this trait is tacitly assumed by most women. This, in my opinion, explains why the men were rated so badly– and, yes, 1.4 stars is not merely below-average, but abysmal, keeping in mind what I said about rating inflation. I would argue that the cutoff for a “good” average is probably in the mid-3 range (this is someone who is substantially attractive to a few women). Yet less than 10% of men are rated so highly.

What is “game”, again? I defined it as sociosexual confidence, but its root is preselection. Men with “game” are those who adopt the mannerisms of the sexually experienced and somewhat callous. They’ve adopting a set of behaviors to suggest preselection. Registering on an online dating site has the opposite effect– it indicates that a man is single, and eager enough in his search for a partner to invest time in an online profile.

Single men are really in a sandtrap– assumed, because they are unattached, to be awkward, unattractive, and undesirable. It’s inconsistent with the norms of the rest of society; for example, an unemployed man is expected to look for work– that’s normal, and people worry about him if he doesn’t– and yet a single man has absolutely no way of maintaining face while looking, even very casually, for a girlfriend. Simply put, he shouldn’t search. No paying for a stranger to have a nice dinner, no online profiles, no face lighting up when introduced to a pretty girl at a party– none of these can do a man any good.

This all comes down to preselection– women want what is not available to them. Fuck it. I agree with others who’ve called it “the root of all evil”, and it’s a trait that I advocate forcing out of the human species through any means possible– even eugenics, re-education, and aggressive social engineering.

On that note, my guess is that the OkCupid developers, rated as unattractive by their site’s women, posted pictures of themselves next to attractive women, they’d get ratings in the 3-4 range, not the abysmal scores that these average-plus men were given.

Ok. I’m done getting riled up and angry. I need a drink. Over-and-out.


Read Full Post »

Inassertive men

Yesterday, I opened up the topic of the rarity of white-male/black-female couplings, and asserted the following: most men are decent and not at all racist, but the bulk of those decent men are inassertive. These are the “invisible” beta males. It’s true that they don’t often pursue black women; but this is because they rarely pursue women, of any race, at all. They’re just very timid. Many of these men end up happily married, but this often requires a bit of work on the woman’s part.

In response to yesterday’s post, ErzulieRedEyes said:

White men are not masculine in my opinon, if you are a real man why would you be afraid of a woman? Pathetic!

Why are real men afraid of women? I’ll answer this. There’s a (possibly apocryphal) science experiment that was once conducted with 5 monkeys in a cage, with a stepladder leading up to a banana. Any time one of the monkeys climbed the ladder, all five would be hosed down with ice-cold water. Quickly, the monkeys learned not to climb the ladder, and to prevent others from doing so. Intermittently, a monkey would be rotated out of the cage, and another would be brought in. The new monkey would quickly move toward the stepladder and the banana, but the other four would prevent him from getting anywhere near it, and beat him up if he tried. He’d quickly learn to avoid it.

After five rotations, none of the monkeys in the cage had any experience with the hose. It was never used, since the other monkeys trained each other to avoid the stepladder. The hose may have been inactivated. None of the monkeys would have any idea why the stepladder was to be avoided, but they’d all prevent new monkeys from going near it. This learned avoidance continued, even when the original trigger had faded out entirely.

So, let’s consider the question: why are most decent men so damned inassertive?

It begins in high school and college, when the costs of rejection are very high. A man who is rejected loses standing not only with the woman he asks out, but with all of her friends. In fact, the reach of the damage is at least two social degrees, because any woman he asks out later is going to consult her friends about him. If there’s any overlap between the two womens’ social circles, she’ll find out about the rejection, and be less attracted to him. So, even if only 20 women find out about the original rejection, he suffers a loss of social standing with hundreds of women on the second-degree. His social status declines, making the success of future romantic pursuits unlikely. Consider the damaging labels– “creepy”, “sketchy”, and “stalker”– given to men who are unsuccessful at pursuing women, even if the worst characterization that could accurately be applied is “slightly inept”. Is it any surprise that men, in such circumstances, would be afraid to ask women out?

