Why a woman's attractiveness acts as a repellent, explained using probability.(plus.maths.org)
plus.maths.org
Why a woman's attractiveness acts as a repellent, explained using probability.
http://plus.maths.org/issue51/features/rey/index.html
106 comments
Yeah, there is something off about the article. Too much math, not enough reality.
The fact is, beautiful women get approached. A lot. Like, to the point where they find it annoying. Tens of times a day. This is why they get skilled at brushing men off: so much practice. The reason beautiful women give off a "don't talk to me" vibe is to reduce the number of approaches to something manageable--and filter down them approachers to just the true social alphas.
No doubt there are a few beautiful women who don't get approached. There is something else going on in those cases besides probability theory. They're also giving off a vibe that makes them unattractive, or they're living in a community of nerds. Hell, even alpha nerds approach beautiful women.
The fact is, beautiful women get approached. A lot. Like, to the point where they find it annoying. Tens of times a day. This is why they get skilled at brushing men off: so much practice. The reason beautiful women give off a "don't talk to me" vibe is to reduce the number of approaches to something manageable--and filter down them approachers to just the true social alphas.
No doubt there are a few beautiful women who don't get approached. There is something else going on in those cases besides probability theory. They're also giving off a vibe that makes them unattractive, or they're living in a community of nerds. Hell, even alpha nerds approach beautiful women.
I don't know any good looking, smart, and single women that can't get dates.
Well quite. The article mentions Uma Thurman... Well, Uma, perhaps you can't get a date because you're a bit weird? Perhaps "kooky" isn't what the men in your social circle are looking for? Men find normal women confusing enough, the actually mad ones terrify us. Maybe she's actually a really nice person, but for whatever reason she's picked up this rep and it sticks.
It doesn't make sense to me that evolution would program men to find X list of characteristics simultaneously attractive and repulsive. It does make sense that a woman's ego would have her believe she's "too pretty" rather than a more honest appraisal. It's exactly the same in the male syndrome of being "too nice".
Especially in their 30s and so, when they clock is ticking.
It is true that in most cases a female at 20 has many more options than a male of the same age. The opposite is true at 40. 30 is where the balance of power starts to shift.
Well quite. The article mentions Uma Thurman... Well, Uma, perhaps you can't get a date because you're a bit weird? Perhaps "kooky" isn't what the men in your social circle are looking for? Men find normal women confusing enough, the actually mad ones terrify us. Maybe she's actually a really nice person, but for whatever reason she's picked up this rep and it sticks.
It doesn't make sense to me that evolution would program men to find X list of characteristics simultaneously attractive and repulsive. It does make sense that a woman's ego would have her believe she's "too pretty" rather than a more honest appraisal. It's exactly the same in the male syndrome of being "too nice".
Especially in their 30s and so, when they clock is ticking.
It is true that in most cases a female at 20 has many more options than a male of the same age. The opposite is true at 40. 30 is where the balance of power starts to shift.
The opposite is true at 40. 30 is where the balance of power starts to shift.
I'm in my 40s, and happily married, so I'm not in the game anymore, but I can tell from the people I know that in the 40s and beyond the entire teenage/20s power situation is reversed. In fact, I'd guess it starts mid-30s or so.
It's weird and unexpected. So for all you nerds out there who can't get dates now -- immerse yourself in what you love and work hard. If you can wait now, in a decade or so it'll be a whole new game.
I'm in my 40s, and happily married, so I'm not in the game anymore, but I can tell from the people I know that in the 40s and beyond the entire teenage/20s power situation is reversed. In fact, I'd guess it starts mid-30s or so.
It's weird and unexpected. So for all you nerds out there who can't get dates now -- immerse yourself in what you love and work hard. If you can wait now, in a decade or so it'll be a whole new game.
A data point in support of this: Extreme nerd in 20s, never dated, got a few dates in my 30s, and then everything reversed when I turned 40.
I think a big factor is just that I never learned how to play the game until around age 40. In my 20s, I was more interested in stuff like arithmetic-logic units. For a man, knowing how to approach women and "lead the interaction" makes a lot more difference than "attractiveness". Women are in a very different situation.
I think a big factor is just that I never learned how to play the game until around age 40. In my 20s, I was more interested in stuff like arithmetic-logic units. For a man, knowing how to approach women and "lead the interaction" makes a lot more difference than "attractiveness". Women are in a very different situation.
Of course, if a girl didn't want you in her 20s, you certainly don't want her in her 40s.
