TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

mahangirasa Archive

View 4 posts and 91 comments by mahangirasa on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

It’s quite possible you’re right on the algorithm failing. Brainstormed ideas for apps usually need tons of refinement before they end up having a shot at mass appeal. It’s true that likes are going to be skewed toward the most attractive. Instagram alone proves that. That being said, most people are dating (and marrying) people that aren’t your prototypical Chad and Stacy, and are (for at least some amount of time) incredibly happy with it. That means that there is an equilibrium that isn’t “mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/22 03:09 PM
2

I do use an alt email for this account, but I don’t actually have a main Reddit account I use (at least not yet). I made this account around February (iirc) to make my first post and have mostly used it whenever I find something interesting that could advance the discussion here at PPD. I’m a male and I do a lot of work within machine learning (software engineering in general). Answering the other questions would likely end up doxxing myself, so I’ll have to pass on those, sorry :( Glad you enjo…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/07/22 02:59 PM
1

Good point on the owner creating fake accounts. Let’s add that to #1. You’re right on #2, at least in theory. That being said, at scale, this waiting list is gonna be like a few microseconds, which isn’t enough to run an auction system.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/22 06:54 PM
3

The issue with both Raya and the League is that you’re likely going to have to pay $100+/mo to get off the waitlist, and that is well out of the range of what most people are willing to pay (for the record, $100/mo is the cost of Seeking Arrangement for sugar daddies). I don’t really have experience with either of these apps, so I can’t really explain their results. My guess based on your description is they mostly show people that are most attractive (top X%) to everyone in order to entice peop…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/22 06:51 PM
1

Appreciate the feedback! My thoughts: 1) The reason I suggested an algorithm was in order to solve the following problem. Say we have a person A and we want them to find a relationship/casual sex/whatever they’re looking for. The partners most compatible with them will have some attributes w, x, y, z …, etc. (For example, let’s say you are a dude and are super into girls who like motorcyclists). The goal is to approximate a function aw + bx + cy + dz + … that best represents your preferences as …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/22 03:57 PM
2

To the person who wrote this comment (I saw the text in my notifications) - thank you!
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/22 03:40 PM
10

That is a fantastic point that goes directly into #3. Women have been given an immense benefit in the form of basically infinite suitors, although this seems to basically feed validation more than anyone else (I mean, the best they’ve been able to do with it is try to get Instagram followers and potential OnlyFans subscribers, which is laughably incompetent - no company’s gonna think they’re an influencer worth sponsoring because they have 500 simps and OnlyFans pays so little such a strategy is…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/22 03:30 AM
2

This too
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/22 03:25 AM
3

Being founded by a woman does not make the app necessarily ideal for women. Sheryl Sandberg is a vocal women’s rights advocate, but I don’t see her doing anything about the fact that 1/3 of teenage girls on Instagram get body image insecurity as a result of using the app. She and Whitney Wolfe Herd effectively are members of corporate 1% feminism - shamelessly exploiting the feminist cause in order to promote themselves while leaving most women in the dust. I could try to answer your question on…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/22 03:25 AM
2

Bumble does not actually do that much to fix women’s gripes about dating. Yes, it does require women sending the first message and has some better filters of language some women find inappropriate. However, it is still basically Tinder - an app primarily geared for casual sex and based on photo-based swipe dating. Its business model still depends on women being the customer acquisition team and men being the lonely slaves to make the shareholders billions. It is no better than Tinder than to hel…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/22 03:21 AM
9

Yeah, I’m a technology guy, I tend to overlook non-technological solutions unfortunately
/r/PurplePillDebate11/07/22 01:23 AM
4

I’m familiar with the Pareto principle (I sometimes call it a “power law distribution” or an “Extremistani distribution” lá Nassim Nicholas Taleb). The issue is that there is no empirical proof that women’s attraction follows the Pareto principle. Most everyone cites Christian Rudder’s “women find 20% of men attractive”, note that 80/20 is the exact ratio in Pareto, and declare it an iron law. They also cite some Hinge data scientist which states it’s a 78/22 ratio. The former I believe is much …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 11:52 PM
1

