Is Online Dating Different for Men and Women?

Is Online Dating Different for Men and Women?

pua online dating profile examples

Half of your number is somewhat over This study with an extremely large sample size found that men did rank good looks and facial attractiveness as more important than women did. This study finds that men tend to be attracted to feminine women for romance and androgynous women platonically. Men are more interested in physical appearance, just not as much as he says.

Mit etwas Glück ganz viel Haus gewinnen!

When a girl chooses pictures for her online profile, she brings that deep knowledge of her physiology and, quite plainly, photography, to bear. Do women have it a lot easier than men, and do hot people in general have it the easiest? I went out with a few, and dated one for several months. But I figure the manosphere is less of a worry. Women messaging men at all — especially for casual sex — is an outlier, so one would expect it to throw bizarre data. Naturally, this would increase differences.

Men are no different than women in the fact that they want to be seen as a person, not a piece of meat. But, what makes us feel like a piece of meat is different. Women will think the guy is a creep if he said it, while the man will feel good about himself if the woman says it to him. Now take that to education or employment. A little advice would be to use the 5 love languages quiz to build your profile, as well as talking about things you see yourself doing with this partner.

Stay away from things that cost a lot of money, however. I love to travel, but if you word it wrong, it can sound like you want to travel A LOT, and I may not be able to afford that.

Even to a man with money, that can sound like a sneaky way to measure his monetary worth. If you are a toucher, say so. A man who likes that will see it in bold letters because he IS reading, and searching for what he wants. Same for a man. We see your attempts a mile away. I would say that if anything, we are too sensitive to it such that we are more likely to misread something innocent, than not see a sneaky attempt to look for a man of considerable means.

I should note that some men are more than willing to trade their money for what they want in a woman. You will find them on Sugar Daddy sites. They understand that it takes money to get that. The rest of us want a woman that would live in a tent with us if we lost it all, just as you want a man who would still live you if you lost your looks, say from a horrible traffic accident.

I find it all to be a dark, tragic comedy. God, as a man, reading the basic, common sense rules about online dating, I am absolutely flabbergasted at how simple it is; even a 5 year old would get it. The odds are stacked against men. What if the man whose grammar was less than great happened to be Mr. Right and he just never got a shot simply because of the pre-conceived notion that the women who read his message denied him a chance? Fact is, all of us overlook people whose superficial traits turn us off.

We have preferences and want to marry someone put together too. So you are saying if I were lbs overweight with teeth missing, somehow you would contact me? I expect the man who made it to show the same care and devotion in every aspect of his life. I expect the man who made it to show the same care and devotion in every area of his life. Which is to say, none whatsoever. Can a guy with awful spelling and grammar be a good partner?

You even do it yourself in your post here, implying there is something wrong with most men. So stop spreading this feminist poison. No self-respecting male believes that crap anyway. Make a guy profile and just for fun try hitting on someone prepare to be shocked and amazed that your not getting anywhere.

Especially in a deadend town! Never met anyone who had obviously misrepresented themselves. No one tried to jump down my pants on the first date. I write to many men online first to get higher quality dates. Sure, sometimes you get annoying messages, but I just laugh it off as part of the game. You are So lucky! I try to screen the men I meet from online very carefully and yet my experience is nearly opposite to yours. Two tried to jump me on the second date, two turned out to be felons.

Of the remaining two, both were attractive and intelligent. I asked him what he thought we might have in common since there was no way to tell , and never heard back…big surprise. Even in online dating men still initiate the vast majority of interactions.

Because it is so easy for women to do nothing and wait for him to do it. Guess who initiates the discussions there? Guess who pays for the first date? Where the hell is feminism now? It became about avenging the wrongs done to women. It has since become an exercise in ensuring women get whatever they want. Equality is all well and good when it benefits women, but suddenly the cries for equality stop when it comes to women asking men out, proposing marriage or paying for dates.

If asking men out and paying for dates actually worked more often in getting women relationships, perhaps more women would do it. Out of all the women I know, only one got a marriage with a man she pursued.

In fact, I got a lot of weird looks when I tried paying for dates! After getting shot down like that, it was hard to motivate myself to keep doing it. Last weekend I practically had to wrestle my boyfriend for the check to treat him dinner for his birthday he really likes to pay for me. Most are ok with women chipping in or reciprocating e. Just like any other industry, there has to be measurable results. For most, the measure is how many women will bed them.