Yes of course.
But dating is like marketing, not like sales. You're not trying to win one particular girl, you're exploring all the options, making yourself known, and seeing where the opportunities might be.
It's a numbers game.
I think the guys who realize this early in life get lucky a lot more than the rest of us, sadly.
But dating is like marketing, not like sales. You're not trying to win one particular girl, you're exploring all the options, making yourself known, and seeing where the opportunities might be.
It's a numbers game.
I think the guys who realize this early in life get lucky a lot more than the rest of us, sadly.
The pairwise interactions over time aren't all that relevant. 20 years later, you have the field of all single women in their 30s/40s, not just the ones who snubbed you two decades earlier.
[deleted]
I know two totally beautiful, very smart women in my own city who have been single for months, in their late 20s and early 30s. My circle of friends includes any number of other attractive, smart women who have spent substantial periods of time single — not just not in a steady relationship, but not even dating anybody casually. (I can think of one who spent, I think, most of a year single in San Francisco. She has a steady girlfriend now.)
On the other hand, I've also experienced the case where someone I wanted to date (beautiful and smart) was single for only a week or two, and I was too late in finding out. Amazingly, this happened during the six weeks when I myself was single! I'm sure glad I didn't end up with her, though. Compatibility was pretty low.
On the other hand, I've also experienced the case where someone I wanted to date (beautiful and smart) was single for only a week or two, and I was too late in finding out. Amazingly, this happened during the six weeks when I myself was single! I'm sure glad I didn't end up with her, though. Compatibility was pretty low.
As far as sexual market value goes, women in their late 20's and early 30's can't compete with those in their late teens and early 20's. Personal preferences aside, this is how the cookie crumbles. A woman's attractiveness marches in near lockstep with her fertility, and that begins to decline precipitously in her late 20's.
I bet your friends didn't have anywhere near as much trouble finding dates a decade ago.
I bet your friends didn't have anywhere near as much trouble finding dates a decade ago.
Many attractive women milk their attractiveness until one day they aren't the center of attention at around 30. At about 24 many women are physically not as pretty as they were in a downgrade.
I bet your friends didn't have anywhere near as much trouble finding dates a decade ago.
I'm not sure they're looking.
I'm not sure they're looking.
Late 20s, early 30s usually means the women want a bit more out of a relationship than most guys are willing to commit to straight away. It makes no difference how smart/beautiful women are at this age, guys are just more likely to stay away from them.
A woman of beauty and intellect can go anywhere and do anything. Read his biography: Napoleon himself was starved for such a woman.
But you are asking for two 99 percentiles in categories which share a pretty dubious correlation.
But you are asking for two 99 percentiles in categories which share a pretty dubious correlation.
Attractiveness should be totally uncorrelated to intelligence - or, if anything, have a very slight positive correlation. Also, he didn't say anything about 99th percentile. A girl who is even the 80th percentile for both looks and intelligence would be pretty desirable.
Attractiveness should be totally uncorrelated to intelligence
I'm not sure that's true - attractiveness is in a large part about facial symmetry, which is a proxy for "good" DNA.
I'm not sure that's true - attractiveness is in a large part about facial symmetry, which is a proxy for "good" DNA.
Good infant health care, nutrition and a healthy childhood environment would also contribute to both looks and intellect.
> Attractiveness should be totally uncorrelated to intelligence
Why would you think so? Isn't it the case that smarter guys make more money (or are otherwise more successful), allowing them to chose among more potential partners, some of them being physically attractive and selected for that reason? The offspring would be both smart (after the daddy) and pretty (after the mummy).
Why would you think so? Isn't it the case that smarter guys make more money (or are otherwise more successful), allowing them to chose among more potential partners, some of them being physically attractive and selected for that reason? The offspring would be both smart (after the daddy) and pretty (after the mummy).
Could the offspring not be dumb (after the mummy) and ugly (after the daddy)?
Yes, but those offspring would (theoretically) be less likely to reproduce.
Taking into account my trips to Walmart, I don't think that's an accurate statement.
Yeah, that (or something like it) is why I added the second half of that sentence.
Not uncorrelated. Consider the many guys who are into girls that wear glasses. It's not because the glasses make them look better per se, but because the stereotype (which has some truth embedded in it, but probably not all that much) correlates wearing glasses with being smart.
Don't forget availability. So that's beauty, intellect, availability. Oh, and her reciprocal interest in you. And mutual compatibility. Quite a tall order.