Furthermore, gossip can spread the social damage of rejection beyond two degrees, out to the far corners of the social graph. Men learn quickly that there’s very little justice in the court of small-community gossip. An action that is “creepy” coming from one man is desired coming from another. We, the beta “nice guys”, learn not to be abrasive, aggressive, or boorish. We’re told, from age 11 onward, to respect women and not to engage in behaviors that would qualify as “sexual harassment”. We willingly comply. Then we discover a class of men– “alphas”– to whom the rules don’t seem to apply. They behave disgustingly and are rewarded, when they ought to be physically beaten for their behavior, while slightly less skilled men get the fatal “creepy” label for asking the wrong girl out for coffee.

Preselection is the final nail in the coffin. Men– even timid beta males– can tolerate rejection. Most of us would rather be rejected than have regrets. Rejection would be acceptable, were it not for the fact that, in a high-school or college environment, being rejected by one woman results in a loss of standing in the eyes of 50-200 other women. Women aren’t known for thinking fot themselves when it comes to tastes in the opposite gender, and they generally don’t want men who have been rejected by other women, regardless of the man’s merits. Women want the man that other women want. So a man has to choose his targets carefully, because he has a very limited number of chances. In a small social group, he gets one chance. In a 5000-student college, he gets two or three per year. Any more rejections and he becomes “that guy”, and no woman wants him.

The “betas”– the nice guys who seem so difficult to find– become timid and selective to a fault, and most women complain that they’ve become inassertive. Alphas and gammas– undesirable men, from a long-term perspective– remain assertive, for the following reasons. Gammas are just openly desperate and have nothing to lose, having hit rock-bottom in terms of social status and self-image. Alphas are so over-the-top boorish that they inspire a little bit of fear in women and can thereby acquire sociosexual success. In the bad old days, the imposing male was about to commit rape, so a defense mechanism sets in: the woman becomes sexually attracted to him, giving up willingly what would otherwise be violently taken. Much of “psychosocial dominance” is a simulation of the early stages of rape. Physical strength communicates: I can physically rape you. An imposing and sociopathic manner indicates: I have no problem with raping you. Social smoothness indicates: I’ll be able to get away with raping you. This is not to say that women wish to be raped or enjoy rape– neither is true. Nonetheless, this vestigial script exists due to the morally void environment in which our mammalian ancestors evolved, and alpha males are exceptionally good at exploiting it.

Step forward to age 23, in “the big city”. Alphas and gammas have been chasing women for years, shoveling out undesirable attention by the shitload, and are going to continue doing so. Betas have fallen into a pattern of learned helplessness, not due to a lack of success, but due to a lack of control. By age 23, the average beta has had one or two girlfriends, but mostly at the woman’s initiation. The beta male, realistically, has had very little control over his own romantic or sexual fortune to this point in his life. Moreover, he has learned the hard way, in high school and college, about the social costs of rejection, leaving him bitter and more than a little bit rejection phobic.

In a massive city like New York, rejection truly isn’t a big deal. It’s a massive time-saver, not something to be feared or dreaded. For a man to rejected by a woman doesn’t mean that her whole clique or dormitory floor will think of him as a loser; it just means that he’ll never see her again. A man can ask out a new woman every month and he won’t end up being “that guy”. Revisiting the parable of the monkeys, the hose has been turned off, and there’s no longer a reason to avoid the stepladder.

Unfortunately, most mens’ formative experiences, when it comes to sociosexual confidence, occur between the ages of 14 and 22. A man whose first experiences are extremely negative is unlikely to develop the confidence necessary to pursue women. Like I said, it’s not rejection that turns men into bitter and inassertive weaklings, but the social fallout of rejection. If women want to be pursued by a significant number of men who aren’t assholes, they must evolve away from gossip and preselection, reducing substantially the penalty associated with rejection.

For the record, I’m a 26-year-old high beta, and I ask women out all the time. I get rejected all the time. In Manhattan, it’s not a big deal. Yes, ErzulieRedEyes, I’ve asked a number of black women out, have dated a few, and I can definitely see myself marrying a black woman. I’m not one of those inassertive, timid men, so I have nothing to gain by making excuses for them. I’m a decent and desirable person who will ask a woman out, but I’m only one man. I’m merely writing this to explain why women are pursued by so few decent men like me.

Read Full Post »