For others it will be how many women they get to pay for them. Naturally alpha men have always had success in dating. These alpha men want to remain independent. Or any combination thereof. None of which makes him feel good about himself. You get the next one, okay?

That birthday dinner was the only time I ever did a check-grab with my boyfriend, because I thought it seemed tacky to have anyone pay for their own birthday. However, even there we eventually compromised by me paying for the meal, him dessert!

My 17 year old daughter heard the guy fixing the kitchen sink talking and laughing with me. You sound pretty entitled and rude to be honest. Those guys will find happiness before you with that kind of petty behavior. When I was on dating sites I would typically get messages a day, when I changed something around it would jump to about Out of all those messages I might respond to a week.

No one said she should do otherwise. Give us something to work with. And note how few unsolicited approaches men receive and send out a few of your own. I have had both positive and negative experiences with online dating. I chalk it up to luck and timing but I also know my profile can be improved.

Then you have more choices. Modern women only want to be equal when they are earning money. They do not care about fairness during courtship. If you want to attract great guys, include a few things that are unique about you in your profile for us to write to you about.

Lots or rape threats. Lots of terrible men saying the same terrible stuff. Note that similar dynamics happen in SJ spaces. For example, transgender rights activists use very much the same language as sex worker rights activists. This is not accidental. Therefore, they must all be together. You are just buying into her self-serving damsel posturing.

The original question was, has any women actually been harassed? And yes they have. But you all spout roughly the same misogyny, and the differences are perhaps important within your own tribal fights, but as a woman on the outside it is all one cesspool. Keep in mind, there is not a single correct way to categorize social reality. Nor is there a bright line dividing all the various flavors of MRA versus redpill versus bitter incel versus 4chan troll.

Show me why the variation is important. Why should I invest the cognitive resources in distinguishing you guys? I suspect the world is learning far more useful information about Veronica here than Veronica is learning about the world.

I dislike the people who harassed them. Therefore they are the same group and the burden of proof is on them to prove they are not responsible for bad things. You are just assuming that because they oppose your ideology, which you define as Good, that they must all be Bad, and interchangeably so.

Pickup artists are in fact based in accepting a premise that MRAs categorically reject: To bring things down to your level: MRAs act like they hate women. To paraphrase a feminist who was pissed at me, my inconvenience at having to listen to you complain is more important to me than your inconvenience at living in a world where you have a significant chance of being raped and murdered.

So there you go. Lots of very clear distinctions between groups, who all need different approaches if you want to get them on board or out of the way and thus achieve whatever your goals are. My impression was that MRAs do accept this premise, but generally wish things were different, rather than trying to win the game like PUAs do.

Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. The issues MRAs focus on child custody, alimony, female-on-male DV, gender-based sentencing disparities, male rape victimization, infant genital mutilation, etc are not really inherently left or right issues. The idea that male worth is predicated on female attention is part of male disposability.

Women are inherently valuable and precious; men are not until they have done something to prove or earn their masculinity and thus right to existence.

No, I did not say that. I said that these groups have sufficient common grounds in terms of misogyny, and sufficient overlap in terms of membership, including movement of members, that it is useful to me to consider them part of the same overall cultural force. Now the question becomes this: You might feel differently. There is more than one way to conceptualize our social reality.

You said that based on absolutely no facts whatsoever and revealed you know nothing at all about these groups. You repeated assertions that are obviously untrue to anyone with the slightest familiarity as if they backed up your case. Which does not mean I lack sufficient experience dealing with these men in these spaces to have formed my opinion.

It is that I have not packaged that knowledge in the way you want. Suppose that a man is a wildly successful scientist who cures prostate cancer, saving millions of male lives. He would have worth for what he has done; but what he has done affects women only tangentially.

Plus, male disposability still provides much the same predictions if men have intrinsic value, so long as they have a lot, lot less intrinsic value than women. Does this picture look familiar , for example? I agree that men should not be valued according to their ability to attract women.

Personally, I believe the sense of self-worth that stays with me whether or not I have female attention comes more from liberal feminism than from patriarchy or the PUA community. Generally, the things MRAs criticize are either considered to be part of the broader gender norms i. The MRM does not, as a rule, treat feminism as the boogie-man for all social problems i. He seemed pretty chill about the whole thing. Just kind of… glad to be free?

Feminism is made of the same attitudes and ideas that created all of these sexist institutions, plus a gobsmacking helping of selfishness. These are not the same people. They do not have the same beliefs.

