You guys are complaining that women have unrealistic expectations, but from these graphs appears that while their rating are a bit irrational, their message distribution follows normal distribution way closer.
Are we the ones with unrealistic expectations?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
niddk.nih.gov
yourtango.com
theblog.okcupid.com
psmag.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
pretty much.
most of virgins with rage expects a gf but don't realize is males who need to do the job of being a fucking male.
Most women just want the following:
>Taller than her (muh 6" meme)
>Physically fit
>Makes twice minimal wage
>Lives alone
>Have a car/bike
>Interesting
>Read books or have hobbies
>have a social life
wow nigger, is like is the bare minimal of being a MAN, not a manchildren.
wow
>graph without source
Literally just a squiggly like without meaning unless you link the studies
you need another invasion
>being this new
fuck off
80% of males are ugly.
>>Taller than her (muh 6" meme)
check
>>Physically fit
check
>>Makes twice minimal wage
check
>>Lives alone
check
>>Have a car/bike
check
>>Interesting
check
>>Read books or have hobbies
check
>>have a social life
ahhhhh, that is why I don't have a gf!
These graphs are false. Women are way more picky than men (of course), they will only message the most attractive ones.
I mean i fit all the criteria, exept having a social life, but its just cause normies are so fucking boring, if i wanted to go binge drink once a week with a bunch of sad idiots i could do that
Dont get me wrong i still have real friends but all we do is drugs, obviously drugs with smart people is better then alcohol with idiots
you need to realize most peoples are spiritually dead.
maybe you haven't seek the intelectuals circles around your city town.
try to seek places where smart people could gather, like a library, cultural institutions, political parties, even anime cons if you're into weeb shit.
most of Sup Forums is socially retard then make excuses as to why they're not getting laid, but they don't see themselves in the mirror and wonder if a girl would see them hot enough to fuck, meanwhile each board boogeyman is getting laid.
>smart people
>anime
Are you fucking retarded?
they're generally smarter than normies retards who get drunk and watch netflix, yes.
im above all of those and have a phd and make 6 figures and only ugly women show me intetest. The real problem is woman rate the average man a 2 or 3 and rate ALMOST NO MEN 9 or 10. Women want someone equally attractive as them but they think brad pitts about as attractive as them. Theres an OKC study about this
youtube.com
>I'm a 10/10
not, you're not.
If women literally don't seek you, you're not a Chad.
>Women want someone equally attractive as them
Wrong it’s easy to get beautiful women even if you’re an ugly bastard like me. Just throw enough shit at the wall and some of it will stick
Most american women are grossly overweight and infected with feminism
Source?
What's the source?
>Most american women are grossly overweight
This right here is why I'm single. I'm not attracted to fat chicks and 2/3 adult women are overweight. That only leaves 1 out of 3 women who would meet my standards.
Source: niddk.nih.gov
Since you obviously can’t fucking read these graphs let me help. The left graph shows that men find attractiveness to be more or less normally distributed and that medium-high hotties are on the receiving end of most messaging. Understanding this is perfectly straightforward.
The right shows that women find the distribution to be skewed left, which means that most women find most men to be unattractive. However, since they are retarded, they still expend their energy on messaging toward men that they don’t find attractive. This makes more sense when you recall the meaning of the left graph, which shows us that women in the right half of the attractiveness distribution will be on the receiving end of ample messaging without any effort on their part.
The takeaway for ugly dudes is this: if you aren’t getting laid you’re either a low effort faggot and/or are too dumb to realize there are ugly chicks who will fuck you. That or you’re too ugly for muh standards.
LOL @ twice minimum wage. What fucking crack whore do you date?
that's like middle working class faggot.
>but I'm le 1%
kys
>Asks for source
>Gets called new
I miss libertarian Sup Forums. Fucking stormfront 2.0 fags
Min wage is $7.25 per hour. At 14.5 an hour you will probably be making less than $30,000 a year. You can't do that much with that kind of pay.
that's what some bachelors like fine arts, musicians and liberals art make.
>but le STEM making six figures
im glad you brought up the topic of graphs poland . i got this one i made with infos an stuffs
who wants to bet mine is more accepted here ?
>mental health
>attractivness
Ah yes, he slipped this one, guys. ,
sven, what's this strange custom of yours:taking drugs without alcohol?why?
all it shows is women have to work less to bait the hook when they are hot, you stupid fucking faggot. For men, the hotter the guys, the more they message women to drill them until they are ready to move on
god damn fucking idiot who made this graph, learn to describe what the curves mean in a simple understandable way
>female -> male message distribution
>"message distribution"
what does that even mean, god damn
...
ITT: newfags from the election.
more
Let's say you have a dating site. Would you want to:
a) encourage male senders there is a lot of chicks waiting to hook up
b) vice versa (encourage female senders there is a lot of horny guys waiting)
Those statistics are a promotion.