I agree that relative to your system as a whole, evaluating physical attraction is difficult. There's a few ways to do this: (1) PageRank for people: so the original 1998 paper introducing Google used a system called PageRank, which ranks webpage based on how many other webpages had links that would lead to a it. Similarly, we can rank a person based on how many people swipe right on them, with swipes from more popular people being allocated greater weight. Ranks are computed separately for men …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 11:46 PM
2

Ashley Madison was only found out due to their servers being hacked - Match Group so far has been spared the ignominy. Plenty of women on apps are real - I have seen people I personally know. But there are some pretty good fakes out there - the point is for them to not be noticeable
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 11:01 PM
3

Yeah, sugar babies are disproportionately coalesced among young women in the upper middle class, so the actual percentage among those women is likely to be much higher. Thanks for the info - that is quite interesting!
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 10:58 PM
1

So the point system you propose seems simple enough, though my main concern is that each of these attributes are evaluated and matter differently to each person. For example, your perceptions of what is physically attractive definitely differ from what your best friend thinks, for example. Bio length may matter a lot less to an individual who is seeking to have casual sex, and so will need to be weighed lower. Each tag may have different values as well. Let's say that you really, really like gam…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 10:51 PM
0

Well, this just got interesting. Glad to see a fellow math/programming enthusiast! Yes, you can use a simple formula to predict your own results. The challenge is creating an algorithm that can find that formula for every user. For tags, they can just do exact matches, you're right about that. So they can link profiles with you with a "gamer" tag with relative ease (unfortunately Reddit support of Python is shit, so just assume my tabs are correct): if "gamer" in profile.tags: possible_match = T…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 10:03 PM
2

On 1/2 - yes. This is basically boilerplate “why startups struggle” lol 3 - this isn’t necessary per se. People can just list their interests and an app can match people based on whether people have the exact same words in their interests section on their profile. But to get a Facebook level understanding of people (30 likes allows FB to understand you better than your spouse), it takes a lot more work.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 09:29 PM
2

Adding “gamer” to a bio and using that to link people together has been easily possible for ~4 years but no one in Match specializes in that stuff. The skills to do it are not common except within big tech and university research labs. The physical types are easy as well, and this can be done with a recommendation engine. It’s the same way Netflix recommend movies to you (what do other people who have watched similar movies seem to like?). The reason why I’ve posited that this is easier is becau…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 09:23 PM
5

Looks like different sources vary. https://today.yougov.com/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2017/06/20/do-you-know-what-sugar-baby-61-americans-do Given that the sugaring community is largely made up of students, it comes as no surprise that millennials are the demographic most active in the sugaring community. 8% of those 18-34 are currently a sugar baby, sugar momma, or sugar daddy. Even though there are vastly more females on SeekingArrangement than males, 6% of American men currently act a…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 09:18 PM
4

ELO is a big problem. It’s just meant to benefit model-level attractiveness and less so actually finding someone. This number actually varies massively. On Tinder today it’s like 1.5%. It’s more dependent on the dating environment than anything else. Bots end up creating lower message rates for men, lowering their standards and making them message more, making women feel more desired and raising their standards as a result. Not all bots are obviously fake. See the examples from Ashley Madison an…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 08:48 PM
2

Yeah the beginning part is meant to attract you and keep you on the app. On the gaming part, I’ve walked back part of my claim and agree with you on the “figure out your type” part based on similar swipe history to others.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 08:37 PM
2

This is probably the most surprising observation of this comments section by far. It looks like your “type” observation was right - people similar to you swiped on “gamer” type people and I guess they intuited from that. But their algorithm has no idea that you’re into gamers in particular (i.e. there is no algorithm going “alright, here are your interests, now let’s go find an attractive person with similar interests”)
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 08:35 PM
1

I agree that capitalism presents a solution in the form of new dating apps. Let’s hope one comes soon.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 08:16 PM
2

They won’t know to match you with gamers - they have very few engineers who know how to do that (and definitely don’t pay enough to entice those who do, if they bothered). They will just try to use physical attractiveness as a carrot, which you described well in your previous comment as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 08:15 PM
12

