Secrets from OK Cupid's lost diatribe

OK Cupid once published a diatribe against pay dating sites.  They have since taken it down, but you can read a copy of it here:   http://interestingreads.posterous.com/why-you-should-never-pay-for-online-dating-ok

There are interesting things to realize from it.

First of all, apparently most profiles are dead.  They said between 93 and 97% of eharmony subscribers are no longer active.  Honestly, that seems likely to me.   Eharmonny has a tiered response system and most people don't even respond to the first set of questions. 

Second, they say an average response rate for an active profile is 30%.   Even using a generous 10% active account number, 30% means you only get a response 3% of the time.

Obviously, some people are more attractive and might get 5%, while others are less and might get 1%.   It then went on to say the more emails you sent out the less response rate you get.   They think that is a factor of just not putting enough effort into it.  A well written email takes more time so you put fewer out.

I find their conclusion to be a false.


First, that might be a bit reversed - the less attractive people might know they are less attractive, so they put out more emails and get fewer responses.   In my personal experience, men that list a height above 5'10" get a lot more responses than a man whose height is listed below 5'6".  Similarly, women with hot pictures get a lot more emails than those with less attractive one.    These people KNOW this - which is why every once in a while you see men lying about their height and women putting up old or deceptive photos.   It is not unreasonable for a guy knowing he is less attractive to send out more emails.


Second, despite their complaint about lower response rates, the more email strategies works.  If I get a 3% response by sending out say 5 emails a day, but get only a 1% response by sending out 30 emails a day, then I am better off sending out 30 a day.   That is, statistically I should get 1 email response in 7 days at 5/day with 3% response, where as I get 1 response every  4 days at 30/day with 1%.

As quantity beats percentages most of the time.

The real question is quality, not quantity of response and we don't really know if the well written attracts a better quality of women.   It may be that all the first email does is convince the women to look at your profile and then make the decision based more on the profile you put out for everyone rather than the email you crafted just for them.

Deja Weight

Over the past 10 years or so I have noticed an interesting trend.  Many people that see me only one in a while constantly think I've lost weight.  A lot of weight - as in 30 lbs or more.  Now my weight has fluctuated some, but mostly in a 10-15 lb range.  I never go below 170 or over 185.   Usually I am between 175 and 180.    In effect, I have lost the same 5 lbs time and time again.  OK, when I try hard/get sick, I can make it the same 10 lbs.  

Recently I have turned some fat into muscle, which has helped some, but that's only been over the past year, and I was at about 178 or so before that.  Yet people that see me after a couple of months swear I've lost two or more belt sizes.  In truth, I have lost one belt size over the past year, and that's about it.

I have come up with several possible explanations for this phenomena.  These are all things I invented, no scientific evidence exists for them.

1. Fat Memory Syndrome.  That is, when I stand in front of people they see me for my true weight, but the second I leave their sight they create a false memory of me being fat.  The longer they go without  seeing me, the fatter I get in their memory.
2. Edge of Fatness.   I am on the cusp of perceived fatness.  That is, slight changes in my weight create massive illusions.   When I am above it, perhaps when I wear particular clothes, I look fat.  When I lose just a little weight, and perhaps wear the right clothing, I look much thinner than I really am.
3. Hair Illusion.   Sometimes I let my hair get longer than usual, often in the winter.   In the summer I prefer my hair shorter.   This year I have however kept my hair shorter.   Perhaps my hair style creates the impression of a fat body or a thin body. 

Now I do have some particular weaknesses when it comes to weight.   My neck is unusually thick and has been ever since I was young and thin.   Similarly, I am short, which is a double whammy for weight - you need to eat less food (and they don't sell you less food if you are short) and proportionately the same percentage of body fat on a tall person looks better than on a short person.

If I was not concerned about side affects, I would be the guy that tries all the weight loss drugs, even the risky ones.  As it is, I tend to try lots of different physical exercises.  My newest routine seems to be working, so I am sticking with it.  Specifically I use a large number of short small classes.  Each class is about 45 minutes, and generally has 1-4 other participants.  Having the trainer pay close attention to your body is very important.  Among other things it means they can customize the work out for you.

 

What you like vs. What you dislike

In general, most people are far more shallow about their "Pros" lists than about "Cons".

That is, in a "Pro" list they put down things like "Must be 6'+ tall" or "Must have big breasts".

But for their "Con" lists, they put down things like "No drug addicts", or "No unemployed".

This is a mental trick actually.   In both cases, you are thinking of extremes.   When you think Pro, you think of the best, so you put down a description of something that is actually a bit better than you really truly need.  When you think Con, you think worst and you put down something worse than what you really accept. .

For example, when talking about employment, a Pro list might include "CEO", while a Con list might be unemployed.   Honestly, if someone was second in command to the CEO, you probably would take that and similarly, if someone was working at McDonalds, you probably would not accept them.