"And mutual compatibility"
Depends on what you are looking for, of course. One great thing about being single is that you have the opportunity to temporarily wrap your life together with someone who isn't necessarily much like you at all. It's like traveling. You can visit many places that you wouldn't want to call home.
Depends on what you are looking for, of course. One great thing about being single is that you have the opportunity to temporarily wrap your life together with someone who isn't necessarily much like you at all. It's like traveling. You can visit many places that you wouldn't want to call home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Discworld_concepts#The_.2...
"This is a condition that may be experienced by a woman who is so beautiful, so alluring, that any man with half a brain isn't even going to think about asking her out, because it's obvious she's too grand for the likes of him. This leads her to believe that the problem is at her end, and that there must be something wrong with her. This persists until she meets a man who does not have half a brain (i.e. is too stupid to realize she'll likely reject him, or is so used to rejection that it doesn't bother him, or has some other flaw that stems from an even more major flaw), and he does in fact ask her out, and she is so grateful that she says yes".
A woman may be so attractive that a guy won't ask her out, because she's a 10 and he's a 1. However there'll always be people too stupid to count and can't tell the difference between 1 and 10 and will ask her out anyway.
"This is a condition that may be experienced by a woman who is so beautiful, so alluring, that any man with half a brain isn't even going to think about asking her out, because it's obvious she's too grand for the likes of him. This leads her to believe that the problem is at her end, and that there must be something wrong with her. This persists until she meets a man who does not have half a brain (i.e. is too stupid to realize she'll likely reject him, or is so used to rejection that it doesn't bother him, or has some other flaw that stems from an even more major flaw), and he does in fact ask her out, and she is so grateful that she says yes".
A woman may be so attractive that a guy won't ask her out, because she's a 10 and he's a 1. However there'll always be people too stupid to count and can't tell the difference between 1 and 10 and will ask her out anyway.
Or he may be the one smart guy who thinks, hey, she's such a stunning beauty, I bet no one has dared to ask her out, so I will.
And maybe the smart guy doesn't need to be so super smart but simply an attentive observer.
Also, chances are that Carol is smart (and courageous) enough to approach a guy herself once she becomes fed up with her own situation.
And maybe the smart guy doesn't need to be so super smart but simply an attentive observer.
Also, chances are that Carol is smart (and courageous) enough to approach a guy herself once she becomes fed up with her own situation.
There's theory and then there's reality. There are many attractive women/men who are wondering why noone attractive is chatting them up.
Fear of failure is the main reason one would not chat up an attractive girl. The point of this article is that men think they are going to fail, not because they are not attractive, but because attractive girls must have so many other options.
Therefore, it is somewhat independent of the man's assessment of his own attractiveness. This model is probably oversimplified, however, as self-confidence must play a role in there somewhere.
Therefore, it is somewhat independent of the man's assessment of his own attractiveness. This model is probably oversimplified, however, as self-confidence must play a role in there somewhere.
Carol situation is a case of prisoner's dilemma, which may be presented in a bit shorter way than the article does. Let's use standard game theory terms for the possible actions of one male individual:
'Cooperate' (C) = to publicly approach an attractive girl
'Defect' (D) = to ignore the girl, read the paper instead
So, imagine yourself walking into a cafe and seeing Carol at a table. She has been there for a while, and you have no way of knowing if some other guy has already approached her (or if Carol has a boyfriend). Let's assume for the sake of simplicity that the first man who dares to approach Carol always gets her telephone number (her nice way to reward him for being brave). That automatically means that the second guy will be rejected and feel bad.
The outcomes are (in order of preference):
CD = You dare to speak to Carol, you are the winner, the other guys didn't dare to approach her.
DD = Every man in the room reads the paper, Carol sits alone.
DC = You choose to ignore the girl, then some lucky bastard walks across the room and gets her number. Bad, but you have not lost your face.
CC = The worst outcome. You have approached Carol, but she is already involved with someone else. You walk back to your table, feeling miserable.
You notice that second and third outcome are somewhat identical, there is no gain, but also no real damage. A rational person may well prefer to do nothing and land in the 'neutral' area where 50% of total outcomes lay, rather than to approach Carol and to have 25% chance of success vs. 25% chance of a complete disaster.
---
I think it is not the women's attractiveness that acts as a repellent, but uncertainty of her status (has or has not a partner already). The way for Carol so improve her situation is to develop some sort of signalling that says she doesn't mind to be approached (flirting used to do the trick in old times).