Great points! Some addendums below: Dating apps do deliberately show you more attractive people when they think you’re about to leave (or in Hinge’s case, when you’ve used up all your free swipes). This is something done across Match’s properties. I do suspect, but don’t have evidence, that these apps do try to keep you away from good matches. They can make make some decisions based on who you swipe on and who others swipe on, but for the most part these apps don’t have mang types of data to act…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 08:13 PM
2

Sorry, I should have said 8% of women in total (including fake accounts, which in modern SA is a big problem, so likely a good chunk lower than this). Nice catch. $250k is the median for a sugar daddy, so you’re right that this level of income is not necessary per se. But it’s a great deal helpful if you want to see a SB with any meaningful frequency.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 08:03 PM
8

This is admittedly what worries about me about the path forward to dislodge Match Group. The sheer level of validation these apps can give women do have an effect - any change to make dating better would have the byproduct of cutting this down. Any new app would have to make big strides in fixing women’s pain points as a result.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 08:01 PM
5

Sorry should have rephrased it to “an insane amount of power, but little understanding of how to actually use it”. Getting 100-1000 new Instagram followers does not make your an influencer, and OF does not pay enough to justify such a scheme anyway.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 07:57 PM
6

The idea behind this is to try and remove any imbalances in the dating market thanks to divergence in sex ratios. Even having a 52:48 sex ratio is enough to dramatically change dating dynamics between a casual sexfest and predominantly long term relationships. Now, upon second thought, do I think the idea is necessary? Maybe not. Your example about employment is valid for employment, but I would prefer not to extend it to dating. Do we really need another League or Luxy that evaluates people bas…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 07:55 PM
2

Virginity rates are much higher (for both men and women) since 2008. Sure, some people would have struggled regardless, but both the number and the degree of exploitation has increased dramatically.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 07:52 PM
5

I certainly hope you’re right on things getting cyclical away from Match Group online dating. If not, we’re truly in for a disaster…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 07:50 PM
2

Some reasons: 1) To build a new dating app, you need to have a team with technically proficient individuals and people who possess a lot of business acumen. Building teams like this, and startups in general, are quite hard. 2) Both of the groups highlighted in point #1 are majority male, with technical people supermajority male. Those who get funding are disproportionately male as well. Women’s viewpoints simply don’t make it through this process, which is why we have tons of photo swipe apps th…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 07:41 PM
9

It’s true that many young women (~8% of the population?) are using sugar apps like SA. The ratios there are like 8:1 though - there aren’t that many sugar daddies with $250k+ annual income and dead bedrooms. These dates aren’t easy to get by unless you look physically stunning. Most women, even at their peak, aren’t going to meet these standards (just as most men are not going to be so rich they can burn $XXX per meet, nbd).
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 07:33 PM
3

Tfw I prove my point on fake accounts Thanks for the heads up!
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 07:31 PM
4

The freedom to live alone does not mean the freedom to live alone happily or comfortably. Yes, women don’t need men just to survive anymore (thankfully). But today, both genders, thanks to our extractive economy, increasingly need the other to live with any reasonable dignity.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 07:20 PM
2

Glad you liked it!
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 06:59 PM
2

I disagree. Acquisitions do not necessarily occur because of proven business models. Then-Facebook acquired WhatsApp for $17 billion back when it had a $0.99/year subscription fee. Facebook has since eliminated it (and WhatsApp remains largely unmonetized to this day). Facebook acquired Instagram for $1 billion and largely created its business model. Both were defensive acquisitions designed to protect the parent company from being disrupted. Same situation with the Match Group. OkCupid’s busine…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 06:58 PM
1

Consolidation is only the result of success insofar it provides the money to acquire new upstarts. Yes, people are responsible for the success of dating apps - men in being exploited like slaves to deplete their finances for a mental affliction the apps themselves created and women in being unpaid customer acquisition agents in a bid to trap those men. The environment that Match creates is key here - they succeeded in printing themselves billions of dollars, but at what cost?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 06:54 PM
5

The difference is that In-n-Out and McDonald’s have two entirely different owners. Match has largely transformed its dating app holdings to match the “create fake female profiles, make men desperate and milk them for everything they’ve got” business model every time they acquire them. The article I cite from Christian Rudder was back when OkCupid was funded by advertisements, and specifically trashed the paid model of Match and eHarmony. Look at OkCupid today - it has the very business model Mr.…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 06:50 PM
9