This is one of the major reasons I much prefer the Con list to the Pro list.   If you truly want to be less shallow, stop thinking about what you want and think about the things you can't accept.

Your list will be morally superior, and honestly you will meet more people and BETTER people. While being shallow is OK, being deep has advantages.

Another good reason to use the Con list then the pro list technique is that you are less likely to be in a situation where you fall for a total douche.   When you use the pro list, you go out with people because of things, then slowly find out their problems and eventually decide not to date them.

When you use the con list, you go out with people because they aren't a douche, then slowly find out if you really like them.  Trust me, it's a lot easier to stop dating someone because you don't lust after them than it is to stop dating someone that you lust after, but is cheating on you.

Now, this is just a guideline, there are exceptions.  It is possible to be shallow on the "con" list too.  Some will say "No short men" or "No woman that ever so much as wanted children - even if they don't want them now".  

But moving to a mostly "con" list is better than sticking to a long "pro" list.

Attracting everyone vs. attracting the right one.

Every once in a while someone give the stereotypical dating advice of 'just be myself'.  Then someone goes and gives me the directly contradicting advice of don't do X, when X is a core part of my personality.  They are trying to convince me not to scare off 'normal' women.

Women have less of an issue with this, but they still get it.  Usually in a slightly different version.  Instead of being told to 'fit in', they are told to hide their light. They are told not to be smarter then men, not to make more money, not to be better at anything than a man is.  Screw that.  Women, listen up - any guy that is intimidated by your brains, cash, or prowess at anything - sports, drinking, gambling, praying, monopoly, etc. isn't worth your time.  Stop settling for some loser with an tiny ego and look for someone better.  (Note, their is a myth of men having a small ego.  Not true, but I'll get into more of that later.  Yes, some men have small egos, so do some women.  But the average is about the same.)

The same goes for men.   You can't worry about what the average/generic woman wants.  You need to worry about what the woman you want wants.

I am not the average guy, I will not appeal to the average, generic women.  I'm short, smart, funny, geeky, quirky, nice, and assertive.   The average woman does NOT want a short man, geeky , nice or quirky guy.  Assertive is a positive trait to most women, but not when you combine it with short - and nice makes it harder to see how assertive I am.   (Women that want an assertive man usually want a tall one.  Women that want a short guy often don't want an assertive guy.)  Smart tends to be a positive - but only with women of above average intelligence.   Oh, they usually like funny guy, but that's not my most prominent quality.

More importantly, when I 'be myself", I get compared to other men.  The nice hides the assertive and other men are funnier, so that leaves a smart, geeky, quirky short guy. 

So, what do I do?  I try to find a woman that wants a smart, geeky, quirky, short guy.  Eventually she will realize I am assertive, funny and nice.  Hopefully she will like those qualities in me.

But that means I have to let my true self shine through and accept the fact that it WILL turn off and repel the average women.  Because I'm not looking for the average woman.  I want someone special.

I need a smart, slightly geeky, quirky, nice women, probably a bit on the modest/deferential side.   Or maybe simply someone as assertive as I am that needs a guy capable of standing up to her.  In either case, when I find her, I will hold on with all my heart.

What people complain about

I read an article in a british web site (dailymail.co.uk article ), that listed what women complained about in their boyfriend.  From what I can tell, most of it (with slight cultural shifts) applies to women as well as men.

First, note these are things they complained about but they have NOT left their boyfriend.  So they are 'acceptable', but undesirable traits.

Many of them had to do with chores/hygiene/messiness (toilet seat up, nail clippings left out, not helping with the cooking).   No need to list them all - be neat and helpful.

There were two that I found funny (or at least hypocritical):

9. Driving like a boy racer

15. Criticizing her driving

Then there was some silly things like not multi-tasking, watching too much sports, bad dancing and snoring.

Everything above is annoying, and I would avoid them (particularly the hygiene) when you are tryin to get a date.  But they are not game killers, in part because they often say as much about the complainer as they do about the complain-ee.
 
But there were a five  significant issues: 

1. Failing to be friendly with their friends and family
2. Not getting along well with children
3. Not liking dogs
4. Being a "mommy's boy"
5. Being grumpy.

All of these traits are annoying and cause problems.  Best to avoid them.  Be friendly and make a real effort with your date's family, friends and ANY children you see.   Same goes for dogs.   Avoid being too 'wimpy' - this goes for women as well as men.  Men like a woman that can stand up and deal with the world.   Finally try to be pleasant to be around.  When you complain, people dislike you.


That said, let's take a page from British aircraft designers in WWII (they examined returning planes for bullet holes and added extra armor where no bullet holes were found - as clearly the planes that got shot in those areas did not make it back while planes that landed did not need extra armor).


Notice no mention of cheating.  If you cheat women don't put up with it as a flaw, they say goodbye.  Same for unemployment.  Those are the major ones.

Don't envy the intelligent (much)

Don't you just hate it when wealthy people complain about their problems?    They whine about how horrible it is to have all that money.  The problem is of course that it is rather easy to get rid of money.   Charity, tax,  luxury items, not to mention con men, are all perfectly happy to take your money.

While it is a bit harder to dumb yourself down than it is get rid of your money, I do not pretend that being stupid is better than intelligent.  Only an idiot would want to be stupid.  :)

That said, being intelligent is not quite as great as it sounds.   Consider that someone with an IQ of 65 is considered "defective intelligence" (source).   That's 35 points below the average and "normal" IQ of 100.   Now suppose you have an IQ 135.   The average person is that same 35 minutes below your intelligence.   They just don't understand things that are obvious to you.  Effectively you are surrounded by idiots.  (Note I would rather be called an idiot than defective. )

Ever been in traffic and had some idiot cut you off then return to his original lane?   Ever watch some fool try and fail to use a vending machine?   You know that guy at meetings that just does NOT understand anything - no matter how many times you explain it? The customer service guy that clearly knows less than you do?   The cashier that thinks a $2 bill must be counterfeit because they never saw one before? Those are just some obvious examples.  Think about having things like that going on ALL the time. 

Now, I don't want to be stupider than I am.  But being smart is not all it's cracked up to be.   Would you marry an idiot?  (See, this post does have to do with dating.)   Being smart has a lot of advantages.  You tend to earn more money, fall for less stupid tricks, and in general make slightly better decisions.  But stupider people seem to have more fun (or are at least more easily amused), and have an easier time finding someone to love.

Dating makes this issue much more obvious.   If you are only willing to date people whose IQ is over 125, you only have 6% of the population to select from.  For those of us that are very intelligent, we have a significant disadvantage.  Worse, people don't paste their IQ on their far head.  You can't even make a reliable guess based on clothing.   You have to talk to them - usually for more than 10 minutes - to figure out if they qualify.

I think that's why intelligent people do so much better at college dating than in high school dating.  Everyone around you usually has intelligence similar to yours.   This makes certain things a lot simpler.

You can't even use advanced degrees as a shortcut for intelligence.  School requires hard work more than intelligence.  I know people with (estimated) IQ's of 110 that have a doctorate, and lazy geniuses with (estimated) IQ's of over 130 that barely finished college.  Which school they went to is more important than how far they got.  People accepted into Harvard Undergraduate program are smarter than people that finish Touro Law school

Now, some people do prefer a partner that is smarter than them.   At the same time, other people prefer someone less intelligent than them.   I don't see a general trend making intelligent people either more or less desirable.  But we do have a smaller section of the population to choose from.

First Dates

Getting the date is almost 100% shallow stuff.  How do they look.  What do they say in five minutes.  What clothing they wear.   If you have ever rejected someone that asked you out you have been shallow.  That's OK ladies, the same goes for every guy that has asked out a woman.  We pick who to ask out for based on almost the exact same methodology that you use to reject us.  So if you have ever asked out a woman based on how she looks, that was being shallow.

First dates are only a little bit better.   We are talking 80-90% shallow, depending on the people.  Oh, you go a little bit beyond the basics (job, how you spend your time), but from my experience, the gorgeous people (thin women with a nice face and hair, wealthy tall men) are always the people saying no to the second date, not the ones being rejected. 

The movie/TV myth of the bad date being a total jerk is just that - a myth.   Nine out of ten times, we reject people for not liking our favorite movie/music/pet, not because they asked the waiter out in front of you.

It took me a while to figure this out.   First by recognizing it within myself, then by seeing the same stuff happen with other people.   You see, I try to not be shallow.  I date less attractive women.  But I notice that I put up a lot with attractive women - things I would dump a less attracive women for in a minute.  I try to make excuses for still liking them, but they are excuses.  It's not just me, I see it with other guys and can easily see it with women dating men.  


Part of the problem is that we put our best foot forward.  We tell white lies and deceive out dates.  Did they forget to say they 4 kids?  Did they forget to mention they live with their parents?  Did they forget to say they are unemployed? 

Not to mention a whole bunch of stuff we don't know about ourselves.  Bossy people don't think they are bossy, they think everyone else is disobedient.  As such, they can't warn you they are bossy even if they were honest enough to admit it.

Even the second dates tends to be mostly shallow stuff.   Say 60-70% of dumped on the second date are on things that your mom/dad/sister would not think worth it.

It is not till the third date that we start getting into the real core reasons not to date someone.

Now, I don't think shallow = evil.  Everyone is entitled to being shallow.  But in general, we can all try to be a little bit less shallow.  In the long run, we will be happier.

So, before you dump a guy/gal on the first (or even second) date - ask yourself - if they had a ton of other good qualities would you still date them?  What if they were rich?  What if they were thinner?   If your answer is yes, then consider going on one more date and seeing if perhaps they do have a ton of good qualities you haven't learned about yet.