'Cooperate' (C) = to publicly approach an attractive girl
'Defect' (D) = to ignore the girl, read the paper instead
So, imagine yourself walking into a cafe and seeing Carol at a table. She has been there for a while, and you have no way of knowing if some other guy has already approached her (or if Carol has a boyfriend). Let's assume for the sake of simplicity that the first man who dares to approach Carol always gets her telephone number (her nice way to reward him for being brave). That automatically means that the second guy will be rejected and feel bad.
The outcomes are (in order of preference):
CD = You dare to speak to Carol, you are the winner, the other guys didn't dare to approach her.
DD = Every man in the room reads the paper, Carol sits alone.
DC = You choose to ignore the girl, then some lucky bastard walks across the room and gets her number. Bad, but you have not lost your face.
CC = The worst outcome. You have approached Carol, but she is already involved with someone else. You walk back to your table, feeling miserable.
You notice that second and third outcome are somewhat identical, there is no gain, but also no real damage. A rational person may well prefer to do nothing and land in the 'neutral' area where 50% of total outcomes lay, rather than to approach Carol and to have 25% chance of success vs. 25% chance of a complete disaster.
---
I think it is not the women's attractiveness that acts as a repellent, but uncertainty of her status (has or has not a partner already). The way for Carol so improve her situation is to develop some sort of signalling that says she doesn't mind to be approached (flirting used to do the trick in old times).
This analysis is just wrong. There is no shame or misery in finding out that Carol already has a partner. The really bad outcome is that she's totally alone, but she finds you such a dork, she humiliates you with a zinger that everyone around can hear. Also, women give their phone number to more than one man. They don't have a "first man only" rule.
The reason a lot of guys, especially nerds, won't approach Carol is that they see her as holding higher social status than they do, so it feels extremely uncomfortable. The "popular" (high-status) guys will approach her confidently and playfully. People tend to group with others of approximately the same social status.
To really learn about this stuff, you have to put the math book away and socialize with people.
The reason a lot of guys, especially nerds, won't approach Carol is that they see her as holding higher social status than they do, so it feels extremely uncomfortable. The "popular" (high-status) guys will approach her confidently and playfully. People tend to group with others of approximately the same social status.
To really learn about this stuff, you have to put the math book away and socialize with people.
BTW, the actual policy, as far as I can tell from a couple years experimenting "in the field", is that women's policy for giving out their phone numbers is: they give them to men who ask.
I know, it seems too hard to be true. I had to work up my courage for months to ask for a phone number upon meeting a woman, even after I decided that I would try it since I had nothing to lose. The first time I tried it, the woman gave me her number. The second time I tried it, that one gave me her number, too. And on and on and on. I've only been turned down a few times. And I'm a nervous, skinny, nerdy guy.
I know, it seems too hard to be true. I had to work up my courage for months to ask for a phone number upon meeting a woman, even after I decided that I would try it since I had nothing to lose. The first time I tried it, the woman gave me her number. The second time I tried it, that one gave me her number, too. And on and on and on. I've only been turned down a few times. And I'm a nervous, skinny, nerdy guy.
I have received bogus numbers a few times. Not pleasant, but it doesn't bother me anymore.
I also got a couple bogus numbers. (I count those under "refusals".) It's amazing how most women will avoid humiliating you in public even if they don't want to give you their number.
Once, I asked a lesbian for her phone number, in a bar, right in front of her girlfriend. She gave it to me. It wasn't bogus! She never returned my call, but it's an amazing data point about how women will usually give you their phone number if you ask.
Once, I asked a lesbian for her phone number, in a bar, right in front of her girlfriend. She gave it to me. It wasn't bogus! She never returned my call, but it's an amazing data point about how women will usually give you their phone number if you ask.
I will just ring the number back on the spot if I sense some latent refusal.
You are forgetting the risk nature of potential suitors.
If the suitors are all risk averse, that is if they perceive that the pain caused by rejection is greater than the pleasure of success, none of them will approach her. On the other hand, if the suitors are risk seeking (or even risk neutral) where pain <= success then there will be those who approach her.
There is a lot to be said regarding their perceived probability of success, and the distribution of perceptions. If unattractive and uneventful suitors are all risk seeking, chances are that they will approach Carol and be promptly rejected.
If the suitors are all risk averse, that is if they perceive that the pain caused by rejection is greater than the pleasure of success, none of them will approach her. On the other hand, if the suitors are risk seeking (or even risk neutral) where pain <= success then there will be those who approach her.
