Not the OP, but attraction is a complicated, multi-dimensional beast and the unfortunate thing about Tinder and similar apps is that they reduce all of this to a 2D, possibly doctored, photo of the user.

In real life, people who do not look gorgeous can still sweep you off your feet by their smile, laughter, gestures, tone of voice, scent, the way they move, talk, react, fall into daydream...

Of all my previous lovers, ending with my wife of 16 years, I wouldn't choose a single one based just on a picture. But I was strongly attracted to all of them in real life.

Human magic cannot really be distilled into an algorithmic system. Not yet, anyway.

This kind of thing is what they're talking about.

> It was determined that the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men

[1]. https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g...

So, this guy set up a fake profile and interviewed women who matched with him, without disclosing he was doing research? Ethics aside, he doesn't discuss his methodology at all. How did these interviews turn into a Gini curve? How could they, without some heroic statistical assumptions?

It's been studied a lot, I just threw that up as example since it was posted here a couple of days ago. Here's one of OKCupid's own studies [1]. You can search for others that confirm the same thing over and over again.

1. https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/okcupid/yourlooksandyo...

That study shows the exact opposite of what you're claiming. The third figure shows that the vast majority of women's messages go to men they rate as less than 4/5 attractive. The last figure shows that even the least attractive men still got replies to their messages 22% of the time.

You shouldn't be taking pareto claims on a sample size of n=27 seriously

There are apple flavored flat earth medicine studies with stronger statistics

It's been shown plenty of other places, including by OKCupid, which why I qualified with "kind of thing." It's common knowledge at this point.

There's lots of common 'knowledge' in social psychology including studies done by serious reputable researchers that turns out to not be so. This is a big enough issue that it's termed the "replication crisis". So, yes, maybe. Maybe not.

Being shown by a lot of studies means its been replicated a lot.

only the ones with valid statistics count

some guy dug up a bunch of studies done on abductions by satanists in the 1990s. remember that, from 60 minutes?

the punchline was there had never actually been such an abduction, but there were 30+ studies.

and that's replicated a lot.

the quality of the replication matters.

Alright, keep that goal post moving then. In the meantime, I'll go with the best we got.

There's no goalpost moving. It's the same thing I said originally.

You shouldn't be swayed by inappropriately small sample sizes. Your response was "well what if I had a lot of them?" My answer was "still no."

.

> In the meantime, I'll go with the best we got.

This isn't even close to the best we've got.

My original claim is that something like that was true and what someone else was referring to and I gave you a lazy link, and you complained about the guys terrible methodology and replication. I told you that there are dozens of studies and data analyses (some are on huge data sets [1]) out there and your response is that oh no they have to be quality. That's a goalpost move from "this is bad" to "all those (that I haven't even seen) are bad."

> This isn't even close to the best we've got.

If you've got that then show me and I'll have a look. Until then I'm going with that studies I've seen that all seem to say roughly the same thing (despite widely varying sample sizes and quality of methodology)

1. https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g...

> Until then I'm going with that studies I've seen that all seem to say roughly the same thing (despite widely varying sample sizes and quality of methodology)

There are none with acceptable sizes. You're just talking.

I guess because in real life, even if you dont look super attractive, you can still charm partners by the way you talk and act. You can be funny, come across as trustworthy etc.

You can not do that on tinder.

Yes, this. If you’re trying to find a partner on a platform where matches are determined solely by physical attraction, you’re gonna have a hard time if you’re not physically attractive. Know what Tinder is, and be self-aware enough to know if it’s not for you.

The attractive types will also have it difficult. The matches will likely be attractive physically, but that hardly guarantees a true match. I know lots of attractive people that struggle to find a partner (and instead move from one one night stand to another). I think at some point it must get pretty depressing and toxic.

That’s it’s whole own thing; people who are incredibly attractive can move on really quick because they know they can get something else. Then they hit their 30s and that all dries up, and they don’t know how to have a real relationship that lasts longer than a few months.

Obviously not everyone who is hot is this way, but it’s one of the “types” you’ll find if you date around a lot.