They do not have the same goals. They are completely orthogonal to each other. If you think people should be more discriminating between clusters in a large group they disagree with, fine. If you think taring all your opponents with the same brush in an intellectually dishonest manner is a good idea, fine. They are based on the actions of the feminist movement, and the inactions of the feminist movement. It is a specific, sustained, pervasive pattern of behavior. When feminists lobby to institute the Violence Against Women Act, based on the Duluth Model of domestic violence that explicitly states all domestic violence is done by men against women out of their hatred of women, and other feminists make no attempt to stop them or oppose them, I am allowed to notice that that happened.

I am allowed to see feminists, as a movement and with little to no effort from other feminists to stop them, claim taht men who do not serve them by changing the law in their favor must hate women and should be shamed.

I am allowed to notice the overwhelming message of female victimhood and male threat, that is pushed by feminists, in contradiction to reality. When feminists in America become outraged and demand change after a woman is gang-raped in India, and soon after feminist successfully lobby to have the law changed to explicitly define rape as a crime committed by men against women and exclude male victims from being counted or having justice, and no feminists oppose them and no feminists raise their voices in outrage, I am allowed to notice that happened.

I am allowed to see that the victimization of a woman caused a great deal of outrage, and the active effort by feminists in the name of feminism to exclude men from being recognized as victims caused no outrage.

I am allowed to see feminist ideology, unopposed by feminists and with no effort from feminists to change it, define women as worthy of protection and men as not really being victims. I am allowed to see the largest feminist organization in the country treat it as purely natural that men must have obligations to women and must not be allowed to escape them. It is not outgroup homogeneity bias that makes me say feminists support sexism.

Because all that was was a list of examples of things feminism has done without feminist opposition that lead me to the conclusion that feminism is an extension of sexism. Are you disputing some or all of those things happened? Because I can get citations. Or are you just assuming that because I oppose your ideology, I must have humiliated myself somehow? For instance, being non-aggressive is useful when claiming women never initiate domestic violence, but not when demanding that women get to high-powered executive jobs, so it only applies to the first.

Again, the notion that women were powerless and home-bound only applies when you are passing out guilt based on history — women are free to claim the credit of being movers and shakers. What both sides seem to not realize or at least not admit publicly is that all models are weapons. There is no such thing as a social fact which is not weaponizable, and there is no such thing as a weaponizable social fact which is not weaponized.

Which is what I think you are missing. I was never playing the game you are playing. I am here for interesting conversations with smart people not to lock horns with an MRA! Good grief that sounds tedious. The conversation had not just already become toxic, but had turned to the subject of why it was toxic. I largely agree with veronica in this case. On 2, I do think there are potential solutions for men, namely sex-positive, consent-bases cultures.

There is no reason they should be limited thus. On the other hand, men have to want this. Dr Beat, Accusing your opponents of arguing in bad faith is very difficult to do politely. I imagine the reason most people read this blog is to learn how to do it, or at least to have specific examples to cite. By repeatedly doing it, especially in the middle of the object-level argument, it shows that you care a lot more about the meta point and completely overshadows the object level argument.

Maybe you should care more about the meta level argument and maybe you need to object level argument on the way, but you should segregate them. Give the one, then the other. And while you kept asserting that they were arguing in bad faith, you never clearly said how. More specific is better. Also, it really tones down the accusation of bad faith. But it is also out of place in this thread.

No one here claimed that you were thinking of fake feminists. Instead they claimed that real feminists are diverse. That was the point. Because, on the axis that accusation is telling us to look at, your group is not diverse: This is not an accurate analogy, because Christianity is a diverse group, on the axis that is implied to be under scrutiny, that of homophobia; the WBC is not able to leverage the political power of the name of Christianity because other Christians oppose their efforts and deny them that power, so the WBC has accomplished fuckall.

Your kink is okay. But I was not saying this. But DrBeat wanted to have a boring, in-the-weeds Internet debate. Which I did not want to do. That does not mean I should shut up and go away. I still had stuff I wanted to say, so I said it. Plus I was not only communicating with DrBeat.

Others can read this thread. Others can add their thoughts, which they have done. I stated above, my goal is to have interesting conversations with smart people.