There is a lot to be said regarding their perceived probability of success, and the distribution of perceptions. If unattractive and uneventful suitors are all risk seeking, chances are that they will approach Carol and be promptly rejected.
>Therefore, it is somewhat independent of the man's assessment of his own attractiveness.
The article does mention Guy's evaluation of himself as a candidate. And, intuitively, if Guy considers himself to be extremely attractive, then he should consider p(a) to be accordingly higher.
The article does mention Guy's evaluation of himself as a candidate. And, intuitively, if Guy considers himself to be extremely attractive, then he should consider p(a) to be accordingly higher.
Keep in mind that it works the other way, too: extreme attractiveness can also be a repellent for women. Especially if the guy has a big ego, is a player, etc. (not many nerds are, but some are). When it comes to relationships, most women I know of prefer loyalty over physical attractiveness, even if they say otherwise.
Of course, there is also the issue of persistence, which cannot be entirely discounted.
Of course, there is also the issue of persistence, which cannot be entirely discounted.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Carol should put her profile at an online dating site.
Its easier for men to "chat her up" online (Option 1); and not feel too bad when Carol rejects their move (Option 3). Essentially, Option 2 becomes a non-option and Carol would have more men approaching her and to choose from.
Anecdotal: I saw this girl online. I considered her "out of my league". But what the heck, I picked Option 1. Now we are engaged. If I had seen her in the real world, I would have picked Option 2.
Its easier for men to "chat her up" online (Option 1); and not feel too bad when Carol rejects their move (Option 3). Essentially, Option 2 becomes a non-option and Carol would have more men approaching her and to choose from.
Anecdotal: I saw this girl online. I considered her "out of my league". But what the heck, I picked Option 1. Now we are engaged. If I had seen her in the real world, I would have picked Option 2.
Your anecdote inspired me to do something. Thanks, man!
There is a reason why mathematics students have the highest virginity rate of any major.
http://www.forwardon.com/view.php?e=Id1200c8f6b7f5f813
Those statistics are from Wellesley, a women's college. It would be more fair to see statistics from a coeducational college.
Guy considers the possible outcomes:
(a) He talks to Carol and she responds in a friendly manner. He gets her phone number and a proper date next week.
(b) He does not approach Carol. He can enjoy another rewarding task (like reading the last issue of Plus).
(c) He talks to Carol and she proves uninterested. He will feel miserable for a week.
A week? Guy needs to lighten up, and not take rejection so seriously. His attitude may have just cost him a date with an intelligent and attractive woman.
(a) He talks to Carol and she responds in a friendly manner. He gets her phone number and a proper date next week.
(b) He does not approach Carol. He can enjoy another rewarding task (like reading the last issue of Plus).
(c) He talks to Carol and she proves uninterested. He will feel miserable for a week.
A week? Guy needs to lighten up, and not take rejection so seriously. His attitude may have just cost him a date with an intelligent and attractive woman.
Finally I understand why women are repelled by me.
I think this is useless without pics of Carol
Just picture any hot woman you'd never approach, because you are SURE she must have a boyfriend, and if she doesn't, then there must be something wrong with her.
If you are in a committed loving relationship, you would have no trouble chatting up anyone you would normally be attracted to, because you don't have an agenda; all of the sudden, you're one hot cookie.
So if you're single and looking, the easiest way to connect with people you're attracted to is to approach them with no agenda. Become as sexually detached as you can and treat them like a buddy.
So if you're single and looking, the easiest way to connect with people you're attracted to is to approach them with no agenda. Become as sexually detached as you can and treat them like a buddy.
Of course being buddies with someone you're attracted to can also lead to sticky situations, cf http://xkcd.com/513/
Actually, it's really quite simple. Just follow the step-by-step instructions here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2IVF9a2IA
and here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCEYxs7kWmQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2IVF9a2IA
and here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCEYxs7kWmQ
Most beautiful women in their teens and 20s do have boyfriends. That doesn't prevent men from approaching.
Regular, socially outgoing men approach. It's nerds who talk themselves out of it. Think of salesmen. Salesmen start conversations with strangers all the time, and turn them into sales or network connections or women they sleep with that night. Starting conversations with strangers is for them the bread and butter of life. For nerds, it isn't.
