TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

‎OK cupid studies proving how women have much more varied tastes than men. • r/Braincels

Pomodoro2

April 11, 2018
17 upvotes
/r/BlackPillScience
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title ‎OK cupid studies proving how women have much more varied tastes than men. • r/Braincels
Author

Pomodoro2

Upvotes 17
Comments 11
Date April 11, 2018 11:44 PM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/BlackPillScience
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/8blrj8/ok_cupid_studies_proving_how_women_have_much_more/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/BlackPillScience/ok-cupid-studies-proving-how-women-have-much-more.215706
https://theredarchive.com/post/215706

Comments

[–]SubsaharanAmericanshitty h-index[M] [score hidden] 8 years ago* stickied comment (0 children) | Copy Link

This was posted on IT a couple of months ago, so I'll excerpt the key portions of my posts from the thread there onto here:


Women were especially harsh when rating men on a 0-5 scale in OKcupid's data. Look at the picture of the "significantly below medium" men the blog-writers included to further drive home this point. If those men were rated 0's, and they look decent -- to both my own and the blog-writers' eyes -- then it raises a serious question of whether there is a deeper physical attractiveness-rating substructure of 0s where women would categorize the "decent-looking" 0s as "messagable" and the truly unattractive 0s (by conventional standards) as "unmessagable." Without a way to probe whether such a substructure exists (or, alternatively, perhaps using a 0-10 rating scale instead), the generalizability of the blog post to incels who don't look like the "decent-looking" 0s pictured is compromised.

It is entirely possible that a subpopulation of the 0s -- the "decent-looking" 0s -- may account for all 11% of the messages. Without knowing whether it does or doesn't, it's hard to speak on its implications/generalizability. TBH, the entire distribution of both the messages and the attractiveness ratings makes me more so question OkCupid's rating platform and the implications of first-messages by women on the site than uprooting any intuitive notions regarding the influence of conventional attractiveness. Unfortunately, since this wasn't a peer reviewed manuscript, but only a mere blog post, crucial details that might help in teasing out wtf is going on are wholly lacking.


Edit: More methodical review here.

[–]dullsite 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women don't message men. Let's see this done with bumble.

[–]neomancrAt-risk Sperg0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (74 children) | Copy Link

"Black pillers along with LMSers deliberately ignore the messaging curve while pretending that women all have the same tastes and judge 80 percent of men as unattractive and so the 20 percent that remains must all be the same guys."

Called it

😉

[–]dullsite 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

inb4 2+2 = 4

using differences in messaging rates when there's a difference in the circumstances under which a sex messages the other isn't conclusive

Let's see the message rates vs attractiveness when women are forced to initiate.

It's also worth noting that women's self reported attraction does not correlate with arousal, unlike for men, further clouding the data:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-13812-3

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811244/

[–]neomancrAt-risk Sperg0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (72 children) | Copy Link

Cope. Regardless you are violating the law of parsimony I. E. Occam's Razor by introducing homogeneity as a factor that isn't inherent to the data.

The only way you would be able to conclude an 80 20 rule is if you were to presume all women have the same tastes. We even have a graph that looks more characteristic of that which is the one for males.

[–]dullsite 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Cope

It's called an argument

introducing homogeneity as a factor that isn't inherent to the data.

uh huh. There are obvious differences between the sexes in both messaging rates, and correlation between self-reported attraction and arousal. The data we're looking at is predicated on those facts. It's absolutely relevant to the data.

What we could look at that could be more conclusive is the relationship of testosterone to match rate in men, for example.

Previously we saw that men with higher levels of testosterone had more sexual partners

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21420411

but the degree to which that is a result of them being more attractive vs. them being more promiscuous due to the testosterone is unknown. A study directly on the match rates through a dating app could clarify this.

[–]neomancrAt-risk Sperg0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (70 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't really matter. You're just stale mating and casting more doubt onto the original conclusion. Fine with me

[–]dullsite 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

casting doubt onto the original conclusion

Yes, that's the point. I'm going to do some more reading and then get back to you.

[–]neomancrAt-risk Sperg1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

Yea keep back peddling all over your own original claim.

The data was good enough when you thought it supported "black pill toof"

[–]dullsite 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The data was good enough when you thought it supported "black pill toof"

I think you're confusing me with someone else again

[–]neomancrAt-risk Sperg1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (66 children) | Copy Link

You guys sure as hell weren't debunking the 80 20 claim before. Now that it turns out it doesn't mean what you hope, you're trying to cloud the field.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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