I believe I have done that. Also, even on the level you supposedly want to engage with, you completely ignored the Ozy Frantz v. If you scroll up and read this mess again, you might notice this: Instead, I state my case, let others state theirs, and then respond to what interests me. I find this curious. Note, it is not my goal to annoy them. As an aside, I am quite interested in patterns control and dominance in communication. The applications to feminism are obvious. I will now fork to a different subthread.

And the people calling on you to back up the things you say are the bad guys? I have a theory that most men prefer slim women partly because dating slim women is higher-status in most circles than dating fat women. That seems incredibly accurate to me. I have been motivated not to date a girl on the basis it would make me look low status though, i. The thought seems as alien to me as finding an inanimate object, like a piece of wood, sexually attractive.

Until now, I, like the commenter above me, thought all mens sexual attraction triggers worked the same as mine. All of it is true. And if it does change your perception, then that is interesting. So, not really buying it. I wish I were less picky. If you look at the picture of me in my absurdly long comment, no one is going to mistake me for low status regardless. In the interest of comparison, here is a similar shirtless pic of me. However, imagine dating an attractive Russian woman with poor command of English.

That would be a real loss of social status. Would you still be indifferent to that? I met my physically attractive ex-wife while I spent a year working in Russia, and she had a poor command of English when I brought her back to the US. Matthew — if you chose to date this woman over less attractive girls from the US then I suspect you really do value looks over status.

There are self-reinforcing norms in this. Vice versa, if people believe you are desperate it can can totally trump other forms of attractiveness. When I was 18, I got to know two older Filipino women pretty well they were 25 and They were super nice, the older one was well-educated and really smart too spoke five languages fluently, among them Cantonese.

Now normally nice, good looking, smart and brave as hell women would be considered attractive, right? For some perspective, the older woman was the only one of seven siblings to have higher education, as a teacher. She had supported her family for maybe ten years when I met her. They both had boyfriends from my country. Three guesses about where they lay on the apparent measures of attractiveness scale. For one of the two women I knew, it did work out, she married and stayed.

But the other moved back. This shadow zone of undeserved perceptions of desperation is where I live. Both in terms of dating and in terms of friendships.

Any ideas how I can escape? I should be using them more often in general, so thank you for that reminder as well. The captivating scale is idiosyncratic and highly variable. It includes moderately weird characteristics, and I use Incognito browsing to stop them showing up on my Google search history.

People who rank highly on the captivating scale gratify my raw hedonistic impulses. A male friend of mine was mocked pretty routinely and aggressively for having a fat female fuckbuddy. And I heard that a friend of a friend was too.

April Flores is actually not attractive, but as one of the rules of the internet says, if a fetish exists, no matter how small the extent, there is porn of it.

What Heartsie describes as the typical features of an attractive woman are in fact the typical features of an attractive woman. In American society that means having a girlfriend who is attractive. If in society X it was high status to have April Flores as a girlfriend and people felt sorry for you if your girlfriend looked like Lexie Belle, that should prompt one to look for whatever strange quirk of the culture or maybe isolated genetic history has brought about that abnormality.

Soft curves and big breasts are great on a 20 year old white woman; but that same woman will look awful at OTOH, a skinny, attractive asian woman at 30 will still be a fairly skinny, attractive asian woman at What I want in my bed and on my arm are two different things — and the reason is status.

There was a study a while ago saying that men when looking at porn presumably privately tend to prefer average or above average weight women. The original data is apparently in their book but heres some quotes and links. Do you see a big difference in cultural response to visual stimulation? It has been said that ankles and arms were very stimulating when they were first revealed by calf-length skirts and shorter sleeves in the s. Across cultures, men prefer larger than average breasts to smaller than average ones, overweight women to underweight women, smaller than average feet women prefer average size feet , and larger than average penises.

With the exception of penises, these preferences probably reflect what biologists call asymmetrical fitness. Women with a few more pounds are more likely to be healthy and fertile than their underweight counterparts—if a woman loses enough weight, she will even stop ovulating.

Anyone know whether this is true? If you can think about it, then yes. The answer is, heuristically, yes, according to Rule 34 of the Internet. I think the real question would be whether this preference is prevalent and how it may relate to Evo Psych and such. I passed through a phase where I was fascinated with the PUA and manosphere sites.

I eventually came to realize its mostly a load of pseudo-scientific garbage. I even spent a while reading the stuff on the Roosh forum… just a lot of masculine posturing and whining from good-looking douchebags and losers. People both men and women are attracted to good-looks period at least for the short-term causal encounters that PUAs want.