Regular, socially outgoing men approach. It's nerds who talk themselves out of it. Think of salesmen. Salesmen start conversations with strangers all the time, and turn them into sales or network connections or women they sleep with that night. Starting conversations with strangers is for them the bread and butter of life. For nerds, it isn't.
I don't think you can assign the highly socially outgoing (as you described here) as "regular" people. They're outliers just as nerds are. I'd wager that most people just "get by" in varying degrees... though how you would prove or disprove my hypothesis, I have no idea :)
[deleted]
Also, these beautiful young women with boyfriends give out their phone numbers. And they switch boyfriends quite frequently.
The author's opinion of his friend's attractiveness may be exaggerated.
The illustrations are pretty good though--I'd use him for that social network webapp I'm writing that's going to take over the world.
Any time spent reading hacker news or that article is not used approaching attractive women.
Just saying, its purely a function of our own MOTIVATION, not necessarily our self-image, which we can change.
Just saying, its purely a function of our own MOTIVATION, not necessarily our self-image, which we can change.
The problem I find with this article and game theory in general is that it assumes everyone acts rationally all the time, which is not the case.
I remember a research paper finding that the only people who consistently acted rational in the game theory sense were economists and sociopaths.
I remember a research paper finding that the only people who consistently acted rational in the game theory sense were economists and sociopaths.
I can explain it quite easily - "Nobody goes there anymore -- it's too crowded"
Seriously, where's the study? This is a nice example of game theory but let's not call it truth without some backing research, and all the anecdotal evidence in the world sounds nice but we are not exactly a representative group are we?
The illustrations are good. The article was intriguing at first, but the last part of it was disappointing. It's a shame. It could have been a really good article.
It never hurts to try. Oh wait, yes it does. A lot.
The pain is completely in your head. And the more you do it, the less it hurts.
Unless of course your 'game' sucks and you get slapped/kneed-in-the-crotch or her gaggle of un-hot friends assaults you.
I'll take physical pain over extreme social pain/embarrassment pretty much any day of the week.
I'll take physical pain over extreme social pain/embarrassment pretty much any day of the week.
Everyone's game sucks at first. You make it suck less by putting yourself out there and practicing.
I think everyone knows that, the barrier to entry is just too big
Ah, so there is a mechanism selecting against people who underestimate themselves. I would prescribe she be less shy if she's so attractive. Make the first move, Carol; chat a guy up.
Shyness was conveniently part of the problem statement.
A Beautiful Mind covers this issue from a slightly different angle. It's a decent flick. I'm marginally surprised neither it nor Nash was mentioned in the article.
The example of a Nash equilibrium in A Beautiful Mind was completely wrong. A real Nash equilibrium assumes that no player regrets their strategy given the knowledge of everyone else's move.
In the case of the Carol Syndrome (or the "solution" from A Beautiful Mind), the players will have plenty of reasons to want to change their initial strategy.
In the case of the Carol Syndrome (or the "solution" from A Beautiful Mind), the players will have plenty of reasons to want to change their initial strategy.
[deleted]
Bullshit. While I'm sure that super attractive people can intimidate a disproportionate share of the opposite (or same!) sex. The lack of romance requires that in addition to being super attractive they also refuse to be the one who breaks the ice.
Proper headline should be attractiveness + refusal to take the first step leads to fewer dating opportunities.
Proper headline should be attractiveness + refusal to take the first step leads to fewer dating opportunities.
Any bundle in which both Guy and someone else approach Carol yields (c) and has reward value 0.
Oh, so that's how it works? No wonder this situation seems out of balance.
Instead, I would suggest that in the p_star case, N is only the number of other guys who (from Guy's perspective) are more interesting (attractive, well-spoken, outgoing) which helps to keep N down for any suitably attractive, confident Guy.
That changes Carol's p_none too. Now she's getting the product across some distribution of p_stars from guys around her, each of which is related to the apparent value of the dating pool and individual confidence.
I haven't worked the math, but it definitely seems like p_none < 1/2 only when none of the guys are very confident in their worth. I don't really think you needed to use game theory to get that result.
Oh, so that's how it works? No wonder this situation seems out of balance.
Instead, I would suggest that in the p_star case, N is only the number of other guys who (from Guy's perspective) are more interesting (attractive, well-spoken, outgoing) which helps to keep N down for any suitably attractive, confident Guy.
That changes Carol's p_none too. Now she's getting the product across some distribution of p_stars from guys around her, each of which is related to the apparent value of the dating pool and individual confidence.