They own Tinder, Match, Meetic, OkCupid, Hinge, Pairs, PlentyOfFish, and OurTime. Seems fairly dominant to me?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 06:07 PM
28

Unfortunately, the answer lies in creative destruction. We’ll need a new dating app with some combination of the following features: (1) Verification. You cannot sign up for an app without proving you’re a real person. (2) Gender Ratio Balance. A man cannot join unless a woman does, and vice versa (with exceptions at the very beginning or both will remain at 0). (3) Some combination of features that will convince women that losing access to 99+ matches in two hours is worth it. This will likely …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 06:05 PM
5

This is how we would expect dating apps to work if we had a perfectly or highly efficient market. Why would men stay in a dating app where they have little to no hope or interacting with, let alone meeting, women? The answer lies in the highly addictive nature of these apps. Swipe dating uses many tactics similar to slot machines, including the use of intermittent reinforcement, to trap and keep men into addiction. Men are disproportionately likely to fall prey to compulsive behaviors like gambl…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 05:59 PM
13

If this is an indictment against the mostly male engineers developing these apps, then I’ll second this chain of thought. While I’m sure Tinder’s founders thought of this as just like ordering women’s bodies like pizzas, it clearly didn’t work that way. And then Match just turbocharged everything into the ditch. That being said, the female user experience literally does not matter to these businesses. Their paid subscriptions aren’t marketed to women because it’s men they try to make desperate a…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 05:40 PM
2

I don’t know if it’s easier, but it’s certainly more convenient, especially given how much time we spend on our electronic devices today. That being said, there’s massive room to improve - Match truly has created one of the worst OLD environments imaginable.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 05:36 PM
8

I’ve heard this take a lot, but I don’t think it holds up in reality. It is true that women have made an extraordinary leap over the last five decades to the point where women in their 20s make 93 cents on the dollar compared to men in their 20s. 30 percent of women make more than their husbands, with this number slightly but steadily increasing over time. It is also true that women overwhelmingly prefer a mate who earns more than them, and that the growth in unmarried individuals from 1990 to w…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 05:34 PM
12

I agree that Match monetized dating, but it has definitely introduced features to collectively ruin the experience for everyone. Just see what happened to OkCupid, Hinge, etc. after Match acquired it. They’ve become far worse - the site laden with bots, men find it much harder to get a reply from women, pay-to-play being a requirement to do much of anything, etc. Hinge originally limited their app to be friends of friends only in order to create a more safe experience for women and to connect pe…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/07/22 05:05 PM
1

You’re right that matching is generally a prerequisite to messaging (although this isn’t necessarily true of all apps). However, given just 7% of matches for men lead to messages (and 21% of matches for women), matches don’t really equal messages. As for “most women wanting tallwhitechad”, there is evidence to support various parts of this, but not really the statement as a whole. There are racial biases on online dating apps (and real life), but even the least desired races for men (e.g. Black …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/22 09:57 PM
1

Date-o-nomics provided a ton of examples as to demographics actively shaping culture (generally showing colleges having more committed relationships with high male percentages and more hookup culture with low ones, Mormons and a sect of Orthodox Jews I forgot having men much less willing to commit due to high women percentages and some loosening of sexual norms - although yes, they are still conservative compared to most people). So yeah, culture does have a role, but it’s worth noting that demo…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/22 05:38 AM
2

This is based on messages. Men message just 7 percent of their matches; for women, it’s 21.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/22 05:31 AM
1

That isn’t really true. The top 1% of men are getting maybe the same amount of attention at the message stage as the 30th percentile female (iirc). Sure, they get like 16% of female likes (again, far from everyone), but likes/swipes are not matches and therefore don’t mean anything in practice. Women in their 30s are largely ignored on dating apps, at least relative to those in their 20s. By the age of 35, its almost like playing the game as an unattractive male.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/22 05:30 AM
2

I don’t actually use OLD due to my concerns of developing a gambling addiction to the app. I explore this topic out of pure commitment to understanding the world around me through data.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/22 05:27 AM
2