I am pretty confident both that he did, and that he is not attractive. I downloaded a copy of his book and got as far as the third page. Also, he teaches you how to be warm. Neil did sleep with lots of women, but not because of game.

What a clever marketing! He seems to be presenting PUA in the most ridiculous way possible. I would add that it ought to be generally obvious where his practical prescriptions fail, but no one can be that optimistic. And, since game cares more about instrumental than epistemic rationality, that means game wins at its own game. This anti-FAQ is, of course, written for an audience that generally cares more about being right than winning. I have a theory that Red Pill etc. I think I once saw a post from the PUA-sphere making those comparisons explicitly.

Some are generally accurate. The kind of game that focuses on picking up sexist slutty women in clubs etc. This is my reading of the post as well, and indeed it fits with my personal experience. But I left a much longer post along these lines below. On the down side, I have sole custody of children from a very unwise marriage.

This is not popular with women in either their twenties or their thirties, even though my children are not in the constant-monitoring age range any more. I also have a black belt, and in contexts not involving attractive women, my self-confidence is fairly high. Psychologically, Scott pretty much described me to a tee in this post except for the Machiavellian phase.

From there, I had 3 second dates, and one 5th date. And in the specific case of the girl I dated in December-January that totally broke my heart, despite actually being a Social Justice-y feminist, explicitly told me that she had been cheated on in every relationship she had been in, because she tended to go for alpha males.

Meanwhile, I was apparently too emotionally fragile. Skeptics — bite me. On the other hand, I actually find really large breasts unattractive. I will acknowledge that I developed a previously-lacking preference for quantity and size of tattoos because of the positive association with the girl mentioned above, so there is some malleability of preferences.

Unless you count things like making occasional physical contact as a PUA tactic. Have you tried dating women in their 30s? It looks like age-difference dating works a lot better with polyamory. The two are unrelated. I noted the younguns mainly as evidence that my problem is not physical attractiveness. Possibly because most 20something men act like douchebags.

Did you miss the paragraph where I said that maximum physical attractiveness was at but maximum overall awesomeness seemed to be at ? I am acutely conscious of this when hitting on something women. I agree with the denotation here but strongly object to what I infer to be the connotation? Namely, that your generic feminist-giving-dating-advice is a reliable source about what constitutes evil and that where correct they can describe it in an unambiguous and understandable fashion rather than a vague and scrupulosity-inducing one.

In the kind of people who go looking for dating advice, taking this idea to heart is likely to create self-sabotaging scrupulosity. You might have a point: I think I largely disagree, with caveats.

On the other, though, feminist treatments of this topic are usually highly combative and grossly over-broad, to the point of being self-contradictory. Particularly when it comes to initiation or escalation, which our culture largely relegates to guys. I gather this is partly due to feminist advice assuming context which is obvious from a female-socialized perspective.

Typical mind fallacy strikes again! When I am thinking about math, I want to be left alone. And the kind-hearted, lonely geek guy who just cannot get it! But really, compared to the number of actively hostile men, he is hardly a blip on my radar. I get your motivations. As it happens, in my younger and less confident days I did read a good number of feminist-oriented dating articles, probably including a few of those you mentioned.

Hetero men reading dating advice are, almost by definition, not going about their love lives in a way that works for them but hurts others. They do not need to be told what not to do in a library of highly specific situations. Only a few mentioned that these vary person-to-person, and none that I recall gave any advice for figuring out which apply in a given situation — which renders them little more than anecdote, and inspires little besides uncertainty.

Lest I be accused of mentioning only the bad, though, I will say that sex-positive feminist dating advice tends to be good with nonstandard approaches to sexuality, and with approaching health issues productively. I agree; nothing you say seems off-base to me. And I have seen feminists try painfully to give dating advice include me on a couple of occasions and it does not work very well. Not sure what to do. I think there are really two topics here: It was about how a misogynistic community responded to a woman who wanted to talk about an awkward sexual advance in an elevator from her point of view.

Actually, looking at what I just wrote, I guess there are maybe three conversations: As far as I understand, the feminist position is that, since men enjoy lots of power and privilege in our society, any dating procedures that are initiated by a heterosexual man inevitably include an element of coercion.

Catherine MacKinnon , who mostly wound up recommending lesbian separatism. Social justicey feminists are not radical feminists. Even social justicey feminists who are pretty awful at dealing with socially anxious heterosexual men tend to be okay with men asking women out: The unfortunate truth is that women do tend to get murdered by attractive strangers who come up to them in the street in daylight in greater numbers than men.