I haven't worked the math, but it definitely seems like p_none < 1/2 only when none of the guys are very confident in their worth. I don't really think you needed to use game theory to get that result.
As many people have already observed, ideal rationality and reality are very different. This is one of the reasons why assertiveness and risk-seeking behavior is rewarded in {dating,business}. The game theoretic calculus might not provide the optimal course of action, because its assumptions might not sufficiently model reality.
I'd offer that we don't see many beautiful, single women because we irrational agents take the risk to chat her up anyway. And HEYYO, turns out that, empirically, maybe that's the right thing to do.
I'd offer that we don't see many beautiful, single women because we irrational agents take the risk to chat her up anyway. And HEYYO, turns out that, empirically, maybe that's the right thing to do.
[deleted](1)
I think this probably has to do with attractive people thinking that they should be approached. If you're beautiful, especially for women, you're asked to do less for attention and reward. So you get used to doing little, and expect others to come to you.
I think most men wait for a social cue from the woman before approaching her. Maybe this woman needs to throw out some signals to some men that she is attracted to. Most men only need the slightest encouragement to feel safe from bad rejection.
It's called an Approach Invitation to some. There also a pre-AI, where you can signal to her, so that she can then signal back.
In practice, N=1 (just you), a>>b,c, so it is p->1 and you have to go for it :)
Bullshit. A repellant to a certain type of guys, maybe. But the hotter a chick is, the more dates she goes out on unless she chooses to be picky.
From the article: 1. He talks to Carol and she responds in a friendly manner. He gets her phone number and a proper date next week. 2. He does not approach Carol. He can enjoy another rewarding task (like reading the last issue of Plus). 3. He talks to Carol and she proves uninterested. He will feel miserable for a week.
No guy who is actually interested in a woman will pick option 2. In fact, it's a non-option.
No guy who will "feel miserable for a week" over some random chick turning him down for a date. If he does feel miserable for a week, he's got serious emotional problems or instability issues. A few minutes, maybe. A hours, possibly. if he has a really sensitive ego.
Finally, as to the anecdotal evidence at the bottom of the article which inspired the article, I call bullshit again. Uma Thurman and Jessica Simpson were both referring to boyfriends, not dates, and discussing how their careers and financial success was scaring off men who were intimidated by the spectre of being in a relationship with a more successful woman. (I watch Extra, so sue me.)
From the article: 1. He talks to Carol and she responds in a friendly manner. He gets her phone number and a proper date next week. 2. He does not approach Carol. He can enjoy another rewarding task (like reading the last issue of Plus). 3. He talks to Carol and she proves uninterested. He will feel miserable for a week.
No guy who is actually interested in a woman will pick option 2. In fact, it's a non-option.
No guy who will "feel miserable for a week" over some random chick turning him down for a date. If he does feel miserable for a week, he's got serious emotional problems or instability issues. A few minutes, maybe. A hours, possibly. if he has a really sensitive ego.
Finally, as to the anecdotal evidence at the bottom of the article which inspired the article, I call bullshit again. Uma Thurman and Jessica Simpson were both referring to boyfriends, not dates, and discussing how their careers and financial success was scaring off men who were intimidated by the spectre of being in a relationship with a more successful woman. (I watch Extra, so sue me.)
"No guy who is actually interested in a woman will pick option 2.
In fact, it's a non-option."
Some of us happen to be shy and/or introverted...
You don't pick option 2 so much as it picks you.
option 2 hasn't so much as picked me as had it's tendrils wrap around my aorta.
I guess that doesn't fit very well with my notion of what an option is :-)
It doesn't seem to me like you're familiar with any reserved, risk-averse people.
No guy who is actually interested in a woman will pick option 2. In fact, it's a non-option.
Picking option 2 is a "bah, she's out of my league" decision. It may not be a smart choice, but it's a choice that a whole lot of men make.
No guy who will "feel miserable for a week" over some random chick turning him down for a date.
A lot of men have a fear of failure in this game, however irrational it may seem. Being rejected by a woman can make a man self-conscious about his own attractiveness. A typical pessimistic guy would not take it very well and will try to avoid a situation like that. This is probably why the author uses 0 as the reward for outcome 3.
No guy who is actually interested in a woman will pick option 2. In fact, it's a non-option.
Picking option 2 is a "bah, she's out of my league" decision. It may not be a smart choice, but it's a choice that a whole lot of men make.
No guy who will "feel miserable for a week" over some random chick turning him down for a date.