>>interesting
>>no social life
That's interesting. I'm puzzling how did you arrive at the conclusion that you are interesting since it is measured in how much interest other people show for you. Judging by the lack of social life I'd say it's gravitating towards 0.
>that's what some bachelors like fine arts, musicians and liberals art make.
These folks have like 4 roommates so they barely pay any rent and probably get some kind of gov assistance (food stamps).
>>Taller than her (muh 6" meme)
check
>>Physically fit
check
>>Makes twice minimal wage
check
>>Lives alone
uh... but my mommy
>>Have a car/bike
check
>>Interesting
dunno
>>Read books or have hobbies
they don't really care about that, do they
>>have a social life
not at all
Obviously I don't have a gf.
no, they're not. The source was posted already
hey, retard, I'm not gonna read your essay. I'll just let you know I perfectly understand what's on the graphs. And you would understand that if you had any reading comprehension skills
it would make more sense if I posted the source, but I forgot about it, sorry
theblog.okcupid.com
Wrong, women may date someone prettier than them for a time, but later leave because someone below their level is easier to keep.
pretty much this.
imagine having a hot gf (like porn star level of beauty) and then seeing every male try to hit on her daily.
Which post?
This hue knows what's up. The prettier a person is, the less you should date them.
...
>not deducing how this data can be skewed
"Male attractiveness distribution" is measured from what sample? Is it all the males that are on the site? Even if it is so, that's a skewed sample compared to the general population. In order to have a realistic rendering of female attraction you'd have to correct for the bias introduced by this special sampling.
Regardless though, the dotted lines remain what we know. Males rate females according to a realistic bell curve, females rate men by throwing 80% of them under the "average" line.
The continuous line of female --> male message distribution is intriguing but you'd need to check the sampling to make it meaningful
in plain words, if women did approach 4/10 males on average, you'd know that.
KANGZ
both have equivalents in nature. The way women rate men is close to power law curve for some reason. What does that mean, I don't know. I'm not a statistician.
>he doesn't know about hypergamy
lmao nerds.
which is what intrigued me in the first place to make this thread. Why it's normal distribution vs Pareto distribution?
because women are hypergamous, faggot.
wow they want to little ! :D
Honestly I don't even mind THICC but a lot of American women are just flat out fucking obese lazy, not with good ass distribution just fucking disgusting.
This goes for all races by the way, except for maybe Asians but most of them don't look like the ones posted here they look like gooks who will give you Elliot Rodgers kids
no, they're not. At least not inherently. It can come out of degenerate culture, but that's only that.There's a reason why male to female ration is close to 1 to 1.
>Are we the ones with unrealistic expectations?
Yes, the “men” here bitch because women only want chad, and say that women should lower their standards so that they have a chance. But these same “men” would never even consider giving a non-stacey a chance.
yeah, read it and comprehend it, because you clearly didn't
So your hypothesis is that the introduction of agriculture caused degeneracy on its own? Because the only difference we can be sure of is that it allowed for greater status differentiation among men, making the few top dogs overwhelmingly more desirable until the reduction of wealth disparity allowed more men to reproduce.
this is the redpill
op is a faggy jew
or a jewish faggot, depends
>There's a reason why male to female ration is close to 1 to 1.
It is the same even in clearly polygamous species like gorillas, sea lions and bovines.
Males are produced in oversupply because they are meant to compete with each other. Females are programmed to choose the best.
Human behavior is somewhat messed up because at certain time in our evolution there was a period where females competed for men, not vice versa. Thus you can see both polygamous and monogamous traits in humans.
No, I'm not saying that, Kathy. The reasons were explained in the article you linked yourself. It just so happened that few guys gathered most of the resources in the world. Funnily enough it was the earlier mentioned power law in effect. This doesn't mean that humans are inherently polygamous.
Well, yes, typical materialism and hypergamy in practice, only exacerbated by wealth disparity. So?
It still exists across cultures.
except porn stars aren't that good looking and are caked with makeup.
>This doesn't mean that humans are inherently polygamous.
I don't make that claim. Only that women seek men of higher status preferentially.
sauce on this period.
You should consider pushing out your chest and pulling your shoulders back.
Good posture.
If anything "patriarchy" would protect equality for women, as evidenced by the evenness of the female population distribution as rated by men.
okcupid has done studies on what women want and basically their expectations are sky-high, even in comparison to themselves. they ALL want to be spoon-fed by a wealthy, tall, muscular, handsome hunk and obviously there's more needy bitches in the world then attractive, rich models.
>I'm not reading that
>you clearly don't have good reading comprehension
Idoit
well, I was arguing that claim when you responded. I'm not denying that women seek status. But they don't seek to be one out of many.
You weren't, dude. See It appears you confused hypergamy with polygamy.
You can't even spell properly. Since your first sentence was retarded, that excuses me from reading the rest.
yeah, I guess I did.
>You guys are complaining that women have unrealistic expectations, but from these graphs appears that while their rating are a bit irrational, their message distribution follows normal distribution way closer.