Gentlemen, let me ask you: I had assumed that anyone else would come to the exact same conclusion after a few seconds of thought. On the other hand, I would seriously entertain the possibility that a woman who randomly walks up to me and asks me whether I want to have sex with her is performing some sort of experiment. Also, it seems like many women tend to assume that dudes who walk up and ask them directly about sex are not actually going to be good at sex. There are definitely studies showing that straight women are more likely to have orgasms in relationships than in casual hook-ups, and also that straight dudes are more likely to try to please long-term sexual partners than one night stands.

There are many interesting points made here, quite a few of which I agree with. Is it a random accident then that siblings growing up together end up liking different types of music?

But it takes a heritable phenotype to develop it in response to these triggers. Certain aspect of beauty are agreed upon by different peoples around the world.

You forgot option four: This is become most such studies come from women seeking fertility treatment — which is hardly representative of women in general. Siblings growing up together often have different friends groups. I like emo and my sister likes musicals; in middle school, I was an emo kid and my sister was a theater geek.

In general family of origin seems totally unrelated to anything. It is true that genetic differences in groups could have an effect. However, modern Chinese people do not seem to have any abnormal preference for small feet, and since the Renaissance people of British descent have transitioned from a preference for paleness to a preference for tans.

Do you have a source about underweightness and fertility? Which is evidence he has yet to show. Hundreds of millions of seemingly unused base pairs all coding for yet-to-be-invented schoolgirl fetishes? That sounds like something Douglas Adams would come up with. Ozy, none of this moves us any closer to the claim that environment is the primary reason why men and women differ with respect to various personality traits.

That claim is completely orthogonal to differences between siblings, differences in group identification, and differences in subcultural memes. On the other hand gender differences remain stable as gender equality increases. For example in mental rotation. And also Big Five Personality traits. Also, monkeys show the same differences between which toys boys and girls like to play with. Less pronounced, but then, that could just indicate that the factor is more pronounced among humans.

Humans, after all, talk. This allows division of labor, and all societies divide labor by sex. Naturally, this would increase differences. Yes, but that is not what having a gene that disposes you to fetishize Catholic schoolgirls means.

Genes that change fine motor control, genes that change attention span, genes that change spatial awareness, all of these will have an effect on tying shoelaces. Far from it, I would say. But things like PTSD and fetishes, that you consider to be obviously environmental, can reasonably and usefully be discussed as also having to do with genetics.

My thoughts on that matter are captured by these two tweets:. Time has been unkind to small psych experiments replication distress, for one. They had a hard time performing the experiment the way they want because of the differences that emerged in the groups, and the anti-outsider sentiment that emerged. All the experiment showed if that is that people respond to their circumstances in certain ways — which we knew beforehand.

There is little to no evidence that that has anything to do with the lasting differences that emerge between siblings. Broadly, evidence for peer influence is weak. In other words, birds of feather flock together. For example, smoking initiation appears to driven by peers, but not smoking persistence. One can see a peer impact on initiation, since peers affect opportunity. But yet, somehow, they are, to some extent see above post on heritability of political and religious views. All they require is that they are appealing to certain heritable temperaments.

However, modern Chinese people do not seem to have any abnormal preference for small feet. Men do seem to have a preference for smaller female feet, however. It nonetheless is confined to Europeans only, which itself is interesting. I am not a hard genetic determinist like Jayman and I think that genetic determinism is often the result of a misunderstanding of statistics perhaps Jayman can convince me that is not the case here.

In particular consider two dummy problems. C is a constant parenting term that differs between populations 1 and 2 and G is a variable genetic term and that varies between and within populations.

Since the G term is the only source of variance this trait is perfectly heritable. It could even be the case that environment is the only source of differences between the two populations even though the heritability is high. C is an constant parenting term. G1 is a variable genetic term. Since E is the only source of parental variance, the shared environment term is zero and the heritability is 1. Yet again it does not imply that parenting is unimportant — it could still be the case that the constant parenting term is the only source of difference between the two populations.

Oh also, zip code is heritable — hopefully we agree that zip code is not a partially genetic trait. Everything is heritable, but…why did you choose zip code? Did you get it from Shalizi? Do you notice that he gives it as an example of how you can mess up if you make stupid assumptions about environment, not as an example of how you can mess up with conventional approaches? If you do a normal study and compare identical twins to fraternal twins to siblings, you will find negligible variance between types of twins.