A lot of men have a fear of failure in this game, however irrational it may seem. Being rejected by a woman can make a man self-conscious about his own attractiveness. A typical pessimistic guy would not take it very well and will try to avoid a situation like that. This is probably why the author uses 0 as the reward for outcome 3.
Picking option 2 is a "bah, she's out of my league" decision. It may not be a smart choice, but it's a choice that a whole lot of men make.
The best explanation I've heard for this is that it's an evolutionary adaptation. If you're in a tribe of mammals with a strict social hierarchy, trying to mate with the alpha male's partner is an excellent way to get expelled from the tribe if you're lucky or killed if you're not. So we developed a survival instinct to not approach females that we see as above us socially.
This could be another evolutionary psychology just-so story, but it fits exactly with my experience. If I seriously consider approaching an attractive woman I get an immediate physical reaction very much like vertigo, which I believe is the primitive part of my brain frantically trying to signal danger. Of course this is actively harmful in our current environment, but our genes don't know that; we're adaptation executers, not fitness maximizers (see http://lesswrong.com/lw/l0/adaptationexecuters_not_fitnessma...).
The best explanation I've heard for this is that it's an evolutionary adaptation. If you're in a tribe of mammals with a strict social hierarchy, trying to mate with the alpha male's partner is an excellent way to get expelled from the tribe if you're lucky or killed if you're not. So we developed a survival instinct to not approach females that we see as above us socially.
This could be another evolutionary psychology just-so story, but it fits exactly with my experience. If I seriously consider approaching an attractive woman I get an immediate physical reaction very much like vertigo, which I believe is the primitive part of my brain frantically trying to signal danger. Of course this is actively harmful in our current environment, but our genes don't know that; we're adaptation executers, not fitness maximizers (see http://lesswrong.com/lw/l0/adaptationexecuters_not_fitnessma...).
"Fear of failure" oversimplifies it, I think. As an anecdotal example, the other day, I was at a rock climbing gym and saw an extremely attractive girl climbing. I didn't approach her, because
1) I was new there, unfamiliar with the social mores, and didn't want to earn an undesirable reputation
2) She was with a group of friends, any one of which she could've been involved with--and, indeed, did embrace one of the guys about an hour later
3) She was intent on what she was doing; I wasn't at my most impressive; I'd likely have a repeated chance, and a failed intial approach would negatively bias later chances
4) Likely other more or less subconscious, more or less rational reasons as well.
1) I was new there, unfamiliar with the social mores, and didn't want to earn an undesirable reputation
2) She was with a group of friends, any one of which she could've been involved with--and, indeed, did embrace one of the guys about an hour later
3) She was intent on what she was doing; I wasn't at my most impressive; I'd likely have a repeated chance, and a failed intial approach would negatively bias later chances
4) Likely other more or less subconscious, more or less rational reasons as well.
[deleted]
If a guy talks to >>1 girl per week, almost any guy will get over rejection pretty quickly. The a priori fear of failure is much worse than the actual thing.
[deleted]
I actually suffer a lot from misery that's woman-related, sometimes for months and years after something happens. Possibly that's because I'm fairly young, but also possibly it depends on the type of person and you aren't as affected as I am.
It seems the reward of not feeling miserable is comparable to asking her out.
I'm so averse to feeling miserable from rejection I haven't asked anyone out on a date since the 5th grade. It ended poorly. I feel miserable from just listening to their thoughts. It probably varies for different guys.
I'm so averse to feeling miserable from rejection I haven't asked anyone out on a date since the 5th grade. It ended poorly. I feel miserable from just listening to their thoughts. It probably varies for different guys.
From anecdotal evidence: I got to know this cute and smart girl, but she was in a long term relationship at the time. At some point I learned through a common friend that she broke up a month and a half ago. I asked her out, and she told me she has been dating this other guy for a month. So, basically, she was single for two weeks.
With my friends, we call "high quality" girls, girls that are good looking, smart and nice, have a job/passion in their lifes, or have something going on for them. They are very rare. Actually, extremely rare around here. You might meet good looking girls, but that have nothing else going on for them in their lives, you might meet smart girls, but that are just not attractive to you. The combination of smart + good looking is a real killer, and often is ruined by "bitchiness", but that is very subjective.
It seems that women become "nicer" and easier to talk to as they get older. Especially in their 30s and so, when they clock is ticking. But in their '20s', it is tough to find a girl like this Carol.
Maybe Carol needs to move to SF. She will have the pick of the litter.