I did not say that “only ugly girls will match with you”. All I’m saying is that the average male is going to be doing worse in heavily male dominated environments like OLD because females become much more choosier when they feel the sex ratio balances them, and vice versa in situations like the former Soviet Union where there are more women than men. Individual people are but just one part of an average.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/22 05:25 AM
1

Glad to hear that you managed to meet someone special!
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/22 05:23 AM
3

Correct, hence the huge spikes in male and (to a much lesser extent) female virginity. However, given that a significant amount of women do not use OLD, their standards specifically are not artificially raised by the app. That being said, it’s getting worse with every passing year, so who knows what it’s gonna be like in 10 or 20 years?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/22 04:58 AM
3

That’s certainly one way to put it - but in the thousands of hours you’re going to spend, how many video games are you going to play? Some that are more fun but less addictive?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/22 03:51 AM
6

I mean there’s certainly a case to consider where OLD is so permeated into society that everyone’s perception of the dating market has become whatever it is on Tinder. The reason I shied away from that is that if OLD apps are majority men (and active users are supermajority men), then there exists a substantial portion of women not on OLD, still unaffected by the complete imbalance in standards on OLD. It is certainly much easier to select between a large number of people on OLD, but not the way…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/22 12:28 AM
7

There’s just one problem - the app does not deliver what you are describing, at least not efficiently. The least attractive female on OkCupid gets more attention than 80% of men on the site. Only at the 90th or so percentile do men even cross 1 message/week. The most attractive man equals around 30th to 45th percentile female due to a big jump at the very end. Because of the sex ratios associated with these apps, only professional male models in terms of attractiveness (mega-Chads) have the pote…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/22 12:14 AM
1

Unfortunately for Tinder, you’re not paying for that, so they’re basically paying a few dimes to addict you lol
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/22 01:20 AM
1

Eh, plenty go on to find a LTR for real. There are large groups (as we’ve discussed) that are just there to exploit male attention or make new friends, but at the scale of these apps millions of women do use them in a way where 10,000 to find your bf is pretty shameful.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 08:24 PM
2

Regarding the engineers, they’d make the same amount. Most of them have specific tasks coming from upper management and spend a ton of time literally fixing the 58291244 software problems that come from serving millions of users. A significant portion of them are probably interviewing for new jobs while they’re supposed to be working… Sure, people that are “betas” by definition believe that. But engineers aren’t thinking about “alright so if I add this feature or fix this software problem” women…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 08:23 PM
1

Fair callout of the dichotomy in my comment. What I should have said is “there are women that are into you”. It’s just OLD’s stupid structure making those people tens of thousands of swipes away that make them so damn impossible to find…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 08:10 PM
1

That too
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 08:09 PM
2

One thing to note is that if your man was doing this for real, he probably wouldn’t be matching with those people a full 3-5 below him. Most swipes on dating apps are hypergamous (both men and women, although the data shows women are more so), but most people don’t want to be accepting the ridiculous mismatches you call out, so those imbalanced right swipes get responded with left swipes. And yeah, there are plenty wanting those free trips/meals. Anecdotally, these people make it a bit too obvio…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 08:07 PM
1

So then why don’t they want to swipe left on all 100% if they want the feeling of power? And even if they want both “Chad” and “power”, wouldn’t they want to get “Chad” first and then basically just use the app relentlessly to swipe left endlessly? I would expect the apps to be mostly female in this case, except all the women are just there to “swipe left bc they can”. On the other hand, these apps are male dominated.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 05:39 AM
1

These apps are designed for their own profit, not to maximize female leverage. A group of engineers, 80% of whom are male, are not going to intentionally try to boost women on OLD - they are there to get paid six figures and leave when they find something better. The executives at Match are far too concerned about $$$ to care about any of their customers except when it affects their profits
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 05:37 AM
2

“Men only match with women 3-5 points below” - I don’t have match numbers, but neither at the like stage nor at the message stage is this really true. Women and men are both fantastically obsessed with the top 10% at the likes stage, with very little attention going to everyone else (it’s just the very small percentage of likes that match that balance this out). By the message stage, we see 40 percent of messages going to the top 20 percent of men and 45.5 percent of messages going to the top 20…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 05:35 AM
1

If it took you 10k searches to find the product you were looking for on Amazon, the company would go bankrupt
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 05:12 AM
2