In particular, no difference between identical and fraternal twins, suggesting no genetic component. You might be nervous about concluding things when there is no variance at all. A few pairs of siblings will have different zip codes because they moved in the right window, from which you will conclude shared womb effects. Now consider adult zip code, which is what Shalizi does. I know a pair of identical twins that lived together at times.

If as he suggests you just look at identical twins, you will conclude that zip code is heritable. This is ignoring shared environment. I also know siblings that lived together. I suspect that identical twins will share zip codes a bit more than siblings. This will be ascribed to genetics. Partly this is really because they have greater affinity and the ascription is misleading, but partly is because they like the same places for genetic reasons.

But in any event, I doubt the heritability will be large. That was not a common form of experiment back then, but as genetic testing becomes cheaper, it becomes more common. A GWAS for zip code would detect many traits that are really markers for extended families or races. For example, Swedes cluster in Minnesota. Plus, originally, immigrants sought out their fellows, a more complicated environmental effect. So, yes, this error can happen exactly as he said. Certainly no one has invoked GWAS on this post.

You understand this topic much better I do so I accept this correction. But if most study designs can avoid this problem then okay. Was the rest of my comment correct? Actually there will be variance at age ten. Sometimes the children of divorced parents will live with different parents.

Sometimes one or the other will live with other relatives. It is true that parenting may vary between groups, making it hard to distinguish inherited genes from inherited parenting. But adoption studies should distinguish between these hypotheses.

Adoption studies have a lot of problems and should not be taken to produce precise answers, but they do address this question. The difference between the first and second model is certainly true: Another scenario is that racial differences are due to shared environment that is not parenting, but comes from society, and cannot be studied by adoption. This requires society to be able to distinguish the groups and thus is more plausible with black-white than jew-gentile differences.

Moreover, it is even more plausible for sex differences. Yes, Jay, that qualitative response is quite reasonable. To measure E you must make assumptions about who is subject to shared environments, just as you must make assumptions about who is related if you want to measure H. I wrote out several scenarios because Alexander wrote down formulae without any context. The formulae are all technically correct in all cases, but details of the world matter for the question of what types of experiments allow you to measure the coefficients.

Girls, as I have written elsewhere, have hair-trigger tolerances for awkwardness and discomfort. A growing number of the quality guys—disillusioned by crushing male-to-female ratios, high drink costs, cockblocking, the fatty epidemic, and other night-life realities—have largely checked out of the club-and-bar scene. After dismissing online dating, for years, as little more than a crutch for approach anxiety, a time-suck with little real yield, and dumpster diving, I slowly recognized these forces converging.

Over the course of the past two years, I have spent, literally, thousands of hours pouring over online profiles, unwittingly learning more about online dating and, frankly, the female psyche than I thought possible in that time. These hours have yielded countless dates and, more importantly, a deep well of knowledge. She gets constant input on Facebook, and elsewhere, about how she looks and when she looks best.

Add to that, that from an even younger age, she has learned how to pose for the camera or hold the camera herself to maximize how flattering a picture turns out. When a girl chooses pictures for her online profile, she brings that deep knowledge of her physiology and, quite plainly, photography, to bear. In my experience, there was one exception, but that is statistically insignificant. Cynically manipulating the aforementioned knowledge of photography, fat girls will often use subterfuge to minimize or conceal her liability.

Imsges: pua online dating profile examples

pua online dating profile examples

It turns out that women think random strangers who approach them on street corners are likely to be dangerous and terrible at sex.

pua online dating profile examples

If you get laid a lot, you are an awesome alpha male and the entire site is about how great you are.

pua online dating profile examples

You are just assuming that because they oppose pua online dating profile examples ideology, which you dating someone with cold sores as Good, that they must all be Bad, and interchangeably so. Instead, it seems pua online dating profile examples agree with Heartiste about attraction to alpha males. I imagine the reason most people read this blog is to learn how to do it, or at least to have specific examples to cite. I wish I were less picky. This is not an dating kamloops analogy, because Christianity is a diverse group, on the axis that is implied to be under scrutiny, that of homophobia; the WBC is not able to leverage the political power of the name pha Christianity because other Christians oppose their efforts and deny them that power, so the WBC has accomplished fuckall. What I want in my bed and on my arm are two different things — lrofile the puaa is status.