More interestingly, their message distribution shows that they have low self esteem. They are using a dating website for god's sake.
"He's unattractive, but I can't do better"
monogamy is a way for betas to control female sexuality and get at least one wife for them.
civilization is build from monogamy while hypergamy destroy it.
also monogamy was developed because of STD.
I'm not even that person. And you are still clearly an idiot.
The attractiveness distribution is the real story of the graph
Women obviously see 4/5 of the entire male population as below-average attractiveness, which perfectly illustrates the nonsensical nature of the female mind
Meanwhile men see a distribution of attractiveness that is more in-touch with reality
In men's eyes, most women are average, with minorities either being very attractive or unattractive
Unatractive men can get atractive women by having high social status. Unatractive women can't get jack shit in most cases. Notice how most high status women are good looking?
What the message distribution shows is that men would rather be alone that date someone they're not attracted to
And that men aren't afraid to have a go at a women more attractive than they are
From the woman's pov, it shows that there are more variables they are considering than attraction (money, status, personality) when they date
And its a good thing too, because women nearly everyone as unattractive, including themselves
80% of males are fat, dyel, balding, chinlets, manlets though.
t. fit
>people take this shit seriously
I'm a fucking manlet, still in college with a shit car, was homeless and practically have no life or hobbies and still found a gf. Y'all need to take a step back from Sup Forums this mentality is killing you sad fucks.
>Women expect men to be more than animals
>Women expect men to accept them as animals
Pick one, roastie
Do you understands concepts like "average" and "normal distribution"?
Sure, a lot of women have high standards, but really you're only gonna have a problem if you're ugly as shit. Literally just have a nice face, decent body, and a hobby you enjoy. jesus fuck, guys.
>incel angry the average male is a fucking poor, loser and ugly
wow
These graphs just show that men are risk takers and women aren't. That conforms with all of human history.
>Most women just want the following:
>just
>proceeds to post a list of several key features of vastly different areas, and it's not even complete if you ask women
While men just want a woman who's not a total bitch and has nice t&a. That's literally it, the whole "list".
Learn to read a graph Jesus..
So you don't know what a normal distribution is.
>males follow a normal distribution
No retard faggot incel.
80% of males are simply unfuckable for women.
women follow the pareto distribution, males follow a more normal distribution.
incel
You're talking to a Swede colomibro
I was under the impression that medium (2.5) in the op:s picture was meant to be average. Was I wrong? Do you know the meaning of the word average?
do u know women are hypergamous fucking swedish retard?
women don't follow normal distribution.
>he doesn't know what is a pareto distribution
Is the graf not meant to be plotted so that what women think is average is at 2.5? What does average mean?
>he thinks average and median are the same
finish high school faggot.
Can you make a list like this buy for a woman
thanks Dr. Peterson
1/2
Studies show that a tiny number of males inseminates a large number of females in the time period of human schooling.
However, these sexual relationships are kept secret from the public;
especially unattractive males (the large majority) is not aware about the extent of the sexual relationships few males have with many, or even most, females.
Among females, those exact sexual relationships are almost universally known, as they are communicated in intra-females groups which specifically form communication networks for exchange of socio-sexual secrets among female members of the network - this process is commonly known as "female gossip". This none-public communication involves, among other aspects, the judging and comparing of locally available males.
It was repeatedly found by researchers that sexual access and success of individual males are a primary category of the information exchanged in female "gossip" communication networks.
Those men who were judged and perceived as being able to obtain a higher degree of sexual access and success to females were perceived as especially desirable by the females - sexual access and success were an independent predictor of even higher sexual access and success of the judged males (that is, the more females learned that specific males were sexually successful, the more they wanted and did have sex with exactly those males themselves).
2/2
We found that sexual activities were initiated at continuously younger age over the last decades in Western populations, and that such activities appear to became more exclusive in terms of the male pupils chosen for sexual contact: A small fraction of young men monopolized almost all the sexual activity with most females, while a large majority of young men had zero sexual contacts and was what appears being deliberately kept ignorant of the wide-spread sexual activities of a few sexually successful male students, despite wide and frequent circulation of information of those sexual encounters in female-only "gossip" communication networks.
Most recent data, collected by Miller et al., suggests that mobile phone based socially clandestine communication has replaced much of in-person physical gossip in females; frequency and volume of such communication in young females has increased; mobile phones and associated social media services are utilized as a socially clandestine means of sharing information of and initiation of sexual contacts unobserved by peers and authority figures (teachers, parents etc.).
A recent new phenomenon in school-age sexual activity is the increased disappearance of in-person initiation of sexual contacts; instead, young females appear to prefer tacit selection of males and the negotiation of time and locale of sexual contacts more exclusively by mobile phone (texts, self-taken pictures, video, audio communication).
We hypothesize that mobile phone based sexual information gathering, negotiation, and execution have replaced in-person-type "gossip" social communication networks because of the improved ability of females to keep such information and activities publicly undetected.