Regarding 30/3: The percent of female virgins is a lot higher than 3%, which suggests to me some level of deliberate choice. Because women tend to date up, a greater percentage of women are going to get laid than men. However, 30 is well above a line of reason, or even what women would have been perfectly happy to accept as late as 2007. Regarding Female Swiping: I don’t come from a perspective of altruism toward women but more from a Homo Deus (Yuval Noah Harari)-style lack of human agency pers…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 02:44 AM
1

Until we have a better view of the composition of this bottom 30% class, it is difficult to provide women any recommendation of what they can do, much less what they may be willing to do. Remember, 30-90 get options because of the fact that women’s preferences for them are relatively fairly distributed. Women aren’t a monolith for this group of men at all, and until we know what characteristics separate them from the groups that are 0-30 (which are monolithically treated by women), there’s not m…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 02:19 AM
2

Sample variance is defined as variance divided by the square root of the sampled population. Dividing by the square root of 130 million gives you a pretty low variance when it comes to the American population. Now, if you want to argue that sexual preferences in China, India, and Africa will be vastly different (and therefore what I’m writing doesn’t generalize to them), you’d be right. Most of my analysis is America-centric, so if your dating environment is vastly different, its helpfulness wil…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 02:07 AM
1

Of course I could conclude that. While I didn’t use the strong language I used to condemn the creation of a “no fuck zone” of 30% of young adult men in this post, my position on that has not changed. It remains barbaric, grotesque, and a textbook recipe for societal disaster. I haven’t done so because it seems that aside from concentration in the top 10% of men, women’s preferences really do vary from 30 to 90 pct. What might be “unattractive” to the vast majority of women might be a 10 to other…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 01:53 AM
3

On dating apps: yes. On bell curve: I disagree, mainly bc attractiveness still plays a role (supermodel attention isn’t the same as femcel) On distribution: No, there’s still a difference between a 4 and a 7 (maybe 30% more messages and 2x more likes? The like number is a pure shot in the dark though), it’s just that it’s small enough you can focus on other things that women like if you want (earning potential, personality, etc.)
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 12:31 AM
3

It is true that OLD has definitely changed the game of attraction to benefit women more (as seen by our massive spikes in male virginity), but I do think that is because of OLD’s design. Online dating doesn’t have to be highly visual (Hinge by itself proves this), but is chosen to presumably because it’s easier to process images than read text (and I guess that boosts the metrics Tinder et al. are optimizing for). I do think the general population has largely whitewashed the struggles of the bot…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 12:26 AM
2

I believe so
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 12:17 AM
1

I was actually thinking something similar when I started this post and was planning to conclude something entirely different from what I posted here. Here’s why I backed away from that conclusion: (1) Swipes and messages have such a big difference in inequality. That divergence must be explained in some fashion. After all, if 20% of men are getting, say, 70% of the likes (probably higher, this is a minimum floor), how are they only getting 40% of the messages? (2) Men only message 7% of their ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/02/22 12:00 AM
1

https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/24165/online-dating-penetration-rate-revenue-selected-countries/ Also, OLD is not a US only phenomenon. It seems like only 10-15% of people use OLD in developed countries but that is not going to include people happily in relationships, pre-teens, etc. hence why 40+% of Americans’ (and likely other developed countries) relationships start due to OLD…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/22 11:15 PM
4

40% of Americans is still over 130 million people… And yes, this analysis is mostly meant to explore strategies and behavior in online dating. Given the spikes in virginity (especially among men) since the rise of Tinder et al., it certainly has changed dating behavior a solid amount. But then again, it’s unclear that this forum would even exist without OLD (RP is largely a post-Tinder phenomenon)
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/22 11:12 PM
1

Yes (well, swipes, matches, and messages). I haven’t looked for such data yet, but should I find any I’ll probably write a follow up post. I still think what I’ve found thus far is still useful info for the earlier stages of the pipeline though!
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/22 11:09 PM
6

For men in general, the percentage of right swipes that are matches are very low (and conversations that lead to messages significantly lower than that!). Even if you get 2 matches per 100 swipes (and are probably well in the upper half of men here!), you’re still doing a lot of swiping to get your matches, but you will get them with some time investment. Women are into you, it just takes a while to find the specific women who are :) For the bottom 30 percent, women are largely not into you, and…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/22 10:40 PM
3

Skip to the TLDR lol
/r/PurplePillDebate20/02/22 10:30 PM
2

Fair point on being more exact, my logic in reporting “50” and “70” instead of “43” and “73.5” (the exact values) is those numbers are easier to remember and that there is ultimately noise in these values anyway (given that our brains do not process attractiveness in discrete ordinal values, but rather in a continuous regression distribution). For example, the Hinge data scientist study finding a 78/22 rule (which I think is deeply flawed since it only deals with numbers of likes), it was still …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/22 09:17 PM
1

When I wrote 57%, I was referring to the bottom two groups (26.5 and 30.5 together). Sorry if I wasn’t being clear. You could argue that the top 50% have an incredibly fair dating market and the top 70% have a decently fair one. The most apt comparisons of the experiences of these men are formerly communist countries where most professions, regardless of you being a doctor or a sales clerk, was paid the same amount of money. While the market when including the bottom 30% appears to be reasonably…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/02/22 03:45 AM
2

Sure thing! Glad you appreciate it :)
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/22 11:07 PM
3

There’s just one problem - there is no 20% line. Yes, women only find 20% of men attractive…but they don’t agree on which 20% is. That’s why women individually have super stringent preferences (and hence making numbers game optimal for men), but looks wise largely create a level playing field for 70% of men (and a ghastly one for the bottom 30%). I also don’t see much evidence for the “settling” framework that RP treats as canon. This is mostly based on AF/BB, which seems to go along the lines o…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/22 06:54 PM
1

Interesting read! I guess I didn’t realize many of those ideals were RP, I mostly thought they were common beliefs. I think the whole Nice Guy debate is blown to extremes. Yes, on balance it is better to be a good person than a bad one (I’m aware Dark Triad-style men seem to have better odds with relationships but those are also likely to be more unstable). Expecting NiceGuy tactics to be the entire game is ludicrous, just as being a kind person is not by itself a guarantee of economic prosperit…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/22 06:29 PM
8

Adding to this discussion - alongside the great points mentioned above, I think it’s a relatively easy fallacy to make to believe in the 80/20 rule based on OKC data. Because men tend to put a higher amount of value on attractiveness, seeing that 80% of men are rated unattractive leads to the conclusion that they are undateable (essentially RP dogma). In practice, it turns out that women themselves don’t really agree on who is the top 20 percent, which is why there is remarkable equality based o…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/22 08:28 AM
6

Interesting analysis! I will say I disagree with your specific numbers though: https://boingboing.net/2021/03/22/adult-male-virginity-soars.html Male virginity between 18 and 30 has skyrocketed since OLD from 8 percent to 27 percent. I think the fact that this is close to the 26.5 percent I essentially assigned to the “incel” category in my study is purely coincidental, however, this bottom tier of men is still clearly, and unfortunately, a lot higher than 5 percent. Regarding the split of top 2…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/22 06:48 AM
4

My findings unfortunately won’t be helpful outside of the looks department, but what does RP ultimately offer in its program outside of boosting attractiveness? My conclusion on a 70% BP/30% RP paradigm was premised on RP chiefly viewing both male-female and female-male attraction as a physical attractiveness question, which is only justifiable for the bottom 30% based on attractiveness (i.e. BP can be shown to be flatly incorrect for this population, just as you note). Do you have some other da…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/22 05:08 AM
26

Upvoted. Women have been outnumbering men on American payrolls since 2009, and as of 2018 54 percent of women are breadwinners in their families (dropping to 30 for married women). Women now make up just shy of 60 percent of all undergraduate college students. It’s a matriarchy right up to the very top, which remains male dominated (e.g. most 1 percenters are male).
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/22 01:51 AM
13

I actually saw that Gini study while conducting my own - I ended up doing my own due to the lack of details the original article provided and because their sample size was like really low (23 iirc) I actually believe my results cast doubt on the “bottom 80% of men competing for bottom 22% of women” conclusion. The author seems to have concluded that based on comparing the likes males and females give each other, which given females like a lot less is going to lead to such divergent results. I th…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/22 01:42 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter